(a)Why did the Rabbanan forbid carrying in a Chatzer without an Eruv?
(b)We assumed that Rebbi Meir forbade a non-Jew who lives with even one Jew in a courtyard to carry, unless he acquires his place, because 'the dwelling of a non-Jew is a dwelling'. What did Rebbi Meir say that proves this to be incorrect?
(c)Then what is the reason for the need to hire the gentiles rights in general, and what is Rebbi Meir's reason for maintaining that even one Jew requires it?
(d)And why does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov permit carrying in the Chatzer unless there are at least two Jews living there?
(a)the Rabbanan forbade carrying in a Chatzer without an Eruv - because it is like carrying from one Reshus to another, and they were concerned that one may come to carry from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(b)Rebbi Meir said 'Chatzeiro shel Akum, Harei Hu k'Dir' - from which we can deduce that Rebbi Meir does not consider the dwelling of a non-Jew to be a dwelling.
(c)In order to make it awkward to live together with gentiles, Chazal decreed on Jews living with gentiles that, when Shabbos comes in, they have to rent their rights in the Chatzer. (The reason for this is because someone who lives with a Jew is likely to learn from their ways). Rebbi Meir maintains that this applies just as much to one Jew who shares a courtyard with a gentile as it does to two.
(d)But Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov holds that this only applies to at least two Jews who share a courtyard with a gentile, but not just to one - since, due to the element of life-danger of living alone with a non-Jew in one Chatzer, it is unusual for such a situation to arise, and whenever a situation is unusual, Chazal did not issue a decree.
(a)Why does one have to specifically hire his part of the Chatzer? Why can one he not just negate his ownership, like a Jew does when necessary?
(b)Rav Chisda and Rav Sheshes argue about whether a proper Sechirus is required, or whether even a weak one will suffice. What is the difference between a proper Sechirus and a weak one?
(c)Why will the non-Jew probably not agree to rent his rights in the courtyard, even through a weak Sechirus?
(a)One needs to specifically hire his part of the Chatzer, and not just get the gentile to negate his ownership, like a Jew does - in order to make it difficult for the Jew (who does not want to go to the trouble of hiring the non-Jew's Reshus), and this will discourage him from continuing to live in a Chatzer which is shared by a gentile.
(b)A proper Sechirus means that he hires from the gentile the right to do whatever he likes in the Chatzer - even to fill it with benches and such-like, should he wish to do so; whereas a weak one means that he just rents from him the right to use his section of the Chatzer in a limited way.
(c)The non-Jew will probably not agree to rent his rights in the courtyard, even by means of a weak Sechirus (thereby discouraging the Jew from remaining) - because he will suspect the Jew of intending to perform witchcraft there.
(a)May one rent the non-Jew's rights in the Chatzer with a Sechirus of less than a Perutah?
(b)Is a non-Jew punishable for stealing less than a Shaveh Perutah?
(c)What is his punishment?
(d)Is he obligated to return what he steals?
(a)Yes, one may rent the non-Jew's rights in the Chatzer for less than a Shaveh Perutah.
(b)A non-Jew is punishable for stealing less than a Shaveh Perutah.
(c)He is guilty of the death-sentence (by the sword) for transgressing any of his seven Mitzvos.
(d)A Jew is subject to "ve'Heshiv es ha'Gezeilah" (Vayikra), but not a non-Jew.
(a)What are the ramifications of the statement 'Chatzero shel Oved Kochavim, Harei Hu ke'Dir shel Behemah'?
(b)According to Rebbi Meir, if one Jew lives with non-Jews, he is not permitted to carry in the Chatzer. To whom is this then applicable?
(a)'Chatzero shel Oved Kochavim, Harei Hu ke'Dir shel Behemah' - implies that we do not consider a gentile who shares a courtyard as an individual owner. Consequently, a Jew is permitted to carry there without an Eruv, provided ...
(b)... he does not live there, according to Rebbi Meir.
(a)Is a residence considered a residence when the owner is not there?
(b)Then why, according to Rebbi Meir, does a Jew who has not made an Eruv, and who is away for Shabbos, nevertheless forbid the remaining residents of the Chatzer to carry from their house to the courtyard?
(c)Why then, does a non-Jew not also forbid them to do so, when he is out of town?
(d)When does Rebbi Meir forbid carrying into the Chatzer even in the non-Jew's absence?
(a)Intrinsically, a residence is not considered a residence when the owner is not there. Consequently, whenever the owner is not there, no Eruv ought to be necessary.
(b)Nevertheless, a Jew who has not made an Eruv, and who is away for Shabbos, forbids the remaining residents of the Chatzer to carry from their house to the courtyard -Since Chazal decreed that he should be considered a resident even when he is not there, because of when he is.
(c)Not so a non-Jew, who, even when he is there, is not called a resident, and only forbids carrying in the Chatzer because of a decree that one may come to learn from his ways. Consequently, they confined the decree to when he is there, but to when he is away.
(d)Rebbi Meir nevertheless forbids carrying into the Chatzer even in the non-Jew's absence - when he has not gone far, and there is a chance that he will return on Shabbos. It is then forbidden to carry in the Chatzer even when he is away, in case one continues to carry even after he has returned.
(a)There is a triple Machlokes whether we rule like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov in our Mishnah (with regard to one Jew who shares a Chatzer with a non-Jew) completely, whether we only inform individuals of this ruling, or whether we only rule like him with Bedieved, with regard to not retracting when someone has ruled like him. What is the last word on the subject issued by Abaye?
(a)Abaye reminded Rav Yosef of the ruling 'Mishnas Rebbi Eliezer Kav v'Naki' (Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov is 'Kav' - a small measure [which some explain to mean that his opinion appears in the Mishnah only 'Kav' = 102 times], but it is clean - meaning pure, and therefore, Halachah).
(a)Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether a Talmid-Chacham is permitted to publicize this straightforward ruling 'Halachah k'Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov' in the town where his Rebbe lives. What did Rav Yosef reply?
(b)He also gave him the same answer with regard to ruling like Megilas Ta'anis, even though it was all there in writing. Why does he mention specifically Megilas Ta'anis?
(c)Seeing as Rav Chisda was so meticulous about this Halachah, why did he issue rulings in Kofri, in Rav Huna's lifetime?
(a)Rav Yosef told Abaye that it is forbidden to issue even such a simple ruling as the prohibition of eating an egg together with a milk dish, which is obvious, and there is no question of its authenticity. Nevertheless, it is a Chutzpah to issue any ruling in the presence of one's Rebbe (in the same town).
(b)He specifically mentioned Megilas Ta'anis because it was (presumably up to the time that Shas was transcribed some hundred years later), the only book of Halachah that existed.
(c)Rav Chisda issued rulings in Kofri, in spite of the fact that Rav Huna's was still alive - because Rav Huna lived in Pumbedisa, not in Kofri.(Note: see Tosfos DH 'Rav Chisda', who maintains that Rav Chisda was a Talmid-Chaver of Rav Huna, because, even in another town - and at distance of three Parsah - it is only a Talmid-Chaver who is permitted to issue rulings in the life-time of his Rebbe, but not a Talmid!)