Answer #3 (cont.): If so, there is no Bitul at all! Just like initially it was the Reshus of all of them, also now it is to all of them! They are like initially, many in place of Nochrim.

Answer #4: It explicitly says (above, 26b) that [if one person in a Chatzer forgot to be Me'arev], he must be Mevatel to each of those who were Me'arev, according to the opinion that one is Mevatel stingily;

Also the other opinion admits that if he explicitly specified that he is Mevatel only to one, he was not Mevatel to the other, even if they were Me'arev with this to whom he was Mevatel.

Question: Since [Abaye] permitted all of them through an Eruv that all the Chatzeros placed, [it is difficult] Rava's question "if so, you are Mevatel the law of Eruv from the Mavuy", and [the Gemara] answered that they were Me'arev;

Also initially, [Abaye] permitted only through an Eruv, to make a solution for all of them, that the one will take the Kelim of their houses to the Mavuy, like I explained!

Answer: Rava thought that [Abaye] comes to permit Kelim that were Shoves in the one's house, without Eruv of the Chatzeros. He did not know that they are open to each other;

Based on what he thought that they are not open to each other, his question "you are Mevatel the law of Eruv from the Mavuy" discusses Shituf (this would be the only way to be Me'arev the Chatzeros), but he calls it Eruv.

Pesak (Ri): An episode came in front of Rashi regarding a Chupah, and they forgot and were not Me'arev, and they needed to take from house to house. He permitted them, through that they were Mevatel their Reshus to one of them.

Question (Ri): If Bitul helps from house to house, if so they will all be permitted to carry from one to the other, also those to whom they were Mevatel.

Implied question: One who is Mevatel Reshus of his Chatzer, it is forbidden for him to be Motzi from his house to the Chatzer!

Answer: There, they have a portion in the Chatzer, and it looks like he retracts and repossesses his Reshus, even according to the opinion that above (26a) that he was Mevatel Reshus of his house;

However, here that all the neighborhoods were Mevatel their Reshus to one of them, all of them are permitted. It does not look at all like one who returns and is Machazik in his Reshus when he carries from his house to his friend's house. This is unlike one who is Motzi from his house to the Chatzer, for he has a portion in the Chatzer.

Summation of question: Since all of them are permitted through Bitul, Bitul should not help here, for if so, you nullify the law of Eruv from this Mavuy;

They will not be concerned to make an Eruv any more, since they are all permitted through Bitul (and they will come to carry without Bitul, like Tosfos says below)!

Observation (Ri): If there are rooms in the house, he can be Mevatel the entire house without the rooms. Now it is forbidden to take from the room to the house, just like from the house to the Chatzer;

Here, "you are Mevatel the law of Eruv" does not apply, for he profits from the Eruv more than from Bitul.

Limitation: [Rashi's Heter] is only according to R. Yochanan, who says below (66b) that there is Bitul Reshus from Chatzer to Chatzer, but according to Shmuel, who says below that there is no Bitul Reshus from Chatzer to Chatzer, the same applies from house to house, for this [house] is used by itself [for its owner], and this is used by itself. However, we hold like R. Yochanan.

Defense (of Rashi's Heter): From here, we cannot argue with Rashi's ruling (even if they are Mevatel the entire houses), for it properly looks like he retracts his Bitul. When he takes his Kelim and enters them to his friend's house and returns and returns them to his house, which is a Reshus special for himself, it looks like he retracts his Bitul;

Since he loses from the matter (through Bitul, he cannot return his Kelim to his own house), you do not nullify the law of Eruv.

Rebuttal #1 (of Rashi's Heter - R. Tam): R. Yochanan and Shmuel argue about Bitul Reshus from Chatzer to Chatzer, and about Bitul Reshus in a ruin. This implies that from house to house, all forbid, since they do not discuss it;

This is like I explained, that if you permit, you will permit all of them, and since you permit all of them, one will come to carry without Bitul.

Rebuttal #2 (R. Tam): In the case below (67b) of the baby whose water [needed for Bris Milah] spilled, [Rabah] permitted to tell a Nochri to bring hot water from Rabah's house, even though they had not made an Eruv, since they did not find another solution;

Why [was this permitted]? All should be Mevatel their Reshus to the house in which the baby was. Presumably, they hold like R. Yochanan, who says that there is Bitul Reshus from Chatzer to Chatzer, like Rava said in that teaching "I hold like R. Yochanan"!

Conclusion: Rather, surely even R. Yochanan agrees that there is no Bitul from house to house.

Defense (Ri): There is no proof from there. You are forced to say that there, there were Chatzeros and a Mavuy, like we say there "we were not Me'arev, and we did not do Shituf";

They could have brought hot water through Bitul via Chatzeros and the Mavuy to the house of the baby. They did not because the owners were not there [to be Mevatel].

Alternative text: Some texts say "he may not pray."

Rebuttal: This cannot be at all. If so, why did Rav Nachman say "this teaching is not good, for until I drink a Revi'is, my mind is not clear"? What is the relevance of clarity [of mind] to prayer?! (Rashash questions this from below (65a), that one may pray only if his mind is settled.)

Rather, the text in most Seforim is "he may not rule." R. Chananel said so.

Question #1: Why did Rav Nachman say "this teaching is not good"? Tana'im argue about this in Kerisus (13b), like it expounds there "u'Lehavdil u'Lehoros", and it refers to "Yayin v'Shechar Al Tesht", for we establish it there to discuss a Revi'is!

Question #2: Rav Nachman himself said below in our Sugya "going a Mil (2000 Amos) or sleeping any amount negates [the effect] of wine when he drank a Revi'is. This shows that it is forbidden [before the effect goes away]!

Answer (to Question #2): We can say that there (it is forbidden before the effect goes away) when he did not dilute [the wine] with water, and here [Rav Nachman holds that there is no Isur] when he added water, like R. Eliezer in Kerisus (13b)

In a Beraisa there, R. Eliezer says that if he added any amount of water, he is exempt. Also Rav rules there like R. Eliezer.

Remark: Question #1 is still difficult. [Rav Nachman] should not have said "this teaching is not good", since there are Rabanan who argue with R. Eliezer there, and forbid even though he added water!

Explanation: He was not Yotzei, since he cannot speak in front of the king. He must pray again.

Support: Also in Brachos (22b), if one was praying and found excrement opposite him, we conclude that since he transgressed, even though he prayed, his Tefilah is an abomination, and he must pray again.

Question: This requires investigation if we equate Brachos to Tefilah regarding excrement and intoxication.

Observation: You are forced to say that they are not totally similar, for one who drank may not pray until his wine wears off, and even [if he drank] mixed wine he may not pray if [he drank] more than a Revi'is;

Source: Even R. Eliezer in Kerisus (13b) does not permit [if he drank] more than a Revi'is, even regarding ruling, like we say there;

It is obvious that one who drank blesses Birkas ha'Mazon and all Brachos, like it says in Yerushalayim. We learn from "v'Achalta v'Savata u'Verachta", and even if [you are] drunk.

However, due to urine, obviously he need not bless again, even if you will say that we equate Brachos, for this was taught regarding excrement;

Urine is not stringent like excrement, for it says in Brachos (25a) that the Torah forbids [prayer] only opposite a flow [of urine in the air];

Inference: If it fell to the ground, it is permitted (mid'Oraisa). Rabanan decreed about it. They decreed only about a Vadai, but not about a Safek.

Implied question: This name (Mavgai) was common among Nochrim, like it says in Makos (11a) that [in Eretz Yisrael] they say "if Shechem married [Dinah], should Mavgai (someone of his city, who does not benefit) have to circumcise himself?!" (What is the source that R. Gamliel had Ru'ach ha'Kodesh?)

Answer: Even so, this is considered knowing through Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.

Implied question: In Yevamos (122b), a man said "you said correctly that my name is Aryeh - they call me so in my city" (and we do not say that the other knew through Ru'ach ha'Kodesh)!

Answer: The other did not know through Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. He called him Aryeh (lion) based on his strength.

Explanation: This is like Rashi explained. Since he did not allow R. Ila'a to eat them, he established them to be bread of Nochrim, since most travelers are Nochrim;

If we would attribute them to a Yisrael, it would be permitted, even though it was shortly after Pesach, for regarding Yisrael, we should say that it was made after Pesach.

Explanation: [We learn that one may benefit from it,] since he gave it to a Nochri, and there is Tovas Hana'ah of the Nochri (he will have gratitude towards him), like Rashi explained;

If you would think that [a Nochri's Chametz after Pesach] is Asur b'Hana'ah, [R. Gamliel] should have forbade, for perhaps it was made during Pesach!

Question: How did R. Gamliel give [to the Nochri]? R. Yehudah expounded in Avodah Zarah (20a) "Lo Sechanem" - do not give [to Nochrim] a free gift!

Observation: Regarding a Nochri that he knows, even R. Yehudah permits, for in Pesachim (22a) we establish [the Mishnah] "one may send a thigh [with the Gid ha'Nasheh] to a Nochri" like R. Yehudah, and a Tosefta (Avodah Zarah 3:14) teaches "if he was his neighbor it is permitted, for this is like selling to him" (neighbors alternate giving to each other).

However, here we say that R. Gamliel never knew him (so we cannot answer that the above Heter applies)!

Answer #1: Perhaps R. Gamliel disagrees with R. Yehudah's Drashah.

Answer #2: Since the Nochri accompanied them on the way, it is permitted, for this is considered like selling to him.

Implied question: A Beraisa in Gitin (61a) says that we finance poor Nochrim along with poor Yisraelim, for Darchei Shalom! (Maharsha - this connotes that we must do so due to Darchei Shalom, but it is permitted even without Darchei Shalom.)

Answer: It is permitted [only] due to Darchei Shalom.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Chacham must find a Pesach to ask [to permit the vow], that [the Noder] will have a reason to say "I did not vow with this intent. Had I known so, I would not have vowed." It turns out that the vow is uprooted automatically (it was a mistake);

Ein Poschin b'Charatah means that he need not find a Pesach for regret. The Chacham uproots, even though he does not find a reason to uproot.

R. Gamliel holds like the opinion that Poschin. Therefore, he needed a settled mind to think which Pesach he will find for him. All this is from Rashi.

Question #1 (R. Tam): We heard that Rav Nachman himself explicitly holds in Nedarim (22b) that the Halachah follows the opinion that Poschin b'Charatah, and we try to permit one who swore with the name "Elokei Yisrael" (even though if we permit him, he said Hash-m's name in vain);

Also in Nedarim (77b), Rav Nachman said that one may permit Nedarim while standing, alone and at night. The Gemara asks from this episode with R. Gamliel;

The text in all Seforim says "R. Gamliel holds that Ein Poschin b'Charatah. We need to uproot the Neder, and this requires investigation. Therefore, he sat. Rav Nachman holds that Poschin b'Charatah, and [one may permit] even while standing.

However, there are Seforim that were changed to say oppositely based on Rashi's Perush in our Sugya here.

Question #2: It says in Nedarim (20a) "granted, we are stringent about him, and we are not Pose'ach with Charatah." This implies that Ein Poschin is a stringency!

Question #3: It says in Nedarim (21b) that Rav Huna holds that Poschin b'Charatah, from the case of one who came in front of him, and [Rav Huna] said "is your heart on you" (do you still desire your vow)?

Question #4: [It says there that] Rabah bar Rav Chanah, who said to the one who came [to permit a vow] "if there were 10 people who would appease you [would you have vowed]?" holds that Ein Poschin b'Charatah!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Poschin b'Charatah means that we ask him if he regrets that he vowed. We say to him "do you already regret [the vow], or "is your heart on you?", or "do you [still] want the vow?", and we permit him through this;

R. Gamliel holds that Ein Poschin to permit just through regret that he vowed. Rather, he must find a Pesach for his vow, e.g. he says "if there were 10 people who would appease you [would you have vowed]?", or like R. Gamliel permitted the merchant. We ask him "did you vow with intent for this"?

He must toil much and think how he will find a Pesach for him for his vow.

Citation: In Nedarim (22a), it says that we do not make a Pesach from this, for amidst fear one will say that he did not vow with intent for this, even though he lies.

Pesak: Also, we rule there that Poschin b'Charatah.