Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 69

1) THE "BITUL" OF A "TZEDUKI"

QUESTION: The Gemara asks an apparent contradiction between the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah as expressed in the Mishnah (61b) and his opinion as expressed in the Beraisa (68b). In the Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah states that a Tzeduki *is* able to be Mevatel his Reshus to the other residents of the Chatzer, while in the Beraisa Rebbi Yehudah states that a Tzeduki's Bitul does not work at all.

The Gemara answers (1) by re-interpreting the statement of Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah to read like his statement in the Beraisa; Rebbi Yehudah does not permit the Bitul of a Tzeduki at all, or (2) by suggesting that the Mishnah is referring to a Tzeduki who desecrates Shabbos only in private, whose Bitul is valid, while the Beraisa is referring to a Tzeduki who desecrates Shabbos in public, whose Bitul is not valid. According to Rebbi Yehudah, a Tzeduki who desecrates Shabbos only in private, may be Mevatel Reshus to the Jews in the Chatzer, and a Tzeduki who desecrates Shabbos in public may not be Mevatel Reshus. (The Rabanan did not permit the residents of a Chatzer to rely on the Bitul of one who publicly desecrates Shabbos, because they did not want people living near such a person, lest they learn from his sinful deeds. In this respect, such a Jew has the status of a non-Jew.)

Rashi (61b, DH Maharu), when he explains the Mishnah, says that one cannot rely on the Bitul of the Tzeduki because the Tzeduki may, at any moment, carry from his house to the Chatzer and annul the Bitul. That is, the Bitul of a Tzeduki is valid, but the Rabanan were afraid that he would retract his Bitul. Where did Rashi find this interpretation of Rebbi Yehudah? The Gemara's two suggestions are either that he does not allow the Bitul of a Tzeduki at all, or that he allows it entirely because the Tzeduki is Mechalel Shabbos only in private! (TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER on the Mishnah; RASHASH ibid.)

ANSWER: Perhaps Rashi understands this to be the first answer of the Gemara. Me'Ikar ha'Din, the Tzeduki's Bitul *is* valid. However, we may not rely on that Bitul to permit carrying in the Chatzer, since he has the ability to rescind his Bitul at any time (and Rebbi Yehudah maintains that it does not help for the Jews to make a Chazakah in the Chatzer). As a result, the Rabanan did not permit relying on his Bitul, lest he revoke it at some point during Shabbos.

What is Rashi's source for this interpretation? A simple reading of the Gemara would suggest that, according to the Gemara's first answer, Rebbi Yehudah does not allow the Bitul of a Tzeduki in the first place!

Perhaps he had a slightly different Girsa in the Mishnah. In fact, we find in Rashi's quote of the Mishnah in the Rashi on the Rif (page 21 of the Rif) the words "*Shema* Yotzi" in place of "Ad she'Lo Yotzi," which clearly indicates that the Jews may not rely on the Tzeduki's Bitul *lest* he revoke it. This is also the intention of the Gemara, then, when it says that Rebbi Yehudah meant "Ad Shelo *Yetzei ha'Yom*." (In the Saloniki print of the Shas this is even more evident; the Mishnah says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the instructions were, "Quickly take care of your needs in the Mavoy *mib'Od Yom*, before the Tzeduki takes from his house to the Chatzer and prohibits carrying in the Mavoy." (M. Kornfeld)

69b

The Gemara says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, a Tzeduki who desecrates Shabbos only in private, may be Mevatel Reshus to the Jews in the Chatzer, and a Tzeduki who desecrates Shabbos in public may not be Mevatel Reshus. Raban Gamliel, on the other hand, rules that a Tzeduki's Bitul is always valid, and he does not differentiate between one who privately desecrates Shabbos and one who publicly desecrates Shabbos.

The Gemara cites a Beraisa which adds that a regular Jew (not necessarily a Tzeduki) who desecrates Shabbos in public may not be Mevatel Reshus, and the Gemara says that this Beraisa is according to Rebbi Yehudah.

What is the Halachah?

(a) The MORDECHAI and MAHARAM M'ROTENBURG (cited by the Rosh) rule like Rebbi Yehudah, that a Tzeduki who desecrates Shabbos in public is like a non-Jew and may not be Mevatel Reshus.

(b) The ROSH (6:13) rules like Raban Gamliel, that a Tzeduki may be Mevatel Reshus, even if he desecrates Shabbos in public.

HALACHAH:

(a) The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 385:1) rules that a Tzeduki's Bitul *is* valid even though he desecrates Shabbos in public (BEIS YOSEF). like the ROSH cited above. In 385:3, however, the Shulchan Aruch rules that a Jew who desecrates Shabbos in public *cannot* be Mevatel Reshus. Here, too, he bases his ruling on the Rosh (6:14). It would seem that the Rosh understood the Machlokes between Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehudah to involve only a Tzeduki; they both agree, though, that a normal Jew who went astray and desecrates Shabbos in public may *not* be Mevatel Reshus. What is the difference between a Tzeduki and a normal Jew who went astray?

The Beis Yosef says that the difference is that a Tzeduki was raised by his parents to believe that his way of life is true Judaism; he does not transgress the Torah out of heresy, but out of habit. Therefore, he is not considered a non-Jew with regard to Bitul. A "Mumar," though, has decided on his own to transgress the Torah, and therefore he has a status of a non-Jew with regard to Bitul.

(b) The MISHNAH BERURAH (Sha'ar ha'Tziyon 385:2) has much difficulty with the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch and the words of the Beis Yosef. First, the Beis Yosef says that the *RAMBAM* (Hilchos Eruvin 2:16) also makes this distinction, allowing Biutl by a Tzeduki but not by a Jew who desecrates Shabbos in public. However, the Rambam clearly states there that a Tzeduki does *not* desecrate Shabbos and *that* is why his Bitul is valid!

Second, even if we are lenient with regard to a Tzeduki because he was raised that way, that does not apply to the laws of Eruv Chatzeros. The reason why a heretic's Bitul, or a non-Jew's Bitul, is not valid is because the Rabanan did not want Jews to live near such people, so they made it difficult to permit carrying in a Chatzer shared with such a non- believer. This Gezeirah should apply just the same to living with a Tzeduki! Even though he transgresses out of habit, his Bitul should not be valid because we do not want Jews to live near him and learn from his sinful ways!

The Mishnah Berurah, therefore, seems to conclude that we should be stringent with regard to a Chatzer shared with a Karaite (the Tzeduki of modern times) who is Mechalel Shabbos publicly, and not rely on his Bitul but instead rent his rights from him (Mishnah Berurah 385:1).

(c) The CHAZON ISH (87:12) answers that the Beis Yosef was applying the reasoning of a Tzeduki being raised with his beliefs to a Tzeduki in modern times, who transgresses only out of ignorance and not out of a true belief that his way is the right way. There is no fear that other Jews will learn from his ways, because when he is informed about what he is doing wrong, he himself will correct his ways!

Based on this, the Chazon Ish (87:14) rules, like the Beis Yosef, that a Jew who was not raised to be Shomer Torah u'Mitzvos and does not know any better (and it can be presumed that he is not transgressing purposefully) is not only considered a Jew with regard to Bitul, but one may even be Mezakeh to him a share in the Eruv Chatzeros. (RAV MOSHE STERNBUCH takes issue with this ruling of the Chazon Ish -- see Teshuvos v'Hanhagos 1:252.)