According to Rabbi Meir and Rav Huna in the Rabbanan how do houses in an unwalled city measure the techum from the edge of the city when we don't make a karpeif between two houses?
Tzvi B,
1) Tosfos 3b (end of DH v'Ein) writes that if the houses are within 70 Amos (plus a little more) of each other, then they are considered part of the city. The Shulchan Aruch (OC 398:5) writes that when one measures 2000 Amos on each side of the city, one measures from the outermost house. See also the Rambam in Hilchos Shabbos (28:2) who says that one measures from the last house.
2) I found that the Nesivos Shabbos (chapter 42, note 8, page 502), by Rav Yakov Blau zt'l, writes that one must say that what our Tosfos writes -- that between one house and another there is a Din of a Karpaf, because, otherwise, how can the houses of a city without a wall combine to be one -- is stated by Tosfos only according to the opinion of Chiya bar Rav. According to Rav Huna's opinion in the Rabanan, it is only inside a city that there is a Din of a Karpaf.
3) The Nesivos Shabbos writes that a "city" is defined by Rav Chinana bar Rav Kahana in the name of Rav Ashi (in Eruvin 55b) to possess a minimum of three courtyards with two houses in each courtyard. Rashi (DH Shalosh Chatzeros) writes that these must be fixed houses made out of stone or wooden planks. Only then can it be considered a city.
4) If it is not considered a city, then this case is comparable to the Gemara in Eruvin 55b where Rav Huna said that for people who live in "Tzerifin" (tents of thatched straw huts), one measures the 2000 Amos from the door of every individual hut (since where they live is not a city). Therefore, according to Rav Huna's opinion in the Rabanan, in an unwalled city, with less than three coutyards of two houses each, one does not measure from the edge of the city, but rather from each house.
5) Let us look at the case of an unwalled city which contains at least three courtyards with two houses in each courtyard, and the case of houses close together:
a) When the unwalled city is considered a "city" because it has three Chatzeros with two houses in each, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 398:10) writes that one makes a square around the city (as explained in Eruvin 55a and in the Shulchan Aruch, beginning of OC 398) and adds 2000 Amos to the square, as one does with other cities.
b) There is a passage in the Ga'on Yakov (Eruvin 57b, DH Amar ha'Ram which states):
"If there is a house next to a house, our teachers, the authors of Tosfos, said that it is considered a city. Even though there is no city at all, if there is only 70 Amos and a bit between the two houses, and similarly many houses with 70 Amos and a bit between them, they are considered as one house and one measures [2000 Amos] from the last house."
c) It seems that the Ga'on Yakov understood that Rav Huna also agrees with this. So according to this, if there is only 70 Amos and a bit between the houses, they are considered as connected, and one measures 2000 Amos from the last house.
6) Let us look at the case of isolated houses at the edge of the city:
a) The Rema (Shulchan Aruch OC 398:7) writes that a single house, no matter how big it is, cannot be given the Din of a city. If it would have the Din of a city, then we would say that we give two Karpifot (141 Amos and a third of an Amah) between it and the main city, but since a single house is not a city this means that even if it is close to the city, as long as there is more than 70 Amos and a bit between the house and the city, the house is considered to be on its own and separate from the city, and one measures 2000 Amos from the door of the house.
b) The Pri Megadim there (Eshel Avraham 11) writes that we learn from the Magen Avraham (11) that even if there are a lot of houses, one after the other, but they are all within 70 Amos and a bit of the neighbor, these are all considered as part of the city and the inhabitants possess exactly the same Techum as everyone else in town. The Pri Megadim adds that it seems from this that if there are a lot of houses, each of which is more than 70 Amos and a bit from its neighbor, they do not combine but are considered separate and possess their own individual Techum, not the common Techum of the city. The Pri Megadim concludes that this matter requires further study.
c) I want to suggest the following Pshat in the Pri Megadim. (The Poskim cite the Teshuvos Nefesh Chayah, end of Orach Chaim #36, who asks a number of questions on the Pri Megadim, but I propose that according to my approach it may be possible to understand the Pri Megadim.) The point is that if there is a long line of houses at the end of the city, each of which is not much more than 70 Amos and a bit away from its neighbor, there would be a good argument to be made that they are part of the city. According to Rav Chaim Naeh, 70 Amos and a bit is equal to approximately 35 meters, so the houses are quite close together. This means that we are discussing a residential street on the outskirts of town, where there is 35 to 40 meters between each house. One easily might have thought that this street is considered part of the city, but the Pri Megadim writes that possibly it does not matter how many houses are in this long street. If there are 70 Amos and a bit between them, they are considered as separate and not part of the city.
7) I would like to address the dispute among contemporary authors concerning what Tosfos wrote about the unwalled city.
a) Above I cited the Nesivos Shabbos (p. 502, note 8) who says that what Tosfos wrote -- that there must be a Karpaf between two houses because otherwise the houses in an unwalled city cannot join -- only applies according to Chiya bar Rav. I have found, bs'd, that some contemporary writers disagree with this way of learning in Tosfos, and they write that Tosfos wrote this according to Rav Huna as well.
b) The Sefer Kiryas Ariel (p. 19, Din 3) writes:
"If there are houses near his house, and each house is 70 Amos and a bit or less away from its neighbor, even in such a way that they are not considered as a 'city,' nevertheless the houses join and they all possess the same Techum."
He writes (in note 5) that this disagrees with the Nesivos Shabbos, who writes that according to Rav Huna (whom the Halachah follows; see Tosfos to Eruvin 57b (beginning of Amud) in the name of Rabeinu Tam) the Din of a Karpaf exists only in a place defined as a "city."
c) The Mishnas Yakov (Yisraeli) to Eruvin 57a (p. 305, DH v'Iyanti) writes that the Nesivos Shabbos, in a different place (p. 510, note 45) also cites the Sefer Tikun Eruvin, who writes that a Karpaf is also given between two houses to combine them into one house. The Nesivos Shabbos writes that he disagrees with the Tikun Eruvin, because the concept of a Karpaf is applicable only inside a city according to the Halachic conclusion. The Mishnas Yakov himself writes that it is impossible to say that what Tosfos wrote is applicable only according to Chiya bar Rav.
d) For the moment, I want to suggest a source for those who disagree with the Nesivos Shabbos. This is from Tosfos to Eruvin 57a, DH Rav, who writes (second wide line) that it appears that even between two houses which are not inside a city, a Karpaf is given, because if one does not say this, how can the houses of an unwalled city combine? This is the same statement that Tosfos wrote in Sukah 3b. However, two lines later, Tosfos writes that according to Rebbi Chiya bar Rav who maintains that one gives a Karpaf between two houses and not only between two cities, we msut say that what the Chachamim said in the Mishnah in Eruvin 57a -- that we give a Karpaf between two cities -- is Lav Davka, but it also means between two houses. At any rate, one sees that Tosfos made his statement, "How can the houses of an unwalled city combine?" before he made mention of Chiya bar Rav, so this statement applies also according to Rav Huna.
I don't understand: Tosfos himself clearly says here that a house is not considered like a city 'legamrei' according to R' Meir and R' Huna and therefore between two houses, there would be no karpeif. According to R' Chiya bar Rav though, says Tosfos, a house is considered like a city legamrei and the proof is that how else are houses in an unwalled city connected. I was asking what the difference between R' Huna and R' Chiya bar Rav in that R' Huna doesn't need to give a karpeif between houses in an unwalled city but R' CbR does. Therefore only according to R' CbR is a house like a city completely. Rephrasing my question slightly: how does Tosfos know that only according to R' CbR is this a proof? And therefore only according to him is a house completely like a city. Maybe the same proof applies also to R'Huna: how does Tosfos knoe that according to R' Huna this proof doesnt work?
The Chidushei ha'Rashba (end of Eruvin 57a) writes that according to Rebbi Meir it must be specifically a "city." Rebbi Meir learns from Bamidbar 35:4 "from the wall of the city and outwards" that a city without a wall is not considered a city, and one does not measure the Techum from the edge of the city.
What about R' Huna?
Tosfos (Eruvin 57a, DH Rav Huna) writes that in the same way that, according to Rebbi Meir, one requires specifically a "city," so, too, according to Rav Huna's opinion in the Rabanan one requires specifically two cities. It seems that the only difference between Rebbi Meir and Rav Huna is that, according to Rebbi Meir, one gets a Karpaf even for one city, while according to Rav Huna one requires two cities, but Rav Huna will agree that a city without a wall is not considered a city.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom