Siman 398

The two thousand amot of the techumin—this is apart from the four amot of his place of resting. And this is when he rested in a field, but when he rested in a city—he has the entire city apart from the two thousand amot, even if it is as large as Antioch. And whether it is surrounded by a wall or whether it is not surrounded by a wall—he has the entire city apart from the two thousand amot. And according to the opinion of the Tur, we grant an additional extension to the city, meaning that we do not begin to measure the techum immediately at the conclusion of the city, but rather we add an additional two se'ah, which is seventy amot and a fraction, as written in siman 358, and this is called the "extension of the city," and it is exactly like the city. And at the conclusion of the seventy amot—we begin to measure the two thousand amot, which is the techum shabbat. But the Rambam ruled that we do not grant an extension to the city unless there is some house or some building within the seventy amot, or at the end of the seventy amot, for then it is considered part of the city, and we measure the techum from there and beyond. And so too if at the end of the seventy amot of this house there stands another house—it is also considered part of the city, and so on forever as will be explained, and this is according to everyone. But when there is no house at the conclusion of the seventy amot—we do not grant an extension to the city, but rather we begin to measure the techum immediately. And since techumin are of rabbinic origin—we rely on the Tur to be lenient in this, and so ruled our teacher, the Rema, in section 5.

Sometimes the techum begins further away from the houses for another reason, as it was taught in a Baraita: (26a) "A new city—one measures for it from its settlement, and an old one—from its wall. And which is a new one? One that was enclosed and subsequently settled. And an old one? One that was settled and subsequently enclosed." The explanation of these matters: it has already been explained in siman 358 that it is only called "enclosed for a dwelling" if the houses were built first and afterwards they enclosed the wall, and this is called "settled and subsequently enclosed." But if it was enclosed first and subsequently settled, it is not called "enclosed for a dwelling." And now, regarding a city enclosed by a wall where the houses are far from the wall: if it was settled and subsequently enclosed, one measures the techum from the enclosure even though they are far from the houses. But if it was enclosed and subsequently settled, it is not enclosed for a dwelling—one measures from the end of the houses and not from the enclosure of the wall, unless there is a dwelling house in the wall.

It is found according to this: anyone who measures the techum of Shabbat, if he acquires a place of dwelling in a field—he measures the techum from beyond the four amot. If he acquired a place of dwelling in a house—he measures from beyond the courtyard. And if he acquired a place of dwelling in a city, or a metropolis, or a village—he measures from the end of the houses of the city. In a city surrounded by a wall where one settled and it was subsequently surrounded—one measures from the wall. If within seventy amot and a fraction there is another house—one measures from that house; and according to the opinion of the Tur, even if there is no house—one begins to measure at the conclusion of seventy amot from the city. This is what we learned: (57a) "One grants a karpef to a city; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the sages say: one does not grant, etc." The Rambam ruled like the sages, and the Tur like Rabbi Meir, because the halacha follows the words of the one who is lenient regarding eruv, and even an individual against the many (46a). See Beit Yosef.

One squares the techumin as will be explained, and we learned in a Mishnah at the beginning of the fifth chapter: (52b) "How do we extend the boundaries of cities? A house recedes, a house protrudes; a breach recedes, a breach protrudes... we extend the measurement corresponding to them." Rashi explained that when one comes to measure the techum and the houses do not stand in a straight line, one protruding more than the other, or if it was surrounded by a wall with protruding towers, and there is one that protrudes more than its fellow, and this is "a breach recedes, a breach protrudes" — we extend the measurement corresponding to them. That is to say, we stretch a cord from the house protruding at the southeastern corner to the northeastern corner, as if it protrudes there as well, and from there we begin to measure the techum, and likewise regarding the breaches.

And this is what the Tur wrote: "One who comes to measure the two thousand [cubits] of the city boundary, if the entire wall is not straight but has places protruding from it—we view it as if a string is stretched across its entire face opposite the outermost protruding place, and he measures from the string outward. Even if it has a protrusion toward the east side and toward the west side—we view it as if a string is stretched over them on every side." Thus far his words. And behold, the Rambam in chapter 28 did not mention anything of this, and likewise our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, did not mention this at all. And it appears to me that the Rambam follows his own reasoning in the Commentary on the Mishnah, where he explained 'How do we extend the cities—a house recessed, a house protruding'—that it refers to the seventy cubits and a fraction of the city extension. This is his wording in the Commentary on the Mishnah: "The matter of 'extending'—that they should attach to the city another thing, like the fetus which is an addition… for if there will be a house outside the city and a house inside the city—that we measure outside from the protruding house, in order to add seventy cubits, etc." Thus far his words, and he did not explain like Rashi. And the law of seventy cubits, they have indeed explained, as is explained in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.

And in truth, I do not understand the words of Rashi and the Tur, for what does this come to teach us, that we extend the measurement opposite the protruding house? For even if it stands as far as seventy cubits away, we extend the measurement opposite it, certainly so for a house that protrudes more than the other houses. And it appears to me that there is a great practical difference in this law, and that is as will be explained, that we make the city square, and automatically if the protrusions extend from one side and according to the protrusions the length on this side will be more than the width—meaning, for example, that the width of the city is one hundred cubits and the length is also one hundred cubits, but according to the protrusions ten cubits were added to the length—we must perforce also add ten cubits to the width, so that it shall be square. This is not the case regarding the ibbur of seventy cubits—it is only on the side where the ibbur exists, and not on the other sides. And even though according to the Tur, even without a house we add an ibbur of seventy cubits on every side as I have written, nevertheless, if there is a house there and from there and further another house within seventy cubits—much will be added on this side, and not on the other sides. And if so, there is a great practical difference in this law according to Rashi and the Tur, and certainly it is so according to the Rambam as well. And that which we learned in the Mishnah there: "And they make it like a square tablet"—it does not refer to the first clause, but rather it is a matter unto itself, as I have written there. This is not the case according to Rashi and the Tur—it refers to the first clause, and as we shall explain in section 8.

And according to this, a great difference in the law will be clarified for us between the Tur and the Rambam. For according to the Tur, all the protrusions extending from the houses outward from the city—aside from the fact that they extend the measurement corresponding to them on that side—one further adds this on all sides so that it shall be squared. But according to the Rambam, the squaring applies only to all the inner houses, and not to those protruding outward. For those protruding outward have only the law of an extension of seventy cubits and a fraction, where one extends the measurement corresponding to it on that side, as with a house standing seventy cubits distant, but it does not pertain to the squaring of the city. And I am astonished at all the poskim who did not remark on this matter at all.

And know, that which we said according to the Tur that we add to the width according to the length—this is when, according to the protrusions on one side, it would be like the shape of a circle or a triangle, or another type of shape, for then one must add from every side until it is squared. But if through the protrusions it will have equal angles—we are not concerned that the length will be greater than the width, for this too is like a square, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. However, if according to the protrusions it will be the shape of a circle, such as if there are many curved and circular protrusions on two sides of the city or on three, for perforce when we wish to establish it in the shape of a square, we will perforce be compelled to add from all sides until it is in this shape, for when it is necessary to rectify—one must rectify into an actual square. But according to the Rambam, it is only regarding the augmentation of seventy cubits, for we are not concerned regarding them for the shape of a square. (So it appears in my humble opinion)

One who comes to measure the two thousand amot of the city limits, whether it is long and narrow, meaning its width is not equal to its length, or if it was square but not aligned with the directions of the world, since it has four equal corners—we leave it as it is, and we measure for it two thousand amot from its four directions. For behold, that which we require a square we learned from the borders, as it is said regarding them "corner," and a corner is an equal angle; and since they have equal angles, we are no longer concerned if its width is not equal to its length.

But if it was round—one creates corners for it, and views the entire city as if it were within a square, and stretches the line of the square's sides to all directions of the city, and measures from there two thousand amot for each direction, so that one gains the corners, which is the amount the square exceeds the circle within it. And so too if the city was triangular or pentagonal, and similar cases where it has many sides—one squares it, and afterwards measures two thousand amot for each direction outside the square. And naturally, since one must create a square—one makes the square aligned with the directions of the world, so that each of its directions is drawn toward a direction of the directions of the world, and aligned against it. And if it was wide on one side and narrow on one side—one views it as if it were entirely wide, and stretches the line until the narrow width is like the long width, and from there one measures the two thousand amot. And if they needed to create a square and made it not aligned with the directions of the world—they may change it and make it aligned with the directions of the world. However, as long as they have not changed the markers of the techumim—they must follow this form, and an individual cannot separate from them and say: "I will make a form for myself according to the directions of the world," since this is not indispensable, as I have written.

A city made like the shape of a gamma, which is a Greek letter kappa, which is like an inverted dalet, or a city made like a bow, meaning in a semi-circle, and the houses are around the circle, the Rambam wrote in chapter 28, law 8, and this is his wording: "If there is between its two ends less than four thousand cubits—one measures for it from the bowstring, and one views the entire width between the bow and the bowstring as if it is full of houses. And if there were four thousand between its two ends—one only measures for it from the bow." Thus far his words. And the reason is, that when there is less than four thousand between the two ends—it turns out the techumin are swallowed into one another, and they are all like one. But when there are four thousand—this side has a techum for itself and this side has a techum for itself, and this one measures from his own and this one from his own, and automatically one does not view the empty space as if it is full of houses, since they have no connection to one another. However, it is certain that one does not measure them as they are, for a city made like a bow does not have the form of a corner, as is understood, rather one makes for it a corner on this side and a corner on this side, but one does not view as if the entire empty space is full of houses. But in a shape like a gamma—there is no need for adjustment, for it already has corners. And so it appears to me, that any city made like a bow even when there is not four thousand between its two ends, which is considered all as one, and one views as if it is full of houses, nevertheless—on the outer sides of the bow one must add until it has the form of a square, for this is a necessity as has been explained. And the Rambam only came to teach us regarding the place of the bowstring, whether one measures from there or not, and this depends on the swallowing of the techumin. But a square—it is obvious that it is required. (So it appears to my humble opinion)

The Tur wrote: "If it was made like the shape of the letter gamma or like the shape of a bow—we view it as if it were squared and filled with houses, and we measure for it from the bowstring. And these words apply when there is no more than two thousand between the bowstring and the bow, such that one can reach there, then we measure for them from the bowstring, even if there are four thousand amot between its two ends, or if there are not four thousand amot between its two ends, such that the two techumin are swallowed one within the other, even if there are more than two thousand amot between the bowstring and the bow. But if there are more than two thousand amot between the bowstring and the bow, and between its two ends there are four thousand—we do not measure for it from the bowstring, but rather from the place where there does not remain more than two thousand from the bow to there, or where it narrowed until there did not remain four thousand between them." Thus far his words. And according to the Tur, just as the swallowing of the techumin of the sides makes them as one, so too when they are able to go from the bow to the bowstring, where there is not more than a Shabbat techum—it makes them as one. And the Rambam does not hold accordingly, for if it is from the perspective of walking—behold every one of the residents of the bow can walk around the bow, even if it is several thousand, according to the law of the city itself which has no limit to its size. Rather, the permission of walking is nothing, and the primary factor is the swallowing of the techumin. And the Tur holds that walking in the place of the houses is certainly not a factor, but walking not in the place of the houses, such as from the bow to the bowstring, is a factor, and their dispute depends on the sugya of the Shas. (55b, whether the halacha is like Rav Huna or like Rava the son of Rabbah, see there. And the Beit Yosef ruled like the Rambam, and the Rema like the Tur, and he was brief regarding the words of the Tur. And that which the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 2 in the name of the Meiri, that those who spent Shabbat in the bow walk the entire bow, its circle and its square until the ends of the bow, and from there two thousand—it is obvious that it is so, and that which he wrote in subsection 4 is very astonishing, and it has already been refuted as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote in subsection 12)

Any dwelling house that extends from the city, if there was between it and the city seventy cubits and two-thirds, which is the side of a square of two seah, or less than this—it joins with the city and is considered part of it, and when they measure for it two thousand cubits in every direction, they measure from outside this dwelling house. However, without a dwelling house, they do not grant an extension to the city, and this is the opinion of the Rambam. But the opinion of the Tur is that they do not begin to measure immediately from the houses, but rather they stretch a cord across the width of the city opposite the house, and they distance from there seventy cubits and a remainder, and they begin to measure. And so ruled our teacher, the Rema, in section 5, and we have already mentioned this in section 1.

If there was a house near the city within seventy cubits, and a second house near the first house within seventy cubits, and a third house near the second house within seventy cubits, and so on even for a journey of several days - behold, it is all like one city, and when they measure - they measure outside the last house. And this is provided that this dwelling house is four cubits by four cubits or more, and likewise a synagogue that has a dwelling house for the attendants. But the synagogue itself, since it is not made for dwelling - they do not make it an extension for the city. And it seems to me that a beit midrash is called a dwelling house, since they study in it, and whoever studies eats and sleeps in it - it is called a dwelling house. And a bathhouse is not called a dwelling house, unless there is a dwelling house there for the owner of the bathhouse. And their house of prayer where there is a dwelling for their priests, and likewise storehouses of wine and oil and other merchandise - when there is a dwelling house there for the sake of the storehouse. But the storehouse itself - is not called a dwelling house. And likewise a bridge that has a dwelling house for the bridge guard, and a grave that has a dwelling house there for the grave guard.

All of these, when there is a place fit for a dwelling, even though no person dwells there—it is called a "beit dirah," and one makes an "ibbur" for it. (So it is implied in the Gemara Eruvin 55b and in Rashi, see there.) And so too, a place surrounded by three partitions, even though they have no ceiling, and they contain four by four—it is called a "beit dirah"; or two partitions that have a ceiling and plaster upon them; and so too, a house built on the seashore that is made for unloading the vessels of a ship into it. And for all of these—we require four amot by four amot, and if it does not have four amot in width, even though it has much in its length—it is not fit for a dwelling. And so too, a cave that has a building at its entrance, and it has a "beit dirah"—and one joins the cave to the house for the four amot, (Gemara) and the majority must be from the house. And one begins to measure the seventy amot from the end of the cave, even if the house itself has four amot. (Magen Avraham, subsection 8)

All of these join with it if they were within seventy cubits and a fraction. And from that protruding house, we view it as if a string were stretched across the entire span of the width or length of the city, and we measure outside of that string two thousand cubits. And if there were two such houses opposite the city, one in the north and one in the south—its law is like a city shaped like a bow. That is to say, if there were many houses like these, one opposite the other, spanning a distance further than two thousand from the city—their law is like a city shaped like a bow. And if it protrudes thus from one side and not from the second side—it appears to me that its law is like a city shaped like the letter gam, for behold, this is the form of a dalet. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 9, and it must be said that this is his intent). And know, that from the Tur it is implied to me that this matter of three walls that do not have a ceiling upon them, and two that do have a ceiling upon them—this is when they came from a house that was destroyed, see there. But two walls that do not have a ceiling upon them, even though they dwell there, and the bridge, and the grave, and their house of prayer, and the storehouse that does not have a dwelling place within them, and the pit, and the ditch, and the cave, and the dovecote, and the house on a ship that has no permanence—all of these and their like do not join with it. And so too the huts that the garden-watchers and the city-watchers make—they are not measured with it, because they are temporary, and specifically in a place where thieves are common or rains that wash them away. (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba). And it appears to me that this is regarding city-watchers, but garden-watchers—in every case it is temporary, for behold, this has no permanence, and it is for a short time. And there is one who wishes to say that the huts that join with it—it is even when they do not have four cubits by four cubits, (Sha'arei Teshuva, subsection 5 in the name of Dagul Mervava), and it is a wondrous thing. (And what the Sha'arei Teshuva wrote from the beginning of Sukkah, there is no implication there at all, and the novelty is because it is a light structure like a shack and its like. And this which we wrote regarding garden-watchers—so it appears to me, and it is not similar to watchers of fields and fruits, for that is permanent).

If there were two towns, one adjacent to the other within 141 and a third cubits—so that there would be seventy cubits and a remainder for this one and seventy cubits and a remainder for that one—both of them are considered as one town, and it turns out that each town of them may traverse the second town and two thousand cubits beyond it. And so too, a wall of a town that was breached from its two sides, one opposite the other, and the houses between them were destroyed up to 141 and a third cubits—its law is as if it were closed. But a single house, even if it is very large, does not have the law of a town to grant it seventy cubits and a remainder, unless it stands within seventy cubits of the town. And it is simple that "town" is not meant specifically, for the same law applies to a village, which has its own name, and not individual houses.

If there were three villages arranged in a triangle, if there is between the middle one and each of the outer ones two thousand amot or less than this, and between the two outer ones 283 and a third amot besides the width of the middle city—and this is when the middle one stands opposite the space between the two outer ones, such that they all stand like a segol, and if the middle one were to stand between the two outer ones there would be from the middle one to each of the outer ones 141 and a third amot—behold, the three of them are like one city, and one measures for them two thousand amot outside of them. But when there is between the middle one and each of the outer ones more than two thousand amot, they do not join one another, since there is more than a techum Shabbat, as has been written regarding a city made like a bow concerning the distance between the string and the bow, according to the opinion of the Tur in section 12. And that which we permitted there when there is between its two ends up to four thousand amot—this is because throughout the bow there are houses, which is not the case between the middle one and the outer ones. (Gemara 57b) And between the two outer ones there can be even more than four thousand, if only the middle one is large enough so that if they were to place it between the outer ones there would not remain for each of the outer ones more than 141 and a third amot. And in this it is not similar to the two ends of the bow, because here we fill the void with the middle one. (And see there in Tosafot s.v. "Hatam" and in the Magen Avraham sub-section 12, and examine closely)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this law in section 8: "And some say that one does not measure from the middle one, but only from its walls." Thus far his words. That is to say, that which we say "we view the middle one as if it stands between the two outer ones" — this is in order to measure for the outer ones from one to the other as has been written. But the middle one itself — one only measures from it, for if we were to measure from the outer ones — would it not lose out on the other side, the side where it stands? And so wrote the Tur. And the Tur further wrote, that we do not say we view the middle one as if it stands between the two outer ones unless it would fit between the two outer ones. But if it is so large that it would not fit between them — we do not say "we view." See there. Our teacher, the Rema, did not hold accordingly, therefore he did not cite this. (And this depends on the two resolutions of the Tosafot there, starting with the words "There," see there.)

A city that sits on the bank of a river, which most of the time is dry and they use it, as it is only full during the rainy season: if there is a partition before it with a width of four amot on the bank of the river so that they may stand upon it and use the river—it turns out the river is included within the city, and they measure for it two thousand amot from the second bank of the river. The entire river is made as if it were included within the city, not because of the usage alone, but because of the partition built at its side, for with this they revealed their intent that they are bringing it into the city limits, and this is considered like a building and the river like their courtyard. But if there was no partition there, they only measure for them from the end of the houses, even though they use the river without the partition; and this is like any other land outside the city, for even though they use it there, nevertheless there is no reason that it should enter into the calculation of the techum, and it turns out that the river is measured within the techum of Shabbat. (And the Magen Avraham in subsection 13 was in doubt regarding any place that they use outside the city whether it enters into the inclusion of the techum, see there. And I wonder, for they explicitly said that this is because of the partition, for if not so, is it then not fit for usage without a partition? And this is as we explained. However, in the Gemara 61a they said that the usage is difficult, see there, and it is possible that without a partition it is not fit for usage. Nevertheless, from the wording of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch section 9, who wrote that it is included in the city because of the partition, see there, it implies that without a partition it is nothing, and delve into this.)

And know that this which we have explained is according to the words of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch, who thus explained the statement in the Gemara there: "A city that sits on the bank of a stream, etc." But Rashi, of blessed memory, explained in a different manner, and it is not a stream of water but merely a valley, and the houses are up to the valley, and the placement of the partition is to separate between the valley and the city so that they will not be afraid to use the area there. Therefore, when there is a partition—one measures the techum from the end of the houses, like all cities. But where there is no partition—their law is like those who dwell in huts, and one measures for each person from the entrance of his house, and not from the edge of the city, see there, and so wrote the Rosh. And the Tur also wrote thus, except that he explained "stream" as a river, and that is to say that the city sits in a valley and a river is before it; if it is surrounded by a wall four amot high—one measures from its wall, and if not—it is not considered like a city, and one measures for each person from the entrance of his house, since it sits in a valley and a river is before it, see there. And I do not know what compelled him to change from the explanation of Rashi and the Rosh. And regarding the law, it appears to me that all the explanations are true, for they did not disagree except in the explanation of the Shas, and not regarding the law. (And the Shulchan Aruch brought only the words of the Rambam, and see in the Yerushalmi there.)

Dwellers of huts, meaning those who dwell in tents made of palm branches and willow, and they do not have a fixed location, as they dwell here for a time and afterwards travel to another place—they do not have the status of a city, and therefore the measurement of two thousand amot is measured by each individual from his house. However, if they have a surrounding partition of ten tefachim, or a trench ten deep—they become like a city, and one measures from the end of the houses, from the partition or from the trench, as this is a sign of permanence. Similarly, if there are three courtyards of two houses each that are fixed, made of stone or of planks—they establish all the huts as permanent, and all of them have the status of a city, and one squares it and gives it two thousand amot in every direction like other cities. And it has already been explained that a city that was fenced and afterwards inhabited—one measures for it from the end of the houses, and if it was inhabited and afterwards fenced—one measures for it from its wall, even if the wall is far from the houses, and it was explained in section 2. And if there is a dwelling house in the wall—one always measures from the wall. (Magen Avraham subsection 15)