Study Eruvin folio 57B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
In accordance with whose opinion is this clause of the Mishnah? It is the opinion of R' Meir, who maintains that one allocates a karpef to each city.
The Talmud continues to ask: If it is in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir, didn’t we already learn in the first clause: One allocates a karpef to each city; this is the statement of R' Meir? What need is there to mention R' Meir’s opinion again?
The Talmud answers: It was necessary to mention his opinion again, as, if we had learned his opinion only from that first clause, I might have said that one allocates one karpef for one city and also one karpef for two cities. Therefore, the Mishnah teaches us that for two cities, one allocates two
And conversely, if the Mishnah had taught us this law only here, with regard to two cities, one might have said that only in that case is each city granted a separate karpef, because a smaller space between the two adjacent cities would be too crowded for the use of both cities. But there, with re
The Talmud tries again to adduce proof from the Mishnah, in which we learned: And likewise, in the case of 3 villages that are aligned in a row, if there is only 141⅓ cubits separating between the two outer ones, the middle village combines the 3 villages into one. At this point the Talmud unders