Daf Ditty Eruvin 59/Ginossar

1
MISHNA: One may measure the Shabbat limit only with an expert surveyor. If it is discovered
that the surveyor extended the limit in one place and reduced it in another place, so that the
line marking the Shabbat limit is not straight, one accepts the measurement of the place where
he extended the limit and straightens the limit accordingly. Similarly, if the surveyor extended
the limit for one and reduced it for another, one accepts the extended measurement.

RASHI

..an expert in measurements..(surveyor)

2
And furthermore, even a gentile slave and even a gentile maidservant, whose testimonies are
generally considered unreliable, are trustworthy to say: The Shabbat limit extended until here;
as the Sages did not state the matter, the laws of Shabbat limits, to be stringent, but rather to
be lenient. The prohibition to walk more than two thousand cubits is rabbinic in origin and is
therefore interpreted leniently.

3
Tosafos

‫ת וס פ ות ד " ה א ין מ ו ד ד ין א ל א מ ן ה מ ו מ ח ה‬

Tosfos explains that this is the straight path.

(‫פי' ר''ח דרך ישרה ומכוונת כנגד העיר ומומחה מלשון ומחה על כתף ים כנרת )במדבר לד‬

Explanation (R. Chananel):

,‫יא ְוָיַרד ַהְגֻּבל ִמְשָּׁפם ָה ִרְבָלה‬ 11 and the border shall go down from Shepham to Riblah, on
‫ וָּמָחה‬,‫ִמֶקֶּדם ָלָﬠ ִין; ְוָיַרד ַהְגֻּבל‬ the east side of Ain; and the border shall go down, and shall
.‫ִכֶּנֶּרת ֵקְדָמה‬-‫ֶכֶּתף ָים‬-‫ַﬠל‬ strike upon the slope of the sea of Chinnereth eastward;
Num 34:11

4
This is the straight way towards the city. "Mumcheh" is an expression of "u'Machah Al Kesef
Yam Kineres"

A town in the extreme Northwest corner of Canaan, so named, most probably, from a noted spring
in the vicinity (Numbers 34:11). Thomson and after him Robinson make Ain the same as `Ain el-
`Asy, the chief source of the Orontes, some fifteen miles Southwest of Riblah, which, in turn, is
about twenty miles Southwest of Emesa (Hums). As Ain is named in connection with Lake
Gennesaret, some claim that Riblah of Numbers 34:11 must be another place farther South and
closer to that lake.

‫שלא ילך לצדי העיר למדוד שם אלפים לפי שפעמים יש שם קרקע חלקה ונוח למדוד ואחרי כן יהיה צופה ובא לו כנגד‬
‫העיר וצופה כנגד מידתו‬

5
One should not go to the sides of the city to measure there 2000, for sometimes there is there
smooth land and it is easy to measure, and afterwards he will look and come opposite the city, and
look even with his measure [of the Techum];

:‫אין לו לעשות כן משום דפעמים יש כנגד העיר הרים וגאיות שיש לו להבליע או לקדר‬

He should not do so, for sometimes there are mountains and valleys opposite the city that he
should swallow or be Mekader.

Summary

The techum of a city is measured only by an expert (surveyor).

If one extended the limit at one point more than at another (for the boundary is measured twice on
each side of the city – once from each corner), the extended limit is observed. [Since the measuring
rope must be stretched to its utmost capacity so as to cover the maximum length possible, it is
assumed that the deficiency in the lesser limit is due to all insufficient stretching of the rope.]

If there was a greater distance for one and a lesser distance for another, the greater distance is
observed.

Furthermore, even a male slave and even a female slave are believed when they say, “This far is
the Shabbos limit,” since the Sages did not enact the law in order to be strict, but in order to be
lenient.

If the same person clearly measured the techum in a way where it is clear that he made two different
measurements, we go by the more lenient of the two measurements.

If an expert measurer did two different measurements, and in one place it is clear that his
measurement would mean that a different place should have a more lenient measurement, we say
that the more lenient measurement may be followed.

This is because we are lenient in doubts regarding techum Shabbos.

If two different surveyors gave two different measurements, we follow the lenient measurement.

If two expert surveyors ended up with two different measurements, one is allowed to follow the
lenient measurement. This is as long as it is possible that the expert who was stringent either
measured slightly differently with his rope, or did not take something into account that may have
caused his mistake.

6
MISHNA: Although this chapter as a whole deals with halakhot governing the joining of Shabbat
boundaries, this mishna returns to the halakhot governing a joining of courtyards. If a private city,
which does not have many residents, grows and becomes a heavily populated public city, one
may establish a joining of the courtyards for all of it, as long as it does not include a public
domain as defined by Torah law.

And if a public city loses residents over time and becomes a private city, one may not establish
an eiruv for all of it unless one maintains an area outside the eiruv that is like the size of the
city of Ḥadasha in Judea, which has fifty residents. Carrying within the eiruv is permitted, but
it remains prohibited to carry in the area excluded from the eiruv. The reason for this requirement
is to ensure that the laws of eiruv will not be forgotten. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
Rabbi Shimon says: The excluded area need not be so large; rather, it is sufficient to exclude
three courtyards with two houses each.

7
And if a public city loses residents over time and becomes a private city, one may not establish
an eiruv for all of it unless one maintains an area outside the eiruv that is like the size of the
city of Ḥadasha in Judea, which has fifty residents. Carrying within the eiruv is permitted, but
it remains prohibited to carry in the area excluded from the eiruv. The reason for this requirement
is to ensure that the laws of eiruv will not be forgotten. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
Rabbi Shimon says: The excluded area need not be so large; rather, it is sufficient to exclude
three courtyards with two houses each.

A private city that grew to a population of 600,000 people still can have a citywide Eruv
It may have an Eruv provided that it does not have a street that is sixteen Amos wide (according
to Rashi).

RASHI

8
A public city that decreased to less than 600,000 people may not make a citywide Eruv
It may not make an Eruv unless it leaves part of the city out of the Eruv, since there is a possibility
that it will revert back to the type of city which cannot have an Eruv.

Tosafos

‫תוספות ד"ה עיר של יחיד‬

Tosfos explains that 600,000 people do not pass through every day.

‫פי' בקונט' שלא נכנסין בו תמיד ס' רבוא ולא חשיב רה''ר דלא דמי לדגלי מדבר‬
(Rashi): There do not enter there 600,000 every day. It is not considered Reshus ha'Rabim, for it
is unlike the encampment in the Midbar.

‫ונעשית של רבים שניתוספו בה דיורין או נקבעו שווקין אז מערבין את כולה כבתחלתה ואין מבואותיה צריכין תיקון‬
‫שהרי היא כחצר אחת כגון שאין בה רה''ר גמורה של ט''ז אמה‬

9
It became of Rabim, i.e. residents were added, or they fixed markets. Then we are Me'arev all of
it like initially. The Mavo'os do not need a Tikun, for they are like one Chatzer, e.g. there is no
total Reshus ha'Rabim of 16 Amos;

‫ואם יש בה מפרש בגמרא תקנתא לרה''ר שבתוכה‬

If there is [a total Reshus ha'Rabim] in it, the Gemara explains the Tikun for it.

‫ע''כ לשון הקונטרס והדין עמו דודאי מתני' לא איירי ברה''ר גמורה מדלא קתני ורה''ר עוברת בתוכה כדקתני בברייתא‬
‫בגמרא‬

Support: All of this is from Rashi. He is correct. Surely our Mishnah does not discuss a total Reshus
ha'Rabim, since it did not teach "Reshus ha'Rabim passes through it", like the Beraisa in the
Gemara taught;

‫ואתיא מתני' נמי כרבנן דלית להו תקנתא דר' יהודה לערב רה''ר‬Our Mishnah is even like Rabanan, who
argue with R. Yehudah's Tikun to be Me'arev Reshus ha'Rabim.

‫ומיהו בגמרא נמי לא איירי ברחב ט''ז אמה דטפי מי''ג אמה ושליש לא הוי שרי ר' יהודה בלחי וקורה כדפירשנו בפ''ק‬
‫( אלא י''ל ורה''ר עוברת בתוכה שאינו רחב ט''ז אמה‬:‫)דף ו‬

However, also [the Beraisa] in the Gemara does not discuss when it is 16 Amos wide, for R.
Yehudah would not permit more than 13 and a third Amos through a Lechi or Korah [on each
side], like we explained above (6b). Rather, we can say that a Reshus ha'Rabim that is not 16 Amos
wide passes through it;

‫אלא יש רה''ר רחב ט''ז אמה מכאן ומכאן ובוקעין דרך העיר מזו לזו והוי רה''ר אף לתוכה דליכא ט''ז אמה כמו בין‬
(:‫( כדפירשנו בפ''ק )דף ו‬.‫העמודין דפ''ק דשבת )דף ז‬

Rather, there is Reshus ha'Rabim 16 Amos wide on each side, and people go through the city from
this [Reshus ha'Rabim] to the other, and even inside [the city] is Reshus ha'Rabim, where there are
not 16 Amos, like between the pillars in Shabbos (7a), like I explained above (6b).

[This Mishna deals with shitufei mevo’os - a device that allows carrying between a courtyard and
a mavoi, which is accomplished by the courtyards mutual contribution of food.]

If a city that belonged to an individual was converted into one belonging to many, one eiruv may
be provided for the entire city, but if a city belonged to many, and was converted into one belonging
to an individual, no single eiruv may be provided for the entire city, unless a section of it of the
size of the town of Chadashah in Judea, which contains fifty residents, is excluded; these are the
words of Rabbi Yehudah.

Rabbi Shimon said: Three courtyards, each of which contained two houses (is sufficient). The
Gemora cites a braisa: If a city belonging to an individual was converted into one belonging to
many, and a public domain passed through it, how is an eiruv to be provided for it?

10
A lechi (sidepost) or a korah (crossbeam) is fixed on either side (where the street enters and leaves
the city), and thereby one is enabled to carry things about in the space between them.

[This applies only to a city that had no wall surrounding it, so that the two ends of the public
domain terminated in the open country.Therefore it is only in the case of a town that was originally
in private ownership that the adjustments mentioned are sufficient. In the case of one that always
belonged to the public, such adjustments are invalid, and all the city’s alleys are subject to
restrictions similar to those of the public domain, for it is easily confused with an ordinary public
domain.]

No eiruv, however, may be provided for a half of it, but either one eiruv for all of it, or one eiruv
for each mavoi (alley) separately. If a city did, and still does belong to many, but had only one
gate, a single eiruv suffices for all of it.

Leniencies by Techum

The Gemora quoted above gives two cases where we have two possible measurements to follow
regarding the techum of a city. In both cases, we rule that one may follow the lenient measurement.
The Ritva points out the novelty of this ruling.

It is true that we say that in a case where there is a doubt in Rabbinic law, one is allowed to be
lenient. However, when one has the ability to check whether the law is one way or the other, he
must do so and not be lenient, even in Rabbinic law. The Ritva explains that when our Gemora
says that we are lenient in techumin, it means that being that it is difficult to measure the techum
again, one is allowed to rely on the lenient opinion and does not have to commission another
measuring of the techum.

Private Cities, Public Cities1

1
Daf Digest

11
The Definition of a Private City (‫)יחיד של עיר‬

1. Rashi — does not have 600,000 residents.

2. Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, Ba'al HaMa'or — belongs to an individual (even if it has 600,000
residents.)

The Definition of a Private City that became a Public City (‫)רבים של עשית‬

1. Ramban — built by an individual for himself; the population either live in the city by the
grace of the owner who, at most, sold them the houses, but retained ownership of streets and
highways.
2. Ritva — built by an individual, but thereupon sold by him to the population — however, the
population still pays taxes to the original owner.
3. Ba'al HaMa'or — same as Ramban; however, the population pays rent and thus has a share in
the city.
4. Rashba — same as Ritva; however, the owner has no financial or governmental relationship to
the city — he is no longer owner thereof — it is merely known as "So-and-so's City."
5. Rashi — the city has acquired 600,000 residents, but does not contain a Reshus HaRabbim.

Definitions 1 & 5 preclude the presence of a Reshus HaRabbim in this city. Definitions 2, 3 & 4
allow for such a possibility.

Eiruv Status of a Public City vs. a Private City

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

The Mishna on today’s daf returns us to the question of eiruvei hatzeirot and teaches that a city
which once belonged to an individual but became a public city can still have a single eiruv to
permit carrying in the city, as it is still perceived as a single hatzer (courtyard). If, on the other
hand, a city that once was public became a private city, a single eiruv cannot be made unless an
area is left outside the eiruv, so that the rules of eiruv will not be forgotten.

There are a number of explanations of what constitutes a private city. According to Rashi, it means
that there are not 600,000 residents, so it is not a reshut ha-rabim, a public domain. (According to
Rashi, in order to be considered a reshut ha-rabimthe city needs to be similar in number to the
encampment of the Israelites in the desert.)

The Mishna teaches that even when the number of residents reaches 600,000, the
original eiruv will still be valid. The Rashba and Ritva understand that the city was actually owned
by a single individual who leased space to others. Even if it is sold later on to a number of people,
its original status as a private city gives it a unique status.

The discussion of eiruv hatzeirot in our Mishna appears to be out of place in our chapter, whose
focus is eiruvei tehumim. This halakha really belongs in one of the earlier chapters of Massekhet

2
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/eiruvin59/

12
Eiruvin. One suggestion is that this is a segue from the previous Mishna (58b), which taught that
we can trust the memory of local people – even a slave or maid-servant – to testify how far
the tehum Shabbat was outside the city. In our case, as well, the power of memory plays a role in
establishing the city as either public or private, and that memory carries weight in halakha, even
if the situation has changed.

Rashi defines a private town as one that does not have 600,000 people entering all the time. It is
not considered a reshus harabim because it is not similar to the encampment of the Jews in the
desert.

Rav Moshe Feinstein, ‫זצ"ל‬, draws a number of important conclusions regarding the definition of
a reshus harabim from Rashi’s language. From Rashi’s wording, “one that does not have 600,000
people entering all the time,” R’ Moshe writes (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:#87) that according to the
opinion that requires 600,000 people to be defined as a reshus harabim the ones passing through
do not have to be residents of the city.

It is sufficient if there are 600,000 people who enter the city even if they do not live there.
Another point (ibid. O.C. 1:#139, and 4:#87) is that Rashi does not indicate that the 600,000 people
have to be present on the same street at the same time. All that is necessary is for there to be
600,000 people present in the entire area of the town.

An additional issue is whether the calculation of 600,000 people is based upon the people in the
streets, or perhaps it even includes those who are in their homes. R’ Moshe suggests that the logical
conclusion is that the number does not include the people in their homes.

The reason is because the number 600,000, which is based upon the encampment of the Jews in
the desert, only takes into account the males above the age of twenty. If one were to include the
women and children, there would four or five times that amount.

When Chazal established the number 600,000 it must have been based on the assumption that at
any given time there were 600,000 people outside of their tents and in the streets of the
encampment.

Therefore, when calculating the number of people in a city to determine whether it is a reshus
harabim only those in the streets are counted.

13
“Private Cities”
Our Gemara discusses the case of a “private” city that becomes a “public” city. Rambam’s opinion
is that a “private” city is one that is owned by an individual.
In other words, all of the residents of the city pay rent to the owner and they do not have any
ownership of even the streets. If everyone has an equal share of the streets it is considered a
“public” city.

Ritva writes that according to this definition, if a city has a ruler

and the residents pay him taxes it is categorized as a “public” city since the streets and alleyways
belong to the public and the king may not build on those streets or ruin them in any way.

Beis Ephraim
contends that in countries that are ruled and controlled by a king who has the right of eminent
domain to build or destroy roads at will, his entire kingdom is categorized as a “private” city.
Accordingly, even if he happens to build roads that are more than sixteen amos wide which,
according to some opinions, renders it a public domain, since the area is “privately” owned it
cannot be categorized as a public domain.

Avnei Nezer also distinguished between

countries in which the king is merely the figurehead who oversees what happens but has advisors
that are empowered to make decisions that affect the citizens and those places where the king is
the sole ruler who has unlimited power. In those places where the king does not have actual power
and does not own the land the streets can qualify as a public domain.

In contrast, those places where the king does possess exclusive power the streets are privately
owned and as such cannot be categorized as a public domain.

Others reject this position and contend that even if

technically a place is “privately” owned if people frequently travel in that area it is considered a
public domain.

Loopholes

R.Abby Sosland writes:3

Rabbinic law must strike a balance between leniencies and stringencies, between necessary
religious limits and a certain permissiveness that enables observant Jews to live reasonable lives.
And the eruv is a perfect example of that balance. An eruv allows a somewhat freer observance of

3
Myjewishlearning.com

14
Shabbat, but it is predicated on a highly restrictive law that considers carrying even a small item
in public on Shabbat to be forbidden labor. Even as the rabbis entertain various ways to ease the
burden of such laws, they are mindful to uphold the strictures of the law itself.

An example of this is found in the mishnah on today’s daf, which describes a scenario in which a
town loses its residents and becomes a private town. Think of a small neighborhood that might be
bought and owned by its residents. The mishnah teaches:

If a public city loses residents over time and becomes a private city, one may not establish an
eruv for all of it unless one maintains an area outside the eruv that is like the size of the city of
Ḥadasha in Judea, which has 50 residents.

According to the mishnah, a city that becomes private cannot encircle its entire area with an eruv
unless it leaves an area equivalent in size to the city of Hadasha outside the eruv. Why? According
to Rashi, leaving a part of a town uncovered by the eruv serves an important public education
function. One day the city could become a larger public one again and we wouldn't want people to
forget the rules of eruv. Leaving a small area uncovered by the eruv ensures that people will notice
that the whole reason they are permitted to carry at all is because of the eruv.

No wonder the name of the town the mishnah cites is Hadasha, which means “new.” With a part
of the town uncovered by the eruv, the laws of eruv will always remain a new and fresh topic of
conversation.

This kind of thing is actually still done today. Once a year, the community of Elizabeth, New
Jersey, declares its eruv to be inoperative, a custom initiated by Rabbi Pinchas Teitz to educate
the community about the general rule that carrying is forbidden on Shabbat. Otherwise, people

15
raised in Elizabeth carrying within the eruv on Shabbat might not realize that this action is
permitted only because of the eruv.

In other words, loopholes only work if we still remember the original law it was before the
loophole. The eruv only works as a way of expanding Jewish law if we live by Jewish law in the
first place. Our mishnah reminds us that sometimes it pays to leave a little room for Jews to
remember both the leniency and the stringency, the expansiveness and the limitation. It is right in
the middle of that balance that meaningful religious life can be found.

Determination of a reshut ha-rabbim4

Rabbi Hershel Schachter writes:

How does one decide whether any given area is biblically considered a “public domain”?
The gemara derived the 39 melahot (principal categories of labor) prohibited on Shabbat from the
significant activities done in the construction of the mishkan (Tabernacle) in the desert.
The gemara implicitly assumed that the transportation of the mishkan was also included in the
mitzvah of constructing the mishkan. Therefore, the details of the prohibition
against carrying on Shabbat can be derived from how the mishkan was transported in the desert.
The wagons containing the parts of the mishkan could only have traveled on streets with a
minimum width of 16 ammot; thus in order for any area to be considered a “public domain” it must
include a street at least 16 ammot wide(Shabbes 99a). However, in practice, this definition doesn’t
help very much since in almost all places where an eruv is desired, the streets are wider than
16 ammot.

One of the potential considerations in determining whether a particular area is a reshut ha-
rabbim is the size of its population. Again, this criterion is based on the derivation of the laws of
carrying on Shabbat from the transportation of the mishkan in the desert. Rashi and Tosafot wrote
that just like there were 600,000 people in the Jewish camp in the desert, the definition of a public
domain for the purposes of the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat requires a minimum population
of 600,000.]5 There is a dispute as to whom is included in the count of population when
determining the status of an area. The opinions range between counting all residents, counting all
people who roam the streets of the area, and counting just the people who walk on a particular
street.6 Based on this assumption, many communities in Eastern Europe relied on a local eruv,

4
https://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Introduction_to_the_Modern_Eruv#Determination_of_a_reshut_ha-rabbim
5
The discussion of the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot as well as the dissenting opinions can be found in Tur and Shulhan
Arukh Orah Hayyim 345:7. In the Torah’s census of the Jewish people, there were found to be slightly over 600,000 men
between the ages of 20 and 60. While this number does not include women, children, elderly, and converts,
Tosafot (Eruvin 6a s.v. keitzad) concluded that we can only define a “public domain” based on a number that the Torah
states explicitly.
6
Mishna Brurah 345:24, R. Moshe Feinstein in Iggerot Moshe Orah Hayyim 1:139.

16
considering their small villages and towns to be a makom patur (and not a “public domain”) on a
biblical level.

Ramban (Eruvin 59a) our daf, explained that the opinion of Tosafot which required a minimum
population of 600,000 is limited to streets within a city. For a local street within the city to be
considered public, it requires a certain level of usage. In contrast, a highway from one city to
another, wrote Ramban, is automatically considered a public domain even without any minimum
population simply by its definition as a major public road. It is possible to suggest that Ramban
actually defined the biblical reshut ha-rabbim as a highway, and he viewed all of the guidelines
about determining whether a given area is a reshut ha-rabbim as a test of whether it is sufficiently
similar to a highway or not.

Some rabbis felt that this approach of Rashi and Tosafot in defining a public domain was well-
accepted and served as a basis for the modern eruv.7 Others, however, argued that
many rishonim (medieval rabbinic authorities) disregarded the idea of Rashi and Tosafot and
assumed that there was no minimum population for an area to be considered a reshut ha-
rabbim.8 Therefore, other suggestions were offered in order to explain the basis for local eruvin in
Eastern Europe. The Arukh HaShulhan interpreted a passage in the Yerushalmi to mean that a
“public domain” is defined as a street that is known to be the main street of the town. If there are
multiple main streets in town, however, no one of them can be identified as a reshut ha-rabbim.
Accordingly, the larger the city, the more likely it would be for the multiplicity of streets to cause
there to be no particular main street.9 Yet, the inference of the Arukh HaShulhan has traditionally
been considered counter-intuitive and has not been accepted.

Another approach to defend the practice of local eruvin in Eastern Europe was that of Rabbi
Shlomo Dovid Kahana. Rabbi Kahana wrote that a reshut ha-rabbim needs to be a street that
passes from one end of the city to the other without making any significant turns (mefulash). If,
however, the main street turns at a right angle or comes to a dead end, the area is considered
a makom patur on a biblical level. Using this same approach, it is again the case that the larger the
city the more likely it is to be a makom patur because of the increased likelihood that there will
not be any streets which pass straight through the city. While Rav Moshe Feinstein disagreed with
this leniency, Rav Moshe’s own original interpretation of this requirement (mefulash) is not
generally accepted.10

It seems reasonable to propose, based on the Ramban mentioned earlier, that a highway that passes
through a city is automatically considered a “public domain” by its definition as a public road.
Therefore, a highway is not subject to the criterion of passing straight through the city in order to

7
Taz Orah Hayyim 345:6, Arukh ha-Shulhan Orah Hayyim 345:18
8
Mishkenot Yaʻakov Orah Hayyim 120.
9
Arukh ha-Shulhan Orah Hayyim 345:19-25.
10
Rav Moshe Feinstein in Iggerot Moshe Orah Hayyim 5:28:6 understood the requirement of having a main street pass from
one end of the city to the other as referring to the fact that every part of the street needs to have the dimensions of a public
alleyway. He assumed that if one section was roofed or narrower than 16 ammot wide, the entire street could not be
considered as “a public domain.” See also Iggerot Moshe Orah Hayyim 140.

17
be considered a “public domain.” Whereas intracity streets are not considered “public” if they turn
or come to a dead end, highways are “public” by definition, irrespective of whether they twist or
turn.

The Hazon Ish’s model of a citywide eruv

The last major approach to explain how a large city could not be considered a biblical reshut ha-
rabbim was elucidated by the Hazon Ish.11 The gemara establishes that a border which is made up
of a number of walls with gaps between them can be considered one long wall if the combined
length of its gaps is less than the combined length of the standing walls. This rule is limited to
cases in which each gap is less than 10 ammot in length; a wall with gaps greater than 10 ammot is
not considered to be an effective border. While the Mishkenot Yaʻakov interpreted this to mean
that a wall which has gaps greater than 10 ammot is not considered a “wall” even on a biblical
level, the generally accepted view is that of the Beit Efrayim who argued that this would be an
effective border on a biblical level, and is only invalid rabbinically.12

In major cities such as New York City, it is quite common to have buildings line both sides of the
streets without any gaps between buildings, creating a “border” of sorts. Even if each cross street
creates a gap in the continuity of the buildings, the majority of such a border would be standing
walls and would only have a minority of gaps. Any street that has such buildings on both of its
sides can be considered enclosed by two walls on a biblical level, since the buildings form a wall
with the majority standing. Lastly, if such a street comes to a dead end where it is met by another
wall of buildings, it would then be enclosed by three walls which would make it a biblical reshut
ha-yahid!

11
Hazon Ish Orah Hayyim 107:7. Most of his approach is clearly based on the gemaraand earlier rabbis. However, this
approach is nonetheless attributed to the Hazon Ishbecause one aspect of his understanding was at odds with that of Rav
Moshe Feinstein. See further in Be-Ikvei ha-Tzon, Siman 13:5.
12
Mishkenot Yaʻakov Orah Hayyim 121, Beit Efrayim Orah Hayyim 25.

18
Hazon Ish Diagram All diagrams are aerial views. Street A, which comes to a dead end and is
lined with buildings on both of its sides, can be considered a biblical reshut ha-yahid because both
its sides have a border made up of a majority of standing walls. The Hazon Ish would then proceed
to explain that the imaginary lines drawn to complete the closure of Street A serve as a third
partition for Streets B, C, and D which would then also become biblical “private domains.”

Before expanding this proposition, let us analyze one of our basic assumptions that the buildings
that line the streets can serve as a wall for an eruv. The gemara states that a mehitzah (partition)
can serve as a wall for an eruv even if it was not originally intended to be used as an eruv wall
when it was constructed. Therefore, the Hazon Ish presumed that the buildings which lined the
streets could serve as an eruv wall to enclose the street. R. Moshe Feinstein, however, found it
difficult to view the walls of a building as a partition that would enclose the street, since they were
originally constructed for the purpose of enclosing the inner part of the building and never
functioned as a border of the street. Nonetheless, the gemara clearly seems to indicate that
the Hazon Ish’s position is correct.13

With that in place, it is possible to take the Hazon Ish’s approach one step further. He said as long
as it was possible to find one street that came to a dead end in a city, the rest of the city could be
considered a reshut ha-yahid. According to his explanation, the street which comes to a dead end
is considered a reshut ha-yahid since both of its sides are lined with buildings and at one end it
comes to a dead end. In envisioning the sides of that street as walls, we can view even the gaps in
the buildings—i.e. the cross streets—as forming a part of the wall, since a majority of the wall is
standing. Now that the junctions between our original dead end street and its cross streets are

13
See Eruvin 15a and Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim 362:3.

19
considered a border, the cross streets become dead ends as well and each one would itself be
considered a biblical reshut ha-yahid. By continuing to find the adjacent cross streets from any of
these previously determined “private domains,” it is possible for the entire city to be considered
a reshut ha-yahid. It is noteworthy, though, that this last extension of the Hazon Ish’s approach is
questionable and its correctness can be investigated further.14

The Shining Sea of Galilee

The Sea of Galilee (Hebrew: ‫ָים ִכֶּנֶּרת‬, Judeo-Aramaic: ‫ ִגֵּנּיַסר‬,‫ַימּא דטבריא‬, Arabic: ‫)ﺑﺤﯿﺮة طﺒﺮﯾﺎ‬, Lake
Tiberias, Kinneret or Kinnereth, is a freshwater lake in Israel. It is the lowest freshwater lake on
Earth and the second-lowest lake in the world (after the Dead Sea, a saltwater lake), at levels
between 215 metres (705 ft) and 209 metres (686 ft) below sea level. It is approximately 53 km
(33 mi) in circumference, about 21 km (13 mi) long, and 13 km (8.1 mi) wide. Its area is
166.7 km2 (64.4 sq mi) at its fullest, and its maximum depth is approximately 43 m (141 feet). The
lake is fed partly by underground springs but its main source is the Jordan River, which flows
through it from north to south and exits the Sea at the Degania Dam.

14
Be-Ikvei ha-Tzon Siman 13.

20
This name Kinneret was also found in the scripts of Ugarit, in the Aqhat Epic.

Lake of Gennesaret
All Old and New Testament writers use the term "sea" (Hebrew ‫ָים‬yam, Greek θάλασσα), with the
exception of Luke, who calls it "the Lake of Gennesaret" (Luke 5:1), from the Greek λίμνη
Γεννησαρέτ (limnē Gennēsaret), the "Grecized form of Chinnereth" according to Easton (1897). In
Hebrew, there is no distinction between the words "sea" and "lake", since the word yam (‫ )הים‬is
used to describe any large and wide body of water.
Sea of Ginosar
The Babylonian Talmud, as well as Flavius Josephus, mention the sea by the name "Sea of
Ginosar" after the small fertile plain of Ginosar that lies on its western side. Ginosar is yet another
name derived from "Kinneret".
Sea of Minya
From the Umayyad through the Mamluk period, the lake was known in Arabic as "Bahr al-
Minya", the "Sea of Minya", after the Umayyad qasr complex, whose ruins are still visible
at Khirbat al-Minya. This is the name used by the medieval Persian and Arab scholars Al-
Baladhuri, Al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir.
Hellenistic and Roman periods
The Sea of Galilee lies on the ancient Via Maris, which linked Egypt with the northern empires.
The Greeks, Hasmoneans, and Romans founded flourishing towns and settlements on the lake
including Hippos and Tiberias. The first-century historian Flavius Josephus was so impressed by
the area that he wrote, "One may call this place the ambition of Nature"; he also reported a thriving
fishing industry at this time, with 230 boats regularly working in the lake. Archaeologists
discovered one such boat, nicknamed the Jesus Boat, in 1986.

21
GALILEE BOAT

A severe drought in 1985-86 brought the Sea of Galilee to unusually low levels, exposing large
areas of the lakebed along the shoreline. Two brothers–Moshe and Yuval Lufan--from Kibbutz
Ginnosar, near Tiberias along the northwest shore of the sea, discovered the remains of a 2,000
year old boat buried in the mud along the shore. Israeli archaeologist Shelley Wachsman, an expert
in marine archaeology, examined the sunken boat in situ and was able to confirm that it was an
ancient rather than a modern craft. His judgment was based on a construction technique used in
antiquity in which the planks of the hull were edge-joined with mortise and tendon joints held
together by wooden pegs. This was the first time an ancient boat had been discovered in the Sea
of Galilee.

The boat measured

approximately 30 feet long and 8
feet wide at its greatest width.

It was excavated during

February, 1986, and carefully
moved some 1600 yards to a
specially constructed
conservation pool where it
remained for several years
undergoing treatment for its
preservation. On the basis of
pottery fragments found in the
boat, it has been dated between
The Galilee Boat on Permanent Display the latter part of the first century
BC to approximately the mid-
at the Nof Ginosaur Museum.
century AD.

Seventeen pieces of pottery were used in the analysis, including a complete lamp and cooking pot,
as well as identifiable fragments of cooking pots, store jars, a jug and juglets. The pottery was
identifiable as a part of the assemblage known from other Galilee excavation sites. In addition,
carbon 14 dating gave corroborating dates between 120 BC and AD 40.

Evidence was found that the boat could be both sailed and/or rowed. Apparently, the boat could
accommodate four oarsmen plus a helmsman.

It is estimated that the boat could hold some fifteen individuals, similar to the boats in which Jesus
and his twelve disciples traveled across the sea.15

15
See Matt 8:18, 23-27, 9:1, 14:13- 14, 22-32, 15:39, 16:5; Mark 4;35-41, 5:18, 21, 6:32-34, 45-51, 8:9-10, 13-14; Luke 6:1,
8:22-25, 37, 40; John 6:16-21

22
In recent years the boat, now preserved through the conservation efforts, has a permanent home in
a specially constructed exhibit hall at Kibbutz Ginnosar. It has become a highlight for tourists
visiting the Holy Land and a visual reminder of the Gentle Teacher from Galilee.

Roman era
In the First Century AD there was a flourishing town known by Greek and Latin speakers
as Gennesaret, also in the New Testament with one single verse (Matthew 14:34), where
"Gennesar" is written by only a few papyri. The modern kibbutz takes its name from this ancient
town, though it is not certain it is located on precisely the same site.

Southern tip of the lake, seen from Mount Poriya

Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein writes: 16

In delineating the borders of the Holy Land, the Bible says that a sea (technically, a lake in
topographical terms) called the Kinneret runs along the Promised Land’s eastern border (Num.
34:11, Deut. 3:17, Josh. 12:3, 13:27).

The Targumim translate the Biblical name Kinneret into Aramaic as Ginosar, and Yam Kinneret
into Yam Ginosar.

16
https://ohr.edu/8479

23
Josephus (War of the Jews, Book III, ch. 10) similarly calls it the Lake of Genezareth (an
Anglicization of the Greek version of Ginosar).

However, the Talmud refers to the lake as Yamah/Yam Shel Tiveria — “The Sea of Tiberias.” [The
Babylonian Talmud uses the term Yamah Shel Tiveria(Shabbat 87a, 87b, Mo’ed Katan 18b, Bava
Kama 81a, 81b, Bava Batra 74, and Bechorot 55a); while the Jerusalem Talmud calls it Yam Shel
Tiveria (Shekalim 6:2, Bava Batra 5:1). Both of those terms mean “The Sea of Tiberias”.]

Why does this one lake have three different names: Yam Kinneret, Yam Ginosar, and Yam shel
Tiveria ? And what is its “real” name?

This discussion actually has practical halachic ramifications.

When writing a get (bill of divorce), one must mention the name of the city in which the get is
written and verify its location by mentioning the closest body of water. Accordingly, when one
writes a get in the city of Tiberias he must mention the Kinneret. But which exact name should
he use? The question of how to refer to this lake was hotly debated by Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-
1575) and Rabbi Moshe ben Yosef of Trani (1505-1585), who jointly headed the rabbinical court
of nearby Safed.

A popular theory claims that the pear-shaped lake gets its name from its physical resemblance to
a kinnor (a musical instrument). However, there is no real source for this assertion.

Instead, it seems that the lake in question does not actually have its own name! Rather, it is
identified by the most prominent city on its banks. For example, the Bible mentions a city called
Kinneret, which was a fortified city in the tribal territory of Naftali that was captured in the time
of Yehoshua (Josh. 19:35).

,‫ַהִצִּדּים ֵצר‬--‫ִמְבָצר‬ ,‫לה ְוָﬠֵרי‬ 35 And the fortified cities were Ziddim-zer, and Hammath, and
.‫ְוַחמַּרַקּת ְוִכָנֶּרת‬ Rakkath, and Chinnereth;

The name of this city also appears in various ancient inscriptions. Thus, the Bible refers to Lake
Kinneret as “the Sea of Kinneret” because at that time Kinneret was the most prominent nearby
city.

In later times the city of Kinneret was called Ginosar. In fact, the Talmud (Megillah 6a) explains
that the Biblical city Kinneret is the same city as Ginosar. The Talmud explains that the Bible calls
Ginosar “Kinneret” because “its fruits are as sweet as the voice of a kinnor.” Rabbi Nosson of
Rome (1035-1106) defines kinnor as either a type of berry (which Jastrow identifies as a “thorn
jujube,” see also Rashi toBava Batra 48b), or a musical instrument (“harp” or “lyre”).

24
Indeed, the Talmud (Brachot 44a) speaks about the fruits of Ginosar in the most superlative of
terms, and the Midrash (Ber. Rabbah §98:17) exegetically expounds on the word Ginosar as
though it means ganei sarim (“gardens of officers”), because that land was especially fertile and
valued for the fruits produced there. Thus, we see that by the Second Temple period Kinneret had
come to be known as Ginosar but was still a highly prominent city. The nearby lake therefore came
to be known as “the Sea of Ginosar” and that is the term used in works from that era (such as the
Targumim and Josephus).

Another city on the sea’s western shore is Tiberias, and when that city rose in prominence it
became the sea’s namesake. Thus, the fact that the Talmud refers to the lake as “the Sea of
Tiberias” reflects a chronological shift when Tiberias surpassed Kinneret/Ginosar as the most
prominent city in the area. Interestingly, the lake’s name in Arabic is Buhairet Tabariyya, which
means “Sea of Tiberias.”

According to Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (Book XVIII, Ch. 8), Herod (the Herodian
tetrarch of the Galilee) established the city of Tiberias and named it in honor of the Roman emperor
Tiberius (42 BCE-37 CE). The Talmud (Megillah 5b-6a), on the other hand, identifies Tiberias
with one of two cities mentioned in the Bible: Chamat or Rakat (Josh. 19:35). The Talmud
explains that the name Chamat (literally, “hot”) refers to the natural hot springs found in Tiberias,
while the name Rakat (literally, “empty”) alludes to the fact that even the “empty” (i.e. ignorant)
inhabitants of that city were still full of mitzvot, like a pomegranate is full of seeds.

25
The Talmud also offers two explanations for the name Tiberias. First, it alludes to the fact that the
city sits at the tabur (“navel” or “belly button”) of the Land of Israel (not in a geographical sense,
but in terms of its importance). Second, that name is a portmanteau of tovah reiyatah (“its sight is
good”), which Tosafot explains to mean that it is aesthetically beautiful with its luscious gardens
and orchards.

The Christian Bible occasionally refers to the lake as the “Sea of Tiberias,” but more commonly
calls the Kinneret “the Sea of Galilee” — the name by which the lake is more commonly known
to English speakers. Galilee, of course, was the administrative name of the entire northern region
of the Holy Land in Hasmonean and Herodian times. So again, the sea was named after its
geographical surroundings.

I found another, fascinating theory to explain why rabbinic sources do not use the Biblical name
Yam Kinneret.17

17
UGARITIC PROPER NOUNS Dennis Pardee. Archiv für Orientforschung 36./37. Bd. (1989/1990), pp. 390-513 (124 pages)

26
Archeologists at the site of ancient Ugarit (Ras Shamra in modern-day Syria) found a list of old
Canaanite gods, and on that list was a god named Kinnaru.

The word kinnor also appears in Ugaritic texts to mean a stringed musical instrument. (It bears the
same meaning as the Hebrew word kinnor.) Based on this, some academic scholars have argued
that Kinnaru was actually the Canaanite god of music, and the ancient city of Kinneret was
originally named after that god.

With this in mind, the late Dr. Dov Ginzberg of the Geological Survey of Israel argues that perhaps
the Rabbis eschewed the name Kinneret found in the Bible because of its idolatrous origins, and
instead renamed the lake by connecting it to one of the Jewish cities nearby (Ginosar or Tiberias).

If nothing else, perhaps this theory explains why the city Kinneret was later renamed Ginosar.

27