Question: Why don't we say that the case regarding his friend is when he tells his friend to hire workers for him tomorrow?

Answer: If so, why say his friend? He is also not allowed to say that he is going to hire workers tomorrow! Rav Yehudah only said in the name of Shmuel that one is allowed to tell his friend that he is going to a certain city the next day because if there would be little huts along the way he would indeed be allowed to go (and there would be no problem of going out of the Techum). This implies that if this could not be the case, he would not be allowed to say it.

Opinion #1: There is an opinion that Rebbi Akiva is called "Korchah" because he was bald.

Proof: This is as the Beraisa states in Bechoros (58a) that Ben Azai said all of the sages are compared before me to a garlic peel, aside from this bald man. This must have been Rebbi Akiva. Rebbi Akiva had a son known as Yehoshua (who was therefore called Rebbi Yehoshuah ben Korchah, meaning that he was the son of the bald one), as stated in Shevuos, "Rebbi Yehoshua, the son of Rebbi Akiva, said to Rebbi Akiva."

Question: This does not appear correct to Rabeinu Tam. Even though Ben Azai called Rebbi Akiva bald in a joking manner, it is not reason for us to call him this all the time (when using his son's name) as it is a derogatory term. This is as the Pasuk states, "Go up bald one, go up bald one" (Melachim Beis 2:23 regarding the boys who were making of fun of the prophet Elisha).

Proof #1: We say later (152a) that a Tzeduki asked Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah, "How far is it from here to Karchinah?" He was making fun of Rebbi Yehoshua because he was bald.

Proof #2: We also say in Megilah (28a) that Rebbi asked Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah why he lived so long etc. He said, "Rebbi, give me a blessing." Rebbi Yehoshua answered, "Let there be (His) will that you should live half as long as myself."

Proof #2 (cont.): How can Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah be the son of Rebbi Akiva? Rebbi Akiva did not marry the daughter of Kalba Savua until he accepted that he would study Torah, and this happened when he was forty. This is as the Beraisa states at the end of the Sifri, "For forty years he was serving Torah scholars, for forty years he led Bnei Yisrael, and he lived a total of one hundred and twenty years."

Proof #2 (cont.): We say in Kidushin (72a) that before Rebbi Akiva died, Rebbi was born. Even if Rebbi Yehoshua was born in the first year of Rebbi Akiva's marriage, he would be eighty years apart from Rebbi Akiva. Rebbi Yehoshua must have been at least one hundred and forty years old when he blessed Rebbi, as he would not have said he should live to be less than seventy years old. Rebbi would have been at least sixty years old (as he was alive before Rebbi Akiva died). Accordingly, it does not make sense that Rebbi Yehoshua would bless Rebbi that he should only live ten more years.

Proof #2 (cont.): Additionally, it seems that Rebbi Akiva did not marry his wife until he studied Torah from his teachers for two shifts of twelve years each (see Nedarim 50a). If this is correct, when Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah was one hundred and forty years old, Rebbi was already more than half his age.

Opinion #2: This is why it appears to Rabeinu Tam that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah's father was not Rebbi Akiva but rather a different person who was called Korchah. Korchah is a name of a person similar to the name "Korach." He was born long before the Rebbi Yehoshua who was the son of Rebbi Akiva.

Opinion #1: This is specifically to his friend who is a Jew. However, it is forbidden to tell this to a Nochri, since he does this because of this statement.

Question: This does not seem to be correct, as the reason we permit this is because speech is forbidden but thoughts are permitted.

Opinion #2: If so, this leniency applies both to a Nochri and to a Jew.

Explanation: The Gemara means, is this forbidden according to Torah law? Since we permit this type of talk if it is for a Mitzvah, it must be that it is permitted according to Torah law!

Question: Why does the Gemara have to quote Rebbi Elazar's statement? It should have quoted the opinion of Beis Hillel in the Tosefta (ch. 17). The Tosefta states, "One may not establish amounts of charity even in order to marry off a male or female orphan. One may not make be a matchmaker and cause betrothal (on Shabbos). These are the words of Beis Shamai. Beis Hillel says these things are permitted.

Answer: The Gemara would rather quote Rebbi Elazar's opinion, as from the Tosefta we do not see establishing amounts of charity for the poor. Beis Hillel only explicitly permitted this in order to help marry off a male or female orphan.

Observation: The Gemara currently implies that this is specifically by the Techum. However, within the Techum one can wait until dark in order to hire workers and bring fruit.

Question: Rebbi asks, in Eruvin (38b) the Beraisa states a person should not walk into his field to know what it needs. Similarly, a person should not walk by the entrance to a country so that he can enter the bathhouse immediately (after Shabbos). (This clearly implies there is no difference whether it is within the Techum or not!)

Answer: In Eruvin (ibid.), it is obvious that he is only walking there in order to enter the bathhouse immediately after Shabbos. This is because by the entrance of a country there are normally bathhouses, as stated in Megilah (6b) that five hundred (chimneys) take the smoke outside the walls. However, here there is no proof within the Techum that he is waiting to hire workers and bring fruit. The Gemara in Eruvin (ibid.) gives a similar answer.

Observation: Rashi implies that he is going to be guarding outside the Techum. This is also implied by our Mishnah.

Question: Rebbi asks that Shmuel says in our Gemara that it is permitted for a person to tell his friend that he is going to a different city tomorrow. The Gemara asks, "Doesn't the Mishnah say that one is not allowed to wait by the Techum in order to hire workers etc.?"

Question (cont.): The Mishnah itself bears a contradiction that should be asked, as it is apparently according to Shmuel! This is apparent from the second part of the Mishnah, "Aba Shaul says a rule: Whatever I am allowed to say, I am allowed to wait for until dark." The Gemara explains that this effectively means that whatever one is permitted to say he is permitted to wait for until dark. If so, if we permit waiting to guard outside the Techum, it should be permitted to say that one is going to go outside of the Techum tomorrow, as waiting and saying are tied to each other. This is as per the opinion of Shmuel.

Answer: I don't understand the difficulty. Were it not for Shmuel's law, the Mishnah would not be difficult. I would think that there is nothing a person may not say about himself. He may even say, "I will hire workers tomorrow" or "I will build this building" on Shabbos. I would think the problem is only to say to one's friend, "Hire workers for me tomorrow" as his words make the workers get hired. However, regarding himself, he may say whatever he wants as whether he says it or not it does not make a difference (regarding whether or not he hires workers). Aba Shaul only makes waiting until dark forbidden dependent on whether the words said to his friend are forbidden or permitted.

Answer (cont.): However, if we hold of Shmuel the Gemara has a good question, as Shmuel forbade all such statements even if they were about himself. He only permits saying he is going to another city because it is possible to set up booths along the way and go in a permitted fashion.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara therefore asks, since if it were not for this reason Shmuel would forbid saying he is going to a different city, and he only permitted it because he can make huts, it should also be permitted in the Mishnah to bring fruit. This is because if there were walls it would indeed be permitted! This is my opinion.

Question: This is difficult. Why say this regarding himself? He can even say to his friend, "Go for me to this other city tomorrow" for the same reason that Shmuel permits saying it about himself. Since Shmuel permitted a person to say to his friend, "Guard for me the fruit that is in your Techum" even on Shabbos, he can certainly say, "Guard for me tomorrow!"

Implied Question: One cannot explain that the case there is different as it is in his Techum. However, he cannot say to his friend, "Guard for me fruit that is outside your Techum." (Why not?)

Answer: It seems that even this he can say since it is permitted to wait.

Answer: It must be that Shmuel did not only permit saying, "I am going to a different city." One may also say to one's friend, "Go for me to a different city tomorrow."

Implied Question: The Gemara could have also said that the reason is because of Muktzah, as it is not fit for animal food. This is as stated earlier (141a) that one may not move straw that is on a bed etc. (Why didn't it state that the reason was due to Muktzah?)

Answer: Rather, it is including that there is even a problem because it is connected to the ground.

Observation: Rebbi says that the Gemara does not mean it is forbidden because it may not be uprooted from the ground, as even though it is connected to the ground there is no prohibition of uprooting since it is dry and it is no longer nurtured by the ground.

Proof: This is as is apparent from the Gemara in Chulin (127b) where he says that figs that are drying up on the tree become impure with impurity of food, and one who uproots one of these figs from the tree is liable to bring a Chatas. This implies that this is only if they are drying up. However, if they were completely dried, he is not liable.

Proof: This is also implied in the entire Gemara, as it says that if they dried up along with their stems, they can become impure with impurity of food. Their law is not at all like they are attached.

Explanation: When our Gemara says that we find this if it is connected, this is because of the prohibition against beautifying land. This is as stated earlier (103a) that if one picks out weeds on Shabbos he is liable.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Eruvin (100b) says regarding a dried out tree, "Didn't the fruit fall off?" This implies that there is a prohibition to pick dried out fruit!

Answer: Rebbi says that the case is where they were dried out, but their stems were not dried out.

Implied Question: The Gemara later (155b) says that one may spread out straw and barely grown grass before an animal. The Gemara there says it is referring to this spoiled straw, implying it is fit for an animal. (How can our Gemara say that spoiled straw is not fit for an animal to eat?)

Answer: Rebbi explains that the case there (ibid.) is when the straw was not very spoiled.

Question: This is difficult. Why didn't he say the case was where he cut for him a myrtle branch, as it was common for them to bring a myrtle branch for the dead. This is as the Gemara states in Nidah (37a) that the myrtle branch jumped from one bed (where a dead body was laying) to the other.

Answer: It has to say that it is referring to a casket and clothes for the dead body, as stated explicitly in the Mishnah.