ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 55
(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
(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.
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
(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
(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) 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) 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 Karfaf - 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* Karfaf, but not with *two*.
(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
(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' 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 Sha'aleh unanswered.
(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 ...
(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.
2 ... a cave, a wall and a dove-cot do not.
(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) *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
(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 Ephrayim . 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 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 Hashem, and whatever is done by the
word of Hashem, 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) 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 Beheimah"
(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
Tzeni'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
(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.