Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 55

1) MEASURING THE "TECHUM" OF A BOW-SHAPED CITY

QUESTION: The Gemara says that when a protuberance, such as a house, protrudes from a city, we square the city, with each side of the square tangent to the farthest protrusion of the city. We then measure the Techum from the sides of that square and not from the actual boundaries of the city.

Why, then, does the Gemara discuss from where to measure the Techum of a city in the shape of a bow? Why is a bow-shaped city not included in the normal guidelines of how to measure a Techum, which dictate that we simply square the city, making it square-shaped and not bow-shaped? (RASHBA)

ANSWER:

(a) The Rashba cites RA'AVAD and RABEINU TAM, who answer that it is apparent from this Sugya that there is a limit to when we can square a city. We cannot square a city if there is more than a *4,000 Amah* line from the far end of the Pagum (house jutting out) to the city proper. Therefore, when a city is shaped like a bow with more than 4,000 Amos between its ends, we cannot apply the rule of squaring the city

(b) The RASHBA himself suggests that even when a Pagum juts out more than *2,000 Amos* from a city, we do not square the city -- even though it is within a 4,000 Amah line from the city. (The Rashba eventually disproves this suggestion, though, and retracts it.)

(c) The Rashba further suggests that when a city is shaped like a bow, it is unlikely for it to be built up in the area between the ends of the bow. If more houses are built, they will be built at the ends of the bow. Since the area between the ends of the bow will never become part of the city, we do not square the city and include that area in the city. We only square the city in the case of Pagumim, since it is possible that the city will be extended to fill in the entire area between the Pagum and the city proper. (See Insights to 57:1:d, where the Rashba finds a source for such an approach.)

OPINIONS: Rav Huna says that if the two heads of a city shaped like a bow are less than 4000 Amos away from each other, the city's 2000-Amah Techum is measured from the imaginary line between the two ends (the "bowstring"). If, however, the distance between the two ends of the bow-shaped city is greater than 4000 Amos, then the 2000-Amah Techum is measured from the inhabited part of the city (the "bow").

From exactly which point in the bow is the Techum of a house measured when the two ends of the city are more than 4000 Amos from each other?

(a) RASHI (DH Pachos; 61a DH Ir ha'Asuyah) says that "each person measures the Techum from the entrance of his house." It seems from Rashi that one may walk only 2000 Amos from *his house*, even though he is still within 2000 Amos of the border of the city. For some reason, it seems that we ignore the city limits entirely when the city is shaped like a very broad bow, and we make believe the house is in the desert. (This is the understanding of the RASHBA and MAGID MISHNAH (Hilchos Shabbos 28:8) in Rashi's words.

(b) The RITVA and RASHBA argue and point out that whenever one lives within a city, the entire area of that city is like one's four Amos (with regard to the Shabbos Techum), and the 2000 Amah Techum is measured from the borders of the city. For the people living in the bow, too, when the Techum cannot be measured from the "bowstring," it is measured from the borders of the bow part of the city (i.e., from the place along the "bow" that is parallel to the person's house). The RITVA asserts that this is also the intention of Rashi -- we measure for each person at the *edge* of the bow, 2,000 Amos from his house. For those living deeper inside the bow, we measure their 2,000 Amos from the point along the bow that is closest to them. (According to this understanding, Rashi mentions "each person's house" only to negate opinions (c) or (d).)

(c) The Rosh cites from MAHARAM ROTENBERG that the people in the bow may walk, in the direction of the bowstring, 2,000 Amos starting from the place where the two ends of the city have not yet spread apart too much from each other, and an imaginary *bowstring of less than 4,000 Amos* can be drawn.

(d) The TUR (OC 398) explains that those in the bow may walk in the direction of the bowstring 2,000 Amos starting from a point *2,000 Amos* away from the bow.

(e) The Rashba points out in the name of the RA'AVAD, that if one is walking in the direction *opposite* that of the bowstring, not only may one walk 2000 Amos from the border of the city, but one may walk 2000 Amos from an imaginary square that is circumscribed around the bow's-bend of the city. (That is, this bow-shaped city is measured the same way the Techum of any city whose borders are not straight lines is measured. A square is circumscribed around the city, from which the Techum is then measured -- see previous Insight.)

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 398:4) writes only that the Techum is measured from the "bow" part of the city (opinion b), but the REMA adds that it is measured from where the bow widens to more than 4,000 Amos (opinion c).

55b

OPINIONS: Rav Huna (55a) says that a city in the shape of a bow, the two ends of which are less than 4000 Amos away from each other, measures its 2000-Amah Techum from the imaginary line between the two ends (the "bowstring"), and we view the empty space between the "bowstring" and the inhabited part of the city (the "bow") to be filled with houses. If the distance between the two ends of the bow-shaped city is greater than 4000 Amos, then the 2000-Amah Techum is measured from the inhabited part of the city (the "bow").

Rabah bar Rav Huna and his son Rava argue concerning the maximum distance between the "bow" part of the city and the imaginary "bowstring." Rabah bar Rav Huna says that the distance must not be more than 2000 Amos. If it is more than 2000 Amos, then even if the distance between the two ends of the city is less than 4000 Amos, the Techum is not measured from the "bowstring" but from the actual city itself. Rava brei d'Rabah bar Rav Huna argues and says that even if the empty area between the city and the "bowstring" is more than 2000 Amos, since one could walk from the "bow" part of the city to the ends of the city, the 2000-Amah Techum is measured from the ends of the city and from the "bowstring." Abaye sides with Rava brei d'Rabah bar Rav Huna. What is the Halachah?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Pachos) and the ROSH (5:2) point out that Rava brei d'Rabah bar Rav Huna maintains that as long as the two opposite sides of the city are "Muvla'a" within each other's Techum (i.e. the city is less than 2,000 Amos in either height *or* width), the Techum is measured from the "bowstring." Thus, even when there are more than 4000 Amos between the two ends of the city, if there is less than 2000 Amos from the "bow" part of the city to the "bowstring," the Techum is still measured from the "bowstring."

(b) The RITVA and RASHBA argue with Tosfos and the Rosh, and maintain that if there is more than 4000 Amos between the two ends of the city, the Techum cannot be measured from the "bowstring" even if there is less than 2000 Amos between the "bow" and the "bowstring."

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 398:4) writes only that "if there is more than 4000 Amos between the ends of the city, the Techum is measured from the actual city border," which implies that he does not rule like Tosfos. The REMA, though, says that we may be lenient when the distance between the "bow" part of the city and the "bowstring" is less than 2000 Amos and measure the Techum from the "bowstring."

QUESTION: The Gemara says that those who dwell in huts and roam in the wilderness "do not have a life," and one cannot trust that their wives and children are their own. Why? The Gemara gives two reasons. Ula says because they do not have bathhouses. As Rashi explains, this gives us reason to suspect adultery, because all the men go out to wash themselves at one time leaving the women alone in the settlement, vulnerable to a man who might have stayed behind. Rebbi Yochanan says that since they do not have a Mikvah, the women go out two at a time when they have to immerse themselves outside of their settlement. Rashi explains, perhaps on the way, a man will accompany them, and the Mishnah (Kidushin 80b) that teaches the laws of Yichud says that one man may not be alone even with two women.

Why does Rashi say that Ula's explanation (the concern of bathhouses outside of the settlement) is a concern of adultery, and that Rebbi Yochanan's explanation (the concern of Mikva'os outside of the settlement) is only a concern of *Yichud*? Rashi should have said that according to Rebbi Yochanan, too, there is a fear that a man will commit adultery with the women, and not merely that he will commit Yichud with them!

ANSWER: Perhaps Rashi understood that according to Ula, we are *only* about the men going out to the bathhouses, just like Rebbi Yochanan's only concern is that men will join the women who go to the Mikvah. What, then, is the source of their argument?

It is clear why Rebbi Yochanan was not concerned with men leaving for the bathhouses, because that concern applies only if all the men of the town leave together. If some remain behind they will notice who is committing adultery and the husband will be informed. Rashi implies this when he says that "the city is left completely devoid of men." But why did Ula not mention the concern of Mikvah? Why does he only mention the concern of bathhouses?

Rashi answers that Ula maintains that the concern for the lack of bathhouses is a more serious concern. Since the women are in their houses when all the men go out, it is feasible that a man will stay behind and go *into the house* of a woman. Since he is in her private home, he is suspected of adultery. However, if we are only concerned about men joining the women as they go out to the Mikvah, there is no real fear of adultery since the man will not find a private place in which to sin with them. Consequently, the concern is only one of Yichud.

This is why Rashi asserts that the concern of the Mikvah being outside of the settlement is only a concern of Yichud, and it is highly improbable that adultery will occur, whereas the concern of the bathhouses being outside of the settlement poses a real threat of adultery. (M. Kornfeld)