What are the implications of "u'Madosem mi'Chutz la'Ir"?
Nedarim, 56b: It implies that the T'chum (the two thousand Amos outside the town) is not considered part of the town, and that consequently, someone who makes a Neder not to benefit from a town, is permitted to benefit from the T'chum. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 5, who reconciles this with a contradictory Gemara in Chulin, 110a.
Why does the Torah switch from "mi'Kir ha'Ir va'Chutzah" - in the previous Pasuk, to "mi'Chutz la'Ir" in the current Pasuk?
Oznayim la'Torah: If "mi'Kir ha'Ir va'Chutzah" implies that the thousand Amos for esthetics are considered part of the town, then the current Pasuk is teaching us that beyond the extremity of the tow they shall place another two thousand Amos for fields and vineyards - a proof for the opinion of the Rambam. 1
Refer to 35:4:1:1**/
Why does the Torah go into detail about the four sides with regard to the second thousand Amos and not the first thousand Amos - in the previous Pasuk?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because, whereas from the point of view of esthetics, it is obvious that one must leave one thousand Amos on each side, and not all four thousand Amos on one side, whereas what concerns fields and vineyards, one may have thought that it is permitted to arrange them all on one, two or thre sides. Therefore the Torah makes it clear that they must place one thousand Amos (two, according to the Rambam) on each side. 1
See Oznayim la'Torah.
