Shabbat - Chapter Twenty Eight

See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Eruvin 5:2) which notes the difference between the figures mentioned here and the precise mathematical terms. See also Tosafot Yom Tov, Eruvin 5:2.

See Halachot 6 and 7, which state that a square should be made to include the furthermost extremities of the city, and the Sabbath limits should be measured from there.

The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam appears to be saying that the Sabbath limits are measured from the edge of the city. He notes that there are opinions (see Eruvin 5:2) that grant a city a karpef (a seventy and two-thirds cubit extension) even if it is not close to another city. According to those views, the Sabbath limits are calculated seventy and two thirds cubits from the city's boundaries. The Rambam (Commentary on the Mishnah) rejects that view.

The Rambam's opinion is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:5). The other view is accepted by the Tur and quoted by the Ramah.

The intent is a permanent dwelling. A temporary structure, or a building that does not have facilities for lodging is not sufficient, as explained in the following halachot.

The Magen Avraham 398:6 emphasizes that this does not include all structures with a total area of sixteen square cubits. Each side of the building must be at least four cubits. (See a parallel in Hilchot Mezuzah 6:2.)

Rav David Arameah explains that it was common for a bridge to have a dwelling for a toll collector, and a grave to have a dwelling for a watchman.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Ma'aser 3:7).

The bracketed additions are based on Rashi's commentary (Eruvin 55b).

Such a house is useful in unloading cargo from ships (Magen Avraham 398:7).

The Ra'avad notes that the question of whether such a structure is acceptable is left unresolved by Eruvin, loc. cit. Accordingly, he rules stringently. The Rambam's position is, however, followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:6).

The commentaries on Eruvin 55b state that the latter three are excluded even if there are people who inhabit them.

Because it is not anchored permanently and may depart, it is considered to be a temporary dwelling (Magen Avraham 398:10).

See the Chatam Sofer (Orach Chayim, Responsa 94), which emphasizes that each of the exterior villages can be no more than 141 1/3 cubits from the imaginary line leading to the middle village. It is not sufficient that there be a total sum of less than 282 2/3 cubits between the two villages.

This phrase and the phrase that precedes it create a difficulty. From the phrase, "there are 282 2/3 cubits [or less] between the villages on the extremities," one would assume that this rule does not apply when the two villages on the extremities are separated by a greater distance. Nevertheless, the phrase "if the middle village were placed on the line between them, there would be 141 1/3 cubits [or less] between it and both of them," appears to imply that even were the distance between the two villages on the extremities to exceed 282 2/3 cubits, as long as the villages on the extremities are not more than 141 1/3 cubits from the place the middle city would take up, it is acceptable.

From the diagram that the Rambam drew to accompany his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 5:3), the former interpretation would appear appropriate. (Similarly, the Ra'avad interprets the Rambam's intent in this manner and, therefore, objects.) Nevertheless, both the Maggid Mishneh and the Radbaz state that the width of the city should be added to the sum of 282 2/3 cubits. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:8) quotes the Rambam's wording verbatim. The Ramah, however, clarifies the ruling according to the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh.

This refers to a wall on which there are no dwellings (Maggid Mishneh).

Rashi (Eruvin 26a) explains that when a wall is erected after an area has been settled, the wall causes the entire village to be considered as if it were four cubits in length. Therefore, we measure from the wall. When, by contrast, the wall was erected before the houses were built, the wall is not halachically significant. Accordingly, the Sabbath limits are measured from the houses. Based on the Rambam's statement's in Halachah 2, it is questionable if he would accept this interpretation.

Eruvin 55a and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:1) state that even if the sides of such a city are not positioned directly north and south, nothing is added to its size, because it is rectangular or square in shape.

This applies even when the total area of the square is increased by constructing it in this fashion.

I.e., if the Sabbath limits of the houses on the extremities overlap, the houses are considered to be part of a single entity.

This applies regardless of the distance from the vertex of the crescent to the imaginary line connecting its extremities. Even if it is more than two thousand cubits, the entire area is considered to be a single unit (Kessef Mishneh).

This applies to the house at the vertex. The Rashba considers each of the sides of the crescent to be a separate city. Sefer Ha'Itim considers every house to be an entirely separate entity. The Magen Avraham 398:2 states that the entire crescent is considered to be a single entity. According to this conception, the only difference between this instance and the previous clause is that one may not walk more than two thousand cubits away from the houses in the open area between them.

Based on the rulings of Rabbenu Asher and the Tur, the Ramah mentions two leniencies: a) Even when the two extremities of the crescent are more than four thousand cubits away from each other, the entire area of the crescent until the points on the either side which are four thousand cubits removed, is, nevertheless, considered to be a single entity.

b) If the space from the vertex of the crescent to the imaginary line connecting the two extremities is less than two thousand cubits, the entire area is considered to be a single entity even though there are more than four thousand cubits between each side.

Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi - and subsequently the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 398:9) - interpret this as referring to a river that usually dries up and is filled with water only during the rainy season.

The city itself, however, is considered to be a collective entity (Maggid Mishneh). Note Rashi (Eruvin 61a), who follows a different perspective entirely, stating that, because there is no dock, the city is not considered as a permanent location, and every home is judged to be an individual entity.

More specifically, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Ma'asrot 3:7), the Rambam defines the Hebrew צריפין as referring to "V-shaped lean-tos made from reeds and wood."

These huts are not considered to be permanent dwellings. Hence, their aggregate is not considered to be a unit. Note, however, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 398:10), who states that if a group of such dwellings is surrounded by a wall ten handbreadths high or a trench ten handbreadths deep, they are considered to be a single unit.

This refers to permanent structures built of wood and/or stone.

The three courtyards, each containing two houses, are sufficient to be classified as a city (Eruvin 59a). Since we are classifying the permanent houses as a city, that status is conferred upon the area as a whole, including also the huts.

Eruvin 58a interprets Exodus 27:18, "its width fifty by fifty," as an indication that the width of fifty cubits should be measured with a rope of that size.

For when the rope is shorter, the measurers may pull it tightly and extend its length (Rashi, Eruvin 58a).

For when the rope is longer, it may sag and cause the measure to be shortened (Rashi, Eruvin 58a).

I.e., rather than measure the length of the incline, the entire valley should be measured as a unit of fifty cubits or less.

The Maggid Mishneh states that this represents the Rambam's interpretation of the statements of Abbimi (Eruvin 58b). Rabbenu Asher offers a different interpretation of that passage, which is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 399:4).

For the incline is too steep.

And thus the slopes of the incline can be used for various purposes.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 5:4). See Halachah 16 for an explanation of the process followed.

Provided it is within the Sabbath limits. He should not, however, go beyond the Sabbath limits, lest an observer notice his measurements and mistakenly think that the place is within the Sabbath limits (Eruvin 58b and Halachah 16 above).

Tosafot, Eruvin 58a, states that the intent is not actually to pierce the wall, but that one would be required to erect poles extending above the wall and measure from them.

The Rambam is referring to a wall whose sides are not straight, and hence the determination of its exact thickness is difficult.

I.e., its incline is gentle enough to allow the public to ascend it without difficulty.

The Rambam's ruling follows the version of Eruvin 58a that appears in the texts of several early geonim. The standard printed text of the Talmud differs. In his gloss, the Ra'avad refers to the version of the standard text.

And thus its thickness can be measured easily at either side. It must be measured exactly. The leniency granted in the first clause applies to a wall that ascends gradually, but not gradually enough to make it easily accessible for public use.

By erecting a pole equivalent to the height of the mountain on either side (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 399:4).

Eruvin 5:4.

In this way, the rope will be held horizontally, on more or less an even plane.

Which cannot be measured in the normal manner, as mentioned in Halachot 13 and 15. See also Halachah 19.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 5:5), the Rambam defines this as a person who knows engineering and is proficient in the measurement of land.

The Rambam's wording appears to imply that one accepts the opinion of the expert only with regard to the Sabbath limits that he increased, but not with regard to those that he decreased. The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh note that although the Rambam is quoting the wording of the Mishnah (Eruvin, loc. cit.), the Talmud (Eruvin 59a) explains that the ruling of the expert must be accepted even with regard to those places where he decreased the Sabbath limit. The Kessef Mishneh notes that even in his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam follows this interpretation.

Note, however, Merkevet HaMishneh, which explains the Rambam's ruling here according to its simple interpretation. When the original measurement of a city's Sabbath limits was made by ordinary people, the expert's advice must be adhered to entirely, whether it is more stringent or more lenient. When, however, the original limits were also established by experts, the situation resembles the latter clause of the halachah, and the second expert's opinion is followed only when it is more lenient.

Because, as stated in Halachah 19, the more lenient opinion is accepted, since the Sabbath limit of two thousand cubits is a Rabbinic institution.

We do not say that the difference between the two figures could only be a minute measure because of imprecision. Instead, we allow the possibility of a major error, as explained in the following halachah.

Instead of measuring 2000 cubits on the diagonal, the person should have measured approximately 2800, as explained in Chapter 27, Halachah 2, and notes. Measuring only 2000 cubits on the diagonal causes the entire measure to become reduced.

I.e., if the diagonal of a square is 2000, the side will be approximately 1420. The figure stated by the Rambam is not exact, as the commentaries mention in detail.

There are two difficulties regarding the statements of a servant or maidservant. First, they are not acceptable witnesses. Also, as a whole, such individuals are known to be less than careful with regard to ritual observance.

I.e., the servant's statements were intended to increase the Sabbath limit of a city by saying that the limit originally established was greater than the one observed at present.

Generally, a person's testimony is accepted only when he qualifies as a witness at the time he saw an event take place and at the time he gives his testimony. Since a child is not an acceptable witness, testimony of this nature would ordinarily be rejected. In this instance, however, it is accepted. (See Hilchot Edut 14:3 for other examples of instances in which similar testimony is accepted.)