Question: Why don't we say that the water acquired Shevisah in the clouds?

Suggestion: We must say that the Isur of Techumim does not apply more than 10 Tefachim above the ground. This question was not settled above (43a)!

Answer #1 (and Rejection of suggestion): No, perhaps Techumim applies above 10. The water is absorbed in the clouds. (Therefore, it does not get a Techum.)

Objection: If so, the rain would be forbidden, for it is Nolad (something that came into the world or changed form on Shabbos or Yom Tov)!

Answer #2: Water in clouds is in motion. (Therefore, it does not get a Techum.)

Answer #3 (to Question 3:d, 45): Even if the rain was in the ocean at the start of Shabbos, water in the ocean is in motion. (Therefore, it does not get a Techum);

(Beraisa): [Water from] flowing rivers and springs gets the Techum of one who draws it. (Because it is in motion, it does not get a Techum.)

(R. Yakov bar Idi citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi): The Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Nuri. (One who was asleep at the start of Shabbos gets 2000 Amos in every direction.)

R. Zeira: Did you explicitly hear R. Yehoshua ben Levi say this, or did you infer it from another teaching?

R. Yakov: I explicitly heard it.

Question: From what teaching could it be inferred?

Answer: R. Yehoshua ben Levi taught that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin.

Question: Why did R. Yehoshua need to teach both of these?

Answer (R. Zeira): Had he taught only that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Nuri, one might have thought that the Halachah follows him whether this is a leniency or stringency. Therefore, he taught that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin.

Question: He should have taught just this general rule! Why did he also need to teach that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Nuri?

Answer #1: One might have thought that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion when an individual argues with an individual, or when a Rabim argues with a Rabim, but not when an individual is lenient against a Rabim.

Question (Rava): Eruvin is mid'Rabanan. Why would we distinguish when an individual argues with an individual from when he argues with a Rabim?

Objection #1 (Rav Papa): We distinguish between these even for mid'Rabanan laws!

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Any woman who did not see blood in the time for three periods (normal menstrual cycles) is Dayah Sha'atah. (The decree that when a woman sees Dam Nidah she is retroactively Teme'ah for up to 24 hours does not apply to her);

(Beraisa): A case occurred in which Rebbi ruled like R. Eliezer. After he remembered, he said 'in pressed circumstances, one may rely on R. Eliezer's opinion.'

Question: What is the meaning of 'after he remembered'?

Suggestion: He remembered that the Halachah does not follow R. Eliezer, rather, Chachamim.

Rejection: If so, even in pressed circumstances he could not rely on R. Eliezer's opinion!

Answer: The Halachah was not decided like either of them. He remembered that Chachamim (i.e. the majority) argue with him, so l'Chatchilah one should rule like Chachamim. In pressed circumstances, one may rely on R. Eliezer.

Objection #2 (Rav Mesharshiya): We distinguish between these even for mid'Rabanan laws!

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): If someone heard a recent report [of the death of a close relative over whom he must mourn], he observes the laws of Shivah (a mourner during the seven days after the death) and Sheloshim (the laws during the remaining days until day 30). If he heard an old report, he observes only one day.

Question: What is considered recent, and what is considered old?

Answer: Within 30 days [of the death] is recent. After this is old.

Chachamim say, whether he heard a recent or old report, he observes Shivah and Sheloshim.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): The Halachah follows R. Akiva. This is the only time we rule like an individual who is lenient against a majority that is stringent.

Rabah holds like Shmuel, who says that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion regarding mourning.

Inference: We are lenient regarding mourning, but regarding other mid'Rabanan laws, we distinguish whether an individual argues with an individual or a Rabim!

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): [R. Yehoshua needed to say also that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Nuri,] for one might have thought that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion only regarding Eruvei Chatzeros, but not regarding Eruv Techumim.

Question: What is the source to distinguish between Eruvei Chatzeros and Eruv Techumim?

Answer (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): This (one cannot be Me'arev for another without his knowledge) only applies to Eruv Techumim [for the extra distance he may walk he loses in the opposite direction], but one may be Me'arev Eruvei Chatzeros for someone without his knowledge.

This is because Zachin l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav, v'Ein Chavin l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav. (We may do Zechus (something intrinsically advantageous) for a person in his absence, but not Chov (something with a detrimental side).)

Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): He needed to teach both, for one might have thought that we are lenient only for remnants of an Eruv [that was a proper Shi'ur, it may be used for subsequent Shabbosos even if it diminished from the Shi'ur], but not for an initial Eruv (the first time it takes effect).

Question: What is the source to distinguish between remnants of an Eruv and an initial Eruv?

Answer (Mishnah - R. Yosi): This applies when one is Me'arev initially, but any remnant of an Eruv is valid;

Chachamim required Eruvei Chatzeros [when there is Shituf Mavo'os] only to ensure that children [who do not see what happens in the Mavoy] will not forget the Mitzvah of Eruv.

(R. Yakov and R. Zerika): The Halachah follows R. Akiva or Rebbi when one of them argues with an individual. The Halachah follows R. Yosi even against [many] Chachamim.

Question: Does this literally mean that the Halachah [surely] follows them? (Or, is it merely reasonable?)

Answer #1 (Rav Asi): Indeed, the Halachah follows them. (Tosfos - if one ruled like their opponent, we retract the ruling.)

Answer #2 (R. Chiya bar Aba): We are inclined to rule this way [to individuals, but we do not expound this in public - Rashi. Tosfos - we protest against one who wants to rule like their opponent. If such a ruling was made, we do not retract. This applies also to ruling like many Chachamim against R. Akiva or Rebbi.]

Answer #3 (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): Their opinions seem to be correct. (Rashi - if one ruled this way, we do not retract. Tosfos - we do not protest against one who wants to rule like their opponent.)

(R. Yakov bar Idi citing R. Yochanan): When R. Meir and R. Yehudah argue, the Halachah follows R. Yehudah;

The Halachah follows R. Yosi against R. Yehudah. There is no need to say that it follows R. Yosi against R. Meir;

The Halachah does not follow R. Meir against R. Yehudah, and all the more so against R. Yosi!

(Rav Asi): The Halachah follows R. Yosi against R. Shimon, for R. Yochanan taught that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah against R. Shimon. All the more so it follows R. Yosi against R. Shimon!

Question: When R. Shimon and R. Meir argue, whom does the Halachah follow?

This question is not resolved.

(Rav Mesharshiya): These Klalim (general rules) are incorrect!

Question: What is his source to say this?

Answer #1: The following is an exception:

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): This is like three Chatzeros open to each other and open to Reshus ha'Rabim. If the outer Chatzeros were Me'arev with the middle Chatzer, it is permitted with them, and they are permitted with it, and they are forbidden with each other.

(R. Chama bar Gurya): The Halachah follows R. Shimon.

R. Yehudah argues with him. (He is cited earlier in the Mishnah. Alternatively, we normally assume that he is the opponent of R. Shimon.) The Klal says that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah against R. Shimon!

Rejection: Perhaps the Klalim apply only when the Halachah was not specifically stated!

Answer #2 (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If an individual's city became a public city, we may be Me'arev all of it. If a public city became an individual's city, we may be Me'arev it only if we leave outside the Eruv the size of the city 'Chadashah' of Yehudah, which has 50 residents;

R. Shimon says, one must leave over three Chatzeros, each with at least two houses.

R. Chama bar Gurya ruled like R. Shimon. This is unlike the rule!

Rejection: Perhaps the Klalim apply only when the Halachah was not specifically stated!