The braisa brings a machlokes Reb Meir and Rebbi Yehuda over the extra amah for the dalet amos from a pasuk in Shemos. Although the gemara previously stated that when we have a machlokes between R Meir and R Yehuda we follow R Yehuda, nonetheless Rashi in Chumash mentions R' Meir's pshat on the pasuk of pishut yodaim, and not R Yehuda's opinion. Why?
Max Weiman, St. Louis, MO usa
1. I thought of an answer to your question based on something that I saw in the Hebrew Mesivta edition on this Sugya. There is a discussion there about the opinion of the Rambam in Hilchos Shabbos 12:15. The Rambam writes that the 4 Amos that a person receives represent the square surrounding him when he stretches out his hands and feet. In other words, the Rambam rules like Rebbi Meir. The Kesef Mishneh there asks why does the Rambam rule like Rebbi Meir against Rebbi Yehudah? The question of the Kesef Mishnah on the Rambam is the same as your question on Rashi in Chumash.
2. The Mesivta edition cites Acharonim who answer that the Rambam agrees with Rashi (48a, DH Machlokes) who writes that the Amos mentioned in the Gemara are precise according to Rebbi Yehudah, while according to Rebbi Meir they are measured generously because in order to stretch out one's hand and feet one actually needs more than 1 Amah. One learns from Rashi that the opinion of Rebbi Meir is more lenient than that of Rebbi Yehudah since Rebbi Meir gives you slightly more than 4 Amos of space.
3. Now we employ the rule (46a) that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion in cases of Eruv ("Halachah k'Divrei ha'Mekel b'Eruvin"). This is why the Rambam rules like Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Meir is more lenient and gives a person more space in which to move.
4. We now may apply the same reasoning to explain why Rashi in Chumash explains according to Rebbi Meir. It is because Halachah k'Divrei ha'Mekel b'Eruvin.
5. Even though the Gemara (46b) states that the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah against Rebbi Meir, the Kesef Mishneh (Hilchos Arachin 1:6) writes that this is a general rule but "Ein Lemedim Min ha'Klalos," when a general rule (Klal) is stated, it is meant as a general guideline but not as an absolute mandate. Therefore, the rule "Halachah k'Divrei ha'Mekel b'Eruvin" overrides the rule that the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah against Rebbi Meir.
6. This, then, is the reason why the Rambam rules according to Rebbi Meir, and the reason why Rashi in Chumash explains according to the view of Rebbi Meir.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
1. I did a search in the Otzar ha'Chochmah database and found a Sefer entitled Yosef Halel, by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Brachfeld of Brooklyn, New York (published in 5747), who cites a number of old editions of Rashi which do not include this addition about the opinion of Rebbi Meir, but instead simply read, "mi'Kan Samchu Chachamim Dalet Amos l'Yotzei Chutz l'Techum," without the continuation about three Amos for his body and one Amah for stretching out his hands and feet.
2. The Yosef Halel is cited by the Ariel editon of the Chumash with Rashi (published by the Harry Fishel Institute of Yerushalayim, 5759). The Ariel edition notes that in the first printing of Rashi the opinion of Rebbi Meir is not cited, and indeed in all the old editons of Rashi on Chumash (with the exception of the Alkabetz edition) this addition does not appear.
3. So it is possible that the words in Rashi about Rebbi Meir's opinion is a later insertion and was not actually written by Rashi.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Here is another way of explaining why Rashi in Chumash mentions Rebbi Meir's opinion, even assuming that this is the correct text in Rashi.
1. This is based on a statement made by the Beis Yosef on the Tur in OC 10:6 (end of DH ul'Inyan). There, the Tur cites a dispute between the Rambam and the Rosh. Rashi is on the same side as the Rosh. However, the Beis Yosef writes that when it comes to deciding the Halachah, since Rashi is a "Mefaresh," a commentator, and not a "Paskan," a Posek who issues Halachic rulings, his opinion does not weigh the balance in favor of the Rosh.
2. What is relevant to us is the Beis Yosef's statement that Rashi is a "commentator and not a Posek." Even though this statement of the Beis Yosef is not at all simple (for example, the Ritva in Maseches Rosh Hashanah, 27b DH Nisdak l'Rochbo, which is cited by the Mishnah Berurah OC 586 in Sha'ar ha'Tziyun #92, writes that one should take account of Rashi's opinion since "Rashi the elder has ruled"), it seems that when we learn Rashi on Chumash we may understand that Rashi's chief purpose is to explain the verses and not to issue Halachic rulings. Even if one says that Rashi's writings in his commentary on the Gemara do represent Halachic rulings, his writings on Chumash are clearly less related to practical Halachah.
3. Rather, in his commentary on Chumash, Rashi's primary objective is to explain the meaning of the verses in the most straightforward way. Since it appears that Rebbi Meir's Peshat is closer to the simple meaning of the verse than Rebbi Yehudah's Peshat that the fourth Amah is in order to take an object from one's feet and place it next to one's head, Rashi chose to cite Rebbi Meir's opinion. The Aruch ha'Shulchan (Hilchos Eruvin 349:1) writes that even the Rambam, who clearly had the objective of determining the practical Halachah, cited Rebbi Meir's Peshat because this is closer to the simple meaning. Accordingly, we certainly may suggest this to explain why Rashi in Chumash mentions Rebbi Meir's opinion.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Perhaps we follow the klal of "halacha k'divrei hameikel b'eiruv" over "Rebbe Yehudah over Rebbe Meir" since the former rule was stated by Rebbe Yehoshua ben Levi and the latter by Rebbe Yochanan. And we posken like Rebbe Yeoshua ben Levi over Rebbe Yochanan, so when the tow rules clash, we follow Rebbe Yehoshua ben Levi's klal (someone told me the Rosh on our perek says this in some context)
[i think we know that we follow Rebbe Yehoshua ben Levi over Rebbe Yochanan is based on how we posken that kedushas beis hamedredh is higher than beis hakneses (megillah 28)
Yaakov Abramovitz
Yaakov, Yasher Ko'ach! This is a very interesting observation.
1. The source that the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi when he argues with Rebbi Yochanan is in fact from Tosfos in Megilah 27a, DH Kevasei. This is also stated in Tosfos in Eruvin 65b, DH Ikle'u.
2. However, what the Rosh writes may in fact be a challenge to my argument that Rashi in Chumash cited Rebbi Meir because he is lenient concerning Eruv. The Rosh in the second Perek of Eruvin (#4) cites a number of limitations on the rule that we always follow the lenient opinion in Eruvin. As an example of such limitations, he cites the Gemara later (95a) that says that wherever Rebbi Yehudah gave his opinion in Eruvin, the Halachah follows him. The Korban Nesanel on the Rosh (end of the sixth Perek, #70) that the opinion of the Rosh is that we do not say that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin when this conflicts with a different rule. Therefore, the rule that the Halachah always follows Rebbi Yehudah in Eruvin might be stronger than the rule that the Halachah always follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin.
3. If so, we might have to take resort to the other answers I gave in my followup replies to explain Rashi's words in Chumash.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom