OPINIONS: The Mishnah discusses a case in which a person departed his city just before Shabbos with intention to be Koneh Shevisah at a point 2000 Amos outside of his city, so that he would be able to walk on Shabbos to another city that was 4000 Amos away from his present city. Just after he departed from his city, his friend stopped him and insisted that he return to his city. The Mishnah states that even though he returned to his original city, his Eruv Techumin is valid and he may walk on Shabbos to the second city. The other residents of his city, though, may not use the Eruv to travel to the other city. This is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Meir says that his Eruv is not valid, and he is limited to the area that is shared by the Techum of his Eruv and the Techum of his original city.

The Gemara then cites a Beraisa which also quotes Rebbi Yehudah. In the Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah says that since the person embarked on his journey, the Eruv that he intended to make at a certain point far away from him is valid (that is, since he started traveling, he has the status of a poor person (Ani) who is permitted to make a remote Eruv merely by saying, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place"). Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah adds that even if his friend kept him back and told him to stay in his present city due to the inclement weather in the other city, the Eruv Techumin is valid.

The Gemara then records an argument between Rabah and Rav Yosef concerning the point of dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa (see Chart).

Rabah states, "Everyone agrees that he must say; they argue whether he must be Machzik."

Rav Yosef states, "Everyone agrees that he must be Machzik; they argue whether he must say."

It is not clear what exactly these phrases mean.

(a) According to Rashi's first explanation, the argument between Rabah and Rav Yosef is as follows.

1a. When Rabah says, "Everyone agrees that he must say," he means that both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi maintain that in order for the Eruv to be valid even though the person returned to the first city, we must know that he returned not by his own volition but that his friend told him to return. When we see that his friend told him to return, we may assume that he still has in mind to rely on his Eruv the next day, during Shabbos. If the friend did not say anything and the person returned on his own, we assume that he no longer has intention to rely on his Makom Shevisah, and the Eruv is invalid. (This is what Rabah means when he says that everyone agrees that "he must say"; that is, the friend must say something to detain him, as opposed to his returning home by his own volition.)

1b. When Rabah says, "They argue whether he must be Machzik," he means that according to Rebbi Yehudah, although the person does not need to verbally declare his intent to be Koneh Shevisah, he must have departed from his home in order to be considered an Ani. Rebbi Yosi is lenient and does not require him to have actually left his home. As long as he was intended to leave, but his friend kept him back, his intent to be Koneh Shevisah is effective.

2a. When Rav Yosef says, "Everyone agrees that one must be Machzik," he means that both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi require the person to have actually left his home in order to be considered an Ani.

2b. When Rav Yosef says, "They argue whether he must say," he means that Rebbi Yehudah does not require that the person return to his home at the urging of his friend. Even if he returns on his own accord, he acquires his intended Makom Shevisah by virtue of the fact that he started on his journey. Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, though, requires not only that he started on his journey, but that his return homeward was at the urging of his friend. It follows that according to this explanation of Rashi, Rav Yosef holds that it is Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah who is stringent and Rebbi Yehudah who is lenient.

According to this explanation of Rashi, everyone agrees that the person making the Eruv does not need to expressly state, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place." When the Gemara says that "he said" ("Amar"), it refers not to the person making the Eruv, but to his friend who told him to stay in his present city and not to travel to the other city. The Gemara means that it was his friend who kept him back, and it was not his own decision to return. If, however, he said explicitly, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place," everyone agrees that his Eruv is valid, regardless of whether his friend kept him back or he returned on his own.

(According to this explanation, Rebbi Meir -- who says that the person making the Eruv is a "Chamar Gamal" -- is in doubt whether the person who returned to his city after he started out towards another city still intends to make his place of Shevisah in the place that he designated, or whether he has changed his mind and intends for his place of Shevisah to be at his home. Therefore, he has the status of a "Chamar Gamal" who is limited to the part of the Techum shared by both possible places of Shevisah.)

(b) According to Rashi's second explanation, the argument between Rabah and Rav Yosef is as follows.

1a. When Rabah says, "Everyone agrees that he must say," he means that both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi require that the person making the Eruv say, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place."

1b. When Rabah says, "They argue whether he must be Machzik," he means that they argue whether the person making the Eruv must have actually departed from his home and started traveling or not. According to Rebbi Yehudah, in order to be considered an Ani who may make an Eruv merely by saying, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place," the person must have actually left home and started traveling. According to Rebbi Yosi, it is enough that he intended and planned to depart in order for him to be considered an Ani. Rebbi Yosi, therefore, is more lenient than Rebbi Yehudah in that he does not require the person to have actually left his home.

2a. When Rav Yosef says, "Everyone agrees that one must be Machzik," he means that both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi require the person to have actually left his home in order to be considered an Ani.

2b. When Rav Yosef says, "They argue whether he must say," he means that they argue as follows. According to Rebbi Yehudah, the person making the Eruv must verbally declare, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place." According to Rebbi Yosi, the very fact that he departed from his city towards the other city shows that he had intention to be Koneh Shevisah between the two cities, and that "Giluy Da'as" suffices.

According to the second explanation of Rashi, Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, as interpreted by Rav Yosef, is the only one who does not require a verbal declaration of intent to be Koneh Shevisah in a given place.

(According to this explanation of Rashi, Rebbi Meir -- who says that the person making the Eruv is a "Chamar Gamal" -- maintains that one who has just departed from his city is not considered an Ani. Only someone who is already traveling and is far from his home is considered an Ani. Therefore, since this person has just left his city, he is considered an Ashir and he may not make an Eruv by saying, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place." As a result, he is not Koneh Shevisah in the other city. However, since he wanted to be Koneh Shevisah in another place, he loses the part of his original Techum which is not accessible from the place in which he wanted to be Koneh Shevisah, and he is permitted to walk only in the area which is shared by the Techum of both places.)

QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses a case in which a person departed his city just before Shabbos with intention to be Koneh Shevisah at a point 2000 Amos outside of his city, so that he would be able to walk on Shabbos to another city that was 4000 Amos away from his present city. Just after he departed from his city, his friend stopped him and insisted that he return to his city. According to Rebbi Yehudah, even though he returned to his original city his Eruv Techumin is valid and he may walk on Shabbos to the second city. The other residents of his city, though, may not use the Eruv to travel to the other city.

According to Rebbi Meir, his Eruv is not valid, and he is limited to the area that is shared by the Techum of his Eruv and the Techum of his original city.

Why does the Mishnah say that his friend kept him back? Even if his friend did not stop him, his Eruv is valid! As long as he did not start to return to his home, his Eruv is valid for him because he is considered an Ani, while it is not valid for the other residents of his city because they are considered Ashirim, since they are in their homes.

According to the first explanation of Rashi (see previous Insight), the answer to this question is clear. The Mishnah must say that his friend kept him back in order to explain the opinion of Rebbi Meir. The reason Rebbi Meir argues and says that he is a "Chamar Gamal" (that is, he is limited to the area shared by the Techum of his Eruv and the Techum of his city) is because he started to return home, which indicates that he might have changed his mind and does not want to make his Eruv outside of his city. Because we are unsure whether his Eruv is valid or not, he is limited to the Techum shared by both his Eruv and the city. It is necessary, therefore, for the Mishnah to state that his friend kept him back, because if he did not turn around to return home, then there would be no doubt about the validity of his Eruv.

However, according to the second explanation of Rashi, Rebbi Meir maintains that the person who departed towards the other city is not considered an Ani but an Ashir, even before he turns around to go home. A person is considered an Ani only when he has already traveled a long distance and is not near his home. Since this person has departed from his home and is not yet far away, he is not considered an Ani, and the Eruv that he wanted to make merely by saying, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place," is not valid. Since the Eruv is not valid even if he did not turn back to go home, why does the Mishnah need to mention that his friend kept him home? It is not a necessary part of the case according to Rebbi Yehudah or according to Rebbi Meir!

ANSWER: The Mishnah mentions that his friend kept him back in order to teach a new Halachah according to Rebbi Yehudah. We might have thought that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a person is considered an Ani only while he is actually traveling away from his home, but if he turns back towards his home he is no longer considered an Ani, even though he has not yet returned. Therefore, the Mishnah teaches that even though he turned back, he is still considered an Ani since he is still traveling.