Ask A Question

Previous daf

1) "BITUL RESHUS" WHEN A NOCHRI RETURNS HOME ON SHABBOS
QUESTION: Shmuel teaches that in a case of "Osrin v'Ein Me'arvin," where a person's rights in the Chatzer make it forbidden to carry in the Chatzer and even an Eruv will not help to permit carrying, Bitul Reshus is not an option. The Gemara explains that Shmuel refers to a case in which a Nochri returns to his home in the middle of Shabbos. Since a Nochri's presence prohibits the Jews from carrying in the Chatzer, and he cannot be part of an Eruv (but instead must lease his Reshus to the Jews), even if he agrees to lease his Reshus to the Jews they cannot do Bitul Reshus and carry in the Chatzer. Bitul Reshus depends on the ability to make an Eruv prior to Shabbos, and if it was not possible to make an Eruv prior to Shabbos, it is not possible to permit carrying through Bitul Reshus.

Why is this case considered a case of "Ein Me'arvin," where it is not possible to make an Eruv on Erev Shabbos? The Halachah follows the opinion (47a) that when a Nochri is not home on Shabbos, his property does not present an obstacle to the Eruv of the Chatzer. Accordingly, since the Nochri was not home on Erev Shabbos, the residents of the Chatzer could have made an Eruv! (Only when the Nochri returns will the Eruv become invalid; see Insights to Eruvin 65:3).

ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI (DH Ela) seems to understand that it was not possible to make an Eruv when the Nochri was not home on Erev Shabbos. Apparently, Shmuel rules like Rebbi Meir (47a), who says that a Nochri's property does present an obstacle to the Eruv even when its owner is out of town. (This answer of Rashi is consistent with the second version of Rashi which we discussed in Insights to Eruvin 65:3.)

(b) TOSFOS (DH Ela) explains that an Eruv could have been made on Erev Shabbos. However, even if an Eruv would have been made, the Nochri's arrival on Shabbos would have invalidated it. Since the Eruv is not operative from the moment that the Nochri arrives, it is called a case of "Ein Me'arvin." Even though the Eruv was valid on Erev Shabbos when it was made, it is now considered a case of "Ein Me'arvin" since the Eruv cannot work once the Nochri returns.

(c) However, other Rishonim, such as the RA'AVAD, maintain that if an Eruv was made on Erev Shabbos and becomes invalidated when the Nochri returns in the middle of Shabbos, it becomes re-activated ("Chozer v'Ne'ur") when the Jews rent the Reshus of the Nochri from him (and a new Eruv is not necessary). Why, then, is it called a case of "Ein Me'arvin"?

The RITVA answers that it is called "Ein Me'arvin" because we never know whether the Nochri will consent to rent his Reshus to us. Since we do not know if he will consent when he arrives, even if he eventually does consent Bitul is not an option because the Eruv made on Erev Shabbos was not one that was certainly going to help, because it was possible that the Nochri would refuse to cooperate. Therefore, it is called a case of "Ein Me'arvin."

2) SUMMARY: THE INNER CHATZER AND THE OUTER CHATZER
Rava discusses the various permutations of a case of one Chatzer located on the inner side (away from Reshus ha'Rabim) of another Chatzer. The inner Chatzer's only access to Reshus ha'Rabim is via the outer Chatzer. (See Chart.)

To better understand these cases and their Halachos, we must familiarize ourselves with four concepts:

(a) BITUL RESHUS. If the residents of a Chatzer did not make an Eruv Chatzeros together before Shabbos, they have the option, on Shabbos, to permit carrying in a second way: Bitul Reshus. When most of the residents made an Eruv but one person did not join the Eruv, that person may be Mevatel his Reshus in the Chatzer to the others. This means that he abrogates his rights in the Chatzer (and, according to some Tana'im, his rights to both the Chatzer and his house) and gives it to the collective unit of those who made the Eruv. When no one in the Chatzer made an Eruv, then all of the residents may be Mevatel their Reshus in the Chatzer to one person. Through Bitul Reshus, the Mevatel temporarily gives up his rights to the Chatzer. As a result, the Chatzer is owned only by those to whom the Bitul was made. Since the recipient of the Bitul is a single entity (either one person or a group of people who made an Eruv together), the Chatzer and the houses therein are all under a single ownership. The residents to whom the Reshus was given may carry in the Chatzer and in the houses, and from the Chatzer to the houses and vice versa. The persons who were Mevatel their Reshus may not carry from their houses to the Chatzer, because if they do so they will re-acquire their share in the Chatzer and thereby revoke the Bitul. However, they may carry in the Chatzer and in the other people's houses, just like any guest (and they may also carry inside their own houses).

In a case in which the residents made an Eruv and one person forgot to join, the Amora'im dispute whether that person must be Mevatel his Reshus to all of the residents in the Chatzer who made the Eruv, or whether he may be Mevatel his Reshus to any one of the residents who made the Eruv. The other residents automatically have a share in his Reshus, because they are joined together by the Eruv. (This is the question of Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua on 67a.)

(b) REGEL HA'ASURAH BI'MEKOMAH OSERES SHE'LO BI'MEKOMAH. If the residents of a Chatzer do not make an Eruv, or for some other reason they are not permitted to carry in their Chatzer, they cause the residents of any other Chatzer through which they usually tread (Derisas ha'Regel) to be prohibited from carrying as well. The typical illustration of such a case is an inner Chatzer that has access to Reshus ha'Rabim only through an outer Chatzer. Since the residents of the inner Chatzer tread through the outer Chatzer, if they are prohibited from carrying in their own Chatzer, then they forbid the residents of the outer Chatzer from carrying in the outer Chatzer (even if the residents of the outer Chatzer made an Eruv). However, they only forbid the residents of the outer Chatzer from carrying there when they are forbidden from carrying in their own (inner) Chatzer. When the residents of the inner Chatzer are permitted to carry in their own Chatzer (for example, they made an Eruv, or there is only one person in the inner Chatzer), since they have the rights to carry in their own Chatzer, we tell them to "close the doors" and not to make use of the outer Chatzer (Eruvin 59b). As a result, the residents of the outer Chatzer may carry in the outer Chatzer (provided that they made an Eruv before Shabbos). (The reason why we do not make the inner Chatzer "close its doors" even when its residents are not permitted to carry is because their only Shabbos pleasure (since they are not permitted to carry) is to take a stroll into the outer Chatzer. If we were to make them close their doors, so to speak, we would be hindering their Shabbos pleasure; see Rashi to 59b, DH Regel ha'Muteres and DH d'Penimis.)

This is the opinion of the Rabanan -- the inner Chatzer forbids the residents of the outer Chatzer from carrying only when the residents of the inner Chatzer themselves are forbidden from carrying. Rebbi Akiva, however, maintains that even when the residents of the inner Chatzer are permitted to carry in their Chatzer, they forbid the residents of the outer Chatzer from carrying. (Rebbi Akiva maintains that there is no such Halachic mechanism of telling the inner residents to "close the doors.")

There also exists a situation in which the residents of the outer Chatzer can prohibit those of the inner Chatzer from carrying. This is when the residents of the outer Chatzer have the rights to walk in the inner Chatzer by virtue of an Eruv that joins the two Chatzeros together. When this Eruv is placed in the inner Chatzer, it effectively moves the residents of the outer Chatzer into the inner Chatzer (this is called "Hergel Eruv"). Consequently, if the residents of the outer Chatzer are forbidden to carry (for example, one of the residents forgot to join the Eruv), then the members of the inner Chatzer are also forbidden to carry in their Chatzer because of the presence of the people of the outer Chatzer who did join the Eruv with the inner Chatzer.

(c) EIN BITUL RESHUS ME'CHATZER L'CHATZER. Shmuel maintains that a person in one Chatzer may not be Mevatel his Reshus to residents of a different Chatzer. According to Rava, this applies whether or not he is causing the other Chatzer to be prohibited from carrying. That is, when there are two adjacent Chatzeros, each of which has an opening to Reshus ha'Rabim, and there is a door between them, a resident of one Chatzer does not prohibit the residents of the other Chatzer from carrying (when that Chatzer made an Eruv), since he does not have the rights to walk there. In such a case, one certainly may not be Mevatel his Reshus to the other Chatzer. Rava adds that even in a case of an inner Chatzer and an outer Chatzer, where the residents of the inner Chatzer do prohibit the residents of the outer Chatzer from carrying (due to their right to walk through the outer Chatzer), the residents of the inner Chatzer still may not be Mevatel their Reshus to the outer Chatzer.

There is one exception to this rule: when the residents of the outer Chatzer made an Eruv with the inner Chatzer and the Eruv was placed in the inner Chatzer. The residents of the outer Chatzer now have "Hergel Eruv" (see above) in the inner Chatzer, which gives them walking rights in the inner Chatzer. Consequently, they prohibit the residents of the inner Chatzer from carrying. (That is, if one of the residents of the outer Chatzer forgot to join the Eruv, thereby forbidding all of the residents of the outer Chatzer from carrying in the outer Chatzer, he also forbids the residents of the inner Chatzer from carrying due to the principle, "Regel ha'Asurah bi'Mekomah Oseres she'Lo bi'Mekomah"). Rava says that only in that case will Shmuel permit the residents of the outer Chatzer to be Mevatel their Reshus to the residents of the inner Chatzer, since they merely need to remove their "Hergel Eruv" from that Chatzer (since they are not actually residents of that Chatzer). Their Bitul Reshus suffices to remove their "Hergel Eruv" even though the Bitul is from one Chatzer to another. Bitul can remove the presence they have in the inner Chatzer as a result of the Eruv, leaving the residents of the inner Chatzer once again permitted to "close the door" (see below, (d)) and carry in their Chatzer.

(d) ACHDA L'DASHA U'MISHTAMSHA. The people in the outer Chatzer are stuck, so to speak, with the people in the inner Chatzer, because the people in the inner Chatzer have the right to walk through the outer Chatzer to get to Reshus ha'Rabim. Consequently, it is not possible for the outer Chatzer to ignore them. The residents of the outer Chatzer must always take into account the presence of the inner Chatzer whenever they address the possibility of carrying in the outer Chatzer. However, the residents of the inner Chatzer do not need to reckon with the residents of the outer Chatzer, because the latter are not considered to be "living" in the inner Chatzer, as the residents of the outer Chatzer do not have the right to walk through the inner Chatzer.

Therefore, in a case in which the residents of the inner Chatzer invited the residents of the outer Chatzer to make an Eruv with them in the inner Chatzer, and one member of the outer Chatzer forgot to join the Eruv, the inner Chatzer has a solution. They may revoke the outer Chatzer's affiliation with the Eruv and "close their door" to the residents of the outer Chatzer so that they are no longer considered residents of the inner Chatzer. This option of the inner Chatzer is called "Achda l'Dasha u'Mishtamsha."

However, there is a dispute in the Mishnah (75b) whether this is the only action that is required (Rabanan), or whether it is also necessary for the residents of the outer Chatzer to acquiesce through Bitul and actively relinquish their right to use the inner Chatzer (Rebbi Akiva). The Gemara here follows the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. Therefore, when Rava says that there is one way in which Bitul may be done from one Chatzer to another, it is in this case -- when the inner residents want to "close the door" on the outer residents (who had joined the Eruv in the inner Chatzer), and the outer residents agree by being Mevatel their Reshus to the inner Chatzer.

Next daf