Siman - Eruvin Daf 60
- Excluding from the eruv an area that is not open to the city
The residents of Kakunaei asked Rav Yosef to give them someone to arrange an eruv for their town, which Rashi explains was a public town that had become private. Rav Yosef sent Abaye and told him to make sure that what he does is not complained about in the Beis Midrash. Abaye went and saw some houses that opened towards the river which ran along the city, but the houses had no opening to the city, and he wanted to make them the excluded section necessary in order to make an eruv for the city. He then reconsidered because he thought perhaps only a section that could join the city could be used as the excluded area. After going back and forth in his analysis, he finally concluded that even houses that could not join the eruv could be used as the excluded section, based on Mar bar Pophidasa from Pumbedisa who designated an inhabited storehouse of straw as his excluded section, despite the fact that a storehouse is not a place of residence that it should require an eruv.
- A city with just 50 inhabitants
In the Mishna on 59a Rebbe Yehuda said that the area that needs to be excluded from the eruv is an area the size of the town of Chadashah, that only had fifty inhabitants. The Gemara asks if a town the size of Chadashah that is not adjacent to a larger town requires setting aside an area to be excluded from its eruv. Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah disagreed. חד אמר בעיא שיור וחד אמר לא בעיא שיור – One says it requires an excluded section and one says that it does not require an excluded section.
- מה שנשכר הוא מפסיד
The next Mishnah states that if one placed his eruv even one amah beyond the techum, מה שנשכר הוא מפסיד – what he gains in the direction of his eruv, he loses in the opposite direction. The Gemara challenges this based on a Baraisa that teaches that if one placed his eruv even one amah beyond the extension of the techum, משתכר אותה אמה – he gains that amah, ומפסיד את כל העיר כולה – and he loses the entire width of the town in the opposite direction, מפני שמדת העיר עולה לו במדת התחום – because the measure of the town counts towards the measurement of the techum. This contradicts our Mishnah which stated that he loses in one direction only what he gained in the other.
The Gemara answers that the Baraisa and Mishnah are referring to different cases. The Baraisa is discussing a case in which his two thousand amah measure ended in the middle of the town. Therefore, the town counts fully towards the techum measure. The Mishnah was referring to a case where his two thousand amah measure ended at the end of the town or beyond, in which case the town only counts for four amos and he may resume measuring his techum beyond the end of the town.
