(a)Rebbi Meir disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah with regard to the man who set out to go to his house in the second town. What does he say, and what is the basis of their dispute?
(a)Rebbi Meir holds that, since he was not Koneh Shevisah verbally, we are not certain that that is what he actually meant to do. Consequently, since he is definitely an Ani (even according to Rebbi Meir - as we explained on the previous Amud), it remains a Safek whether, in spite of the fact that he had a house in the second town, when he returned, he decided to remain a resident of his town, or whether, due to his house in the second town, he still wanted to reside there for that Shabbos, like he intended to do when he first set out to go there on Friday. Therefore, Rebbi Meir rules 'Harei Zeh Chamar Gamal', meaning that he is permitted to walk the two thousand Amos between his house and the border on the one side, but no more.
(a)What does the Mishnah mean when it says that his friend called him back, and why does it need to say that?
(b)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, in the Beraisa, says 'Afilu Metza'o Chavero ve'Amar Lo, Lin Poh, Eis Chamah Hu' etc. Rabah explains that according to both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Yossi, his friend must have called him back (otherwise, if he went back of his own accord, he would once again be considered a rich man - see Tosfos DH 'Lomar'). What then, does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah come to add? What is their Machlokes?
(c)According to Rav Yosef, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah will agree that if he has not yet set out on the journey, he remains a rich man and his Eruv is invalid. What is the Machlokes according to him?
(a)'His friend called him back' - means that on the excuse of the heat or for some other reason, he managed to persuade him to return home, and the dispute is based on the fact that he took his friend's advice and returned. The question now is that, when he later proceeds to walk to the other town, to what extent does he still intend to remain a resident of his town (an Ashir), and to what extent he intends to leave for the second town (making him an Ani) - bearing in mind two things: that he has a house in the second town, and that he did not say that he is now being Koneh Shevisah.
(b)According to Rabah, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah agrees that it is only if his friend re-called him that he is considered an Ani, when he eventually leaves for the second town, but, if he went back of his own volition, then, in spite of everything, we presume that he changed his mind about traveling, and therefore remains an Ashir, who cannot be Koneh Shevisah on foot in another town. They argue however, when his friend convinced him not to go, before he had even left; Rebbi Yehudah holds that it is only if he had already set out before his friend re-called him, that he is Koneh Shevisah - since having already set out once, his determination to arrive there will be stronger; not so, in a case when he did not leave home earlier, and he is only setting out on Shabbos; there, we can assume that he is not that determined to arrive at the second town, in which case, he will remain an Ashir, and not be Koneh the Eruv.
(c)According to Rav Yosef, they both agree that if he did not set out before Shabbos, he will not be Koneh Shevisah on Shabbos (because he is an Ashir). Their Machlokes is when he set out before Shabbos: Rebbi Yehudah holds that, in that case, even if he returned of his own accord, it is as if he said 'Shevisasi be'Makom Peloni', and his Eruv is Koneh; whereas according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, he is only Koneh Shevisah, if in addition to having left the first time before Shabbos, he also returns only because his friend called him back, but not if he returned of his own accord.
(a)Rashi introduces a second explanation, according to which Rabah requires the Ashir to says explicitly that he wants to be Koneh Shevisah at the edge of his Techum (according to this explanation, 'Lomar Kuli Alma Lo Peligi de'Tzarich' refers to the man himself, and not to his friend specifically calling him back). How does Rabah now explain the Machlokes Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Yossi?
(b)And how does Rav Yosef explain it?
(c)Seeing as Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah requires that the Ashir both set out on the journey, and says that he wants to be Koneh Shevisah, why does Rebbi Meir disagree with him?
(d)How can we prove from the Lashon of Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah (where he says 'Kol she'Hu Yachol Le'arev, ve'lo Eirav, Harei Zeh Chamar Gamal'), that that is indeed what Rebbi Meir holds, and not that he is not certain whether he remains an Ashir or not?
(a)In his second explanation, Rashi explains that, according to Rabah, Rebbi Yehudah holds that, having said 'Shevisasi be'Makom Ploni', he must have actually left his house to be called an Ani; whereas according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, having said 'Shevisasi' etc., he is an Ani even if he did not leave his house before Shabbos.
(b)According to Rav Yosef, everyone agrees that he must have left his house before Shabbos in order to be called an Ani: Rebbi Yehudah holds that, in addition, before his friend re-called him, he needs to have said 'Shevisasi be'Makom Ploni' in order to be called an Ani, whereas according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, since he has a house in the second town, and he set out for there, he is an Ani even if he did not.
(c)Rebbi Meir argues in our Mishnah and holds 'Harei Zeh Chamar Gamal' - because, in his opinion, a man is only an Ashir if he is actually traveling, but not when he leaves his house on Friday afternoon; in that case, he remains an Ashir, and we have already learnt that, according to Rebbi Meir, there is no Eruv be'Regel for an Ashir.
(d)If Rebbi Meir would consider the man to be an Ani (like we learnt in the first Lashon) - then why does he say in the Mishnah 'Kol she'Hu Yachol Le'arev ve'Lo Erav, Harei Zeh Chamar Gamal', as if there were other cases of Ani where he is a Safek? In fact, this is the only case of an Ani where there is a Safek, so he should have just said 'Harei Zeh Chamar Gamal'.
(a)'Mi she'Hichzik ba'Derech ve'Hichziro Chavero, Harei Zeh Muchzar u'Muchzak'. What is wrong with this statement of Ula?
(b)How do we amend it - and according to the second Lashon (in 3a) - which is the Lashon agreed upon by many commentaries - with whose opinion does Ula conform?
(c)Rav Yehudah bar Ishtasa brought a basket of fruit to Rav Nasan bar Oshaya, who lived in a nearby town that was situated within four thousand Amos of his own. He had already set out on the return journey (on Friday), when Rav Nasan bar Oshaya called him back to stay overnight. On the following day, he left for home. According to the second Lashon of Rashi, what is the Gemara trying to prove with this?
(d)How does the Gemara refute the proof?
(a)How can Ula say 'Mi she'Hichzik ba'Derech ve'Hichziro Chavero, Harei Zeh Muchzar u'Muchzak'? Surely, 'Muchzar' implies that he is not Koneh Shevisah at all, while 'Muchzak' implies that he is!
(b)The Gemara therefore amends Ula to read 'Af al Pi she'Muchzar, Muchzak', suggesting that he is completely Muchzar (meaning that he did not even say 'Shevisasi be'Makom Ploni') - like Rav Yosef according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.
(c)The Gemara is again trying to prove from Rav Yehudah bar Ishtasa (who left for home on Shabbos after Rav Nasan bar Oshaya had persuaded him to stay overnight) that the Halachah is like Rav Yosef according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who does not require that he says 'Shevisasi be'Makom Ploni'.
(d)The Gemara refutes the proof - by establishing the case when he did say 'Shevisasi be'Makom Ploni', like Rebbi Yehudah (according to Rabah, or even Rav Yosef).
(a)Rebbi Meir rules in our Mishnah that, since, in his opinion, the man is an Ashir, he has no Eruv at all. But has he not already taught us that in the Mishnah in 'Bakol Me'arvin', with regard to someone whose Eruv may have moved or may have been eaten etc. before Shabbos? Why does he need to repeat it here?
(a)Had Rebbi Meir only told us (in the Mishnah in 'Bakol Me'arvin') 'Harei Zeh Chamar Gamal' - we would have thought that that is only because there, there is a Safek as to whether the Eruv rolled out of the Techum before Shabbos had entered, or not. But if it was certain that it did, then he would agree that he retains his original Techum. Therefore Rebbi Meir found it necessary to repeat his ruling here, where, because he is an Ashir, (by whom Erav be'Raglav never helps - according to him) the Eruv is definitely not Koneh. Nevertheless, he holds 'Harei Zeh Chamar Gamal' - because he relinquished his original Techum. And this will reflect on the case in 'ba'Kol Me'arvin', where Rebbi Meir will hold 'Harei Zeh Chamar Gamal' even if it is certain that the Eruv rolled out of the Techum before Shabbos came in - for the same reason.
(a)We have already quoted (on 45a) Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, who holds that a person who leaves his Techum on Shabbos, may return, provided he has not gone more than two Amos beyond it. What does the Tana Kama say?
(b)The Pasuk in Yeshayah writes "Im Tashiv mi'Shabbos Raglecha" etc. What are the two connotations of the word "Raglecha", and what are their ramifications?
(c)Acherim holds that we go after where most of the person is. What does he mean?
(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah says - that even if one took only one step outside his Techum, he is prohibited from returning.
(b)'Raglecha' is read as plural, but written in the singular. Rav Chanina deduces from the way it is written - that even if he placed just one foot outside the Techum, he is not permitted to return it.
(c)According to Acherim, we go after where most of the person is - not just his foot. Consequently, since most of him is still inside the Techum, even though his foot is outside, he is permitted to withdraw it from outside the Techum.
(a)Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah permits a person who has gone two Amos outside his Techum to return. Then why does he say in a Beraisa 'Shetayim, Lo Yikanes'?
(b)And what is Rebbi Eliezer referring to in another Beraisa where he says 'Afilu Amah Achas, Lo Yikanes', and why is that?
(c)On what grounds does Rebbi Shimon permit one to enter the town even if he is fifteen Amos (or even more) than two thousand Amos away from it?
(d)According to another explanation, the fifteen Amos must be taken literally. What does 'Mipnei To'ei ha'Midah' mean in that case?
(a)When Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah permits a person who has gone two Amos outside his Techum to return, he is speaking when he is standing within those two Amos; when he says in the Beraisa 'Shetayim, Lo Yikanes' - he speaks when he is standing outside them.
(b)And when Rebbi Eliezer says in another Beraisa 'Afilu Amah Achas, Lo Yikanes' - he is referring to someone whose two thousand Amos end in the town - he is not permitted to go even one Amah further into the town beyond where his two thousand Amos end.
(c)Rebbi Shimon permits one to enter the town if he has walked fifteen Amos (or even more) beyond his two thousand Amos limit - because, due to people who will inadvertently go beyond the Techum and return, those who measure the Techum, actually measure less than two thousand Amos, in order to allow some leeway to those who err.
(d)According to Rashi's second explanation, the To'ei Midah are the measurers themselves, who mistakenly measure fifteen Amos less than two thousand. Why is that? Because, since they use a rope measuring fifty Amos long, they forget to account for the two Tefachim which they are holding, and so they end up with fifteen Amos (which is ninety Tefachim) less than two thousand Amos. Why fifteen? Because, they measure forty rope-lengths [fifty times forty = two thousand), and each grip of the rope consists of one Tefach and half a finger-breadth at each end. This amounts to ninety Tefachim - fifteen Amos.
HADRAN ALACH, 'MI SHE'HOTZI'UHU'!
PEREK KEITZAD ME'ABRIN.
(a)Why do Chazal refer to a town with protruding houses or ramparts as 'Ibur', if it is spelt with ...
1. ... an Ayin?
2. ... an Aleph?
(b)How does one reckon the Techum of two thousand Amos from the town, if the town has houses or ramparts protruding at certain points?
(c)Gedudi'os are also considered 'Ibur ha'Ir'. What are Gedudi'os?
(a)Chazal refer to a town with protruding houses or ramparts as 'Ibur' ...
1. ... with an 'Ayin' - because it resembles a pregnant woman.
2. ... with an Aleph - because it resembles a limb that protrudes from the body.
(b)If a town has even one house protruding from the southern wall, for example, then one extends the entire southern wall by the width of the house (as if there were houses protruding from that entire side).
(c)'Gedudi'os' are ruins of walls or houses within seventy and two third Amos of the wall of the town or its extremity.
(a)Having formed the shape of the town according to the Ibur, how does one then proceed to measure the Techum of two thousand Amos? Round or square or how?
(a)Having formed the shape of the town according to the Ibur - one then proceeds to measure the Techum of two thousand Amos in the form of a square. In this way, one gains at the corners, which will now be more than two thousand Amos.