Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 57

57b

QUESTION: The Gemara says that if there are three cities arranged like the points of a triangle, the third city at the top of the triangle joins the two cities at the base of the triangle, so that one may walk from one to the other even if the actual distance between the two cities at the base is more than 4000 Amos. The Gemara adds that as long as there is not more than 2000 Amos between the city at the top and each city at the base, and the city at the top is large enough so that if it were situated between the two cities at the base, the sides of that city would reach to within 141 1/3 Amos (two Karpifos) of the sides of the two cities at the base, then we view the two cities there as if they were one big city, and one may walk from one to the other even if it is a distance of four thousand Amos. Rava contends that even if the distance between the two cities at the base is 8000 Amos or more it does not matter, as long as the middle city is large enough to fill up that area.

The Gemara asks why this case differs from the case of a city in the shape of a bow, where the two ends of the city must be within four thousand Amos of each other in order to permit walking from one end to the other. Why do we not say in that case, too, that the houses in the "bow" part of the city may be viewed as being situated between the two tips, and they should join them so that even if the distance between the two tips is greater than 4000 Amos, it should still be permitted to walk from one to the other? Why do we not look at the space between the tips as filled up with houses?

The Gemara simply answers that in the case of the bow-shaped city, we cannot view the empty space between the two tips of the city as being filled up with houses ("Mali"). Why not? The Gemara does not explain the difference, nor does Rashi seem to add any explanatory notes as to *why* the part of the city in the "bow" cannot be used to fill up the space between the two ends of the bow!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Hasam, first answer) says that the Gemara does not mean to say that there is a difference between the case of a city made like a bow and the case of three cities in a triangular formation. Actually, both cases have the same Halachah. Rather, the Gemara means that if one is measuring the Techum Shabbos from the "bow" part of the city in order to determine the range in which the people in that part of the city may walk perpendicular to the city, then we measure it from where those people live -- that is, from their houses, and we do not measure their Techum as starting from the "bowstring," or the point that is between the two ends of the bow. The reason for this is because if we were to imagine that they lived at a point between the two ends of the bow, then we would have to make their Makom Shevisah at that place (between the two ends of the bow), and they would thereby lose the Techum in the direction in which their houses are actually located (towards the "bow"). We cannot say "Mali" if, by adding to the Techum between the two populated areas, we will detract from the Techum on the other side. (See MAHARSHA and MAHARSHAL)

(b) TOSFOS (second answer) says that all Abaye means to say is that in the case of the city shaped like a bow, only when the "bow" part of the city is more than 2000 Amos from the "bowstring" do we not view the area between the two ends as filled up with houses from the "bow." However, if there is less than 2000 Amos between the bow and the bowstring, then we indeed apply "Mali." (That is the ruling of Rava brei d'Rabah bar Rav Huna mentioned earlier in the Sugya, here and on 55b, who said that even if the distance between the two tips is greater than 4000 Amos, if the distance between the "bow" and the "bowstring" is less than 2000 Amos, we measure the Techum from the "bowstring." Abaye himself supported this opinion on 55b.) That is what the Gemara here means to say, and perhaps this is Rashi's intention as well.

(c) TOSFOS (third answer) says that we apply "Mali" when the city at the top of the triangle is not so large that it cannot fit between the two cities at the base of the triangle. If that city, though, is wider than the distance between the two cities at the base, then we cannot apply "Mali," for the city will not fit. In the case of the bow, too, there are more people living in the bow than can be placed in the direct line between the two tips.

(d) The RITVA and RASHBA (55a) explain that when the Gemara says that "Mali" cannot be applied in the case of the bow-shaped city, it means that "Mali" can be applied only when the city (at the top of the triangle) -- if it were to be extended by building more houses around its periphery -- would reach the area between the two cities at the base of the triangle. Since the normal manner is for cities to get bigger, we view it as if it already has expanded and is now between the two cities at the base. However, in the case of the bow-shaped city, if more houses are added to the city, they will not be added to the inside of the curve of the city, but rather they will probably be added along the ends of the bow, so that the city will expand along its ends. There is no reason to assume that it will grow along the center of the city. Since it is not going to grow along the center of the bow to meet the line between the two ends, "Mali" does not apply.