Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 52

1) RASHI'S TWO EXPLANATIONS

SUMMARY: The Mishnah discusses the following case. One departed his city just before Shabbos with intention to be Koneh Shevisah at a point 2000 Amos outside of his city, so that he would be able to walk on Shabbos to another city that was 4000 Amos away from his present city. Just after departing from his city, his friend stopped him and insisted that he return to his city. The Mishnah states that even though he returned to his original city, his Eruv Techumin is valid and he may walk on Shabbos to the second city. The other residents of his city, though, may not use the Eruv to travel to the other city. This is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Meir says that his Eruv is not valid, but rather he is limited to the area that is shared by the Techum of his Eruv and the Techum of his original city.

The Gemara then cites a Beraisa which also quotes Rebbi Yehudah, who says that since the person embarked on his journey, the Eruv that he intended to make at a certain point far away from him is valid (that is, since he is already traveling he has the status of an Ani, who is permitted to make an Eruv by simply saying, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place"). Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah adds that even if his friend kept him back and told him to stay in his present city due to the inclement weather in the other city, the Eruv Techumin is still valid.

Then Gemara then records an argument between Rabah and Rav Yosef concerning the point of dispute between the opinions in the Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah (see Chart).

Rabah states: "Everyone agrees that one must 'say'; they argue whether he must be 'Machzik'." Rav Yosef states: "Everyone agrees that one must be 'Machzik'; they argue whether he must 'say.'" It is not clear what exactly this means.

(a) According to Rashi's first explanation, the argument between Rabah and Rav Yosef is as follows.

1a. Rabah: "Everyone agrees that one must 'say'": According to Rabah, both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi require that in order for the Eruv to be valid even though the person returned home to the first city, we must know that he did not return on his own accord but that *his friend told him to return*. Since we see that his friend told him to return, we may assume that he still has in mind to rely on his Eruv the next day, during Shabbos. If the friend did not say anything and the person returned on his own accord, we assume that he no longer has intention to rely on his Makom Shevisah and the Eruv is invalid. (This is what Rabah means when he says that everyone agrees that "he must *say*;" that is, the friend must say something to detain him, as opposed to his returning home on his own accord.)

1b. "They argue whether he must be 'Machzik'": According to Rebbi Yehudah, although he does not have to verbally declare intent to be Koneh Shevisah, he must have departed from his home in order to be considered an Ani. Rebbi Yosi is lenient and does not require him to have actually left his home. As long as he was intending to leave, but his friend kept him back, his intent to be Koneh Shevisah works.

2a. Rav Yosef: "Everyone agrees that one must be 'Machzik'": Rav Yosef maintains that both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi require the person to have actually left his home in order to be considered an Ani.

2b. "They argue whether he must 'say'": Rebbi Yehudah does *not* require that the person return to his home at the urging of his friend. Even if he returns on his own accord, he is Koneh his intended Makom Shevisah by virtue of the fact that he started on his journey. Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, though, requires not only that he started on his journey, but that his return home be at the urging of his friend. It follows that according to this explanation of Rashi, Rav Yosef holds that it is Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah who is more stringent and Rebbi Yehudah who is lenient.

According to this explanation of Rashi, everyone agrees that the person making the Eruv does *not* have to openly state, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place." When the Gemara says that "he said" ('Amar'), it is not referring to the person making the Eruv, but to his friend who told him to stay in his present city and not to travel to the other city. The Gemara means that it was his friend who kept him back, in contrast to returning by his own volition. If, however, he said explicitly, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place," everyone agrees that his Eruv is valid, regardless of whether his friend kept him back or he went back on his own.

(According to this explanation, Rebbi Meir, who says that the person making the Eruv is a "Chamar Gamal" holds that we are in doubt whether the person, who returned to his city after starting out towards another city, intends still to make his place of Shevisah in the place that he designated, or whether he changed his mind and intended for his place of Shevisah to be at his home. Therefore, he has the status of a "Chamar Gamal" who is limited to the part of the Techum shared by both possible places of Shevisah.)

(b) According to Rashi's second explanation, the argument between Rabah and Rav Yosef is as follows. 1a. Rabah: "Everyone agrees that one must 'say'": Rabah maintains that both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi require that *the person making the Eruv* say "*My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place*." (This is what Rabah means when he says that everyone agrees that "he must *say*.")

1b. "They argue whether he must be 'Machzik'": They argue whether the person making the Eruv must have actually departed from his home and started traveling or not. According to Rebbi Yehudah, in order to be considered an Ani who may make an Eruv by merely saying "My Shevisah will be in such-and- such place," the person must have actually left home and started traveling. According to Rebbi Yosi, it is sufficient for him to have been intending and planning to depart in order to be considered an Ani. Rebbi Yosi, then, is more lenient than Rebbi Yehudah in that he does not require the person to have actually left his home.

2a. Rav Yosef: "Everyone agrees that one must be 'Machzik'": Rav Yosef maintains that both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi require the person to have actually left his home in order to be considered an Ani.

"They argue whether he must 'say'": According to Rebbi Yehudah, the person making the Eruv must verbally declare, "*My Shevisah will be in such-and- such place*." According to Rebbi Yosi, the very fact that he departed from his city towards the other city shows that he had intention to be Koneh Shevisah between the two cities, and that "Giluy Da'as" suffices.

According to the second explanation of Rashi, *Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah* as interpreted by *Rav Yosef* is the only one who does not require a verbal declaration of intent to be Koneh Shevisah in a given place.

(According to this explanation of Rashi, Rebbi Meir, who says that the person making the Eruv is a "Chamar Gamal," holds that one who has just departed from his city is *not* considered an Ani. Only someone who is already traveling and is far from his home is considered an Ani. Therefore, since this person has just left his city, he is considered an Ashir, and he may not make an Eruv by saying, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place." As a result, he is not Koneh Shevisah in the other city. However, since he *wanted* to be Koneh Shevisah in another place, he loses the part of his original Techum which is not accessible from the place in which he wanted to be Koneh Shevisah, and he is permitted to walk only in the area which is shared by the Techum of both places.)

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that if someone departed his city with intention to be Koneh Shevisah 2000 Amos away so that he could walk to a city 4000 Amos away "and his friend insisted that he stay behind" in his original city, he is still Koneh Shevisah in the place he intended and he may walk to the second city on Shabbos.

Why does the Mishnah say that his friend kept him back? Even if he did not start coming back, his Eruv is valid for him because he is considered an Ani, and the Eruv is not valid for the other people of the city because they are considered Ashirim, since they are in their homes.

According to the first explanation of Rashi (see previous Insight), the answer to this question is clear. The reason Rebbi Meir argues, in the Mishnah, and says that he is a "Chamar Gamal" (that is, he is limited to the area shared by both the Techum of his city and his Eruv Techumin) is because he *started coming back home*, which might indicate that he has changed his mind and does not want the Eruv to be outside of his city. Because we are unsure whether his Eruv is valid or not, he is limited to the Techum shared by both his Eruv and the city.

However, according to the second explanation of Rashi, Rebbi Meir is of the opinion that because the person who departed towards the other city is *not* considered an Ani, but an Ashir, even before he turned around to go home. One is considered an Ani only when in the *middle* of a long journey and not near his home. Since this person has departed from his home and is not in the middle of a long journey, he is not considered an Ani, and the Eruv that he wanted to make by merely saying "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place" is not valid. Since the Eruv is not valid even if he did not return to go home, why does the Mishnah need to mention that his friend kept him home? It is not a necessary part of the scenario for Rebbi Yehudah nor for Rebbi Meir!

ANSWER: The Mishnah mentioned this factor in order to teach a new Halachah according to Rebbi Yehudah. We might have thought that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that he is an Ani only while actually *traveling* away from his home, but if he turns back towards his home he is no longer considered an Ani. Therefore, the Mishnah teaches that *even though* he turned back, he is still considered an Ani since he is still traveling on the road.

52b