Daf 41

1) If a non-Jew, or a demon, brought someone out of his T'chum he can only walk within four Amos, However, if the non-Jew or demon returned him to his original T'chum, he has the whole T'chum as if he was never taken out. However, if he left the T'chum on his own, even if he was returned to his T'chum by others, or if others took him out, but he returned on his own volition; he can only walk within four Amos.

2) If he needs to use the facilities, he may walk more than four Amos (to find a private place) to relieve himself. After all, great is human dignity that it supersedes a Lav from the Torah (i.e., the Lav to not disregard the rabbis' decrees).

3) If he's smart, (when he's looking for a private place to relieve himself), he can return to his original T'chum, and once he's there, he regains his original T'chum.

4) If someone took fruits out of its T'chum; the Tanna Kama holds that if he did it knowingly, it's forbidden. [Tosfos explains: no one can eat it. Although we say that, if an object is brought for a Jew from out of the T'chum, it is permitted to other Jews; we're more stringent here since a Jew brought it out of the T'chum.] However, if it's done unknowingly, it's permitted. R' Nechemia forbids the fruits as long as it's not in their original T'chum. [Tosfos explains: since it's forbidden to carry it more than four Amos, we decree to forbid it completely so that he doesn't carry it out of the four Amos. Although we allowed people to eat fruit that a non-Jew brought to a city from outside the T'chum, and we didn't forbid it for, perhaps, someone will carry it outside the city; we must differentiate that we only don't worry about carrying out of a whole city, but just out of its four Amos. Alternatively, we are more lenient when it's done by a non-Jew. Alternatively, we can be more lenient by a non-Jew's object that doesn't really have a T'chum, but they decreed to treat it like it has a T'chum since you'll mistake it with an object owned by a Jew. Therefore, we don't decree that you'll remove it from that area since we don't make decrees for a decree.]

5) If someone brings the fruits back inside the T'chum; the Tanna Kama allows them even if was done knowingly (since the fruits itself are forced to move, we don't fine people that they can't eat it). [Tosfos explains: although we don't allow food taken out of the T'chum for the one who it was brought for; here it's different since it's now in the original place. Although we forbade it if he knowingly cooked on Shabbos, here, we're not as strict, even though he did a prohibition of knowingly carrying the item back, since it's only a rabbinical prohibition.] R' Nechemia and R' Elazar b. Yaakov forbade it if done knowingly, but permits it if done unknowingly. R' Pappa Paskins like the Tanna Kama [Tosfos: and that's truely the Halacha].

Daf 42

6) If you're traveling and you don't know how far your T'chum is, you can take two thousand average paces.

7) If you rested in a valley, and on Shabbos, non-Jews build a fence around you, you can only walk two thousand Amos (even if the fenced area is more) since you didn't rest within the Mechitza during the start of the Shabbos day. Shmuel says that you can carry in the whole structure. You can even bring it to a place outside your T'chum by throwing the object there. [Tosfos says: you can only move objects in this enclosure by throwing, since there are areas that you can't carry it there with your hands, so the whole area is forbidden to carry with your hands since, in the aspect of carrying with your hands, it's open to an area that it's forbidden to carry.] However, R' Huna forbids throwing your object outside your T'chum since you might go there to fetch it. Therefore, you can't even carry within your T'chum, since it's open to an area that you're not allowed to carry there.

8) [Tosfos brings a Yerushalmi that says; this, that he can't carry throughout the whole fenced in area, is only according to R' Yehoshua who holds that you can't walk more because you're in a fenced area that you didn't rest there on Erev Shabbos, (as we'll see soon). However, R' Gamliel will allow this, just like he allows walking through the whole fenced area that you were put in after you left your T'chum. However, Rashi explains that it's even according to R' Gamliel. After all, R' Gamliel only allowed expanding your area in an enclosure when you only have four Amos. However, if you anyhow have two thousand Amos, he doesn't allow expanding it by being in this fenced area that you didn't rest there from Erev Shabbos.]

9) R' Huna admits that it's permitted to move objects there by pulling it towards you. [Tosfos explains; since you're bringing the object closer to you, you don't have the worry that you'll come to fetch your object out of your T'chum, since that's only applicable when you're distancing the object from you, and not by bringing it closer to you. Although the fenced area is considered open to an area that's forbidden to throw there, however, regarding pulling the object towards you, it's not open to a forbidden area.]

10) If your T'chum ends halfway through a courtyard, you may carry in that courtyard. [Tosfos explains: it's not considered to be open to a place that's forbidden, since others can carry in the whole courtyard. This is not like starting Shabbos in a valley and non-Jews build a fence around you, since, there, the whole area is not permitted to anybody. This is not like Rashi who explains that he's only allowed to walk in half the courtyard, but not to carry there, since the Gemara's connotation is to permit carrying.]

11) If you go outside your T'chum and your placed in an enclosed area (like a barn or a boat); R' Gamliel and R' Elazar b. Azarya allows you to carry through the whole enclosed area, and R' Yehoshua and R' Akiva only allow carrying there within four Amos.

12) Rav Paskins like R' Gamliel both by the barn and by the boat, and Shmuel only Paskins like him by the boat.

13) The reason why Shmuel only Paskins like R' Gamliel by the boat; Rabbah says since he rested in the airspace within the fence from before Shabbos. R' Zeira says: since the boat takes someone from the beginning of the four Amos to the end of the four Amos. [Rashi explains: he never acquired any four Amos for a resting space, since it's continuously moving and was never settled in one place. Alternatively, since someone acquires four Amos when he's removed from his T'chum, and every step someone makes on the boat, the boat removes him from the new four Amos that he acquires. Thus, he's constantly getting a new four Amos.] The practical difference between the two reasons: if the boat stops. According to Rabbah, you can still carry throughout the boat, and R' Zeira holds that you only have four Amos now.

Daf 43

14) [Tosfos explains: although Rabbah, later in the ninth Perek, holds that the wall of the boat is not a proper Mechitza since it's only made to protect from the water, that's only if the boat is bigger than a Beis Sasayim, and here, we refer to when it's less than a Beis Sasayim. Alternatively, he reverses his opinion there, as the Gemara there infers. See there.]

15) [Tosfos says that the Halacha is like Rav that it's permitted to carry even in a barn. This is not like R' Chananal who Paskins like Shmuel, nor like Rashbam who Paskins like R' Yehoshua (and doesn't even allow a boat).]

16) [Tosfos quotes Rashbam who allows someone to come aboard a boat from before Shabbos to sail off on Shabbos, since he holds that he's not walking out of the T'chum, but the boat is just bringing him there by itself. He holds that the Braisa in Mesechta Shabbos that forbids it for three days before Shabbos is like Beis Shammai who forbids starting any Melacha on Erev Shabbos if it won't be finished before Shabbos, even if the finishing happens by itself. The Yerushalmi infers this too. He even allows coming aboard on Shabbos, although Beis Hillel in the Yerushalmi doesn't allow it but before Shabbos, that's because there you'll be telling a non-Jew to drive it. However, Tosfos forbids it, and brings a proof from the Gemara that a rabbi can make a trick to sleep in a boat so that he gets to the other side, and he can claim that he just went to take a nap; but regularly, it's forbidden. Ritzva says it's forbidden since one might come to build some floating device (shaped like a barrel). Alternatively, they might end up steering the ship, which would be equivalent to moving it four Amos in a Karmulas. Also, the Ri doesn't permit for those to come aboard Erev Shabbos, light Shabbos candles, accept Shabbos on board, then disembark and go to dry land for the night, and then return there on Shabbos. After all, they're still taking off on a ship on Shabbos.]

17) [Also, the Rashbam wanted to permit travelling by wagon on Shabbos but reversed his decision since they might get off the wagon on Shabbos, either by being held up by robbers, or by just simply forgetting. The Ri forbade completely, since they only allowed it by a boat where it's impossible to go out of it on Shabbos. (Even if they'll come to port on Shabbos and he could come out, it's permitted since, generally, he can't go upon land, they didn't differentiate to forbid in these cases.) Also, if the wagon is lead by animals, it's forbidden because of the decree not to use animals since you'll come to break off a branch to prod it.]

18) We have a Safeik whether there is T'chumim when traveling above ten Tefachim from the ground (i.e., by walking on a plank that's above ten T'fachim and is not four T'fachium wide, or by saying Hashem's name to fly, or by a boat (that floats on water over ten T'fachim from the sea's floor). Therefore, you need to be strict and not go out of the T'chum. However, if someone says that he'll be a Nazir the day Moshiach comes; if he makes that oath on a Sunday, he's forbidden to drink wine since it's possible that Eliyahu can come on Shabbos if it's permitted to go out of the T'chum above ten Tefachim. [Tosfos adds: however, we can't say that he definitely can come before Shabbos, and then announce Moshiach's arrival on Shabbos; since the Pasuk implies that he'll announce Moshiach's arrival the day he comes.] However, if he makes the oath on Shabbos, he's permitted to drink wine that day since Eliyahu couldn't come the day before to announce Moshiach's arrival since he'll disrupt the Shabbos preparation when people come to greet him. However, we don't need to worry that Moshiach can't come on Friday since he'll disrupt the Shabbos preparation, since everyone will become our slaves on that day, they'll prepare for Shabbos.

19) [Tosfos asks: it seems here that we need to worry that Moshiach might come on any given day that you need not to drink wine for the possibility that Moshiach will come and his Nazirus will be in effect. Yet, we allow a Kohein to drink wine nowadays and we're not worried that Moshiach will come and we'll need his service in the Mikdash, and he would be invalid when he's intoxicated.

Tosfos answers: there, it's not for sure that the service will be stopped since it's possible for a different Kohein to do the service, or he can sleep a little and become fit again. However, here, he'll definitely transgress his Nazirus if Moshiach comes. Alternatively, R' Tam explains: the oath in our Gemara is that he'll be a Nazir the day that Moshiach has the ability to come, and not that he'll actually come.]

20) If he walks on a plank that's above ten Tefachim and is four Tefachim wide, it's considered like an extention of the ground, and everyone holds that he can't go out of the T'chum that way, since it's normal to walk upon it.

21) This person who made the Nazirus oath is forbidden on the other days even though we didn't see Eliyahu come the day before, (so Moshiach can't come today if Eliyahu didn't come the day before). After all, he could have came but only revealed himself to the Beis Din in Yerushalayim.

22) You can make a human Mechitza (composed of many people surrounding an area) as long as they're not aware why they were brought to surround this area.

23) If someone left the T'chum, and they bring enough people (who made an Eiruv there) to surround him and the circle extends until the beginning of his T'chum, he may walk all of the Mechitza until his original T'chum, since we Paskin like R' Gamliel that you may walk through the whole Mechitza [Tosfos explains: this is even according to the Rabanan's opinion (later) that if you walk out of your T'chum and get four Amos, even if your four Amos is close to your original T'chum and you can walk to your T'chum, you don't get your original T'chum. After all, there, your original T'chum is no longer your main place you can walk, but your new four Amos is your main area, so you don't lose your four Amos area, (to get your old T'chum) when you walk into your original T'chum. However here, he's walking out of his given four Amos through the Mechitzos. When the people disperse and there is no more Mechitzos, he gets a new four Amos. Since that new area is within his original T'chum, he gets his original T'chum.]

Daf 44

24) We also Paskin like R' Eliezer that, if you're within two Amos of your T'chum, you may reenter and regain your T'chum. Therefore, in the case where you don't have enough people to make a Mechitza that reaches into your T'chum [Tosfos adds; you can't have them make another Mechitza from the place where the first human Mechitzos ended until inside your T'chum since, at this point they realize that you're using them as Mechitzos, they can't make a new Mechitza since they're now doing it with their knowledge], if it reaches within two Amos of your T'chum, you may reenter your T'chum.

25) [Rashi holds that there is no prohibition of making a "temporary tent' by a wall, only by a roof-like covering. However, Tosfos argues and says that they only allow when the wall is there for privacy, but if it makes a Mechitza that permits something because of it, your forbidden to put it up. This is the implication from our Gemara]; you're forbidden to put up a third wall for a Sukka (since it makes it Kosher), but you can put up a fourth wall, since it's not necessary to permit a Sukka. You may place a person there for a third wall as long as he doesn't know why he's asked to stand there. [Tosfos explains: since it's simple that we Paskin like R' Yehuda who holds that living creatures could be a Mechitza. However, it wouldn't work according to R' Meir who holds that living creatures can't be Mechitzos.]

26) If someone was allowed to leave his T'chum (like to save people) and was told in the middle that his services is no longer needed, he's allowed to walk two thousand Amos in each direction from the place he finds himself in. However, if he didn't end up leaving the T'chum, he has his original T'chum, and we don't say that, the fact that he uprooted himself to leave the T'chum makes him have a new T'chum wherever he finds himself, even within his original T'chum. Rabbah holds: however, if he's even one Amah out of his T'chum, he gets his new two thousand Amos and can't revert to his old T'chum.

27) However, R' Simi b. Chiya holds of the concept of "his new T'chum sharing area with his old T'chum" and if he now walks within his new T'chum, and reaches an area that was in his old T'chum, he can now have his old T'chum. [Rashi says that Rabbah doesn't hold of the concept we brought in the beginning of the Perek that; if the person out of his T'chum needs to use the facilities, he can enter his old T'chum to relieve himself, and once he's in there, he can revert to his old T'chum. However, Ri argues and says that these cases are different. After all, there he needs to leave his old four Amos, and we need to give him a new four Amos. Therefore, once that new four Amos is in his old T'chum, we can give him his old T'chum back. However in our case, where he still has his new T'chum, we don't cancel the new T'chum so that he should get his old T'chum back.]

Daf 45

28) Although Rabbah knows that R' Eliezer (a Tanna) held of the concept of "his new T'chum sharing area with his old T'chum," and, therefore, he held that if someone is within two Amos of his original T'chum, he can reenter his old T'chum and regain it; however, the reason Rabbah doesn't hold of it is because he believes that the Rabanan argue with R' Eliezer and hold, even if you walk one Amah out of your T'chum, you can't reenter to get your old T'chum. R' Simi holds that the Rabanan only hold that way when he leaves his T'chum without an excuse that he's leaving for a Mitzvah, but here, where he leaves for a Mitzvah, he agrees with R' Eliezer that you may reenter and regain your old T'chum.

29) Everyone agrees that if you rested on Shabbos in a cave that's four thousand Amos long, and its roof is shorter and is less than that, and there are two openings to the cave, one on each extreme, you may walk the whole roof (which is almost four thousand Amos), plus another two thousand Amos further, since the two T'chumim (counted from the two openings) have common area. The reason why everyone agrees to this is because he rested in the walls of the cave on Shabbos (which is considered like four Amos, and he gets every T'chum from every opening).

30) Even if the midwife comes to assist a birth, she gets two thousand Amos in all directions. The same applies to someone who comes to help fight an oncoming army. They also may return home with their weapons, and we don't insist that they should leave their weapons in a house near the city's entrance since that will lead to a dangerous situation if the enemy army decides to return.

31) This only refers to a case where the Jews were victorious, but if the enemy army was victorious, he may go as much as he needs to go, even more than two thousand Amos.

32) If there is a situation where non-Jews are in siege of a city on Shabbos; if they're coming to kill them, you go out to defend the city. However, if they're only coming to demand money, you don't go out to defend it unless it's on the border. In that case, since the country more will be vulnerable if they're defeated, you go out to defend it even if they're claiming that they're owed straw.

33) If someone is near a city Bein Hashmashes, but doesn't realize it; R' Meir holds that he has two thousand Amos from his place, and R' Yehuda holds that his T'chum is like the city's T'chum, since we know he would have wanted to be part of the city if he would have known he was there.

34) If someone sleeps on the way during Bein Hashmashes, or Hefker objects; R' Yochanan b. Nuri says that they both acquire their resting place there and have two thousand Amos in all directions. However the Rabanan say that the Hefker objects don't have a T'chum [Tosfos; but receives the T'chum of whoever acquires it], and a sleeping person only has four Amos. They don't hold of the logic that, if he can acquire a T'chum when he's awake, he should also acquire it when he's sleeping.

35) Therefore, R' Yochanan b. Nuri holds that, if rain fell from Erev Yom Tov, it can be carried two thousand Amos in all directions. However, if it fell on Yom Tov, it has the T'chum of anyone who takes it. This is not only true according to R' Yehoshua who holds that rain originates from heaven, so it never acquired a resting place there. [Tosfos adds: even if you would regularly hold that there is T'chumim above ten Tefachim from the ground, you would agree that there is no T'chum in heaven.] However, it's even according to R' Eliezer who holds that it originates in the ocean. After all it can't acquire a resting place in the clouds, even if there is T'chumim above ten Tefachim, since the water in clouds are constantly moving and doesn't acquire a resting place. Even if you say that the rain was in the ocean coming into Yom Tov; still, just like we say that flowing rivers don't acquire a resting place because it's moving, so too the water in the ocean is constantly moving.

Daf 46

36) However we must say that the rain in the clouds is considered as if it exists by itself, and not completely absorbed in the clouds, or else it would be considered as Nolad, (i.e., created), on Yom Tov and would be Muktza. [Tosfos explains: even R' Shimon would agree that this type of Nolad is Muktza, since it didn't exist Bein Hashmashes. This is like we forbid ash that was burnt on Yom Tov and is not hot enough anymore to roast an egg, (and, since it's not able to cook, it loses its status of being wood that's meant to provide the heat for cooking), it's Nolad and forbidden according to all. Although juice that leaked from fruit is not Nolad, and it would be permitted to drink if it wasn't for the decree that, if you'll drink it, you'll come to squeeze them yourselves, and although the Gemara considers it absorbed in the fruit; we must say the water in the clouds are less noticeable in the clouds than the juice is noticeable in the fruit (and is considered as existing in the fruit). Alternatively, we can view the juice as food that's separated from other food (i.e., the fruit itself, and it's not like it's created to be a different entity).

37) According to the Gemara's original assumption that the rain water acquired its resting place in the ocean, the Gemara says that you can only carry the rain water if the clouds were there from before Yom Tov. The reason you can assume that it's the same clouds, and you don't need to worry that the first ones left and these are other ones; it must refer to a case where you recognize the shape of the cloud that you know it's the original cloud. Alternatively, since it's only a Safeik on a rabbinical prohibition, we can be lenient. [Tosfos asks: it's a prohibition that will be eventually become permitted, i.e., after Yom Tov, which we're not regularly lenient by them. Tosfos answers: they were very lenient by an Eiruv that they even allow a Safeik by it even though it will become permitted after Yom Tov.]

38) The Halacha is like R' Yochanan b. Nuri when he's lenient (i.e, that a sleeping person has two thousand Amos) but not stringently (i.e., that Hefker objects don't acquire a resting place). [Tosfos explains that this is not a contradictory P'sak (although, it seems that Hefker object's acquiring a resting place is dependant on whether a sleeping person acquires a resting place). After all, we only say a person can acquire a resting place since we say, once it can acquire the resting place when he's awake, he can acquire the place when he's asleep too.]

39) Even by a rabbinical prohibition, we don't Paskin like a singular opinion against the majority opinion unless it's a very difficult situation. The exception is by Eiruv and Aveilos, where we Paskin like the lenient opinion in all cases,. [Tosfos quotes the Bahag that we Paskin like the more lenient opinion even on the first day of Aveilos, which is from the Torah.]

40) [Tosfos quotes Bahag: since the first day of Aveilos is from the Torah, only a Torah Moed supersedes it. Therefore, if the relative dies on the first day of Yom Tov, which is from the Torah, it supersedes the first day of Aveilos, which is also from the Torah, and the second day of Yom Tov, which is only a rabbinic Moed, supersedes the second day of Aveilos which is also only rabbinically obligated, but it counts as one of the seven days of Aveilos. However, if the relative dies on the second day of Yom Tov, the first day of Aveilos that's from the Torah supersedes the second day of Yom Tov that's only rabbinical. Therefore, he acts in accordance to Aveilos. Although we see the Yom Tov of a groom on the first day of his Chuppa supersedes the Aveilos of the first day, although the Yom Tov of a wedding is only rabbinical; perhaps the wedding Yom Tov is greater than Yom Tov Sheini.]

41) The Halacha is like the more lenient opinion in Eiruv, not only regarding Eiruv Chatzieros, but also by Eiruv T'chumim. After all, I would say that Eiruv T'chumim is more stringent than Eiruv Chatzeiros since you can only make an Eiruv T'chumim with his consent [Rashi explains: since it's a loss to him, the amount he gains to walk on the side of the Eiruv, he loses that he can't walk in the other direction], but an Eiruv Chatzeiros doesn't need to be made with his consent [Rashi; since he doesn't lose anything. Tosfos asks: if so, why does it show that Eiruv T'chumim is stricter if it's only dependent whether it's good for him or not? Rather, Tosfos explains: even if we know he would like to walk four thousand Amos to that side, you still say that you need his consent since he's losing walking to the other side. However, by Eiruv Chatzeiros, even if there is somewhat of a loss to him, like when you forcefully take bread from him to use for the Eiruv (if he's usually a regular Eiruv contributor), and if he could protest, it would make the Eiruv invalid; still we say that the Eiruv is valid.]

42) Not only is the Halacha like the more lenient opinion by adding onto the leftover of an Eiruv (that doesn't have the Shiur anymore), but even to make an Eiruv in the first place.

43) They only said to make an Eiruv Chatzeiros so that children shouldn't forget about the concept of an Eiruv. [Rashi explains: since the main type of Eiruv is an Eiruv T'chumim. However, Tosfos quotes Rashi in the eighth Perek that we're referring to why you need to make an Eiruv Chatzeiros if all the courtyards are connected anyhow with the Shituf made in the alleyway. However, the Ri explains that Rashi's explanation here is the main one. Mahrsha- we mean that the only reason why you need a Shiur for Eiruv Chatzeiros, since it realy should be enough with the smallest amount, is in order that you make sure that you have a Shiur for Eiruv T'chumim. However, of course, the reason they enacted Eiruv Chatzeiros in the first place is so that people shouldn't confuse it with a Reshus Harabim, and not in order that you remember to make an Eiruv T'chumim.]

44) R' Yaakov and R' Zrika say that the Halacha is like R' Akiva when he argues with a colleague. The Halacha is like R' Yossi when he argues with colleagues. The Halacha is like Rebbi when he argues with a colleague.

45) R' Assi says that the above rule was said that it's the Halacha [Rashi: we Darshen that way in the Shiur]. R' Chiya b. Abba says that it "leans that way," [Rashi: we don't Darshen in the Shiur that, but if someone asks a Shaila, we Paskin that way for them]. R' Yossi b. Chanina says that it just "seems that way," [Rashi: we don't Paskin that way, but if someone does it that way, we don't make him do it over again the right way. However Tosfos says; even if you didn't say explicitly 'it seems that way," you don't make the person do it a different way as long as it doesn't say that the Halacha is like the other opinion. Rather, in all cases, we Darshen like that opinion. When we say it's the Halacha, then, even if the person already did like the other one, we make him go back and do it the right way. When we say that it "leans that way," then we don't make him go back to do the right way when he does like the other opinion. When we say "it seems that way," it means that, although we don't Paskin like the other opinion, but if someone does go like the other opinion, we don't protest against him. There are those who explain this; when we say that the Halacha is like Rebbi when he argues with a colleague, it implies the Halacha is like thee other opinion when Rebbi argues with his colleagues. However R' Chiya says that the Halacha is not like the colleagues, but that "it leans" towards the colleagues. Etc.]

46) R' Yochanan gives the following rule: when R' Meir argues with R' Yehuda, or when R' Shimon argues with R' Yehuda, the Halacha is like R' Yehuda. When R' Yehuda argues with R' Yossi, the Halacha is like R' Yossi. Of course the Halacha is like R' Yossi when he argues with R' Meir or R' Shimon. However, it's not resolved who to Paskin like when R' Shimon argues with R' Meir.

47) However, Rav disagrees with these rules. Also, even according to R' Yochanan, if we have an explicit P'sak like the other Tanna, we follow that P'sak.

Daf 47

48) According to R' Yochanan b. Nuri, a non-Jew's object acquires a resting place just like Hefker objects (and we don't say that it's worse and doesn't get a T'chum since it has non-Jewish owners, and they're no better than the owners who don't have a resting place). According to the Rabanan, Shmuel says that it doesn't acquire a resting place just like Hefker objects. R' Yochanan says that they hold that it acquires a resting place (and you can't take it out of the T'chum), since they decree a T'chum for a non-Jew's object since you might confuse it with a Jew's object. (We Paskin like R' Yochanan when he argues with Shmuel.) Therefore, if it's brought from out of the T'chum, you can only carry the object within four Amos. However, if it's placed in a city, you can cary throughout the city. [Tosfos explains: only if it's a walled city. Also, if the enclosure is larger than a Beis Sasayim, it needs to be enclosed for people to live there. Although, by the original making of an Eiruv, we view the whole city as four Amos even if it's not walled, and we also consider its outskirts part of the four Amos, that's because we're more lenient by the beginning of acquiring a T'chum at the beginning of Shabbos then by acquiring four Amos when you go out of your T'chum in middle of Shabbos.]

49) [Rashi seems to say that objects that are out of the T'chum of their owners have two thousand Amos in all directions. Tosfos holds that it's as if it went out of its T'chum and you can only carry it within four Amos.]

50) [Rashi says that Hefker objects that are within the T'chum of a city has two thousand Amos in each direction. Tosfos asks that we say that rain water near a city has the T'chum of that city (and not two thousand Amos in each direction)? Tosfos answers: the townsmen aren't aware of this Hefker item (and that's why it hasn't been claimed yet), but was aware of the rainwater. Alternatively, that must be only when it's very close to the city, but Rashi refers to a case where it's almost at the end of the T'chum. However, Tosfos, himself, holds that it always gets the T'chum of the city it's within the T'chum of.]

51) If you have a pool of water between two T'chumim of a city [Rashi and Tosfos: if the T'chum of both cities both end within the water, and there is a barrier of reeds placed there to separate them]; R' Chiya holds, according to R' Yochanan b. Nuri that you need an iron wall to separate the two T'chums to make sure that the water from one T'chum doesn't flow from one to the other, (but since the iron wall can't refrain all the water from passing, it's always forbidden). However, the Rabanan hold that it doesn't acquire a resting place (like all Hefker items). [Tosfos explains: although we say Hefker items within the T'chum of a city gets the same T'chum of the city; here is different since the water travels between the two T'chumim, any thought of the cities to adopt the water as their own is Batul. However, according to R' Yochanan b. Nuri, where it must acquire some T'chum, it automatically gets the T'chum of the two cities even if nobody gave any thought to adopt the water.]

Daf 48

52) R' Yossi b. Chanina argues and says that the reed partition is enough since this is included in the rule that they were very lenient concerning Mechitzos in water.

53) According to the Rabanan who hold that someone sleeping Bein Hashmashes can only walk four Amos, (and this applies to anyone who only has four Amos to walk), the Tanna Kama says that he has four Amos in each direction, which makes it that he has to walk within eight square Amos. R' Eliezer says that he is in the middle of four square Amos, i.e., he has two Amos in each direction. R' Yehuda says that he has four Amos to walk in each direction he wants, but he only has those four Amos, and once he chooses the four Amos, he can't walk in a different direction.

54) These four Amos are learned from the Pasuk "a person should remain in his place." Therefore, R' Meir holds that we allow three Amos for his body [Tosfos: not including his head], and an extra Amah to stretch his hands and feet. R' Yehuda holds that the extra Amah is to bring an item from the top of his head until under his feet. The practical difference between the two explanations: R' Meir's four Amos are not exact (but a little extra), and R' Yehuda's four Amos are exact.

55) You always give the Amos according to the person's personal Amos (the length of their hands). Therefore, we give Og King of Bashen four of his enormous Amos. However, a dwarf (whose limbs are not proportionate to his body), we give him average Amos and not his Amah (which is tiny, since he has tiny arms).

56) If you have two people who went out of the T'chum, and they share some area in their four Amos, they can bring food together in the common area to eat, as long as one doesn't take out the other one's food out of the other one's four Amos.

57) If you have three people out of the T'chum, and the middle person has common ground with the two outer people, but the outer people don't have any common ground together; then the two people can join the middle person in eating, but they're forbidden with each other.

58) R' Shimon says that the same applies by three courtyards, that the outer ones made an Eiruv with the middle one, but not which each other; the middle courtyard is permitted with the outer courtyards, and the outer courtyards are permitted with the middle one, but the outer ones are forbidden with each other. However, the Chachamim forbid, and it's not similar to the case of three people outside of the T'chum. After all, since they're many people in the courtyards, someone will make the mistake and carry objects from one outer courtyard into the other outer courtyard.

59) Even R' Shimon holds that the outer courtyards are forbidden to each other, and we don't say that, since they both made an Eiruv with the middle courtyard, they're all part of one Eiruv. R' Yehuda says the reason is: since we refer to a case where the middle courtyard put each Eiruv in the outer courtyard. We can't say that, when the middle courtyard makes the Eiruv with the second outer courtyard, since they were already partnered with the first outer courtyard, they represent the outer courtyard and it's as if they also partnered in the second Eiruv. After all, since the outer ones only made an Eiruv with the middle one, and not with each other; it shows that they don't want to be included in the second Eiruv.

60) R' Sheishes explains: even if the outer courtyard put their Eiruv in the middle courtyard, they're not connected to be as if it's one big Eiruv since they were placed in different houses. Even Beis Hillel who says that an Eiruv placed in two utensils combine to be one Eiruv, that's only in two utensils in the same house, but not in different houses. We don't say that they're both forbidden, since both the outer ones are both considered, through their EIruv, to be living in the middle courtyard, and now we have people living together in the middle courtyard who didn't make an Eiruv together. After all, we only consider them living together in the middle courtyard when it comes to a leniency, but not regarding a stringency. [Tosfos explains: however, R' Yehuda held that we do consider them to be living there even regarding stringencys therefore, he didn't explain it like R' Sheishes. (However, you can't say that he didn't explain it like him since he holds that Beis Hillel considers it one Eiruv in two houses, since we say that Beis Hillel doesn't even allow it in two utensils in the same house unless the first one was full, so you needed to use a second utensil for the rest of the Eiruv.)

Tosfos also says: we'll see later about a case where you have two courtyards, one inside the other (i.e., the inner ones need to pass the outer courtyard in order to get to the street). If they made an Eiruv together and placed the Eiruv in the inner courtyard, and one person from the inner courtyard forgot to make the Eiruv; we say that they're all forbidden, and he can't just Mevatel his share to the inner courtyard residents, since we consider the outer ones as if they're living there (and you can't Mevatel to people of a different courtyard). We don't permit them since we don't consider them there when it's a stringency; that's different, since it came by one of the inner courtyard people being negligent (by not giving towards the Eiruv).]

61) R' Yehuda quotes Rav: this, that we allow the outers with the inner, and vice versa is only according to R' Shimon, but the Chachumim say that one Reshus can be used by two Reshuyos, but the two Reshuyos can't be used by the one Reshus. [Rashi explains: that the outers can use the inner, but the inner can't use the outers since each outer is pulling the inner to be with them, so the middle ones are prohibited with the outer ones. However, R' Tam asks: if so, how can R' Shimon compare it to the three people outside their T'chum, and how can the Rabanan say that the courtyards are different since there are many people here, since that only applies when we forbid the outers with the inner since they might carry in the other outer courtyard. However, according to this, Rav holds that even the Rabanan permit the outers with the inner. Rather, R' Tam learns that the outers can't use the inner one, since, if they bring their items there, it might be carried out to the other outer courtyard. However, the inner one may move his items into either outer courtyard since you won't have this worry that the outer ones' items will end up in the other outer courtyard.]

62) However, R' Yehuda quotes Shmuel that this is also R' Shimon's position, but the Rabanan forbid all three. [Rashi explains: Shmuel held that even R' Shimon only permits the outers with the inner, but not the inner with the outers. However, R' Tam says that R' Shimon holds that they're all permitted together, and he only argues with Rav what the Rabanan held.

Tosfos says: the reason for the Rabanan: since they forbade in all cases, for, perhaps, they'll end up carrying items of one outer courtyard to the other outer courtyard. The Mahri says that they argue with R' Shimon in two aspects. As the Rabanan forbid the outers with the inner since those items might be carried into the other courtyard. They forbid the inner carrying into the outers since the outers are pulling the inner one to be with them. This is R' Yehuda being consistent to his opinion that the case is when the inner placed the Eiruv in the outer courtyards, so that's why it's being pulled by both of them.] We have a Braisa like Shmuel that the Rabanan forbid all three of them.

63) Therefore, Shmuel Paskins: a courtyard between two alleyways, if it makes an Eiruv with both of them separately, they're forbidden with both of them. [Rashi explains according to his opinion that Shmuel holds that even R' Shimon doesn't allow the inner one to carry to the outer ones. Therefore, since Shmuel holds that the Halacha in Eiruv is like the most lenient one, he Paskins like R' Shimon. R' Tam explains that Shmuel holds that the Halacha is always like R' Yehuda in Eiruv, and he's the Rabanan here. Therefore, when he forbade with both of them, it means that all three areas can't carry into each other. However, the Mahri says that is not the connotation of being "forbidden with both of them," as opposed to what it says in the next case "it's forbidden on both of them."

Therefore, Mahri explains: regarding that prohibition for the middle to carry into the outers he Paskins like R' Yehuda in Eiruv that it's forbidden. However, he Paskined that it's permitted to carry from the outers to the inners and he's not worried that the items of one outer courtyard will end up in the other courtyard. After all, we Paskin like R' Shimon that roofs, courtyards and Karfeifs are all one Reshus (to carry from one to the other) for items that were in them when Shabbos started. We Paskined this way even though the courtyards made an Eiruv and we don't need to worry that the house items, that can't be carried into a different Reshus, will end up in a different Reshus. Therefore, R' Shimon who allows it here is consistent to his opinion about this in general. Therefore, in this aspect, we should Paskin like R' Shimon.]

64) If the courtyard didn't make an Eiruv with either alleyway, it makes it forbidden to carry in either alleyway, since the courtyard has the right to walk through the alleyways, they need to make an Eiruv with it. If this courtyard only walks through one of the alleyways, and they don't walk through the other one, then only the one that they usually walk through is forbidden and the other is permitted. If the alleyway that the courtyard usually walks through didn't make an Eiruv with the courtyard, and the second alleyway didn't make any Eiruv for themselves, we force the courtyard to exit through the alleyway it usually doesn't walk through so that we say that, this Shabbos, it doesn't have the right to pass through the alleyway with the Eiruv. Although it really has the right to pass through it, but Beis Din forces people to give up things so that they don't act like Sodomites. (I.e., that they won't allow anybody to derive pleasure from them even if they won't lose anything from it).

65) Shmuel says: if someone doesn't want to share his portion of the Eiruv with the other members, it's not an Eiruv. After all, it's called an 'Eiruv' because everyone's share is mixed together. However, R' Chanina says that it's considered an Eiruv, but this person who doesn't want to share is a miser.

66) Shmuel says; if you split the Eiruv between two utensils, it's not an Eiruv. this is even according to Beis Hillel who allows using two utensils, but that's only when the first one is full and you need a second one to hold the rest of the Eiruv. However, here, one utensil can hold the whole Eiruv, and yet, you split it into two utensils, it's not an Eiruv. Although Shmuel held that the house that hosts the Eiruv doesn't need to contribute to the Eiruv, it is not because the bread on his table combines to the Eiruv (and this will prove that the whole Eiruv doesn't need to be together). Rather, the Eiruv symbolizes that it's as if everyone is living in this house, therefore, he who actually lives in the house doesn't need to contribute.

67) Shmuel says that an Eiruv works as an acquisition (that by giving the bread, you're getting a share of the house as an exchange). [Tosfos says: it only works as a "money acquisition" (that the worth of the bread will work like money, that you're receiving the house for the worth of the bread), but not as a Chalipin (a simple exchange of object regardless of worth). After all, we say that fruit (i.e., food) can't make Chalipin. Although we'll say that partners in a barrel of wine or oil don't need to make a Shituf, or if they we're all eating together before nightfall, the bread on the table works as an Eiruv despite that no new acquisition for the Eiruv was made; since they have such a feeling of closeness at this point, the rabbis considered it as if there was an acquisition.]

68) This, that they didn't enact to give money (if it's an acquisition); since it's not common to have money Erev Shabbos (since people lived hand to mouth). If we would even allow making the EIruv with money, perhaps, one Erev Shabbos, they wouldn't have money, and they wouldn't be aware that they can make an Eiruv with bread, and they wouldn't have an Eiruv. [Tosfos says: that, which they allow other foods by Shituf and not only bread (like they require for Eiruv), since they were a little more lenient by Shituf to allow items that are somewhat common, even if not as common as bread.]

69) Rabbah holds that an Eiruv symbolizes that everyone lives in the house. (After all, anyplace where you're bread is, it's as if you live there.)

70) The practical differences between the reasons are: if you give a vessel for the Eiruv. (After all, you can make an acquisition with a vessel, but it doesn't symbolize living in the house.) [Tosfos asks: why does Shmuel need bread for two meals for an Eiruv if you can even make an Eiruv with a vessel? Tosfos answers; when you actually make an acquisition, then, you don't need much. However, if you didn't actually make it in the way one makes an acquisition, but just places down an Eiruv, it needs to be an important amount.] Also, making an Eiruv with bread that's worth less than a Pruta. (After all, an acquisition needs a Prutah, even if it's anyhow food for two meals. However, you don't need it to be worth a Prutah to symbolize the place that you're living.) Also, a minor making an Eiruv. [Rashi explains: could a minor make the acquisition of making the Eiruv. Tosfos asks: you don't need an acquisition to make an Eiruv Chatzeiros. After all, we see that they relied on the partnership of the barrel of wine or oil, and they didn't need to make another acquisition. Also, we had in the third Perek that R' Huna says that a minor may collect an Eiruv Chatzeiros. It's difficult to claim that Shmuel argues with them. Also, in Gitten, Shmuel holds that a minor may make an acquisition in one person's bread for the whole courtyard to have a share in it to make an Eiruv Chatzeiros, (since it's only a rabbinical Mitzvah, we can be lenient). It's difficult to say that, there, they only allowed an older child, and here, we don't allow a very young child.

Rather, Tosfos explains: if a minor has a house in the courtyard, can he give towards the Eiruv (since he can't give over through an acquisition, but he can symbolize his living in the other house by contributing bread). We Paskin like Rabbah since we see R' Yochanan Paskin that an Eiruv doesn't need to be worth a Prutah. We also see that an unnamed Gemara also takes this on, that it doesn't need to be worth a Prutah.]

71) Whether you hold that an Eiruv is because it's an acquisition, or if it's symbolizing living there, the reason why we consider one person of a courtyard (that made an Eiruv together) who contributed bread to an Eiruv of a different courtyard, that it's as if all the residents of his courtyard made the Eiruv, and it's not that he's only making an acquisition for himself, or that he's the only one that's living in the other courtyard. After all, since they originally made an Eiruv together, it's as if he's being a Shaliach, an agent, for the rest of the people in his courtyard.

72) Someone who is going on his way (and it was getting dark Friday afternoon) and he knows of a tree or fence (down the road), and he says that he wants his resting place to be under that tree etc., Rav says that he can't move more than four Amos. His reason is because he doesn't acquire the resting place (since the tree is many Amos wide, and you didn't specify which four Amos you wanted). Therefore, since you didn't specify which four Amos you're resting in, you can't acquire any place, since you can't acquire a resting place without knowing specifically where it is. Alternatively, we assume you want to acquire the whole area below the tree, and since you can't acquire a second four-Amos area after you already acquired a different four-Amos area, and we have a rule; whatever can't take effect one after the other, can't take effect simultaneously. The practical difference between the two reasons: if you say that you want to acquire only four Amos among the whole area. Therefore, if the reason that you can't acquire a resting place without specifying where it is, you still didn't specify where your four Amos is. However, if the problem in the first case is that you're trying to acquire too many Amos at the same time, here you specifically said that you only want to acquire four Amos. [Tosfos explains: although he doesn't get his new place of resting, he can't keep his old one either since he gave it up from having it as his resting place when he stated that he wanted it to be under the tree. However, this is only by this case, when he's on his way. However, when he's in his city and wants to make an Eiruv that comes out to be out of his T'chum and wasn't a correct Eiruv, he still keeps his city as his resting place since he never gives up to rest in his city in case that his Eiruv doesn't take effect.]

73) Rav agrees that if the tree is only seven Amos wide, he acquires a resting place, since we know that he must acquire the middle Amah, so, part of his four Amos are specified.

74) Shmuel holds that he acquires a place under the tree, but we just don't know which four Amos. Therefore, he needs to be stringent and, if he wants to go north, he needs to measure the two thousand Amos from the south. If he wants to go south, he needs to measure the two thousand Amos from the north. However, he needs to make sure that he's not out of the two thousand Amos of any side of the tree, or else he might be outside of the T'chum and only has four Amos. [Tosfos says: although we should assume that Shmuel does hold of the concept of: whatever can't take effect one after another can't take effect at the same time (or else many Gemaras will be difficult); still, he was more lenient by an Eiruv. Alternatively, he holds that the person is saying that he only wants to make an unspecific four Amos to be his resting place somewhere under the tree. However, he'll agree that he doesn't acquire if he specifically says "I want to acquire eight Amos." Although we have a Braisa that says that if you make two Eiruvs to two separate sides, you can walk the space that's common to the T'chum of the two Eiruvs despite that you're wanting more than one four-Amos resting area to take effect; that's because someone understands the possibility that both Eiruvs will not take effect, so he thinks that, if they don't both take effect, at least one of them should.] We have a Braisa that holds like Shmuel, and we must conclude that Rav considered himself a Tanna, so he argued.

Daf 50

75) We said that "whatever can't take effect one after another can't take effect simultaneously." Although we see that, if someone separates more than a tenth of Maasar, that the leftover of the produce is no longer Tevel, but the Maasar is ruined (since there is Tevel mixed in with the tenth of Maasar), although you can't separate two Maasars one after the other, the reason why Maasar takes effect when you separate more than a tenth simultaneously; that's because Maasar is done in half. [Rashi explains; since you can separate a half of grain for Maasar, so we can say that Maasar is only on the percentage of each grain separated what's fit for Maasar. Ri explains: since, if you need a Saah of Maasar, you can take a Saah of wheat and separate Maasar on half of it, and then you can do the same to the next Saah. Therefore, when it's done together on more than a Saah, we'll say that a Saah of it is Maasar, and the extra is Tevel.]

76) We see by Maasar Beheima that, if the tenth and eleventh animal leave the pen at the same time, that one is Maasar Beheima and the other is a Shlomim. [Tosfos explains: although the eleventh is not Kodesh even if you also call it a tenth when it leaves; we must say that it's possible to be exact to say that both came out simultaneously, or else one would be regular Chulin. Alternatively, we can't be so exact. Therefore, the Halacha is that, if it came out what seems to be simultaneously, even though we know, technically, one must have preceded the other, the Halacha is that both are Kodesh. The Halacha is only that the eleventh is Chulin when it's obvious that it's the eleventh. However, the first explanation is better.

Rashi says: that you bring them both and make a condition that it's for whatever Korban heaven knows that it is. You need to wave the breast and thigh of both, and do Smicha (lean on it) for, perhaps, it might be the Shlomim. However, you can't make a Bracha on these Mitzva acts, since it might be the Maasar Beheima that doesn't require them. Tosfos quotes Rashi from his manuscript: you can't bring them as is, since they don't have the same way to sprinkle the blood, you can't bring them both as Korbanos and make a condition that it's brought for whatever Korban heaven knows that it is. Therefore, you need for them to graze until they become blemished, then take money and redeem the Shlomim, wherever it is.] Although, usually, you can't separate one after another, so it shouldn't take effect two together; but we see that one after another can take effect by a mistake. After all, if you call the ninth animal "the tenth." Then you called the tenth "the ninth," and then you called the eleventh one "the tenth," all three animals are Kodesh.

77) If you have a Korban Tamid that is Shechted with eighty loaves (instead of the prescribed forty); if you say that you want forty out of the eighty to become Kodesh, it works. if he says that he doesn't want forty to be Kodesh unless all eighty is Kodesh, it's not a valid Korban. We have an argument if it's brought without any specific instruction. Chizkiya holds it to be Kosher since we assume he means to bring the extra loaves as a replacement for the forty Kodesh ones if anything goes awry with them. R' Yochanan holds that it's an invalid Korban since, we assume, he intends it to be a large Korban. [Tosfos says that you can't say the reason for R' Yochanan is because he doesn't agree to Breira, so you can never figure out which loaves are Kodesh and which ones are not part of the Korban. After all, even if you don't hold of Breira and you can never figure out which ones are Kodesh, you can say that it's Kodesh wherever it is, and you never need to find out which ones they are. Therefore, when you give to the Kohein his share, because of the Safeik, you need to give him four from each of the two forty-loaves set. However, if you never separate them into sets, you need to give the Kohein eleven loaves from each type to make sure that one of them was from the forty that are Kodesh.]

78) If you say "my resting place should be by the tree trunk," then you have two thousand Amos until the tree trunk and, then, you can walk another two thousand Amos until your home. Therefore, it comes out that you can walk four thousand Amos on Shabbos. Rava says: this is only when you would be able to make it to the tree trunk before night fall if you would run fast.

Daf 51

79) If you don't know about a tree, but your companion knows about one, you can give over the appointing of your resting place to your companion and he can say that our resting place should be under that tree.

80) If you don't know any particular tree to acquire your resting place there, you say that your resting place should be by your feet, and you have two thousand Amos surrounding you, (as we learn the two thousand Amos from the two thousand Amos surrounding the Levites' cities). The Chachumim say that the two thousand Amos area is squared, just like the Levites' cities' surrounding area were squared. However, R' Chanina b. Atignus says that it's not squared, since we have a Drasha that we only square the surrounding area of the Levites' cities, but not your T'chum.

81) The Rabanan hold that, for all of the Shabbos Halachos, we square off the measurement. Therefore, to be Chayiv for carrying four Amos in a Reshus Harabim, you need to carry an extra Amah and three-fifths, which is the diagonal of a square that its sides are four Amos. Also, a stand in a Reshus Harabim, that needs to be ten Tefachim high and four Tefachim wide to be a Reshus Hayachid, needs to be a square of four Tefachim, and not a circle with a four Tefachim diameter. [Rashi explains: it's not applicable to say that you need corners by carrying four Amos (since it's not an area to say that you should square it), and you're exempt until you carry five and three fifths Amos in all directions. Tosfos quotes R' Shmuel that we make a square according to the four directions of the world. You're only Chayiv if you carry four Amos to the four directions of the world (i.e., north, south east and west), but you need to carry for five and three fifth Amos if you carry to the diagonal of the world (i.e., northwest, southwest, southeast and northeast). The same by the stand, it needs to be set up that its diagonal is set up to facing the world's diagonal. This is similar to what we say in the fifth Perek that, when we square off a round city to start the T'chum from the square, we square it off to be even with the directions of the world. R' Tam holds that you need to carry out of a circle that's five and three thirds Amos diameter to be Chayiv, and the stand needs to be a circle that has a five and three-fifths Tefachim diameter. Tosfos concludes that it seems that you should have corners (and have it a square, and not a circle like R' Tam) since we learn it from the Levites' cities' surrounding area that had corners (and wasn't round).]

82) R' Meir says that they only allow this by a poor person and R' Yehuda allows it by a rich person too. R' Nachman explains their argument; R' Meir says that only a poor person (i.e., someone who's on the way, who has the status of a poor person since he may not be carrying any bread with him), can make an Eiruv by standing in the place where he wants to acquire his resting place, but a rich person needs to make an Eiruv. After all, he holds that the main enactment is only to acquire the resting place with an Eiruv, (but they made a special disposition for a poor person). However, R' Yehuda allows a rich person to acquire his resting place with his feet, since it's the main way to acquire a resting place. They only allowed acquiring through an Eiruv to make it easier on a rich person that he doesn't have to go out to that place Bein Hashmashes. However, everyone agrees that you can't say that you want your resting place to be under a certain tree (that's not next to you) unless you're poor.

83) R' Chisda says that everyone holds that even a rich person can say that his resting place should be where he's standing. They only argue if he says that his resting place should be in a different place (like under some tree). R' Meir says that they only allow that by a poor person, and R' Yehuda says that they even allow it for rich people. [Tosfos explains: the reason they enacted to make an Eiruv with food to make it easier on rich people, even though they could anyhow say that they want their resting place to be in that place without any food; it helps them if they don't know a landmark to say that they want their resting place to be by.] However, there's a Braisa that explains the argument between R' Meir and R' Yehuda like R' Nachman.

84) [Tosfos explains that, according to R' Meir, someone needs to be on his way already to go to another place to be considered a poor person to get those leniencys. However, if he doesn't plan to walk anyplace, even if he walks out of the T'chum to comeback and acquire a place within the T'chum, since he wasn't on his way to another place, he's still considered as a rich person and can't acquire the resting place without an Eiruv.]

Daf 52

85) There is an unresolved inquiry whether, when someone places an Eiruv down, if he has four Amos before he counts two thousand Amos just like someone who walks to the place and stays there Bein Hashamashes has. Or, do we say that he only has two thousand Amos in all directions, and no more.

86) Someone left his house to make an Eiruv between the two towns, and he has a second house in the second town, and he wants to deposit the Eiruv for him and his townsfolk as he's on the way to the other house (when he has the status of someone on his way). However, his friend convinced him on the way that he should return to the first house, so instead of depositing the Eiruv, he said that their resting place should be next to a tree. R' Yehuda says: he may walk to the other town on Shabbos (since he was on his way, it helps for him saying "my resting place should be under the tree,") but the townsfolk can't (since they were in their houses, they were rich people and they can't say they want their resting place to be in a certain place). This is like R' Nachman's explanation in R' Yehuda. (However, R' Meir holds that he's a Safeik, and he needs to only walk in the area that's common to both possible T'chums. Not only that, but even if it would definitely not be an Eiruv, but he wanted the Eiruv to be, R' Meir still holds that he gives up the other side and he needs to only walk in the area that's common to both possible T'chums.)

87) R' Yossi b. Yehuda explains: even if the friend tells him that it's a hot, or cold, time, and is not optimal to go now, he may go the next day.

88) Rabbah explains that both R' Yehuda and R' Yossi b. Yehuda agree that he needs to say that he wants his resting place to be under the tree. They only argue whether the person needs to actually start walking to the other town. R' Yehuda holds that he actually needs to start walking or else he's not someone on his way, and R' Yossi b. Yehuda holds that even if his friend convinced him to stay before he left his house, since he wanted to go on the way, it's as if he started on his way.

89) R' Yosef says that everyone agrees that he has to actually leave the house and start walking to be considered to be on his way. They only argue whether he needs to say that he wants his resting place to be under the tree. R' Yehuda needs him to say it, and R' Yossi b. Yehuda held that, once he went to go there, we know that he wants to have his resting place there, so, it's as if he explicitly said that he wants his resting place to be under the tree. [This is like Rashi's second explanation, which Rashi and Tosfos holds is the best explanation. However, Rashi's first explanation is that, when they're argueing about 'saying,' it's not saying that he wants his resting place to be under the tree. Rather, it's that his friend must say to turn back for a reason (Tosfos: or else it might be that he changed his mind from going and he's no longer considered as on the way).]

90) [Rashi says; if a rich person says that he wants his resting place to be under the tree, he can't have it. However, he also showed that he didn't want to walk in the opposite direction of his house, so he can only walk in a common area of his T'chum from his house and his T'chum if it would help to say that he wants his resting place to be under the tree.]

91) If someone leaves his T'chum: the Tanna Kama says that he can't come in even if he's only one Amah outside the T'chum. The first version of R' Chanina held that he can't go back in if he has one foot out of the T'chum. The second version says that he may come back in if he only has one foot out. Acheirim says that we follow the place where most of his body is in.

92) R' Eliezer says that he may reenter if he didn't go two Amos out of the T'chum (since his old T'chum is reached from his new four-Amos T'chum). If you say "my resting place should be in my place; you may only go two thousand Amos (besides the four Amos that surround you). You can't go one step more to be inside a city. [Tosfos adds: even if the T'chum ends in middle of a cave, he can't walk one more step in.]

93) If he starts Shabbos outside the T'chum of a city, even one Amah out, he can't enter the city. R' Shimon says that he can come in up to fifteen Amos out of the T'chum, since the measurers of the T'chum aren't exact. [Rashi explains: since they measured with forty ropes, and each one is held on each side a Tefach and a half of finger's worth. therefore, they were missing eighty Tefachim and forty fingers, which equals fifteen Amos.]