ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 52
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) '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
(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
(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).
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) 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
(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.
*****Hadran Alach, 'Mi she'Hotzi'uhu'!*****
(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.
*****Perek Keitzad Me'abrin*****
(a) Chazal refer to a town with protruding houses or ramparts as 'Ibur' ...
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
(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).
- ... with an 'Ayin' - because it resembles a pregnant woman.
- ... with an Aleph - because it resembles a limb that protrudes from the body.
(c) 'Gedudi'os' are ruins of walls or houses within seventy and two third
Amos of the wall of the town or its extremity.