[71a - 49 lines; 71b - 29 lines]
1)[line 7]הכי קאמר אף על פי שלא החזיק...HACHI K'AMAR AF AL PI SHE'LO HICHZIK...- Rav Papa was informing us that words are missing from this Beraisa and that it should be read as follows: "If the Ger died before Shabbos started, even if [a different Jew did not take possession of the Ger's property but rather waited until nightfall, since he could have done so before Shabbos it is as if] a different Jew took possession of the Ger's property, and therefore the remaining Jew may not carry [without an Eruv]." Because the part of the area which had belonged to the Ger was available to others when Shabbos began, the area cannot be considered a Reshus ha'Yachid. The Seifa then reads, "After Shabbos has begun, even if [a different Jew did take possession of the Ger's property, since he could not have done so before Shabbos, it is as if] a different Jew did not take possession of the Ger's property, and therefore the remaining Jew may carry [without an Eruv]." Because it was permitted to carry when Shabbos entered, it remains so afterwards as well (see 70b).
2)[line 18]מתניתין מניMASNISIN MANI- who is the author of the previous two Beraisos (which appear to state that an inheritor may not nullify)?
3)[line 22]כלך אצל יפותKALECH ETZEL YAFOS- if a person entered someone else's field and separated Terumah without the owner's knowledge, the Terumah is valid under certain circumstances.
1.If, when the owner finds out, he says to the one who separated the Terumah, "Kalech Etzel Yafos!" ("You should have taken Terumah from higher quality fruits!") - and there are better fruits in the field - then the Terumah is valid. (If there are no better fruits, we assume that the remark was intended sarcastically, and the Terumah is not valid since the owner suspects him of stealing.)
2.Beis Hillel compares one who nullifies his Reshus on Shabbos to the owner of the Terumah who says "Kelach Etzel Yafos!" when better fruits exist. Through his words, he reveals that all along he would have been happy for this person to separate Terumah for him, and it is therefore as if he appointed him as a Shali'ach. Similarly, one who nullifies his Reshus on Shabbos reveals that all along he was happy to share the area with his neighbor(s), and the fact that he did not join in an Eruv with them was no more than an oversight.
4)[line 25]ביטול רשות מיקנא רשותא הואBITUL RESHUS MIKNA RESHUSA HU- Bitul Reshus involves an actual transferal of the ownership of the domain (which is similar to business dealings)
5)[line 26]אסתלוקי רשותאISTALUKEI RESHUSA- withdrawal from the domain, leaving it ownerless
6)[line 27]שותףSHUTAF- a partner (generally speaking, and not for the express purposes of joining with each other in an Eruv)
7)[line 40]בחצר שבין שני מבואות ורבי שמעון לטעמיהB'CHATZER SHE'BEIN SHNEI MEVO'OS V'REBBI SHIMON L'TA'AMEI- with a courtyard sandwiched between two Mavo'os. In such a case Rebbi Shimon is of the opinion that the residents of the courtyard may maintain separate Eruvin with each Mavoy, even though the two Mevo'os have not joined in one single Eruv and it is forbidden to carry from one of them to the other.
8)[line 42]ופתוחות לרשות הרביםU'PESUCHOS LI'RESHUS HA'RABIM- and the two outer Chatzeros are open to a Reshus ha'Rabim
9)[last line]שכניםSHECHEINIM- (lit. neighbors) the two outer Mevo'os
71b----------------------------------------71b
10)[line 3]טבול יוםTEVUL YOM
A Tevul Yom is a person or vessel that has immersed in a Mikvah, but requires night to fall before becoming completely Tahor. The Tum'ah level of a Tevul Yom is minimal; he or it is considered only a Sheni l'Tum'ah. This means that if he or it touches Terumah or Kodesh, the Terumah or Kodesh become Pasul and must be burned. Chulin that he or it touches does not become Tamei at all.
11)[line 3]יין... שמןYAYIN... SHEMEN- of Terumah
12)[line 7]ואפילו לזה ביין ולזה ביין?V'AFILU L'ZEH B'YAYIN UL'ZEH B'YAYIN?- (The Gemara asks this question.)
13)[line 8]בלגינוLEGINO- his [personal] Log (a liquid measure) [of wine]
14)[line 11]אין ברירהEIN BEREIRAH (YESH BEREIRAH/EIN BEREIRAH)
(a)In numerous places in Shas we find arguments among the Tana'im/Amora'im as to whether "Yesh Bereirah" (i.e. Bereirah works) or "Ein Bereirah" (i.e. Bereirah does not work). Bereirah means making the effect of one's action contingent retroactively upon future events. Examples of this are: buying or selling an object on the condition that it rains the following day, or that the object of the sale will remain undefined until it is selected the following day. "Ein Bereirah" means that such a stipulation does not work. An action cannot be contingent on a future event. The Ran (Nedarim 45b) explains this opinion with the following logic: "It is not proper for something to take effect when upon what it will take effect is still in question." (See Insights to Chulin 15:2.) "Yesh Bereirah" means that such a stipulation does work.
(b)When the action is contingent on a past event, there is no question that the action works - even if the people involved in the action are not aware as to whether the past event did or did not take place. For example: If a person makes two Eruvei Techumin before sundown on Erev Shabbos, places them on opposite sides of his city, and declares, "If my Rebbi is presently in the village to the east, I would like the eastern Eruv to be my Eruv; if not, I would like the western Eruv to be my Eruv." The man making the Eruv may not know where his Rebbi is, but when he finds out, the Eruv will have taken effect on the side that he stipulated ("Kevar Ba Chacham" - see Chulin 14b).
(c)We find dozens of instances in the Gemara where a person may perform an action "on the condition that..." (b'Tenai). For example, a man may buy/sell an object or divorce his wife on the condition that the other party pays/does whatever the first party specifies. If the condition is not kept in the future, the sale/divorce is annulled. This situation is not called Bereirah - see Insights to Eruvin 36b.
(d)Halachically, most Poskim conclude (based on Beitzah 38a) that regarding questions regarding matters d'Oraisa, we assume that Bereirah does not work (l'Chumra), but regarding matters d'Rabanan, we rely on Bereirah (l'Kula).
(e)In our Sugya, Rabah explains that the case in which Rebbi Elazer ben Tadai says that all of the Eruvin are invalid is one in which the residents of the different courtyards buy a barrel of wine together, and each resident's portion is not yet determined at the onset of Shabbos. When they apportion the wine at a later date, they will be relying on Bereirah to retroactively determine who owned which portion of the wine at the onset of Shabbos, thereby enabling the Shituf to work.
15)[line 13]בסומכין על שיתוף במקום עירובSOMCHIN AL SHITUF B'MAKOM ERUV- relying on the Shituf Mevo'os in order to carry in the Chatzeros even when there is no Eruv Chatzeros
16)[line 16]הלכה כרבי מאירHALACHAH K'REBBI MEIR- who maintains Ein Somchin Al Shituf b'Makom Eruv, as the Gemara goes on to explain
17)[line 20]דלא עבדינן כתרי חומרי בעירוביןLO AVDINAN K'TREI CHUMRI B'ERUVIN- (a) we do not accept two stringent rulings presented by one opinion in any one given law of Eruvin. Rebbi Meir rules that (1) one may not rely on the Shituf of the Mavoy in order to carry in the Chatzer when wine was used, and (2) one may not rely on it even if bread was used to make the Shituf. Therefore, Rav ruled according to the opinion of Rebbi Elazer ben Tadai that one may not rely on the Shituf when it was made from wine, and then ruled according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir that one may not rely on it even if it was made from bread. (RASHI); (b) the Girsa of RABEINU TAM is AVDINAN K'TREI CHUMRI B'ERUVIN - Rav needed to stress that the Halachah follows both opinions of Rav (and therefore clearly ruled according to both the opinion of Rebbi Elazer ben Tadai and Rebbi Meir) so that we should not mistakenly think that we do not accept two stringent rulings presented by one opinion in any one given law.
18)[line 27]או מערבין או משתתפיןO ME'ARVIN O MISHTATFIN- that is, when many Chatzeros open to a single Mavoy there are two ways to permit carrying in the Chatzer/Mavoy complex: The Chatzeros may each contribute towards a joint Eruv, or they may each contribute towards a Shituf for the Mavoy (to join with other Mevo'os). (If the latter is done, it is not necessary for them to make an Eruv at all, not even private Eruvin in each Chatzer. -Rashi; see Insights)
19)[last line]דבחדא סגיDIB'CHADA SAGI- that one Eruv is enough to permit carrying in both the Mavoy and the Chatzer