(a)How long before nightfall must one designate his new place of residence (by the distant trunk of the tree) for it to be effective?
(b)Then how will Rava (the undisputed author of this opinion) explain our Mishnah, which writes 've'Chashchah Lo', implying that it would get dark by the time he reached the tree (two explanations)?
(a)When designating one's new place of residence (by the distant trunk of the tree) - he must still have time to run to the trunk and arrive there before nightfall (in effect, before Bein Hashemashos).
(b)When our Mishnah writes 've'Chashchah Lo' - it means that, by the time he arrived at his house (not by the tree-trunk) it had turned dark. Alternatively, it means that it became dark by the time he walked to the tree-trunk, but had he run, he would have reached it beforehand.
(a)Rabah suggested to his co-traveler Rav Yosef, that they designate a specific tree that he spotted in the distance as their Makom Shevisah. What did Rav Yosef reply?
(b)What did Rabah answer him?
(c)Why did he quote Rebbi Yossi even though he never said it?
(d)What is the word Nimuko (Imo) the acronym of?
(a)Rav Yosef informed Rabah - that he aware of that tree.
(b)Rabah told Rav Yosef - that he could rely on him, since he was, and Rebbi Yossi, in a Beraisa, permits one traveler (in the same circumstances) to make the Eruv on behalf of the other.
(c)He quoted Rebbi Yossi, although his name is not mentioned in the Beraisa, because 'Nimuko Imo', meaning that the Halachah is always like him, whenever he argues with a contemporary.
(d)'Nimuko Imo' is the acronym of 'Nim (word) ve'Kav' (straight and correct).
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Beshalach ...
1. ... "She'vu Ish Tachtav"?
2. ... "Al Yetzei Ish mi'Mekomo"?
(b)The latter Derashah is actually derived from a series of Derashos: 'Makom' from 'Makom', 'Makom' from 'Nisah', Nisah' from 'Nisah' ... 'Chutz' from 'Chutz'. The final Derashah is when we learn "u'Matza Oso Go'el ha'Dam mi'Chutz li'Gevul" (Matos) from the Pasuk in Masei "u'Madosem mi'Chutz la'Ir ... Alpayim ba'Amah". How do we know to learn from this Pasuk, rather than from the Pasuk there "mi'Kir ha'Ir va'Chutzah", (where the Torah writes "Elef Amah")?
(c)Since when must the words of a Gezeirah Shavah be exactly like? Do we not learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "u'va ha'Kohen" from "ve'Shav ha'Kohen" (that the second time the mark of Tzara'as appears on the walls of a house, one does not simply demolish it, as the Pasuk suggests, but first replaces the brick before giving it another week to see if the mark returns and spreads - just like he did when it appeared the first time) despite the fact that "u'va" and "ve'Shav" are not exactly the same?
(a)We learn from ...
1. ... "She'vu Ish Tachtav" - that a person who leaves his Techum has four Amos.
2. ... "Al Yetzei Ish mi'Mekomo" - the Techum Shabbos of two thousand Amos (though this is really an Asmachta, since the Pasuk is referring to collecting the Man - Mosaf Rashi).
(b)We prefer to learn "u'Matza Oso Go'el ha'Dam mi'Chutz li'Gevul ..." from the Pasuk "u'Madosem mi'Chutz la'Ir, than from that of "mi'Kir ha'Ir va'Chutzah" - since it is preferable to learn "Chutz" from "Chutz" than "Chutz" from "Chutzah".
(c)True, it does not matter if the two words of a 'Gezeirah Shavah' are not exactly the same, it does matter - but that is only if there is not another potential word which is. Then, we will rather learn the 'Gezeirah Shavah' from there.
(a)What do we learn from the word "es Pe'as Kedmah", mentioned in the same Pasuk in Masei, in connection with the 'Gezeirah Shavah' quoted above?
(b)What then, is the problem with Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, who holds that the Techum Shabbos of an individual is measured as a circle, and not as a square?
(c)How does the Gemara answer this Kashya, from the Pasuk "Zeh Yihyeh Lahem Migreshei he'Arim"?
(d)How do the Rabbanan explain the word "Zeh"?
(a)We learn from "es Pe'as Kedmah" - that with regard to Techumin, one always adds the corners (i.e. to square a circular town).
(b)The problem with Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos is - that if he holds of the above 'Gezeirah Shavah', then he should also square the circle by Techum Shabbos, like by the cities of the Kohanim; whereas if he does not, then from where does he know the two thousand Amos of Techum Shabbos?
(c)Really, Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos does hold of the 'Gezeirah Shavah' (with regard to the two thousand Amos). However, the Torah also writes "Zeh Yihyeh Lahem Migreshei he'Arim", which implies 'Zeh' (only here, by the cities of the Levi'im), does the Din of Pei'os apply, but not by Shabbos.
Note: This entire Sugya appears to learn that Techumin is d'Oraysa - see Rashash.
(d)The Rabbanan learn from 'Zeh' - 'ka'Zeh Yihyu Kol Shovsei Shabbos', meaning that the concept of squaring the circle applies to all areas of Shabbos (even when we are speaking about a distance, and not an area), since that is the diagonal of a square of four Amos). Consequently, four Amos on Shabbos becomes five and three fifths Amos .
(a)One is Chayav for carrying four Amos in the street. What does four Amos really mean?
(b)Rava tested his disciples. What did he ask them?
(c)What did Rav Papa and his friends answer?
(a)All cases of four Amos with regard to Shabbos - really means five and three fifths Amos, as we just explained.
(b)Rava asked his disciples whether, if someone throws something from the street on to a board of four Amos square that is placed on a pole (and for which he is Chayav) - 'four Amos' should be taken literally, or whether it means five and three fifths Amos.
(c)Rav Papa and his friends answered - like the second side of the Sha'aleh, as we learnt above.
(a)According to Rav Nachman, Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah agree by 'bi'Mekomi', and they argue by 'be'Makom Ploni'. What is the basis of their Machlokes, i.e. over which basic principle do they argue?
(b)In which case does Rebbi Yehudah agree (that a 'rich man' cannot make an Eruv without bread?
(c)Who is the author of the section of our Mishnah 've'Zu Hi she'Amru, he'Ani Me'arev be'Raglav', and what is the Chidush?
(d)And who is the author of the Seifa of the Mishnah 'Lo Amru Me'arvin be'Pas Ela Lehakel Al he'Ashir, she'Lo Yetzei vi'Ye'arev be'Raglav'?
(a)According to Rav Nachman, Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah argue over whether 'Ikar Eruv be'Pas' (Rebbi Meir) - which explains why he is strict with regard to a rich man making an Eruv be'Regel; or 'Ikar Eruv be'Regel' (Rebbi Yehudah) - which explains why he permits it.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah agrees that - even an Eruv be'Regel is only permitted across the board if one is standing on the spot; making an Eruv in the distance, is confined to a poor man (who is traveling), but a rich man cannot do this.
(c)According to Rav Nachman - the author of 've'Zu Hi she'Amru, he'Ani Me'arev be'Raglav' is Rebbi Meir, and the Chidush is that, although 'Ikar Eruv be'Pas', Chazal nevertheless permitted a poor man (i.e. a traveler) to be Me'arev be'Raglav.
(d)And the author of 'Lo Amru Me'arvin be'Pas Ela Lehakel Al he'Ashir she'Lo Yetzei vi'Ye'arev be'Raglav' - is Rebbi Yehudah (because, according to Rebbi Meir, that is the Ikar Eruv).
(a)According to Rav Chisda, the Tana'im argue 'bi'Mekom Ploni, and not by 'bi'Mekomi'. In which case do they agree?
(b)And in which case does Rebbi Meir then argue with Rebbi Yehudah?
(c)Who is the author of the Seifa of the Mishnah 'Lo Amru Me'arvin be'Pas Ela Lehakel Al he'Ashir she'Lo Yetzei vi'Ye'arev be'Raglav', according to Rav Chisda?
(a)According to Rav Chisda, both Tana'im hold 'Ikar Eruv be'Regel' -Consequently, Rebbi Meir agrees with Rebbi Yehudah, that even a rich man can make an Eruv be'Regel - provided he goes to the spot where he wants to be Koneh Shevisah.
(b)He disagrees with him however - when it comes to making an Eruv be'Regel from a distance: Rebbi Yehudah permits this even by a rich man, whereas Rebbi Meir restricts it to a poor man.
(c)According to Rav Chisda - the Seifa 'Lo Amru Me'arvin be'Pas Ela Lehakel Al he'Ashir she'Lo Yetzei vi'Ye'arev be'Raglav' - goes according to Rebbi Meir, as well as Rebbi Yehudah.
(a)The Beraisa supports Rav Nachman's interpretation. Which two Chumros must we contend with, one according to Rebbi Meir, and one according to Rebbi Yehudah?
(b)What proof does Rebbi Yehudah bring for his opinion, from the poor men of Kfar Shichin and Kfar Chananya, who made an Eruv on foot to go and fetch dried figs and raisins in a year of famine from the residents of Aruma?
(a)Since we rule like Rav Nachman, a rich man is not permitted to make an Eruv be'Regel from his house; whereas, according to Rebbi Meir, he is not even permitted to make an Eruv if he walks to the spot where he wishes to be Koneh Shevisah.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah brought a proof from the poor men of Kfar Shichin and Kfar Chananya, who made an Eruv on foot to go and fetch dried figs and raisins in a year of famine, from the residents of Aruma. Now the poor men of Kfar Shichin and Kfar Chananya were living at home, had the Din of rich men - yet they were permitted to make an Eruv on foot, something which Rebbi Meir forbade.
(a)Rebbi Yehudah in the next Mishnah, permits someone who has set out on Friday afternoon to walk four thousand Amos to his house in the next town, to complete the journey, even though his friend initially convinced him to return. Why is only he permitted to complete the journey, and not the other residents of the town? How is this a proof for Rav Nachman?
(b)Why are we forced to say ...
1. ... that the man set to go to his house in the second town, and not just be Koneh Shevisah
2. ... that he owned a house in the other town too?
3. ... that he did not say 'Shevisasi be'Makom Ploni'?
(a)From the fact that Rebbi Yehudah permitted only the man who set out to travel to the neighboring town to complete the journey of four thousand Amos, and not the other residents of the town (even if they would have made an Eruv be'Regel) - is a proof for Rav Nachman; because according to Rav Chisda, even a rich man can also make an Eruv be'Regel on foot.
(b)We are forced to say ...
1. ... that the man set out to go to his house in the second town - because if he just went to be Koneh Shevisah, he would still be a rich man, in which case he would be no different than any other of the town's residents.
2. ... that he owned a house in the other town too - because, that is how we know that he set out to go and reside there (which made him an Ani) and not just to be Koneh Shevisah at a point somewhere in the middle.
3. ... that he did not say 'Shevisasi be'Makom Peloni' - first of all, because the Mishnah does not record him as having said so, and secondly, because if he had, then Rebbi Meir, who agrees that he is an Ani (otherwise, he should have forbidden him to move at all, and not just restricted him to 'Chamar Gamal'), would have validated the Eruv completely.
(a)What did Rabah bar Rav Chanan used to do every Friday when he wanted to walk from Artivna to Pumbedisa?
(b)What did Abaye say to him that forced him to retract?
(a)Every Friday, Rabah bar Rav Chanan would designate a specific spot between his residence in Artivna and his destination in Pumbedisa as his new Makom Shevisah.
(b)Abaye reminded him that that was the opinion of Rav Chisda, who maintained that Rebbi Yehudah permits an Ashir to be Me'arev be'Raglav, even from his house, but that, according to Rav Nachman, this was prohibited. So he retracted.
(a)How does the Gemara try to prove that someone who makes an Eruv with bread has an extra four Amos (i.e. 2004 Amos), just like someone who makes an Eruv on foot?
(b)On what grounds is this proof rejected, leaving the She'eilah open?
(a)Our Mishnah writes that they only permitted to make an Eruv with bread in order to be lenient with the Ashir - Now if we were to restrict the concession of 2004 Amos to someone who makes his Eruv on foot, then making an Eruv with bread would also incorporate the stringency of being confined to 2000 Amos (instead of 2004); so how can the Mishnah refer to Erav be'Pas as a leniency?
(b)The answer is - that since the rich man is spared having to walk to his Techum to wait for night (but is able to send his Sheli'ach), the Mishnah is justified in calling it a leniency (despite the fact that, in other area, an Eruv made with bread might result in a stringency).