[68a - 33 lines; 68b - 51 lines]
1)[line 4]דלית ביה מעשהD'LEIS BEI MA'ASEH- that is, Amirah l'Nochri involves speaking only
2)[line 6]תרי גברי רברביTREI GAVRI RAVREVI- (lit. two great men) Abaye and Rabah
3)[line 8]מר לאו אורחיהMAR, LAV ORCHEI- it is beneath Rabah's dignity to collect the bread for the Shituf
4)[line 8]אנא טרידנא בגירסאיANA, TARIDNA B'GIRSA'I- I am too busy reviewing my Torah-learning
5)[line 9]אינהו לא משגחיINHU, LO MASHGECHEI- the other inhabitants of our courtyard do not care enough to make an Eruv Chatzeros
6)[line 9]ואי אקני להו פיתא בסלאV'IY AKNI LEHU PITA B'SALA- and if I transfer ownership of a loaf of bread that is in [my] basket to the residents of the Mavoy
7)[line 10]ולא אפשר ליתבה נהלייהוV'LO EFSHAR LEISVAH NIHALAIHU- I am unable to supply my fellow residents with bread every Shabbos (and therefore will not give them their portion if requested)
8)[line 13]רביעתא דחלאREVI'ASA D'CHALA- a Revi'is of vinegar, a quarter of a Log, approximately 2 1/2 ounces
9)[line 14]באוצרOTZAR- food that has been stored (in large quantities, when only a small portion is desired for the Eruv. The reason for this is that we say "Ein Bereirah" - we do not have the ability to retroactively decide which part of the food was designated for the Eruv. Therefore, when food is removed we may not necessarily assume that the Eruv remained behind; perhaps it was in the portion just taken.
10)[line 16]המת בביתMES BA'BAYIS (TUM'AS MEIS: TUM'AS PETACH / SOF TUM'AH LA'TZES)
(a)If a Mes is in a house, not only is the Mes Metamei all that is in the house through Tum'as Ohel, it is also Metamei articles lying outside the door in the doorway (i.e., under the Tefach-wide lintel), even if the door is closed. Since the Mes will eventually be removed from the house through that doorway, it is considered as if the Mes is already in the doorway (either mid'Rabanan [RASHI Beitzah 10a], or through a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai [RASHI Beitzah 37b]). If the door is open, all objects within it are Tamei because they are considered to be in the house.
(b)If the house has a number of doorways and windows which are larger than 4 X 4 Tefachim, all objects that are in all the doorways or windows on the other side of the closed doors or windows are Tamei, since we do not know through which one the Mes will be removed. If the part of the Mes which is in the house is the size of a k'Zayis or less, even objects on the other side of closed windows which are less than 4 X 4 Tefachim are Tamei.
(c)If the owner of the house chooses to remove the Mes through a particular doorway or window, even if he has simply made up in his own mind that this is the opening through which he wishes to remove the Mes, all of the objects that are on the other side of all the other closed windows or doors are Tahor. This is true as well if one of the openings is open and the rest are closed (even without a conscious resolution).
(d)In our Sugya, Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai argue about the resolution on the part of the owner to remove the Mes through a specific opening. Beis Hillel is of the opinion that such a decision will save all objects in the other openings from becoming Tamei even if that resolution was made after the Mes was already dead. Beis Shamai, however, maintains that it must be made beforehand. The Gemara equates this Machlokes to that of whether or not an Otzar may be used for an Eruv. Beis Hillel says that the resolution of the owner of the house to remove the Mes through a specific opening after the fact is Halachically interpreted to retroactively reveal what his intention was all along ("Yesh Bereirah"). Similarly, one may use part of a large collection of food for an Eruv, and decide only after removing some of it that the Eruv all along was in the part which remains.
11)[line 23]נישיילה לאימיה אי צריכא נחים ליה נכרי אגב אימיהNISHAILAH L'IMEI IY TZERICHA NACHIM LEI NOCHRI AGAV IMEI- let us ask his mother if she needs [hot water]; [and if so,] let a Nochri heat up [water] (for the baby) along with [heating it up for] his mother. It is necessary for the mother in this case to state specifically that she needs the hot water, since we are not Mechalel Shabbos for a mother who is more than seven days after birth unless she declares that she requires it (Shabbos 129a).
12)[line 25]אימיה קא אכלה תמריIMEI KA ACHLAH TAMRI- i.e., she clearly does not require hot drink as she is eating cold food without complaint
13)[line 26]תונבא בעלמא הוא דנקט להTUNBA B'ALMA HU D'NAKAT LAH- (O.F. estordison - dazing of the mind) it is merely stupor that that seized her (and she does not realize what she is eating)
14)[line 28]פנו לי מאניPANU LI MANEI- remove my utensils for me
15)[line 28]מבי גברי לבי נשיMI'BEI GAVRI L'BEI NASHI- from the men's rooms (the outer rooms of my house) to the women's rooms (the inner rooms) (so that no one will come to bring them out to the Chatzer - RASHI)
16)[line 29]ואיבטיל להו הא חצרV'IVTIL L'HU HA CHATZER- According to Rashi, the Chatzer where Rava lived contained only his house and no other houses. Rava's plan was to nullify his Chatzer to the connecting Chatzer, which had the baby, effectively annexing his Chatzer to the baby's Chatzer.
17)[line 1]ניתיב מר בדוכתיהNEISIV MAR [B'DUCHTEI] (A'DUCHTEI)- let Mar (lit. sir; a respectful way of addressing a scholar in third person) sit in his place (and from the fact that Rava requested that his utensils be moved to the inner rooms it was clear that he intended his nullification to be in effect for all of Shabbos)
18)[line 3]מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטליןMEVATLIN V'CHOZRIN U'MEVATLIN
(a)In the event that the inhabitants of a courtyard did not set an Eruv Chatzeiros before Shabbos, carrying may still be permitted if Bitul Reshuyos is performed. This is accomplished as follows: If none of the people in the courtyard made an Eruv, all of the inhabitants of the courtyard may nullify their domains in favor of one of the inhabitants. All of the houses/courtyards in the area are considered the private domain of the person chosen. If some of those in the courtyard made an Eruv together, those who did not may nullify their domains in favor of the collective domain of those who made an Eruv.
(b)Bitul Reshuyos may be performed as long as the following conditions are met:
1.The nullification must be only in favor of a single person or a collective party who made an Eruv together;
2.Those who nullified their domains may not transfer objects from their houses to the courtyard or vice versa. Bitul Reshuyos only permits carrying in the courtyard and from the courtyard to the house of the person/s chosen, Eruvin 69b. (According to some Tana'im, the other residents of the courtyard may carry from the house of the Mevatel to the courtyard as well, Eruvin 26b.) If one of the residents who nullified his domain transfers from his house to the courtyard or vice versa, it constitutes a repeal of the nullification. It becomes once again prohibited to carry in the courtyard. (Eruvin 26a and RASHI DH Anshei Chatzer)
(c)In our Sugya, Rav and Shmuel argue as to whether Bitul Reshuyos may be done successively. Rav maintains that a Reshus which was transferred on Shabbos in favor of one party may be returned to the original party through a reverse Bitul later on that same Shabbos. Shmuel is of the opinion that this is prohibited.
19)[line 11]כחוכא ואטלולאK'CHUCHA [V'ITLULA] (V'TLULA)- like a joke and a subject of derision (but if not for this concern, Rava would indeed allow Mevatlin v'Chozrin u'Mevatlin)
20)[line 14]בפלוגתא דרבנן ור' אליעזרB'PLUGTA D'RABANAN V'REBBI ELIEZER...- There exists a Machlokes concerning a resident of a Chatzer who did not join in the communal Eruv and subsequently nullified his Reshus. The Rabanan say that one who nullified his share in the Chatzer is not assumed to have relinquished his house as well. (Therefore, neither he nor the other residents of the Chatzer may carry from his house to the Chatzer, or vice versa.) Rebbi Eliezer maintains that he is assumed to have nullified his house as well (meaning that while he may not transfer objects between his use and the Chatzer, those to whom he nullified it may.) Our Gemara suggests that Shmuel and Rebbi Eliezer are of the same opinion. Since one who nullifies his domain retreats from his house as well, it follows that he has retreated from the Chatzer completely, and it is as if he does not reside in the Chatzer at all. Accordingly, it would be forbidden for the other residents of the courtyard to return his domain to him by way of nullification, since that would be the equivalent of Bitul me'Chatzer l'Chatzer. Rav, on the other hand, who maintains that one may return the Chatzer through an additional nullification, must agree with the Rabanan. Since one who nullifies his domain retains his house, he still maintains a presence in the Chatzer, and therefore nullifying part of the Chatzer to him would not constitute Bitul me'Chatzer l'Chatzer.
21)[line 24]מי שנתן רשותוMI SHE'NASAN RESHUSO- one who [forgot to join in the Eruv of his Chatzer and therefore] nullified his Reshus
22)[line 27]מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגיMAI LAV B'HA KA'MIFLEGI...- Rebbi Meir says that even one who accidentally carried an object from his house to the Chatzer after Bitul retracts his nullification. The Gemara suggests that this is because he has never fully left, and since the connection to the Chatzer is maintained, even the slightest act of ownership is enough to restore his original pre-Bitul status. Likewise, since he never fully left the Chatzer, returning part of the Chatzer to him would not constitute Bitul me'Chatzer l'Chatzer - following the opinion of Rav. Rebbi Yehudah requires a stronger show of ownership from the resident in question in order to restore his ownership status, seemingly due to the tenuous connection currently present between the nullifier and his Reshus. Shmuel, who forbids returning any part of a Chatzer to such an individual, presumably rules such because he agrees with this opinion. With such a feeble hold on his portion of the Chatzer, the nullifier has the Halachic status of a non-resident, rendering any transferal to him Bitul me'Chatzer l'Chatzer.
23)[line 37]הרי הוא כנכריHAREI HU K'NOCHRI- in that his nullification is worthless; a Jew wishing to make an Eruv with a Tzeduki must rent his Reshus from him
24)[line 42]והתניאV'HATANYA- this Beraisa is brought as a proof, not a refutation
The Tzedukim and Beitusim were students of Tzadok and Beitus, both of whom rejected the Oral Torah (Avos d'Rebbi Nasan 5:2).
26)[line 48]התועב הזהHA'TO'EV HA'ZEH- this abominable thing (the Tzeduki)
27)[line 50]עד שלא תחשךAD SHE'LO TECHSHACH- before Shabbos begins. In this Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah maintains that Raban Gamliel does not argue with the Tana Kama, but rather agrees that a Tzeduki is similar to a Nochri in that his Bitul is worthless. In Rebbi Yehuda's version of the story, the details bear this out.
28)[last line]דכי מפקי אינהו והדר מפיק איהוD'CHI MAFKEI INHU, V'HADAR MAPIK IHU- that when the people of the courtyard first carry out objects into the Mavoy, and afterwards the Tzeduki carries objects out of his courtyard into the Mavoy