Previous daf

1) 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.

2)

(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) In his second explanation, Rashi explains that, according to Rabah, Rebbi Yehudah holds that, having said 'Shevisasi be'Makom Peloni', 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 Peloni' 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) 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 Peloni') - 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 Peloni'.

(d) The Gemara refutes the proof - by establishing the case when he *did* say 'Shevisasi be'Makom Peloni', like Rebbi Yehudah (according to Rabah, or even Rav Yosef).

5) 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.

6)

(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) 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.

8)

(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.

Next daf