(a)How does one ascertain the borders of ...
1. ... a square (or rectangular) town (from which to measure two thousand Amos), if a house protrudes from one of the walls?
2. ... a town that is shaped like a bow or like a capital L?
(b)Why does the Beraisa need to say that if the town is long, one measures it as it is? Would we perhaps think that it should be shortened?
(c)Why does it need to say that, if it is a square, one does not add corners? Why would we have thought that we do?
(d)And why does it need to say that if two houses protrude from the wall, then we consider as if a string was stretched over both of them? If we say this with regard to one house which protrudes from the wall, then it surely goes without saying that we say it with regard to two?
(a)If a house protrudes from one of the walls of ...
1. ... a square (or rectangular) town - one considers the outer wall of the house as part of the town, adding the width of the house to that side of the town.
2. ... a town that is shaped like a bow or like a capital L. - one considers the former as if the space in between the bow and the string was filled with houses, and in the case of the latter, as if the entire square was filled with houses.
(b)The Beraisa needs to say that if the town is long, one measures it as it is, because it speaks about a town which is a rectangular shape, and we might have thought that for the purpose of Eruvin, we reckon it as a square (which entails adding (imaginary) houses on to both of its sides, until its width equals its length.
(c)The Beraisa needs to tell us that we do not add corners to a square town - even when the sides of the town do not coincide with the directions of the world.
(d)When the Beraisa speaks of two houses protruding from the wall, it does not refer to the two houses protruding from the same wall of the town on the same side, but when they protrude from two different sides. And the Chidush is that, we even consider the entire side to be filed with houses on two sides, not just on one.
(a)When will a town that is shaped like a bow, measure two thousand Amos, not from the string, but from the bow?
(b)How does Rav Huna reconcile this (statement of his) with another statement, where he ruled that a town whose northern and southern walls were breached one hundred and forty one and a third Amos at exactly the same point (leaving a large gap which cuts right through the town), has the Din of two individual towns regarding the Din of Eruv?
(a)In a town that is shaped like a bow, when the distance from the bow to the string is four thousand Amos or more, then we will not measure the two thousand Amos from the string, but from the bow; in fact, each person will reckon two thousand Amos from the entrance of his house.
(b)When Rav Huna rules that a breach of a hundred and forty one and a third Amos cuts the town in two - that is because it is breached from two sides (i.e. right across the town, as we explained earlier), whereas a town shaped like a bow, which is not, requires four thousand Amos to break up the town into different sections ( with regard to an Eruv).
(a)What is the significance of a hundred and forty one and a third Amos?
(b)Under which condition will that breached town still be considered one town with regard the Din of Eruv?
(c)Why did Rav Huna find it necessary to issue this ruling, seeing as he has already taught the same thing with regard to two towns that were built next to each other?
(d)Chiya bar Rav disagrees with Rav Huna. What does he say with regard to the town which is breached on two opposite sides?
(a)A breach of a hundred and forty one and a third Amos wide - will divide a town into two, because it leaves one Ibur (seventy and two thirds Amos) for each town.
(b)That breached town will still be considered one town - if there are any houses or even ruins in that space.
(c)Had Rav Huna told us the din of the hundred and forty one and a third Amos only by a breached town, we would have thought that it applies only there, because the town started out by being one town, but not in a case where two towns were built next to each other (perhaps there, the breach will divide them into two independent towns. And had he told us the Din in the latter case, we would have thought that it is there that Rav Huna counts the two Karfifos as part of their respective towns (because it is difficult for the two towns cannot function properly without the double Karpaf - in which case, that space cannot qualify as 'Noy' [an empty space that enhances beauty of the town]. Therefore the two Karfifos are counted as part of the town, and the two towns are subsequently counted as one; whereas in the case of one town, where this is not necessary, perhaps Ula will agree that the two Karfifos will create a barrier between the two towns, and they will be considered two towns.
(d)According to Chiya bar Rav, the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir combine the two towns with one Karpaf, but not with two.
(a)According to Rabah bar Rav Huna, a town shaped like a bow reckons two thousand Amos from the string, only if the distance between the bow and the string in not more than two thousand Amos. Why is that?
(b)What does his son Rava hold?
(c)On what grounds does Abaye corroborate Rava Brei de'Rabah bar Rav Huna's opinion?
(a)Rabah bar Rav Huna maintains that a town shaped like a bow reckons two thousand Amos from the string, only if the distance between the bow and the string is not more than two thousand Amos - since someone who walks from the bow to the string already has to walk more than Techum Shabbos.
(b)According to Rava, the son of Rabah bar Rav Huna - we reckon from the string even if the distance between the bow and the string is more than two thousand Amos.
(c)Abaye corroborates Rava Brei de'Rabah bar Rav Huna's opinion - on the grounds that even someone living at the furthest point from the string can reach the string without going beyond the Techum, by walking to either end of the bow.
(a)'Gedudi'os' that are ten Tefachim tall extend the limits of the town, says the Mishnah. What exactly are Gedudi'os?
(b)The Gemara is uncertain whether Gedudi'os with only two walls but which have a roof, will have the same Din in this regard. Is there a proof from the Beraisa, which specifically precludes tombstones (in the form of an Ohel) with only two of the four walls remaining, from the Din of Gedudi'os?
(c)What is the Gemara's conclusion?
(a)'Gedudi'os' is the remaining shell of a house, consisting of three walls without a roof.
(b)No, there is no proof (that two walls with a roof are considered Gedudi'os like three walls without one) from the Beraisa, which specifically precludes tombstones (in the form of an Ohel) with only two of the four walls remaining from the Din of Gedudi'os - because the Beraisa could be speaking about tombstones which do not have a roof.
(c)The Gemara leaves this She'eilah unanswered.
(a)A bridge, a cemetery, a Shul, a church, and stables or storehouses in the fields will also extend the town's dimensions, but only if they all meet a common condition. What is it?
(b)Do the following extend the town's dimensions:
1. A house in the sea?
2. A cave, a wall, a dove-cot?
(c)What purpose does a house in the sea serve?
(d)Why is a ship with cabins any worse than a house in the sea in this regard?
(a)A bridge, a cemetery, a Shul, a church, and stables or storehouses in the fields will also extend the town's dimensions - provided they all have some sort of residence (for a guard etc.)
1. A house in the sea does extend the town's dimensions, whereas ...
2. ... a cave, a wall and a dove-cot do not.
(c)A house in the sea served the purpose of unloading the ships - presumably those which were too large to dock close to the shore.
(d)A ship with cabins is worse than a house in the sea in this regard - inasmuch as it is not permanent; today it has docked, tomorrow it is gone. Consequently, it will not add to the town's dimensions.
(a)How do we reconcile this Beraisa, which precludes a cave from the Din of 'Gedudi'os', with another Beraisa, which gives a cave the Din of 'Gedudi'os'?
(b)If we are speaking when a house is built at the entrance of the cave, then what is the Chidush, since even without the cave, the house will add to the town's dimensions?
(a)This Beraisa, which precludes a cave from the Din of 'Gedudi'os' - refers to a cave which does not have a house attached to its entrance, whereas the Beraisa which includes a cave, speaks of a cave which does.
(b)The Chidush is by a house which is less than four Amos by four Amos (and is not therefore eligible on its own, to extend the limits of the town). Together with the cave however, it totals four Amos by four Amos, and does extend it.
(a)If a village consists of wigwam-like huts or tents, from where does one reckon the two thousand Amos?
(b)Under which circumstances did our fathers in the desert sometimes had to walk three Parsah - even on Shabbos? Why is this a Kashya on what we just now learnt?
(c)Why in fact, was Machaneh Yisrael different?
(d)Under which circumstances will even a town or a village of tents be considered a town, concerning the Din of Eruv?
(a)If a village consists of wigwam-like huts or tent - one reckons the two thousand Amos for each person from the entrance of his own hut. This is because, due to the fact that the dwellings are only made of branches, this is not a permanent town.
(b)In order to relieve themselves, our fathers in the desert had to leave the entire Machaneh Yisrael, which could mean walking three Parsah (twelve Mil), since they were not permitted to relieve themselves in front of the camp or even at the sides - only at the back, behind Machaneh Ephraim . Now Mechaneh Yisrael was not permanent, seeing as they were constantly moving from one place to another. So, if, like by the town consisting of branch huts, each person was only permitted to go two thousand Amos from the entrance of his own dwelling, then how could they walk as far as twelve Mil? (Note: according to those who hold Techumin de'Rabbanan, the Gemara might perhaps have answered that going to relieve themselves is different, because Kavod ha'Beri'os pushes away all Isurim de'Rabbanan.)
(c)Machaneh Yisrael was different - answers the Gemara, inasmuch as they traveled and encamped by the word of Hash-m, and whatever is done by the word of Hash-m, has the importance of something that is permanent.
(d)If the town or the village of tents contains three courtyards, each consisting of two houses, it has the Din of a town.
(a)The life of nomads is no life. Why should one not marry their daughters?
(b)According to Ula, this is because they have no bathhouses. What are the ramifications of this statement?
(c)How does Rebbi Yochanan explain the prohibition of marrying their daughters?
(d)What is the difference between the two reasons?
(a)One was not permitted to marry the daughter of a nomad - because she was probably not the daughter of her mother's husband, but of another man (i.e. she was a Mamzeres).
(b)This is because, due to the fact that they had no bathhouses - the small group of men would go together to a town where there was a bathhouse, leaving their wives on their own, a situation of which men of low character tended to take full advantage.
(c)According to Rebbi Yochanan, it was the women who would call their friends to accompany them as they went to visit the distant Mikveh. A friend would accompany her - but at the same time, immoral men would also be attracted to take advantage of the distance that the woman had to travel from her house.
(d)The difference between the two reasons - is when there was a river (which was fit for Tevilas Nashim, but not for bathing) near their encampment. According to Rebbi Yochanan's explanation, the suspicion regarding Tevilah would fall away, and it would be permitted to marry their daughters; but not the suspicion of bathing, according to Ula.
Note: According to the Agados Maharsha, the Pasuk "Arur Shochev im Behemah" (quoted in the Gemara) refers not to the fact that their daughters were Mamzeros, but that they were unrefined: And it is in this regard that Ula explained that they did not have bathhouses (by which he meant that they were not clean), whilst according to Rebbi Yochanan, it was because they would announce their going to the Mikveh (which was considered a lack of Tzni'us). This is not an explanation, according to him, of the statement 'u'Veneihem u'Venoseihem Einan she'Lahem', but a separate issue. This explanation dispenses with a number of difficulties that exist in Rashi's explanation.
(a)The Beraisa does not consider inferior bread, freshly-made beer and vegetables to be healthy. Then what is Rav Huna referring to when he forbids Talmidei-Chachamim to live in a town which does not have vegetables?
(b)Which part of the radish is healthy, and which part is not?
(c)When is even the root unhealthy?
(d)What is Rav quoted as saying about someone who lives in a town with many steps?
(a)When Rav Huna forbids Talmidei-Chachamim to live in a town which does not have vegetables - he is referring specifically to garlic and leek, which the Gemara considers healthy.
(b)It is the root (incorporating fruit) of the radish which is healthy, and the leaves that are not.
(c)Even the root is only healthy in the summer, when it cools the body; but it is unhealthy in the winter. (See Tosfos, DH 'Cahn'.)
(d)Rav Yehudah quotes Rav as saying - that people who live in towns with many steps become old in half their time.