==========

FOOTNOTES:

==========

(1) (a) According to this Lashon of Rashi, everyone agrees that he 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. (Since it was his friend who kept him back, we assume that his own intention is to continue traveling the next day and he never had in mind that his Eruv should be annulled.) If he said explicitly, "My Shevisah will be in such- and-such place," everyone -- even Rebbi Meir -- agrees that his Eruv is valid, regardless of whether his friend kept him back or he went back on his own. (b) According to Tosfos, "he said" ('Amar') refers to the friend who kept him back - the friend said the reason why he was keeping him back (such as "it is excessively hot/cold today"), in contrast o keeping him back without giving any reason. Since the friend gave a reason, which will presumably not apply the next morning, it is assumed that the person will continue on his way to the city in the morning.

(2) Even according to Rebbi Yehudah, only an Ani is able to make an Eruv Techumin by saying, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such a place." An Ashir, though, cannot make an Eruv in this manner. (This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Nachman on 51b, which the Gemara there proves correct on the basis of our Mishnah.) Therefore, it is necessary that the person has already embarked on his journey, for that gives him a status of an Ani. Even Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah agrees with this (see footnote #3).

(3) Even though -- according to Rabah -- Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah does not require that the person has already embarked, nevertheless he does require that the person at least say that he plans to embark. If he does not say that he plans to embark, then he is not considered an "Ani" and thus he cannot make his Eruv by saying, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place."

(4) (a) According to this Lashon, Rav Yosef holds that it is Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah who is Machmir and Rebbi Yehudah who is Meikel. (Rashi mentions that there are those who explain that Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah does not require as much of an act of embarking as does Rebbi Yehudah, but Rashi does not accept that explanation.) (b) However, Tosfos (DH Lomar) asserts that even according to this Lashon's interpretation of Rav Yosef, Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah is the more lenient opinion. Rav Yosef means that even if the person specified that he was returning "because of the cold," his Eruv is still valid, in contrast to Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that his Eruv is not valid unless his friend held him back without explaining the reason. If he specified the reason (such as "because it is cold"), then we must assume that the reason will remain valid even on the following morning, and the person did not want his Eruv to be valid at all. (Compare to Tosfos' interpretation of the 1st Lashon, note #1b.)

(5) According to the first Lashon, Rebbi Meir holds that -- when the person who was making the Eruv went back to his place before Shabbos -- we are in doubt whether his intention was 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 (Rashi 52a, DH v'Rav Yosef).

(6) This is the second Lashon of Rashi, which seems here (52a) to be his preferred explanation (even though he refuted this explanation on 51b, DH Iyhu; see Insights). According to the second Lashon of Rashi, "he said" refers to the person making the Eruv who said explicitly, "My Shevisah will be in such-and-such place." (Whether his friend kept him back or he stayed back on his own does not affect anything.) According to this, Rebbi Yehudah requires one to verbally declare his intention to make a certain place his place of Shevisah. Rebbi Yehudah did not teach this explicitly in the Mishnah only because he was relying on what was explained in the previous Mishnah (Rashi, DH v'Rav Yosef).

(7) According to the second Lashon of Rashi, Rebbi Meir 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 (Rashi 52a, DH v'Rav Yosef). However, since he wanted to be Koneh Shevisah in another place, he loses part of his Techum, and he is permitted to walk only in the area which is shared by the Techum of both places (the place where he wanted to be Koneh Shevisah, and the place where he is actually located) -- he is a "Chamar Gamal." (Even though earlier, on 35a, we learned that if one wanted to make an Eruv in a given place and the food of his Eruv rolled outside of his Techum, he does have the Techum of his city, Rebbi Meir apparently argues and holds that there as well he indeed loses the Techum of his city and is restricted to the Techum shared by his city and the place where he wanted his Shevisah to be. -Rashi 52b, DH Ela)

(8) According to the second Lashon 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. Therefore, the Gemara deduces that the Beraisa and the story of Rav Nasan bar Oshiya are following the opinion of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, since they make no mention of verbally declaring one's intent to be Koneh Shevisah.