Implied question: Why don't we say that once Shabbos was permitted, it is permitted, and their Eruv is not Batel when the Nochri comes on Shabbos?

Answer: We cannot say so at all, for here they were not Me'arev. Therefore, rental alone without Bitul does not suffice;

You are forced to say that they could have been Me'arev here, like I explained, that the Halachah is like R. Yehudah, that when the Nochri is not here, he does not forbid.

Question: Since Eruv would have helped here, what is [R. Elazar's] source that they were not Me'arev, and [rather] they did rental and Bitul, that he asks below that (the episode in which they rented on Shabbos and then were Mevatel, is unlike) Shmuel his Rebbi, who said that [when] they forbid and cannot be Me'arev, they are not Mevatel (i.e. it does not help)?

At the end of the Sugya (67a), it says "according to the opinion that they rent, you need not ask. They do both, rental and Bitul."

(Why does R. Elazar assume that they were not Me'arev, and it is difficult for him?) Perhaps here they were Me'arev, and only rented!

Answer: We must say like Rashi, that even if they were Me'arev, the Eruv is totally Batel, since the Nochri came.

Question: Why do they do both here, rental and Bitul? Bitul itself suffices. Since they were Mevatel their Reshus to one of them, he is an individual in place of a Nochri, like it says above, regarding the episode of Haman bar Ristak. We hold like R. Eliezer ben Yakov, that an individual in place of a Nochri is permitted!

Suggestion: Rava holds that Bitul does not help to make him an individual in place of a Nochri, for if so, the law of Eruv is Batel from the Mavuy.

Rejection: That refers to a Nochri who does not want to rent. It is impossible for them to be Me'arev;

However, here he consents to rent, and on another Shabbos they can be Me'arev to permit all of them, just today that the Nochri came on Shabbos it is impossible, Bitul helps to make him an individual in place of a Nochri, for here it is not applicable to say "you are Mevatel the law of Eruv."

Answer #1: Since if he would not consent to rent, Bitul would not help, for if so you are Mevatel the law of Eruv, we should not distinguish between when he consents and when he does not consent;

Does the Nochri's speech cause that Bitul helps, that it works when he says "I will consent to you to rent", or it does not work when he says "I will not consent to you"?!

Answer #2: These Amora'im hold like R. Meir, who forbids an individual living in place of a Nochri;

Also R. Yochanan below holds like he taught elsewhere, that people conduct like R. Eliezer ben Yakov, but we do not publicly] teach this;

However, surely we hold like R. Eliezer ben Yakov, for Abaye and Rava hold like him in the episode of Haman bar Ristak.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): There were many houses of Yisraelim that forbade each other.

Explanation #2: In some Perushim, the text was changed to say "an inn has many rooms open to the Chatzer, and the guests enter them and forbid each other."

Affirmation: Also this is true. Also in such a case they forbid, like a group that was Shoves in a big hall.

Opinion #1 (R. Chananel): The Halachah follows R. Yochanan, even though Shmuel argues with him below. [Shmuel] holds that whenever they forbid and are not Me'arev, they cannot be Mevatel (i.e. it does not help).

Source: Everywhere, we hold like R. Yochanan against Shmuel, and [also, we rule] like the lenient opinion in Eruv.

Opinion #2 (Ri): Below (70b), we can deduce from a Beraisa like Shmuel;

Citation (70b - Beraisa): Whatever was forbidden for part of Shabbos is forbidden for all of Shabbos, e.g. two houses on opposite sides of Reshus ha'Rabim, and on Shabbos Nochrim made walls around them. "The Klal" includes when a Nochri died on Shabbos, that they are not Mevatel;

Below, at the end of our Sugya (67a), we say that if a Nochri died on Shabbos, according to the opinion that we rent, you need not ask. We do two (matters, i.e. renting and Bitul.) Is there any question about one (Bitul)?!

Inference: We cannot establish that Beraisa like R. Yochanan, who says that we rent!

[Poor] Answer: "To include a Nochri who died on Shabbos" discusses when they were not Mevatel, that they are not permitted when the Nochri dies, even though they were Me'arev before Shabbos, but Bitul would help.

Objection: [This is difficult, for] "Nochrim made walls around them" discusses even through Bitul, like we say at the end of our Sugya, that they are not Mevatel. Similar to this it says "to include a Nochri who died on Shabbos", that they are not Mevatel.

Defense (of Answer #1): Perhaps R. Yochanan would establish "this is the Klal" of the Beraisa to include something else.

Rejection: Still, since the Stam Gemara said so, this shows that this is the Halachah!

Implied question: This is like buying and selling, which is forbidden on Shabbos!

Answer: It is like a mere gift. It is done only to permit carrying.

Explanation: This is like Shmuel said above, that even a Nochri's Sachir or Lakit gives his Eruv, and this suffices.

Question: Here we discuss according to R. Yochanan, and the Yerushalmi connotes that R. Yochanan does not hold like this reasoning!

R. Yochanan said there that if a Yisrael and a Nochri dwell in one house, the Yisrael must be Mevatel and the Nochri must rent out [his Reshus].

Answer #1: There, both of them are partners in the house, a Yisrael and a Nochri. He is not like his Sachir or Lakit here.

Answer #2: We can distinguish. If the Nochri designated for the Yisrael, who is his Sachir or Lakit, one room, and the Nochri may not use there, now the Nochri is removed from the Yisrael, and he cannot expel the Yisrael. In such a case, we do not say that [the Sachir or Lakit] gives his Eruv, and this suffices;

We can establish the Yerushalmi in such a case.

Observation: This Klal is not precise everywhere. Shmuel said below (66b) that Bitul Reshus does not help in a ruin!

Even in a Chatzer, Rava concludes below (66b) according to Shmuel that even two Chatzeros, one inside the other, sometimes they can be Mevatel, and sometimes they cannot be Mevatel!

Implied question: Here it explains that for two Chatzeros, one inside the other (Bitul always helps)!

Answer: This is according to Abaye. According to Rava, [Bitul helps only] in the case that he explains below.

Implied question: We could have said that the case is, one of the people in the Chatzer forgot to be Me'arev!

Answer: A Mishnah below (69b) teaches this. [Shmuel] did not need to teach us this.

Explanation: [If the Nochri came yesterday, i.e. before Shabbos, this is called Me'arvin, for they could rent from him! If] the Nochri does not want to rent, Bitul cannot help! (Shmuel would not need to teach about this. We explain like Leshon ha'Zahav.)

Implied question: Shmuel holds above (62b) that the Halachah follows R. Eliezer ben Yakov, who permits an individual in place of a Nochri! (If so, Bitul can help, for it makes them like an individual.)

Answer: We said above (64a) that Bitul does not make them like an individual in place of a Nochri, for if so, you are Mevatel the law of Eruv from that Mavuy. (Even though Abaye disagrees, this is the Halachah, like Rava.)

Implied suggestion: [If the Nochri] consents today to rent, or he died, in this case [Shmuel] says that they cannot do Bitul, since they could not be Me'arev yesterday, since he did not consent to them yesterday to rent, or he died (this is called Ein Me'arvin)!

Rejection: Still, this is called "Me'arvin", since had he consented to them yesterday, they could have been Me'arev, so when they rent from him today or he died, they can properly be Mevatel. (Gevi'a ha'Kesef - "Ein Me'arvin" connotes that there is no possibility of making an Eruv.)

Explanation: Therefore it is considered Ein Me'arvin;

Even if they were Me'arev yesterday, (which was possible) because the Nochri does not forbid when he is not there, like R. Yehudah, in any case, when he comes, the Eruv is totally Batel, and then it does not return to its place.

Even if they rented from him, this is called "they forbid, and they cannot be Me'arev."

Reference: We deduce from this below (74a) that a Mavuy is permitted through a Lechi or Korah only if houses and Chatzeros open to it - two Chatzeros to the Mavuy, and two houses to the Chatzer;

Question: However, in that Sugya Shmuel said even one Chatzer and one house. (This contradicts his teaching here that in Eruvin, we may not permit more than the words of the Mishnah!)

Answer: One of these [two teachings of Shmuel] was said last. (He retracted from the first. Tosfos is unsure which was last - Chacham Tzvi 14.)

Question: How can Abaye argue with [Rava], and say that there is Bitul from Chatzer to Chatzer? A Beraisa below (75b) explicitly says [that both are forbidden]!

Answer: Abaye explains "both are forbidden" until one is Mevatel.

Explanation: It is obvious to us that all can be Mevatel to him (the one who forgot), and he will be permitted in his place;

Rava discusses only [whether there is a] Heter for those who were Me'arev.

Explanation: Since he cannot be Mevatel to people of the outer [Chatzer], because there is no Bitul Reshus from Chatzer to Chatzer, the people of the inner Chatzer cannot take their Eruv from the outer, for they [the outer] forbid them;

Implied question: Why is this unlike what we said above (48b) that one Reshus can use two Reshuyos, but two Reshuyos cannot use one Reshus?

R. Tam explained that when the middle put their Eruv in this and this (both outer ones), it is permitted with both of them, and both of them are forbidden with it.

Answer: There, each outer one is permitted by itself in its place. However, here also the people of the outer are forbidden in their place due to the inner, which was not Me'arev, so it forbids them, so also they (the outer) forbid their Chatzer to the inner people;

This is like when they were Me'arev with them, and their Eruv is Batel.