Rambam Laws of Shabbat Chapter 28 – Measuring the Techum Shabbat

Introduction to the Chapter

Speaker 1:

Good. We are going to learn Rambam Laws of Shabbat, the twenty-eighth chapter. Baruch Hashem, we’re already holding at the end. The chapter will discuss more laws regarding techum Shabbat, how one measures a techum Shabbat. Sadly, we’re already holding at the end. We’re almost finished with all the delicious laws of Shabbat. Baruch Hashem, we’re holding at the end. We’re going to learn Laws of Yom Kippur, we’re going to learn other holy matters. We’ll still learn eruv first.

Before we go to the shiur, we want to thank those who support the shiur, and first and foremost, the sponsor of the shiur is the friend R’ Yoeli Leiby Wertzberger. May the merit of Torah protect them all. Very good.

Foundations of Techum Shabbat

As we learned in the previous chapters about the mitzvah of techum Shabbat, that there is a mitzvah d’oraita not to go out too far from the city. How much is too far? The true measure would have been twelve mil. Whether that itself is d’oraita is not entirely clear. The Rambam says it seems that yes. Very clear. That would have been the d’oraita. But there is how we derive it. And we certainly made a fence that one should not walk more than two thousand amot.

And now we learned in the previous chapter various laws of what happens if a person walked out further than the two thousand, and in which cases we don’t allow him to go further, and so on, if he walked out.

Topics of This Chapter

Here, in this chapter, we’re going to learn interesting laws about how one measures the two thousand amot in every direction. Because there are often various questions about how to measure.

One question is, where does the city end? Often there are no clear boundaries to the city, rather we think the city ends, but we see another house, another house, that still have a connection to the city. That’s one topic.

The second topic is, how does one measure when there’s a mountain? If one only counts how many feet there are on what people can walk or what people can live on, one must count the entire mountain up and the entire mountain down. But perhaps there would be a calculation to say no, a mountain is something to look at the mountain as an extra thing, and one should look as if it were flat, how a person could walk. There is this sugya of how to measure this.

And afterwards there is the question of who can measure? How does one believe? If one, if it’s accepted that such and such is there and there is the techum of two thousand, whom can one believe and whom not? These are the laws that we’re going to learn in this chapter.

Foundation: Techum Shabbat is a Law Around a City

Speaker 1:

Yes, so let me say my version. Apparently this has to do, the entire sugya, with the fact that a techum Shabbat is around a city. Here the question begins. That is, if someone is in a desert, in a valley it’s usually called in the halacha, then no question begins. One measures two thousand amot from exactly where he is. So we’ll see clearly, when there’s no city, there aren’t all these laws, one doesn’t need to have a city. But normally techum Shabbat, the normal techum Shabbat, is a law of a city. That is, there is a city, and around that city there is a techum Shabbat.

Speaker 2:

No, because such is the way of the world, most of the time, people who want to know techum Shabbat are people who walk out from the city.

Speaker 1:

No, because techum Shabbat is a law of around the city. That is the main halacha. Fundamentally, a techum is around a city. A techum is not the opposite, that there is a person who can go two thousand amot when he’s not in a city, that’s a bit of a novelty. And even then we say two thousand amot, but the essence of techum is a matter of around a city. As we learned, in the city one may walk as much as one wants, outside the city there is a techum. But a techum is essentially like a continuation of a city. A city has a techum Shabbat around it.

Explanation: The Laws of This Chapter

So apparently, all these laws that we’re going to learn have to do, one, as you say, how does the city end, but it needs much more than that. It needs various rules, you can call them leniencies if you want, you can call them leniencies. That one doesn’t count from each house, from each place exactly what is outside the city two thousand amot, rather it’s like a law around the city. Around the city one makes something like a techum, as if square. So one can understand that it’s not just a leniency in the world, because we’re going to see squaring the city and other various methods that one adds apparently. The idea is, around the city comes a techum Shabbat, that’s what we’re going to learn.

By the way, you skipped one big leniency that we learned. There is the question of where does a city end? We’re going to learn exact laws of how one counts the last house at the edge of the city. And there’s still the bigger leniency apparently, which is actually explained what is the techum around the city, there is the law of squaring the city. We say that a techum is always exactly square. A techum is square. A techum doesn’t go round, a round city. One holds a square techum, and so on. Afterwards there are various details and laws that one must learn from this. But a techum is like a square around the city of two thousand amot on each side. The city is considered as if we’re always in square cities. The techum always begins from outside the city, and has a square, a square city. Every city has a square around it in this. Laws regarding techum Shabbat. Perhaps that’s a clear statement, it makes sense.

Afterwards there are various details, how one measures, who is the measurer, such questions. But that’s the main point, I mean that’s how I looked at it. As Shabbat, techum Shabbat says that a city has around it a certain area called techum Shabbat. Migrashei ir we learned, it actually comes from there essentially. Perhaps the migrash also has such a square essentially.

Discussion: Techum Shabbat – A Law in the City or a Law in the Person?

Speaker 2:

Yes. What you’re saying that techum Shabbat is a law in the city, my friend you’re saying, it may not necessarily be so. The point is that a person should not walk more than outside his place. But what then, in a city his place is the entire city, that’s called mekomo shel adam, and outside the city a person only has his four amot.

Speaker 1:

Yes, it’s the same thing.

Speaker 2:

No, it’s not.

Speaker 1:

It comes, the Rambam explained, “let no man go out from his place,” he doesn’t mean from his spot, but from his city. True. But it’s a law in the city.

Speaker 2:

True. You’re right, that if he doesn’t have a city, then he doesn’t have, then he only has…

Speaker 1:

Okay, so let’s learn it.

Law 1: A Dwelling House That Went Out From the City

Speaker 1:

Section 1, the Rambam says thus: “Any dwelling house that went out from the city”. What happens when there is a dwelling house, a house where one lives? He throws in the word “dwelling.” We see that a house that still has a connection with the city, is still called part of the city, must be a house where one lives. Every house where one lives “that went out from the city”, that is outside the city, is so. From where do we know? The question is thus. From when does one count that the city has ended, and from there one has the seventy amot?

Explanation: The Question of Where the City Ends

So let me make it a bit clearer, because apparently there is a law before what the Rambam says not, which when you already ask the question there is an answer to a previous question that was skipped, as if. There is a city, where does the city end essentially? That is knowledge, the law is an assumption that I know where the end of the city is. It just happens that there is a house that is outside the city. That is, if there is a city you can ask such a question.

People today are more uncertain about this, or practically regarding techumin. That is, what makes it the city at all? If the entire city is a lot of area, today people live very spread out. Yes, perhaps once they stood more squeezed together etc. If between each house there are seventy amot, as he writes what we’re going to learn? At least, that it’s outside the city? We don’t say it’s outside the city, there is such a city. What the definition of city itself doesn’t stand in this law. The law begins, afterwards there is a dwelling, the dwelling is going out from the city, so as if one can join it.

But it seems that there is perhaps a distinction, the dwelling house must be for some reason not exactly a part of the city. If it was a part of the city, the novelty doesn’t begin. In the middle of a city there can be an empty area of more than seventy amot, that’s not the novelty. If it’s at the end of the city, and there perhaps there is a little house where we ask who lives that Jew, and he lives a bit outside, then we learn this law. Do you agree? Right.

But it also certainly doesn’t mean that the city means the name, for example one says where does the name Howell end and where does the other name begin. That’s also not. The city means simply there where there is a certain more people living together, it has a certain character, I don’t know, has a… whatever a city is called. Here we’re talking about what happens to a house that is moved away from the kind of city, from where most live. What is called today town of Howell for example, can simply be a large area that is empty, which is actually farms, I don’t know what, a forest. But it can be that there is something such that is a city, I don’t know exactly what it would be called.

Speaker 2:

No, apparently from where the people live densely is… That is, if one is surrounded by several cities, but it’s all one city next to the other, one still counts in all these cities. Still everywhere where it’s inhabited one begins then to count according to halacha. Amen.

Speaker 1:

Okay. Yes.

We’ll see, there is such a law of a wall, there are a few laws of a city that are outside the law of the going out. Today it’s very different apparently, because we live differently. Such places like Lakewood, Monsey, where we live very spread out, makes much more of a question what one must decide where a city is at all.

Speaker 2:

Right. Like in the mountains, yes. In the city, in Brooklyn, there’s no question, the whole thing is one big city. Obviously, although perhaps one can argue, he says clearly, even if it’s Nineveh. New York is probably bigger than Nineveh was. Yes. Yes.

The Law: Seventy Amot and Two Thirds of an Amah

Speaker 1:

So already, “Any dwelling house that goes out from the city”, that is next to the city, until when does one count it as if it’s part of the city, and one should begin counting the two thousand amot after the dwelling? It’s thus, if it is very far from the city, one no longer counts it toward the city. Why is that far? What is the distance? The Sages said thus, “if there is between it and the city seventy amot and two thirds of an amah”, seventy and two thirds of an amah, “which is the diagonal of a square beit se’atayim”, which is the corner… What is that? The diagonal, that is the diagonal.

And they learned karpef, that is for example one gives a karpef for the poor, they learned that a minimum measure of something like an empty area, or an area that one can sow, is called beit se’atayim. Yes? They learned regarding laws of hekeif ledira. So that makes sense, a hekeif ledira, that’s the measure they considered. And a beit se’atayim they learned in many laws, when one goes around it’s a bit longer. So from one corner to the second corner, that’s called the diagonal, is… That is beit se’atayim, fifty by one hundred, so the diagonal that stands here is seventy and two thirds.

Explanation: Beit Se’atayim – The “Backyard” of a City

There is a law that a city gets a beit se’atayim. Just as every city there is a law that the city gets like a backyard, just as a backyard is still part of the house. The city gets its own like a backyard which is still part of the city.

If there is a house that is still in the area, it’s obvious that the house is still close to the city. The area is the seventy amot and remnants, which has a calculation why it’s so, because it has to do with the law that around a city there is a square beit se’atayim, and if it’s not square it came out to a measure of seventy amot. So a house is joined to the city and is considered from it, the house is considered as if it’s still part of the city, as if it’s part of it, and when one measures two thousand amot in every direction, when one measures to the city two thousand amot in every direction, one measures, one counts after the house, outside this dwelling house one counts after the house another two thousand amot in every direction.

Novelty – Chain of Houses

Okay. Further, so this house is close to the city by seventy amot. Now, let me say, not only can one house be joined to the city, there can be an entire row of such houses, as long as each one of the houses is not far from the previous house the same measure, one can make them join. So what you said that a city has a karpef, not only a city, that is, it can be that fundamentally that’s the reasoning of the law, but in practice in the end, there is such a measure, anything within seventy amot and remnants becomes part of the city, and this gets another seventy amot and remnants for the next house and for the next house. No difference how far it goes.

Discussion: Why Does One Need Beit Se’atayim Between Houses in a City?

Speaker 2:

Okay, it makes sense also in simple logic, because if it’s not far enough from the city, it’s still part of the city.

Speaker 1:

Yes, but if it’s part of the city it still makes, it can be a way to count still very very far. From this comes back to my question that I said earlier, as it were a city itself becomes a city you wouldn’t need any beit se’atayim between the houses, do you understand my question?

Speaker 2:

No, it’s not a backyard, we’re not talking about any backyard, that’s the house after the backyard, but no, that itself becomes part of the city and afterwards it gets the backyard, that’s what he says.

Continuation – Row of Houses

Speaker 1:

Yes, he says, what happens if not one house is next to seventy amot next to the city, and consequently the city gets to the seventy amot, but what happens, a few such houses. House A is close to the city by seventy amot, and from the other side there is a second house, another house, close to the first house by seventy amot. And still further out, a third house is also close to the second house by seventy amot, and so it continues. And so on and so forth for many days. Behold all is like one city, as long as there is still a house within the seventy amot it’s still called part of the city. And when one measures, one measures from outside the last house.

Translation

As long as there isn’t more than seventy cubits and two-thirds between one house and the second, it can be that one stick extends out from a city for three days. What does burganin mean? The Gemara says that sometimes one does it intentionally, people need to live, we’ll see, but so that there shouldn’t be a techum Shabbos, and then one may walk until there, and the techum Shabbos begins after that. Right? Also all these extensions that we’re going to learn, will extend afterwards, apparently.

Reasoning — Daas and Shevisa

One should say that this is like a bit of reasoning, that one looks at techum Shabbos that the place where the person thinks that there will be his shevisa on Shabbos, and a person always thinks that in the city he can sleep anywhere in the city. I don’t know, this is a word that perhaps we should have seen earlier. That a person relies his mind that in the city he can sleep, and whatever is still connected to the city is still in his mind. Daas has to do with shevisa, just like by eruv techumin and such things, or what we learned earlier last night that one must have a daas that the city should be, because a city is a city, this is like an attachment to the city. That’s how I would have thought.

The Measure of a Dwelling House — Law 3

And how does the Rambam say it, the dwelling house that one speaks of has a measure. “And the measure of this dwelling house is four cubits by four cubits or more,” it shouldn’t be smaller than four cubits by four cubits. If it’s not that, it’s not a house, it’s some kind of hut or something like that.

What Counts as a Dwelling House for Joining

Now the Rambam is going to say what a city means. A house he already said the measure, it must be a measure of four cubits by four cubits, but he said “dwelling house,” a house where one lives. Now he wants to say, what happens if it’s not properly a house where one lives, but something more than that?

Synagogue and Study Hall

“And likewise,” what happens with a “synagogue and study hall that has a dwelling for the caretakers”? Right away we see in the words that the synagogue itself… We’re speaking here specifically of a dwelling house. If there is a study hall or such a thing far from the city, it’s not a dwelling house. Perhaps this is a practical difference, it can be a matter that certain buildings were made outside the city, and in honor of that we still don’t look at it as if it’s part of the city. The meaning today makes it so, for example, there’s the city, and then there’s where one drives by car to the industrial area around the city, something like that. That still doesn’t make it part of the city. But if the city has with it, the synagogue does have with it a dwelling for the caretakers, the shamash of the study hall lives next to the study hall, there’s a dwelling house there.

House of Idolatry, Storehouses, Bridge, Grave

And now he says, it doesn’t have to do specifically with a Jewish synagogue, but it can be a “house of idolatry that has a dwelling for the priests.” Interesting, because one says, you know, there’s the law that one shouldn’t make a sign of a house of idolatry. Okay, a house of idolatry that has a dwelling for the priests. Or like “storehouses,” someone has a place of a warehouse, a storage place, where there’s a dwelling there where the manager lives and so on. Or like a “bridge,” or like a “grave that has a dwelling in them.” There’s the chevra kadisha Jew who has a dwelling right next to the cemetery, or the bridge has a guard who collects the money and lives there. All these things, since there’s a dwelling house there, it also makes it like a house that’s close to the city.

Three Walls Without a Roof

And now he says further, another thing that can be called a city. He said a house, a house is usually a house with a wall, with a roof, with everything. But he says no, it can even be a weaker house. “Three walls that don’t have a roof,” that don’t have a roof, “but they have four cubits by four cubits,” and apparently he means that someone lives there, yes? We’re speaking, yes.

Speaker 2:

Because in that case it’s perhaps not a house.

Speaker 1:

Okay, I’m not going into the calculations now.

Speaker 2:

He sleeps there a whole year.

Speaker 1:

A place where a person, he doesn’t count, but it’s not a place that’s fit for dwelling, it must be a dwelling house.

Speaker 2:

Yes, you agree, but the fit for dwelling, the for example, the guard of the storehouses, I don’t know what, dwelling house doesn’t mean that a person lives there.

Speaker 1:

There’s sometimes like a vintner, when he goes to sow his field, he has there some kind of hut where he sleeps. It’s already built for him, but he only goes there two weeks a year that he sleeps there. Not that he sleeps there regularly. I don’t believe that a person sleeps… The cantor perhaps from the synagogue sleeps every day there, but the burganin in the three walls, it’s a place that the guard, when one must go there for protection, what we learned about walls on the eastern side, he has there some kind of place that he can use. It’s not just a storehouse, it has in it a bit of dwelling.

Speaker 2:

The burganin, burganin means guards. In the field there’s a hut where the guards should live.

House Built in the Sea

Speaker 1:

Because a “house built in the sea,” or a “house built within the sea,” it’s like a lighthouse for example.

Speaker 2:

What comes in a sea? Who goes in the sea?

Speaker 1:

I don’t believe in the sea, within the sea. Within the sea is indeed within the sea.

Speaker 2:

Is it some kind of store?

Speaker 1:

Ah, there’s an island right next to the city, if there’s water, there’s in the water an island, and on the island there’s an inn, it’s a… It can also be like a harbor, a… I don’t know what one makes a… The ships come in. Okay.

But it’s interesting, and in the sea one also counts it. It should be the techum, here we’re speaking okay, that the techum is indeed like a surrounding string. That means, normally we wouldn’t count the sea in the city, we would count the sea outside. But if in the sea there’s a dwelling, one counts, one begins counting the two thousand cubits from after the sea.

Cave That Has a Dwelling House

Speaker 2:

And it says a wall that has a roof on it, or three walls is enough without a roof, if one has built onto the cave, it’s not just that he lives in the cave. That means, he must have some kind of…

Speaker 1:

What are you saying? He lives in the cave itself is not enough.

Speaker 2:

No, it can be he lives in it, but just a cave, you have here tens of caves, I don’t know where, by the mountains. That a person lives doesn’t help us.

Speaker 1:

No, not at all. If there’s someone who sleeps in the study hall a transient… a transient guest, that doesn’t help that one shouldn’t sleep there. Right, so in order to build a building one must live there.

Speaker 2:

Here you see that the cave must also have some kind of building.

Speaker 1:

Right, because you said that one must have a building.

Speaker 2:

It’s not a building.

Speaker 1:

No, but it says here that a person can sleep even in a cave, but it’s not a building.

Speaker 2:

But a building doesn’t have to mean just, he added a door, I don’t know, he added some kind of flag, some kind of…

Speaker 1:

No, but it says “and it has in it a dwelling house,” inside one lives.

Speaker 2:

Inside is okay, he added, but one must be able to build. I mean to say that not necessarily that he lives in an external place, he lives in the cave, but the point is that… Do you understand what I’m saying? The point is that he built something there.

Speaker 1:

In short, all these…

A Stretched String — How the House Becomes Joined

Speaker 2:

And all things that are joined with the city, “if it was within seventy cubits and a remainder,” if it was in the seventy cubits and a remainder from the city, “and one adds the protruding house,” from the house that comes out, “we view it,” we look at it, it’s indeed the answer to my question, “as if”…

Speaker 1:

What’s missing the stretched string? Why doesn’t he say as if it’s part of the city?

Speaker 2:

No, no, look what comes out a great novelty: Not only opposite the house is there two thousand cubits, opposite the entire province.

Speaker 1:

Ah, it becomes a square. One makes a square also from after the house.

Speaker 2:

Hmm, the square is from the after communities, but now it becomes that the house makes broader the entire city community.

Speaker 1:

No, “one adds the house we view as if a string is stretched over it and they measure outside that string two thousand cubits for the entire province.” Do you understand for example the picture he’s showing? Help me.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

So it comes out for example like this, if the province, if there’s a city that indeed has the several days’ journey of a…

Law: Whatever Doesn’t Join for an Eruv Doesn’t Join for Extension

Speaker 1:

This is all means within the thousand cubits. That means, okay, within seventy cubits and a remainder, but one can make a bunch of them. So… Right.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says further, but not all can be counted. “Whatever doesn’t join for an eruv, doesn’t join for extension.” This is basically the opposite of the things he just said. As you said the opposite, the things that aren’t… Whatever doesn’t join for extension, that’s not part of the city, even if it’s within seventy cubits and a remainder, one doesn’t count it outside, but one counts the two thousand cubits from the city itself.

Speaker 2:

Hmm.

Speaker 1:

So, “two walls that don’t have a roof, even though they live in them.” Two walls that don’t have a roof, even if one lives there… even how one lives must be either three walls, or two walls with a roof.

Speaker 2:

Hmm.

Speaker 1:

“And the bridge, and the grave, and the synagogue, and the watchman’s house, and the storehouses.” All these things that were counted, this is not usually a house. For example, it’s storehouses, or it’s a bridge or a grave. One said, but if someone lives there, for example the synagogue has a cantor, or the watchman’s house has a priest, it becomes a dwelling house. But if the thing doesn’t have a dwelling house… even if it’s a place, it’s a building, it’s a place where people go. Even a garden where a person does live there, as it said, it must have a dwelling house, it must be some kind of cottage for the guard.

Speaker 2:

Right.

Speaker 1:

It’s a novelty for people, because a person would have thought, a synagogue where hundreds of people walk every day, why should you count differently some small ruin on the other side? But the point is, it must have a dwelling house.

Speaker 2:

Hmm.

Speaker 1:

“And the pit, and the ditch, and the cave.” Unlike what was said about a cave that if you have there some kind of building, one does count. A place where a person can live, a pit or a cave, or a ditch with an elongated structure, any shape of a pit or cave. Or a dovecote where birds live, what would be a dovecote?

Speaker 2:

Okay. I understand that a dovecote belongs to the people, so it’s like a part of the city I could have thought perhaps.

Speaker 1:

Perhaps simply indeed it’s very small. Not that one lives in the dovecote, it’s not like a house, it’s a small shape of a house.

Speaker 2:

No, what’s a storehouse?

Speaker 1:

There the person keeps his birds, he turns around there, but he doesn’t live there. A house on a ship, or unlike what was said a house in the sea, that’s when it’s indeed built and it’s on a small island. But what happens when the house is on a ship? Even if the ship is parked next to the city, but it’s a ship, a ship is a thing that moves. Therefore I can’t count the ship because it’s now here it’s part of the city. One can understand, for example someone has an RV and it’s parked next to the city, it won’t be part of the city, unlike a house. “All these and similar to them don’t join with it.” Okay. It doesn’t count, one doesn’t count together with the city, but one must count two thousand cubits from the city itself. Why? Because it’s not a dwelling house, right? That’s the law.

Law: Two Adjacent Towns

Speaker 1:

Now one must learn, since we’ve now said that the measure of seventy cubits and a remainder connects houses to a city, perhaps it can also connect two cities. Not only houses, but also two cities. I can connect two cities, and both cities will be called like one province, and one will get two thousand cubits in every direction from around both cities.

So, “if there were two towns adjacent to each other, if there is between them one hundred forty-one and a third,” that’s two times seventy, two times seventy plus, yes, it comes out one hundred forty-one and a third, and the three cubits that one gives as the measure to come out seventy cubits and a remainder for this one, seventy cubits and a remainder for that one, then outside the seventy cracks, one counts both as one city, because the two suburbs of the cities, ah, not suburbs of the cities, the two extensions of the cities connect them, “and it turns out each city walks all the second city and outside it two thousand cubits.” That means, here one sees yes what you said, that a city basically has like an extension, and because of that, if there are houses in between, then that helps, and even if there’s a second city and that city’s extension comes to this city’s extension, both cities connect and they become one big city and one can walk the whole thing.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Law: Three Villages in a Triangle

Speaker 1:

And now we’re going to learn when there are three cities. Here one is going to need a greater leniency, because when there are two cities one next to the other, one knows where is one city, where is the other city, where is the middle area. But what happens when there are three cities? There’s also something to do about it.

Speaker 2:

Well, it’s more than that, right? The Rambam wants to add much more area.

Speaker 1:

Yes, the Rambam wants to add here even more. I just want to make it so one can see the picture.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

So, “if there were three villages in a triangle,” there are three cities that are one… in a triangle means like this, they’re in a triangle, that’s what the word means. They’re in a triangle, exactly, two as you see here, two here from below and one from above, sort of. That’s the meaning of in a triangle.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

And here it’s indeed harder, because when there are three villages in a triangle, it can be between one of the two, and they’re not all three close, but if two that are close, yes, so. What the Rambam does is, he makes a great leniency. That means, if all three would be within like the old law, seventy cubits and a remainder from each side, it’s simple, right? It’s no novelty. Or if two of them, two are one city and the third is outside. But the Rambam adds here another novelty.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says. What does one do with the three villages in a triangle? I tell you, he adds another leniency. “And if there is between the middle one and each one of the outer ones two thousand cubits less from here.” The Rambam says like this, there are like the two that are close one to the second, yes, those from below, and there’s the upper one, which he calls the outer ones, that means the one that’s the triangle, the other corner of the triangle. He says like this, as long as the third is less than two thousand cubits, not techum Shabbos, a whole techum Shabbos the third corner of the triangle can be away from the first two, and between the two outer ones, yes, the other two lower let’s say of our triangle, have two times one hundred forty-one, right? Two times seventy, right, one hundred thirty-eight less a third, two hundred eighty-three less a third, which is four times seventy cubits with two-thirds, “so that it comes out that when one looks, each one of them is between it and the middle one when you measure it as if it is between them.” You see now, the Rambam puts it like this, imagine that the middle one entered in between, as he made here in the picture, one sees that the middle one entered in between, then it comes out that the city, between every two cities may indeed be one hundred forty-one, and here there’s a third city, it’s just simply moved away a bit, but it’s as if in between, therefore it comes out in this case the entire city becomes one big city, “behold the three of them are like one city and one measures for them two thousand cubits in every direction outside the three of them,” because all one big city. Why is the measure two thousand cubits? Because the techum Shabbos itself means that it’s close. That means, two thousand cubits is enough that you should imagine that that city entered in between here. Very interesting.

Discussion: The Objection of the Raavad

Speaker 1:

And the Raavad disagrees with this halacha, yes, the Raavad says that this is a tosefes gedolah (a great addition). How did the Rambam take four times seventy amos and shiriyim? Because two times he understands, because that’s the halacha, the halacha of meshulash (triangulated city) says that each city gets a whole one, so you have two times, but how do you get to four times?

Speaker 2:

Ahh…

Speaker 1:

V’ta’us beyado (and he is mistaken). In short, the Raavad doesn’t agree with this halacha. If it should be relevant to someone l’ma’aseh (in practice), he should ask the Shulchan Aruch. But one can actually understand the Raavad a bit, because the fact that they are three, we make them… one can see that a person looks at them.

Speaker 2:

The Raavad’s reasoning is to include that one in between. Now that city, kelum (nothing), connects the two cities. But the Raavad thinks, no. The second city stands there.

Speaker 1:

It’s a question, presumably how one looks in the Gemara, but this is the halacha of the ir meshuleshes (triangulated city). That means the Raavad argues that one can do this, but one cannot do it to such an extent that it should literally mean there that it should be two times, four times the shi’ur (measure).

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Speaker 1:

Let’s go further. This can bring great leniencies. For example in the country this apparently very often makes it so that one can free oneself from techum Shabbos (Sabbath boundary), because countries are far… there one needs to look at a map, look how the Rema rules, whether he rules like the Raavad or like the Rambam, like the Raavad or the Shulchan Aruch.

Halacha: Ir She’hukfa U’levasof Yushva (A City That Was Walled and Then Settled)

Speaker 1:

Good, further. Now we’re going to learn such a halacha. A new, as it were, chakira (inquiry), an interesting chakira. It’s a chakira whether we reckon a city that has a wall… until now we haven’t had any law about a wall. Meanwhile we would have understood that if there is a house seventy amos next to the wall, one can reckon it as part of the city. Until now it stood that there is a city, and outside the city are the houses that one can reckon. Now you’re learning a new question: there is a city, the city has a wall. Do we need to know where the city ends, at the wall or at the houses? Do you understand? This is a more basic question actually.

The Rambam says thus: Ir she’hukfa u’levasof yushva (a city that was first walled and then settled), a city that first got a wall, first one built the wall, and afterwards it became settled, moddin la miyishuva (we measure it from its settlement), one reckons it from where people live, not from the wall. That means, if the wall is very far from the city, the wall doesn’t tell us that from the wall one gets two thousand amos. Or conversely, if someone lives outside the wall, he will give further house and mama from that house and further. Why? Because the city became a city when people settled there. The city didn’t become a city when one made the wall.

But if “yushva levasof hukfa” (it was settled and then walled), first people lived and afterwards one built a wall, then as it were the wall

Digression: Medidas Ha’ir – From the Wall or From the Houses

Speaker 1: Yes, that’s how it looks. Modim l’chumra (we agree to be stringent), and both are with l’kula u’l’chumra (leniency and stringency). Apparently yes, this is the law of medida (measurement), how does the city end, from the wall or from the houses. There is the halacha of nikaf leshem yeshiva (walled for the purpose of settlement), it’s also in Maseches Megillah, yes, in batei arei choma (houses of walled cities), there are various ones.

Now, what the… so the modim l’chumra means that if there is… so do you mean that it takes away the kula that if there is within the seventy amos another house, one will reckon from that house?

Speaker 2: No, no, no, no. Now we’re talking about the house, we’re not talking about external halachos, that’s what I mean.

Speaker 1: Or perhaps you mean that the city is reckoned from the wall, because as it were one doesn’t look at the houses. Apparently here it’s a different kula. There could be a thousand amos between the last house and the wall. If the wall was built in order to protect the city, not that one built… I don’t know.

I think one needs to know the reality of what you’re talking about, because I said so, the Gemara has several times here the law of yoshev levasof hukaf, and it doesn’t go simply that it’s a distinction of what one builds first. It’s a question for the contractor.

I think it looks like it’s some other sort of law. Sometimes one builds a wall not for dwelling, but like bitzurim (fortifications) one calls it, yes? For military purposes, for war. And it’s not a city, it’s just some building, like the Great Wall of China, yes? It’s a big wall, but it’s not around all of China.

Speaker 2: All of China is mukaf choma (surrounded by a wall)?

Speaker 1: It’s in between, yes? It’s a wall, but it’s not a city. If one builds here a city and builds a wall, it could be that yoshev levasof hukaf, or, yes, I don’t mean specifically that one built that first. He says, if the planner said, “I’m now going to make a city with a wall,” I’m now making a chiddush (innovation), one needs to look, but perhaps one can’t even say that.

Perhaps it’s only when it’s some case where one didn’t actually build it for dwelling, it wasn’t built for a city, one built it for a wall, for war purposes, apparently that’s the reason. Or perhaps here there’s another reason for the sheep, I know, kedros tzon (sheep pens) it says there something, not exactly a wall, but a pen, it wasn’t built for a city. Then you say that the wall, you’re actually living in a city, okay, you also get the protection, but the wall isn’t the basis for the houses, for the people of the city so much.

Halacha 6: Ir Meruba’as – When the City is Already Rectangular

Speaker 1: Okay, so now we’re learning that besides what we learned earlier that there are times when things extend from the city, now one can actually learn what a city is. Here there’s some new chiddush, that a city is always square, and if it’s not square, one makes it as if it’s square, and the area in between, like the corners, still become part of the city, and the techum goes even further from them.

The Rambam says, “Ir she’haysa arucha o meruba’as” (a city that was elongated or squared), a city that is either lengthwise and isn’t boxy, or meruba’as (squared). Arucha means rectangle, yes?

Speaker 2: Right.

Speaker 1: “Hoil veyesh la arba zaviyos shavos” (since it has four equal corners), what does “hoil veyesh la arba zaviyos shavos” mean? When it has, if it has four equal corners, ah, if the city is boxy, if someone built a boxy city, then “manichin osa kemo she’hi” (we leave it as it is), yes, it’s good, because the city is already in a shape, one reckons from where the box ends, “umoddin la alpayim ama lechol ruach me’arba ruchoseha” (and we measure for it two thousand amos in every direction from its four directions). Because then one doesn’t need any chiddushim, then one already asks questions how to measure.

Halacha 6: Ir Agula – Merabe’in Osa (A Round City – We Square It)

But what happens with a city that’s a different shape, a city that is… he goes around calculating all shapes. “Haysa” (if it was), look up, I can’t see. “Haysa agula” (if it was round), the city is round, that means the city doesn’t end at any clear angles, it doesn’t have four corners, then “osin la zaviyos” (we make corners for it). One needs to make corners. That means, we reckon it as if, we make in our heads corners around the city. V’ro’in osa ke’ilu hi meruba’as (and we see it as if it is squared), one reckons the city as if it is squared, one doesn’t reckon from the city.

Speaker 2: What?

Speaker 1: Ke’ilu besoch meruba (as if within a square). Yes. Ke’ilu besoch meruba, as if the city is in a box. And consequently when one wants to reckon techum Shabbos, one doesn’t go to the last house, but one has much more, because at the corners one reckons from the corner. V’ro’in osa ke’ilu hi meruba’as. That means, basically what one does here is, the Rambam will soon say that one reckons according to the sides of the sky, of the world. But the point is that one goes to where is the furthest place of each circle, and one puts the circle in a square, and besides that there will remain two thousand amos besides each side.

Umoddin chutz mitzla’os osa meruba alpayim ama lechol ruach (and we measure outside the sides of that square two thousand amos in every direction). From the angles that one made the square, one reckons two thousand amos in every direction. Shenimtza (so it turns out), what did one gain here? Shenimtza, it comes out that one is actually a quarter, one gains, one is actually like it, one gains the corners. That means, there where the circle ends, and there’s still a whole area until the square, one has much more from where one can reckon the two thousand amos.

Halacha 7: Meshuleshes, Tzla’os Rabos – Merabe’in Osa (Triangular, Many Sides – We Square It)

V’chen im haysa meshuleshes (and likewise if it was triangular), if it’s triangular, o sheyesh la tzla’os rabos (or it has many sides), or it has many angles, it’s let’s say like a pentagon, it has various angles coming out, then one doesn’t only reckon, that means at the narrow side of the triangle it comes out that one will only be able to go much less. So merabe’im osa (we square it) also the same thing, one makes it boxy, one reckons it as if the city is there where the box is. Ein lecha ela chumoseha chutz min haribua alpayim ama lechol ruach (you have only its walls outside the square two thousand amos in every direction).

Discussion: How Does One Make the Square?

The Rambam says, how does one make the square? This is an interesting thing, because there’s a lot about how one can make the square. If for example you make the square this way, there will be empty space. If you make the square like this, you understand, you can choose very much about how to make the square. So what do you say, help me that it should make a square? How should I make the square?

Speaker 2: You say that this is the wider side.

Speaker 1: A triangle doesn’t have a wider side, it can be all exactly as wide. It’s obligatory that here is equal and here there’s empty space, or perhaps I should take here.

The answer is, the answer is that one reckons this in ribua ha’olam (the square of the world). This is interesting, because the whole world one needs to do the trick of being squared, because the world isn’t squared, the world is round. But there are always the arba kanfos ha’olam (four corners of the world), one reckons it as the four sides, one adds. The south side is not far enough that it should make a difference in a city usually. A square yes, it makes a difference of an inch, no difference.

V’shi’ur zeh merabe’in beribua ha’olam, kedei shetehei chol ruach mimena meshucha keneged ruach meruchos ha’olam umechuvenes kenegda (and this measure we square in the square of the world, so that each direction from it should be drawn opposite a direction from the directions of the world and aligned opposite it). One makes the square so that it should be from all four sides the same, that it should be a square, that means four sides. East is a straight line, west is a straight line, one puts the city in the straight line between east, west, north, south, as you see in the picture.

It comes out that the triangle isn’t like one saw earlier that one side, because it turns. It’s only exactly if the corner of the triangle will be exactly at one side of the sides of the world. But if not, it could be that there’s more space here, more space there, it has to do with the ruchos ha’olam (directions of the world). And one gains more this way, it turns. How much one gains turns according to the situation, according to how the square lies, how the triangle lies. If you would have squared the triangle you wouldn’t get as much as when you put the triangle differently.

Speaker 2: It’s just distributing the space differently.

Speaker 1: There’s even more space here, yes?

Speaker 2: Ah, because… I hear, true. The other shapes that one takes away here one has added at the other angle.

Speaker 1: Okay. Not really a difference, because the square, it means, one always goes to the extremities of the shape, only the choice is only from which way it should go, how and which side there should be more space, and which side one goes according to rov po’alim (the majority of workers).

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Another today.

Halacha 8: Rechava Mitzad Echad U’ketzara Mitzad Echad (Wide on One Side and Narrow on One Side)

Os rechava mitzad echad u’ketzara mitzad echad (or wide on one side and narrow on one side), a city is rechava mitzad echad u’meshuleshes mitzad echad (wide on one side and triangular on one side). Os rechava mitzad echad u’ketzara mitzad echad, ro’in osa ke’ilu kula rechava (or wide on one side and narrow on one side, we see it as if it’s all wide). As if the whole city is wide. It’s not triangular, but just such a city has places where it’s wider and narrower.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s basically the same thing.

Speaker 1: One makes a square, it’s not kelacher yad (haphazard). Ro’in osa ke’ilu kula rechava, one reckons it as if, further, one puts in a square, one reckons it as if it’s the same width from all sides.

Halacha 8: Asuya Kemin Gam O Kekeshes (Made Like a Gamma or Like a Bow)

Haysa asuya kemin gam (if it was made like a gamma), gam is by us it’s an upside-down spoon, or whatever, an upside-down L. Right? An upside-down L is called in Greek a gamma.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Anyway, the Chachamim it doesn’t look like they made an upside-down spoon like this, because when they wanted to say the shape they always said Greek letters. What does a gam mean?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Or, haysa asuya kekeshes (if it was made like a bow), the city is made like a bow, roundish, and basically the same thing as a gam, roundish. Then, for some reason, then one cannot make a proper square, then there are halachos. Unlike by a gam, if one would add a whole square, one would make the city double to make it very whole. For some reason.

Speaker 2: Yes, because here, by the gam you would come out that you add, you must add very much. Here by both things, on the same thing, by the bow, you don’t have to add so much.

Speaker 1: I want to make a picture of the gam, yes? Put it in, you’ll see. Yes? This is a gam, as if here the city ends, yes? The city is like an L, let’s say. And here is empty, right? If one makes a square now, one has added here a whole square, or by the goren a whole half circle added, the same idea, right?

Speaker 2: Or answer the law.

Speaker 1: This is the question, sometimes one does it yes, sometimes one doesn’t do it. This is so, um… yes, um… it’s so, “im yesh bein shnei rasheha pachus me’arba’as alafim ama” (if there is between its two ends less than four thousand amos), if between the two corners, or the two corners of the area,

Halacha Regarding a City Made Like a Bow or Gamma (Continuation)

Speaker 1: Yes, this is a gamma, as if here the city ends. Yes, the city is like an “L”, let’s say, and here is empty, right? If one makes a square now, one has added here a whole square, or by the gamma a whole half circle added, the same idea, right? Only in the law.

So this is the question, sometimes one does it yes, sometimes one doesn’t. So it’s like this, im yesh bein shnei rasheha pachus me’arba’as alafim ama (if there is between its two ends less than four thousand amos), if between the two corners, or the two corners of the gamma or of the bow, there is less than two thousand amos, moddin lahem min hayeser (we measure for them from the extra), one reckons from the extra, from the, as if we look at it as if it’s closed up, yes? V’ro’eh es kol haRochav (and one sees all the width), one looks at the whole width, shebein hayeser vehakeshes (that is between the chord and the bow), one looks at the whole width between the chord that we add and the bow as it’s actually there, as the city actually is, we look ke’ilu malei batim (as if full of houses), then one reckons it as if we fill in the bow or the gamma.

Aval im yesh bein shnei rasheha arba’as alafim (but if there is between its two ends four thousand), if there is yes between its two ends four thousand, ein moddin lahem ela min hakeshes (we only measure for them from the bow), one reckons only from the bow itself, one doesn’t then make such a square situation.

This is as it were because if there is, it’s close enough, there is significance of techum Shabbos something, as it were then the two sides are called connected like one city, but more doesn’t mean that it’s not connected, that’s what the Torah says. Yes?

Speaker 2: Yes. What is the matter?

Speaker 1: The matter is that because here one would have had to add too much, by the gamma or the bow one would have had to make the city double as big as it is, so it’s as if the city…

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s not too much, I mean what does too much do, it’s not a city that’s a square, it’s a city that continues like this.

Speaker 1: Okay, a triangle also continues like a triangle, but in a triangle one cannot understand that the square makes sense, because you only fill in the… as you understand, that a rectangular city, yes, one doesn’t make a square. You can’t start adding to the city. Square is made to straighten out the crooked sides, as it were. But there’s a shi’ur how much one can add.

Not here you don’t want any… here even, let’s understand, even after you make the fills, it doesn’t become a square. Anyway, you don’t make a square at all by the bow, apparently. You only make the filling in, because it’s not a problem of a city with twenty corners that you want to even out, you want to make it simpler like. It’s perhaps a city that’s arranged like this.

So if it’s close, you can yes say that it’s actually all one, the two sides as it were meet. But here the two sides don’t meet at all, it’s perhaps a city that goes like this. Anyway, I don’t know if there’s perhaps major logic in these things, but the distinctions make sense, it’s so hard to understand.

Halacha Regarding a City Sitting on the Bank of a River

Translation

Speaker 1: And further, it says, “a city that sits on the bank of a river”, a city that is by the edge of a river, next to a river. It says, “if there is before it a rekah”, if there is there a street, a large street, which is called a boardwalk, “which means rechav arba amos on the bank of the river”, that a street is wide four amos and it’s next to the river, “so that they can stand on it and use the river”, the river is something that is used, they built around the river a boardwalk, people go there to stroll and so forth, “the river is found to be included in the city”, it turns out that the river is a part of the city. “And we measure for it two thousand amos from the bank of the river and beyond”, we count the two thousand amos from the other side of the river, “and since the entire river is included in the city”, the entire river is counted as a part of the land, “because of the rekah built on its side”, because of the street that was built next to it, this makes the entire river as a part of the city.

“But if there is no rekah there”, if there isn’t such a street that was made around the river, even if the river is used, “but we only measure from the opening of the houses”, we only count from the houses inward. “The river is found to be measured in their two thousand”, so we will count the river itself in the two thousand amos.

Discussion: What is a nachal?

Speaker 1: Yes. For some reason he says that this is not a river that is entirely water, it’s such a wadi, sometimes it’s full of water, but in the summer there’s no water.

Speaker 2: Why would it matter if it’s a proper river?

Speaker 1: Because you can’t use water, you don’t use water, you can swim there. And Yom Tov wants to learn in the name of the commentators, that means even when there is a rekah you also can’t count it as part of the city, only if it’s something where people stroll there, the other nations, and they use it, he does something with it, he sees the arguments.

So he learns a meaning into the Rambam, the Rambam doesn’t say it.

Speaker 2: No, the question is what does nachal mean. By the way, the word nachal doesn’t mean a river, nachal means a wadi in lashon hakodesh. It means there’s a nachal that is flatter, a bik’ah, an open place. Nachal means a valley, yes.

Speaker 1: So he brings, in Biurim, he brings that the Rif argued this way.

Speaker 2: Okay, the ad kan… That means even when it’s dry we don’t count it.

Speaker 1: That means even when it’s dry it needs to have a rekah, so that we count it as part of the city.

Speaker 2: Right, because it’s not a city, it’s a… a… a… very good.

Summary: Ad Kan – Tziruf, Ribua, and the Nature of a City

Speaker 1: So ad kan, very good. Until now we’ve learned mainly two types of laws. One law, the law of tziruf to a city with seventy amos and shiriyim, and another law which is called ribua, and various details of these laws, which deals with, if it’s a city it becomes larger, and so forth.

Now we need to learn the law, what is a city? What is included in a city?

Law: The Nature of a City – Three Courtyards of Two Houses Each

Speaker 1: What is a city? We are, if there are houses, we count such people living in houses, it’s a part of the city. But people who don’t live in a city, they are yoshvei tzrifim, like Bedouins, they build themselves tents, they live in the open, in their tents. Because that doesn’t mean living like a city. A city is something, a certain thing where people live together, there are houses.

But what is the minimum city? What is indeed a city? When we have “three courtyards of two houses each”, if there are three courtyards and in each courtyard there are two houses, even for free, but then it’s called a city, even the yoshvei tzrifim become a part of the city.

Speaker 2: Ah, very good. That means, among the tents a few people built themselves, it’s a proper area of courtyards, so now even the tents are joined to the city.

Speaker 1: And we count it, we make a ribua, we said that we count a ribua meruba’as kasharsharas, the houses make it into a city.

So here you see what is a minimum city. In modern times there are no courtyards at all, so one needs to understand.

In Eretz Yisrael there are the Bedouins. For many years they were left in the desert, because every period of time in the desert there is something small. But over time this began to become such cities, it became completely settled.

Because you see here, if there are three courtyards of two houses each, we said that it’s no longer yoshvei tzrifim, it’s already, it already becomes a city.

Law: Measuring the Techum – A Rope of Fifty Amos

Speaker 1: Okay, ad kan is the measure of the city which changes. Now we’re going to learn practically how one counts. We’ve already learned that if there’s no professional counter, then one makes two thousand paces. But that’s not lechatchilah, lechatchilah is that there should be a clear measurement from the start.

And the question here becomes with the measurement, how one makes the measurement. And also the question becomes what happens with mountains and valleys, how one counts that in.

The Rambam says, “We only measure with a rope of fifty amos, not less and not more”. The Sages say that one should use a measure, a rope with which one measures, but the measure should be fifty amos, not more than that and not less than that.

In short, so that the measurement should be correct. Because when it’s too much it’s hard to count it, it hangs down a bit, so you lose space. And when it’s too short, you’ll also lose space, because all this you need after every fifty amos you need to run to the other side and count it another fifty amos. If it’s a very small rope it’s hard, perhaps you’ll make mistakes.

And it brings proof. A rope can stretch a bit, stretch a bit less. When it’s very long, as the stretching accumulates, it becomes longer or it’s heavier. And when it’s very short, one needs to stretch it very strongly, then it becomes too long.

In short, it’s not accurate. Fifty amos, that’s the measure of accuracy that the Sages said one should use.

“And with a rope of flax” – and one does it specifically with a rope of flax. “So that it won’t stretch more”. That means, how does one count? One takes fifty amos, yes? One cuts out a rope, and one says the rope is this long. If the rope is made of, I don’t know, wool, yesterday it was fifty amos, today it’s already seventy amos, because it stretched. So flax holds better. Yes, a rope of flax so that it won’t stretch too much, it shouldn’t stretch too much.

Law: Measuring at a Valley – Swallowing the Valley

Speaker 1: Now he says, what happens when he comes to a valley? “He reached a valley”, the moded, the person who measures the techum Shabbos, came to a valley, to a valley. And if he goes down into the valley, he’ll take up a lot of space, but he sees that when he’ll be able to jump over, it’s much less space.

It says, “if it has fifty amos”, if the entire valley is fifty amos, but his rope is fifty amos, so “he can swallow it with the measuring rope”. He says to the other person who holds the other side of the rope, grab the other side, he stands above the valley, and one swallows the valley, so one doesn’t lose any space here in the two thousand amos.

“But only if its depth is less than four thousand”, this is only if in the depth, if when one goes indeed into the valley, it’s not a very deep valley, if it will indeed turn out that the valley itself should be, one will need to walk four thousand, then one cannot swallow the valley.

Discussion: What does one do when the depth is more than four thousand?

Speaker 1: But the Rambam doesn’t say what one does then. That means, one can think perhaps that he needs to count the entire four thousand amos, or it simply means that he needs to go down and count how far he can go a bit into the valley, yes, I guess.

Speaker 2: No, it’s not a reality that one should count the entire way up and down. He brings that this is his way. There’s no such law that one counts the entire way up and down. We’re only talking here about how one does the measurement, only then one can swallow it, but if it’s more, then simply the measurement doesn’t work.

Speaker 1: But why don’t we count the entire valley?

Speaker 2: He doesn’t say it. I don’t know, it’s not clear. He says that if not, one needs to count the karka hagai, but it’s the same thing.

Speaker 1: It’s not the entire slope way up, only the karka itself?

Speaker 2: Yes, that’s how swallowing is, that when one swallows one counts with the karka even though one only doesn’t count the slope. Perhaps the opposite, perhaps it’s… I don’t know.

Valley – Continued Discussion

Speaker 1: What’s the meaning? What’s the novelty? I don’t know, I don’t see it clearly to me. I don’t see that it makes sense to us that one needs to count the way up and down, because a person will go from the other way. It doesn’t mean that the one who goes through will also go through the valley.

Right, the question is how far one is from the city. I understand that you say, it doesn’t mean that… the measuring point is at the valley. We’re not talking in a way that he can go around, because yes we would have given ribua here around the valley. We’re talking that the valley takes up the entire width.

No, no, I don’t believe. A point he counts there. I don’t know. Afterwards he’ll already make a calculation from the other side the line.

Okay, I don’t know, not clear to me.

And we speak of a place that is possible

Speaker 1: And we speak of a place that is possible, when we speak that he can, that one swallows it. Right. “That throwing a plumb line descends opposite it that it’s possible to use it.” So what? The line one places something, a stone, so it should weigh down. And one can’t use the rope?

Ah, one can’t use the valley. We’re not talking about two people who hold a rope, we’re talking that one person uses the rope. And how does he use it? He throws it to the other corner.

No, no, no, I didn’t understand, I didn’t understand. What is here the plumb line?

Explanation: Plumb Line and Swallowing

Speaker 1: The plumb line is, perhaps this means that one can’t use the valley, one can’t use the valley to cross. Why not? Because it’s so deep. That means, when it’s straight, perhaps it must be exactly straight, but when one hangs down a rope, it hangs down straight.

So if it’s steep enough like the line hangs down from fifty amos let’s say, then it’s swallowed, because it’s impossible to use, he means that the valley is nullified, because no one goes in, because it’s really a hole, it’s really a… it could be the valley… that the plumb line that he counts here is another way of saying that it’s fifty amos deep.

Swallowing is a strong statement, I didn’t understand the Hebrew translation. What does swallowing mean? That one counts how wide it is, one doesn’t count at all, he doesn’t count the valley at all, and one counts it as if it doesn’t exist. A person stands on one side above the valley and on the other side above the valley, and as if it doesn’t exist.

But in my plumb line he doesn’t say, that means one can indeed… the line is a line of fifty amos. So if when he comes to the valley it’s so deep that the plumb line remains hanging like that in the air, the meaning is that it’s really a pit, a real pit in. Such a way can’t grow. Fifty amos deep.

But the line we’re talking about, the plumb line is fifty whole amos. If it’s not straight, the meaning is that there’s a slope, it’s not really a pit, a hole down. Then one can’t skip the valley, it’s not swallowed, he is only two thousand in any case.

Distinction between depth of four thousand and two thousand

Speaker 1: Earlier we said that up to a depth of four thousand amos it’s a… it stands straight the four amos he brings from the Gemara, then we don’t say. But that’s the point, if it’s less steep, yes, then he can only count if it’s two thousand amos, and not the four thousand amos, right? That’s the distinction.

And this is all when it’s less than fifty amos. If it’s more than fifty amos, we will indeed count the valley, because then it’s already a large valley.

And we’re talking here presumably also in a way that there’s no bridge above it or what, there’s nothing that was placed, wood above it to walk, only people need to actually walk in.

Novelty: Techum Shabbos is not dependent on effort

Speaker 1: The leniency is… we would count it, as if one wouldn’t have needed to walk in. It’s interesting, you see that techum Shabbos has nothing to do with the actual that he’ll need to walk very much. Because that way it would be because he’ll tire himself and he’ll walk a lot, the reasoning here couldn’t have been relevant. One may walk as much as one wants on Shabbos. Because in the city one may, yes.

Dispute of Rishonim: Counting the way up and down

Speaker 1: He actually brings that there’s a dispute of Rishonim whether one needs to count the entire way up and down, or only when one can’t be mekadar in the valley. Because by a mountain, certainly one doesn’t measure the way up, one makes like a calculation. But by the valley it’s not clear.

Crooked Valley

Speaker 1: Okay, now he says, “if the valley was crooked”, if it’s not a straight deep hole, but it’s a crooked valley, one can go into the valley and come out. Interesting, what does crooked mean? I don’t know.

Then, “estimate it from above and estimate it from below”. We’ll learn it soon by the mountain what estimate from above means.

Unclear what is a crooked valley

Speaker 1: He brings here, the commentators don’t know clearly what crooked valley means. That is, crooked means that it’s not a plumb line descending opposite it, and then it’s the same thing.

What’s the question? Crooked, that the way is not so straight, it’s not so deep a hole, but it’s more a smooth way down and a way up. That’s how I would have said the meaning was. But then it has nothing to do with how large the depth is. We’ve already given a depth of two thousand or four thousand.

So I don’t understand clearly, I mean, I’m not the first who doesn’t understand clearly, I don’t understand clearly what is the novelty of swallowing the valley. What kind of valley is this that one swallows? One skips an entire hole, is that the word? Naturally, as if one makes that if it would have been straight, this much he would have walked above the hole.

He says a whole explanation of the crooked valley, not clear.

Valley wider than fifty amos

Speaker 1: Let’s see the next law, the next end of the law of the valley. “If the valley was wider than fifty”, if the valley is wider than fifty, “that he cannot swallow it”, he can’t swallow it because his rope is fifty.

Speaker 2: Yes, but he can’t practically.

Speaker 1: No, it’s not practical, that’s the measure. Halacha leMoshe miSinai, “that any place that he can swallow it he swallows it”.

Going to a place where he can swallow it

Speaker 1: He goes to a place where it is indeed easy. He wants his measurement at all four sides, let’s say, but on one side he can’t cross, because if indeed it would be really… yes, he can’t swallow it. He goes to a place where he can indeed swallow it, he goes to a place where it becomes less wide. “And looks opposite his measurement”, afterwards he makes the calculation how much it would have come out at that place from where he’s trying to, from where he makes the straight itself. “And looks opposite his measurement”, looks opposite his measurement, “and returns”.

This is simple, this is practical, clear.

Remark: Something is missing

Speaker 1: Something is missing with the story. The Rambam doesn’t explain clearly, so we’re going to assume that the Rambam meant one can understand from this, or commentators who looked in the Gemara and other things, who have many different answers how the valley goes how one counts what we’re talking about here.

Good.

Wall – A wall in the middle of the measurement

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s go further. “He reached a wall”. In the middle of the measurement, the person is trying to make two thousand amos, he comes to a wall. So… “we don’t say”, we don’t say… he now has a break, he can’t go measure straight. What does one do with the wall?

We don’t say pierce the wall

Speaker 1: “We don’t say pierce the wall”, one doesn’t need to say that he should pierce the wall.

Speaker 2: You mean to say that he should count “as if”?

Speaker 1: What do you mean he should count? Of course, he doesn’t need to make any hole in the wall, that’s not what we’re talking about, right? First of all, perhaps he would have indeed needed to? One doesn’t need to. Second, it’s simply counted, he doesn’t even need to count.

“Rather”, look what he does: “rather he estimates its width”, he counts the width of the wall, “and continues on his way”.

So “he should pierce the wall” means he doesn’t need to measure the wall precisely with inches, rather he can make an estimate, a rough estimate, and he goes on, and he goes further.

And if it’s possible to use it

Speaker 1:

And if it’s possible to use it, if one can indeed… “to use” means, what does it mean? Can one actually measure the wall? One can use the wall. Use for what? Like, in the measurement? Or do you mean to say that there’s a law that the wall is a wall that one uses?

Yes, one can use the wall, it’s a wall that one uses. He measures it with a proper measurement, one must indeed measure the wall properly. He measures its width with a proper measurement. Yes.

And if the plumb line descends directly opposite it

Speaker 1:

And if the plumb line descends directly opposite it, then he cannot rely on the estimate. Right, that’s the word. He must calculate it, he must measure it. Right.

And if the plumb line descends directly opposite it, that means descends opposite it, opposite the wall? Further, it’s a very straight wall.

Speaker 2:

Ah, it’s a straight wall.

Speaker 1:

That means, does the Shulchan Aruch perhaps mean that one can climb up the wall?

Speaker 2:

Ah, when it’s not such a high wall, when the wall becomes like a small hill, one calculates… one must calculate it well.

Speaker 1:

One must indeed calculate it well, because that means it’s already like a path, that means it’s already like a part of the path. The wall is something one walks on, or at least one climbs on it part of the way. He includes things.

Simple plain interpretation

Speaker 1:

Let’s say the simple plain meaning. The simple plain meaning is, if there’s a wall, a wall that one cannot easily calculate, one makes an estimate. You might say it’s a wall that one can indeed easily calculate, that means one uses it, you can go up on the wall, calculate it indeed well.

And if the plumb line descends directly opposite it is another manner, that means if it’s very straight, then he measures its width with a proper measurement, he must indeed measure it with a good measurement.

Why? Because then what is? What’s the difference? The plumb line descends directly opposite it, I don’t understand.

Question: Why does the plumb line require a proper measurement?

Speaker 1:

So a straight wall is what? Why can’t he further… He can’t measure it with a proper measurement by going up and measuring it, but he can make an estimate of its width and go on. Why has the plumb line done more to the wall? I don’t understand. What does it matter to me that the plumb line descends directly opposite it? I don’t understand.

I don’t understand how he interprets it. He says that then… ah, you interpret that it means one must calculate the slope as well.

Again, these things don’t appear in the Rambam. One must imagine things. I don’t know how the Rambam intended one should learn.

But if the wall is straight, then one must calculate the width. That’s forgotten. I mean, these are also simple matters, one… if it’s straight, it’s straight. What does one need to calculate?

I don’t know, something I’m uncertain about. One must look at the Gemara and understand the Rambam what one is talking about.

Okay, until here.

Discussion: Understanding the law of proper measurement

Speaker 1: I don’t understand the advice. He says that then… ah, you interpret that proper measurement means one must calculate the slope as well. I think these things are here to answer the Rambam. One must imagine things. I don’t know how the Rambam intended one should learn. But if the wall is straight, then one must only calculate the width, not the force. I mean, also simple matters, one… if it’s straight, it’s straight. I have nothing to calculate. I don’t know, something I’m missing. One must look at the Gemara and the Rambam to understand what one is talking about.

Law: Mountain – how one measures when encountering a mountain

Speaker 1: Okay, until here the laws of the wall. Now one can speak of a mountain. By the mountain I think the law is clearer than the valley and the wall. Right. He comes to a mountain, the person goes in his measurements, and he comes to a mountain. Yes, he comes to the mountain. So, if there was a mountain that rises from him ten tefachim in height within five amos in width, yes, they learned that it becomes higher and it goes up ten tefachim in five amos. But he interprets for them five amos, it’s ten tefachim. Right. Then it’s he swallows it, he doesn’t count the entire length of the mountain, the up and down of the mountain, and he returns and measures it. But if it was very high so that it rises from him ten tefachim within less than four amos, but he is indeed measuring, he estimates its width. No, on the contrary, then he doesn’t need to measure it. Ah, ah, he can make… he doesn’t need to measure it precisely, rather he estimates with his estimation. If he cannot swallow it when it is wider than fifty, he’s not obligated to go around. They estimate going little by little, and some say they estimate with their holes. There’s advice which he’s going to explain what one does.

Three separate questions in this topic

Speaker 1: Estimating, what does that word mean? So, I don’t grasp clearly. You have here two other investigations. You have one investigation whether one must make an estimate, whether one can rely on approximation, what kind of thing. The second investigation is whether one must calculate the entire way up, or is it enough to calculate straight. Right. And another third thing is called to swallow. What “to swallow” means, I still don’t know clearly. It’s to say that one skips it, one doesn’t count. It turns out that here one speaks of three different questions the entire time. And this is here perhaps a manner that then one estimates the pit. He says estimating is a language of measuring and approximation, one measures approximately. Then, I mean swallowing means, estimating means one does it superficially, estimating is even more superficial. Why should it be more superficial? It’s simply different. He says that estimating is a language of approximate measuring, so he brings in the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah.

The practical method of estimating

Speaker 1: Okay, what does estimating the pits mean? He says thus: In order to estimate the pits, one becomes aware that one cannot swallow them. Ahh, that if one can swallow, which is a leniency, then one doesn’t need to do this. But when one cannot swallow, it’s thus: two people hold a rope of four amos, two people should take a rope of four amos. The upper one holds its end opposite his feet, the uppermost one should hold a part of the rope by his feet, and the lower one holds the other end opposite his heart, the other person stands further down on the mountain, and he stands so that his middle should come out by the feet of the person who is higher than him. And the upper one returns to stand in the place of the lower one, afterwards the person from above comes and he switches with him the position, he goes where the second one was. Behold they have passed eight amos, and the lower one descends the distance of the rope’s measure, and the lower one moves further, and so they measure and go until they measure all of them.

Discussion: Understanding the leniency of estimating

Speaker 1: Okay, it’s very simple. What’s the problem with understanding this? No, I don’t have a picture, I can’t imagine it so well. It could be that I need a picture, but why is this a leniency? What’s the leniency? This is indeed a very simple estimate. It’s a kind of estimate. It’s not such an estimate, what’s the estimate? It’s clear.

Speaker 2: Yes, that’s clear, but I say, here it comes out one doesn’t count the sloped way down. It’s a way of not counting the sloped way down. That means, after one does this estimating, one comes out further to the distance as if there hadn’t been any valley there.

Speaker 1: By the way, to calculate, let’s be clear, to calculate the sloped way down would have been much easier, true? It would have been easier, but it would have come out a smaller measure. To swallow would have been when they have a long enough rope and just… the first person and the last person hold the rope and one swallows. A manner when one cannot do it, because that one can indeed notice oneself. He gives you advice what to do when one cannot, it’s very far one from the other, there’s the way to do it. It seems to me simple. It’s simple after you see the picture, but it’s also simple that he gives you the advice how to measure this.

If you hold that the law is that one may swallow, that means one goes straight and one doesn’t count the slope, then swallowing and estimating is all the same thing, and it’s also a practical way to do it. He says a novelty the practical, I don’t think he says a novelty the law. He says a novelty the practical way how one does the standing.

It seems to me the entire time that there’s a law and I don’t understand it.

Law: The measurer should not go out beyond the boundary

Speaker 1: Okay, when the measurer goes, when the measurer goes, to swallow or to estimate, then when he goes, when he goes to swallow, that means he goes around the valley, he should also not go out beyond the boundary. Does this mean one speaks when he does it on Shabbos? No, no, no. Look, why? So that passersby won’t see him and say the measure of the boundary is until here. When one sees him measuring, one sees him during the week measuring, people can make a mistake. Simply, he’s a measurer. When he swallows, you also see that swallowing means somehow he must go to the other side. Something, I’m missing basic information about what’s going on here. And then it can happen that he goes out further than the boundary, because he’s swallowing somehow.

Does it mean there’s a law that the measurer should be careful not to go further than the boundary ever, because people indeed see him. It indeed says on his vest “boundary measurer”. One saw him there, one will think that there is the Shabbos boundary, meanwhile he’s swallowing, it’s not truly the Shabbos boundary there. One tells him, you shouldn’t do this, you should be careful that people shouldn’t make the mistake about you.

Law: On whom one can rely with the measurement

Speaker 1: Already, the Rambam says further… So, since we haven’t understood any letter ches, what we have now learned, comes the next law and helps us and says, indeed one should be careful about us. Do we rely? Current times, the measurers look at Google Maps. They’re not seen. Well good. What do you know? Can one rely on Google Maps? Already seen? Do we rely? On whom can one rely with the measurement? What happens when one doesn’t know who measured and the like? So, one only relies on the measurement of an expert person who knows the measurements of the land. One relies only on a person who is an expert who knows the measurements of the land. How does he know it? Because he learned the Rambam’s until now. He knows how to swallow, he knows how to receive, he knows all the tricks.

Discussion: What does expert mean – geometry or laws?

Speaker 1: It’s very interesting, he brings from below that the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah wrote, expert means he knows “geometry”. I don’t know, “geometry”, the wisdom, originally, as I understand, “geo” means earth, like “geography”, and “metry” means simply measuring. “Geometry” is the wisdom of measuring the land. There are indeed various calculations, and one must know “meta”, basically “geometry”, how to measure correctly. So the Rambam learned that expert means he knows “geometry”.

He brings that the Mishnah Berurah added that he must know the laws. But it could be, in my opinion, that all these laws are only for one who doesn’t know any “geometry”. So if you clearly know how to calculate, like you said “Google Maps”, you can rely on that. These are all laws for approximations, it’s all approximate, how one calculates because there are problems.

Speaker 2: No, that’s not a contradiction. The Mishnah Berurah means to say, he must know precisely what he’s seeking to measure. He must know what happens if it’s more or less a valley, or… But it could be that the entire problem of a valley is a “geometry” problem.

Speaker 1: Yes, but it was indeed, that if it’s wider than four thousand, then one must indeed calculate it. There are certain laws.

Speaker 2: Let’s understand, let’s understand! Daniel, you mean from the squares. Squares is not “geometry”, squares is laws. But the measuring is all the wisdom of measurement. What we’ve learned until now is advice that the Gemara and the Mishnah had how to measure. But if someone has another advice… That means, one must know the law too. As you say, one goes to, one goes to, one goes with the slope or not, such kinds of things. But it seems, one can think that all these laws are essentially “geometry”. It’s not leniencies and stringencies that one must know.

Speaker 1: So when you say one can check “Google Maps”, one must know whether “Google Maps” knows the laws, he must know how to deal with valleys and mountains.

Speaker 2: No, one doesn’t need to know. That I say, one doesn’t need to know. Perhaps he’s too stringent, perhaps he gives you the entire long stretch of the mountain up and down.

Speaker 1: No, on the contrary. You say you know that not, but I say… if someone wants to know precisely, let’s know in that place, there isn’t something one… let’s say, I already know what Google Maps does, but let’s say… it matters if one asks him the way up, I don’t know, but let’s say Google Maps or whatever is today’s wisdom of the… surveying is called today, yes? He has solved the problem, he already knows what one does, one can already rely on him. He must have certain advice what one does, if one doesn’t use the rope of the Temple, one doesn’t use that rope, there’s indeed a way of figuring out, do you understand what I’m saying?

I don’t know, for example, because Google Maps, when you put in walking, you go indeed… you go indeed straight in the tread, how much it is actually to walk, you go indeed too stringent. And I’m not talking about that. Ah, if there’s someone who writes that so much so much amos there is from this city, that city. Sorry, I’m playing too much. Anyways.

Trustworthiness – not a law of testimony

Speaker 1: Be agents. It’s not only that it must be a Jew, or anything. It’s not a law of trustworthiness regarding Shabbos, rather a trustworthiness that it’s an expert who knows what it does. It’s interesting, and one must look into this topic of what it brings. I am about the expert, so the Rambam’s dispute the Rambam is difficult about the expert, does expert mean expert in measurements of the land or expert in law. It’s very interesting. It could be, when it says here expert, one means only about the measuring. Afterwards, they ask the rabbi, how one should make the squares. It’s different parts of the topics. They know.

Law: Presumption of the boundary against an expert

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, what happens in such a case? The Shabbos boundary was established. It was publicized in the city, that thus is the Shabbos boundary. An expert measurer came… An expert measurer came afterwards. And in practice it turns out, he changed the accepted tradition, the boundary from them. He said that, ah, one can go more, or the boundary from them. Now the question is on whom to trust? Does one trust the old presumption, or does one trust the expertise? The Rambam, a guardian not in the boundary wrote? We take only stringently, that there he said that it’s larger… ah, ah, the boundary from them… not the boundary from them means, he said that the boundary is larger than one thought.

Speaker 2: Yes, he made it larger than one thought. Stringently and sometimes in the community, because it’s the thousand amos the room built, it seems. It will perhaps be a doubt, and one will be lenient in it. It’s a… one doesn’t say that the presumption is so strong.

Speaker 1: Seemingly, one accepts two experts, experts of the boundary, that two experts came, he says that it’s a dispute, he brings that one also relies on elderly people, I don’t know why he says so.

Law: Increased the boundary – expert who increases the boundary

Ah, increased the boundary means he said that the boundary is larger than one thought? Yes, yes, he made it larger than one thought. It’s stringently and sometimes leniently, because there’s sometimes a custom of the public thus Tosafos, it will perhaps be a doubt and one will be lenient on this. One doesn’t say that the presumption is so strong.

And so if two experts came to measure the boundary, that two experts came, he says that it’s puzzling, he brings that one relies, I don’t know why he says so, he says so, he says even leniently but also stringently, I don’t know. Ah, wrote in the boundary of the addition means to say that even in the boundary of the addition one can rely on him. Yes, one will see the language, I don’t understand, one should say there in the boundary of the addition, I don’t know, it’s very weird. How can the Rambam write one thing and we say that no, one must understand the opposite of what it says? I don’t agree with this way of learning.

Explanation: Expert against presumption – leniently in both ways

It will be understood that the point here is that the expert (mumcheh) is stronger than the established practice (chazakah). Perhaps not, perhaps the expert is only good to be lenient? I mean, we accept leniently (lekula) in both ways. That’s what it looks like to be lenient. Look what the Rambam says next, look, “And similarly if two experts came to measure the boundary, one says thus and one says thus”, whom do we listen to? “We listen to the one who enlarges”. You see clearly that we go to the one who enlarges (marbeh), not to the one who diminishes (mema’et). So what should one say otherwise? It is seemingly like a chazakah, here the chazakah is like a chazakah is one expert, and the expert is another expert, we need another one leniently. Seemingly the chazakah also came from a previous expert who once measured. We had the law that we only rely on a custom (minhag), that we say that if the city has a custom here, we must assume that there was once an expert who measured.

Law: But He Should Not Enlarge More Than the Diagonal Measure of the City

“But he should not enlarge more than the diagonal measure of the city”. This is allowed, there is a measure how much we are lenient according to, that is against the chazakah, how much can be lenient according to the expert? It should not be lenient more than the entire diagonal of the city. He will now say what this is, the Rambam explains, the diagonal of the city (alkhsunah shel ir), the diagonal of the city. He explains the case. At the time of this writing, when the expert made the city larger, it already said that the Shabbos boundary (techum Shabbos) is actually larger than was thought. But, we say thus: “Perhaps the first one” we think thus, perhaps the first person who measured, perhaps “measured two thousand from the corner of the city’s diagonal”, perhaps he calculated from the corner of the city’s diagonal.

Explanation: Why Measuring from the Diagonal Makes a Smaller Boundary

“Therefore his measurements were diminished, and the side of the boundary is found to be less than two thousand”. Yes, it’s very simple. I’ll tell you a rule, when you go by the diagonal, by the corner, it’s less, right? It could be the person calculated from there, it comes out… no, it must be… yes? He made a mistake. Actually, the way how one must calculate, one must calculate straight, from the… not from the diagonal. Yes, look at the picture, yes? This is my new picture. How must one calculate? One must calculate from here, yes? Two thousand. But if he calculated from here, it comes out that it should be two thousand, it will be less than two thousand here, right? Right?

“And this other one measures two thousand from the side of the city”, that is not from the diagonal, but from the side (tzela), from the side. “And upon what the first ones established they add more”, that is more than they held, that is enlarging (marbeh) like the measure of the city’s diagonal, as much as this is actually greater from the… when one would go straight, right? “Therefore Rabbi Zeira said the latter one may add even approximately five hundred and eighty”, because five hundred is the difference of the diagonal, the difference between diagonal and not diagonal.

“And these go out in peace with these”, because we assume that the previous expert wasn’t completely crazy. It’s very clear, we see here clearly that the law for an expert doesn’t speak of complicated squares with things, we’re speaking of a simple thing, the question of measurement, how far is it? No, it’s a basic question, how far is it now from the city? You can say, that one simply calculated wrong from the corner, from the corner it comes out too small when one calculates from the corner. Okay.

Law: Trustworthiness Regarding Techum Shabbos – Slave, Maidservant, Adult About His Childhood

Another law of relying on what the previous one whom we can believe said, yes. The Rambam says that even a slave, even a maidservant, have trustworthiness (ne’emanus) to say “until here is the Shabbos boundary”. To say (lomar) doesn’t mean that they are the measurers, but they say that they remember that this is the… that is that the measurers, an expert stood and they encountered even a non-Jew according to Rabbi Meir. Here we’re speaking about trustworthiness that we already know, they say that it was once measured. The Rambam will say that these are all leniencies (kulos) from the Sages.

One may even take an adult to say, a person who is an adult has trustworthiness to say thus, “I remember”, I remember, “that until here we would come on Shabbos when I was a minor”. When I was small it was always known that one may go until here. Because he is now an adult, we believe him even though he believes in something that he says about childhood years. Because if it were Torah law, an adult is not believed to say what he saw in his childhood. But rabbinically (miderabbanan), such things, yes.

Principle: The Sages Did Not Say This Matter to Be Stringent But to Be Lenient

“And we rely on this testimony in this matter, because the Sages did not say in this matter to be stringent but to be lenient”. The Sages said to be lenient in the measure of techum Shabbos, and this is an oral measure with the rabbinic Sages, because we were lenient. So all these leniencies are because of this, because seemingly I can think that all these… the entire chapter is actually leniencies which are rabbinic. I don’t know if it goes exactly on this, but the “the Sages said to be stringent but to be lenient” means that all these things are leniencies, why? Because it’s actually an oral measure with the rabbinic Sages.

Practical Difference: If It Were the Measure of Twelve Mil

According to this you’re right, that seemingly if it were a question of the measure of twelve mil, it’s clear that it’s a concern, because it’s forbidden to travel. Then we would indeed be stringent. That is, we would say that if the one who enlarges must enlarge, it would come out to cut what he may. I don’t say that it’s possible, a huge area, such a huge strip, I don’t know. Yes, I think perhaps…

End of Chapter Twenty-Eight

Okay, until here, chapter twenty-eight. We already know how to calculate the boundary of rest (techum menuchah). But we don’t know, because we are not experts. But anyway.