WHAT KIND OF SHEVUS IS PERMITTED FOR THE SAKE OF A MITZVAH?
Answer (Rav Yosef): We distinguish Shevus with an action from Shevus without an action;
Rabah did not tell a Nochri to heat water!
USING AN OTZAR FOR SHITUF
Rabah bar Rav Chanin: Why was no Eruv or Shituf placed in a Mavoy with two great Chachamim (Rabah and yourself)?
Abaye: It is beneath the dignity of Rabah (the Rosh Yeshiva) to collect for the Eruv. I cannot, for it would disrupt my Girsa. (Even bringing a dip would disrupt Abaye (65a). R. Yehonason - it would take the entire day); no one else bothered to collect;
If I would be Mezakeh to them (make them partners in) my bread, it would be invalid, since if they would request bread [every week], I would not be prepared to give them! (See note 23 in Appendix.)
(Beraisa): If a member of the Mavoy requested wine or oil of the Shituf and was denied, the Shituf is Batel.
Question (Rabah bar Rav Chanin): Why didn't you Mezakeh to them a Revi'is (Rashba - in all; R. Yehonason - for each person in the Mavoy; Me'iri - the amount needed for two meals. Perhaps this is less than a Revi'is) of your vinegar in a barrel [in the Chatzer, for Shituf? Surely, you would grant a request for vinegar!]
Answer (Abaye - Beraisa #1): One may not use an Otzar (stored food) for Shituf. (Rashi - this is because Ein Breirah. See note 24 in Appendix for a fuller explanation and other Shitos.)
Contradiction (Beraisa #2): One may use an Otzar for Shituf.
Resolution (Rav Oshaya): Beraisa #1 is Beis Shamai, and Beraisa #2 is Beis Hillel:
(Mishnah): If a Mes was in a house with many openings (all are closed), every opening is Tamei. (It is Metamei things under the lintel);
If one of them was opened, it is Tamei, and the others are Tehorim;
If one intended to remove the Mes through one of them or through a window that is at least four by four [Tefachim], this is Metaher the other openings;
Beis Shamai say, this is only if he intended to do so before the person died. (If not, all are Temei'im until an action is done to open one of them);
Beis Hillel say, this is even if he intended after the person died. (Rashi - Yesh Breirah, so it is as if he intended for this opening from the beginning. See note 25 in Appendix.)
THE ARGUMENT OF RAV AND SHMUEL
A case occurred in which the hot water prepared for a baby [to be circumcised] spilled. Rava told people to ask the mother if she would like hot water [to drink]. If she does, they may ask a Nochri to heat for her and the baby (Rashi. See note 26 in Appendix).
Rav Mesharshiya: She is eating dates! (Surely, just like she does not need hot food, she does not need hot water. Rashi Kidushin 30b - sick people do not eat sweet things.)
Rava: Perhaps her mind is dazed.
A case occurred in which the hot water prepared for a baby spilled. (Rava had hot water in his Chatzer, which opened to the Chatzer in which the baby was. There was no Eruv between them.) Rava said that he will be Mevatel his Chatzer, allowing others to take the water to the Chatzer of the baby. First he commanded to move his things from an [outer] room of his house which opened to his Chatzer to an interior room [lest he forget, and take things from there to the Chatzer after Bitul, which is forbidden].
Ravina: Shmuel taught that Bitul does not work from one Chatzer to another!
Rava: I hold like R. Yochanan, who says that Bitul works from one Chatzer to another.
Ravina: If you don't hold like Shmuel, you should hold that afterwards they may be Mevatel 'back' your Chatzer [and you will be permitted. Why did you clear your things from the room?]
(Rav): (If Reuven and Shimon did not make an Eruv in their joint Chatzer,) Reuven may be Mevatel (allowing Shimon to take things to the Chatzer), and later Shimon may be Mevatel (permitting Reuven).
Rava: Regarding Bitul after Bitul, I hold like Shmuel;
(Shmuel): Once Reuven was Mevatel, others cannot be Mevatel [back to him to permit him on Shabbos].
Question (Ravina): Shmuel's second law depends on his first! (It is unreasonable to hold like Shmuel for only the second law.)
Shmuel holds that when Reuven is Mevatel, he withdraws from [any affiliation with] the Chatzer. It is as if he is from another Chatzer. To be Mevatel back to him is like Bitul from one Chatzer to another. His first law says that this does not work!
If you hold like his second law, you must hold that [others cannot be Mevatel back, for] one cannot be Mevatel to another Chatzer!
Answer (Rava): No. Shmuel does not allow Bitul after Bitul lest Chachamim's words appear like a mockery. (People are not serious about Bitul at all. They alternate being Mevatel all day, to permit carrying whenever they want.)
(Rav): Bitul after Bitul works.
(Shmuel): It does not work.
Suggestion: Rav and Shmuel argue like R. Eliezer and Chachamim:
Rav holds like Chachamim (69b, who forbid others to take things from the house of Reuven (the Mevatel). Since he was not Mevatel his house. he did not withdraw from the Chatzer. Therefore, Shimon can be Mevatel back to him);
Shmuel holds like R. Eliezer (26b, who permits others to take things from Reuven's house, since he was Mevatel it. It is as if he is from another Chatzer. Therefore, Shimon cannot be Mevatel back to him.)
Rejection #1: Even R. Eliezer could hold like Rav. R. Eliezer says that one who is Mevatel his share in a Chatzer is also Mevatel his house, for one cannot live in a house without access to a Chatzer. However, he does not withdraw from the Chatzer.
Rejection #2: Even Chachamim could hold like Shmuel. They say that one is not Mevatel more than he says, i.e. his share in the Chatzer (but not his house). However, the Bitul he does is absolute. He withdraws from the Chatzer.
(Rav Acha bar Chana): Tana'im argue like Rav and Shmuel do:
(Mishnah - R. Meir): If someone [forgot to be Me'arev, and] gave Reshus (was Mevatel his share in the Chatzer), and took something into the Chatzer, whether this was b'Shogeg or b'Mezid, he forbids;
R. Yehudah says, he forbids only if it was b'Mezid.
Suggestion: R. Meir holds that Bitul after Bitul works (for he remains affiliated with the Chatzer), and R. Yehudah holds that it does not work.
Rejection (Rav Acha bar Tachlifa): No, all agree that it does not work. They argue about whether or not we decree about Shogeg due to Mezid. R. Meir decrees, R. Yehudah does not.
Affirmation (of Suggestion (m) - Rav Ashi): Rav and Shmuel argue like R. Eliezer and Chachamim.
DOES PROPERTY OF TZEDUKIM FORBID THE USE OF THE CHATZER?
(Mishnah - R. Gamliel): A case occurred in which a Tzeduki lived with us in a Mavoy in Yerushalayim... (Tzedukim and Baisusim do not heed Divrei Chachamim.)
Question: We were not discussing Tzedukim! (An episode is always brought to support what was taught)!
Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated. It means as follows:
A Tzeduki is like a Nochri;
R. Gamliel says, a Tzeduki is not like a Nochri;
R. Gamliel says, a case occurred in which a Tzeduki lived with us in a Mavoy in Yerushalayim. (He was Mevatel his Reshus.) My father told us 'quickly take Kelim into the Mavoy [to acquire it] before he does (thereby retracting his Bitul) and forbids you!'
Support (Beraisa - R. Meir): If a Yisrael lives with a Nochri, Tzeduki or Baisusi, the latter forbids the Yisrael;
A case occurred in which a Tzeduki lived with R. Gamliel in a Mavoy in Yerushalayim; R. Gamliel told his sons 'quickly take out the Kelim you want outside, and bring in what you want inside, before this abominable one does and forbids you, for he was Mevatel his Reshus to you!'
R. Yehudah says, he said 'do your needs in the Mavoy before it gets dark and he will forbid you.''