Previous daf

1) The third ramification of 'Socher ki'Me'arev Dami' - is that one person can act as an agent for a number of people and take his own bread on their behalf (as will be explained later on Daf 72b).

2)

(a) 'Kol Makom she'Osrin u'Me'arvin, Mevatlin' - means that wherever one person forbids the other to carry without an Eruv, but where it is possible to make an Eruv, Bitul is effective.

(b) The example of ...

1. ... 'Kol Makom she'Osrin u'Me'arvin' - is a case of two courtyards, one within the other.
2. ... 'Me'arvin ve'Ein Osrin' - is a case of two courtyards one next to the other, both of which open out into a Mavoy or Reshus ha'Rabim, as well as opening one into the other (via a doorway between them).
3. ... 'Osrin ve'Ein Me'arvin' - is a case of a gentile who returned to the courtyard that he shared with Jews on Shabbos (because had he arrived before Shabbos, why would the Beraisa have said 'Osrin ve'Ein Me'arvin'? Why could they have made an Eruv, and rented the gentile's Reshus?).

(c) In any event, we see from the latter case that Bitul Reshus does not help on Shabbos, which explains Rebbi Elazar's consternation at the Sugya at the end of 65b, which took for granted that Bitul Reshus is effective even on Shabbos.

3)

(a) Abaye said (quite often) to Rav Yosef 'At Amrat Nehelan, ve'A'ha Amrat Nehelan' - because Rav Yosef became ill and would often forget what he had taught his Talmidim.

(b) It was the first of Shmuel's statements 'Kol Makom she'Osrin u'Me'arvin - Mevatlin' - that Rav Yosef claimed he had never heard.

(c) Rav Yosef had said that Shmuel's statement 'Ein Bitul Reshus me'Chatzer le'Chatzer, ve'Ein Bitul Reshus be'Churvah' - was confined to two Chatzeros next to each other, but by two Chatzeros that are one behind the other, Bitul Reshus of the inner-courtyard does indeed help. This is because, due to the fact that they have the right to pass through the outer-courtyard (to get to the Mavoy), they forbid them to carry, and Bitul therefore helps.

(d) Rav Yosef himself was surprised that he had ever quoted Shmuel as having said that, because drawing on another statement of Shmuel (that the Lashon of the Mishnah with regard to Eruvin must be taken literally) - he cited a Mishnah which, with reference to Bitul, mentioned 'Anshei Chatzer', implying that it is only by the men of *one* Chatzer that Bitul is effective, but not by *two*.

5) Shmuel said 'Ein Lanu be'Eruvin Ela ki'Leshon Mishnaseinu' (with regard to Eruvin) in connection with the Mishnah 'she'ha'Batim la'Chatzeiros, ke'Chatzer le'Batim' (from which we derive that, in order to become permitted by means of a Lechi or a Koreh, a Mavoy requires at least two Chatzeros opening into it, each consisting of at least two houses).

6)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees totally with Shmuel. According to him 'Yesh Bitul Reshus me'Chatzer le'Chatzer, ve'Yesh Bitul Reshus be'Churvah'.

(b) Had they only argued by 'me'Chatzer le'Chatzer' - we would have said that there, Bitul Reshus does not help, according to Shmuel, since each Chatzer is used independently, but by a Churvah, which is used jointly, perhaps he will agree with Rebbi Yochanan. And had they confined their Machlokes to a Churvah, we would have said that Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Shmuel (that Ein Bitul me'Chatzer le'Chatzer)

(c) Abaye says (like his Rebbe Rav Yosef said earlier) - that Shmuel only said 'Ein Bitul Reshus me'Chatzer le'Chatzer' by two Chatzeros which are next to each other, but by two Chazteros that are one within the other, since they forbid each other to carry, they can also be Mevatel their Reshus.

(d) 'Aval Shtei Chatzeros Zu Lifenim mi'Zu, Mitoch she'Osrin, Mevatlin' must be speaking when the inner Chatzer did not make its own Eruv - otherwise, it will not conform with the opinion of the Rabbanan, who hold 'Regel ha'Materes bi'Mekomah, Eino Oseres she'Lo bi'Mekomah' (But now that they did not make an Eruv, it is a Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah.

(a) If they placed the Eruv in the outer Chatzer, Bitul Reshus will not help if it is ...

1. ... one of the outer residents who forgot - because to whom would he be Mevatel? If it was to the other residents of his own Chatzer, the inner residents will still forbid carrying there; and if it was to the residents of the inner-Chatzer, but Shmuel holds that Bitul does not help from one Chatzer to another!
2. ... the inner residents who made the Eruv who are Mevatel Reshus to the one who forgot - because even though he now becomes a Regel ha'Muteres bi'Mekomah, his friends who have been Mevatel their Reshus to him, are a Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah.
3. ... one of the outer residents who was Mevatel Reshus to the other residents of his Chatzer - because the inner residents, who will not be affected by the outer Chatzer's Bitul, will forbid the outer residents (like in the previous case).

(b) Nor will it help for one of the inner residents to be Mevatel his Reshus to the other residents of his courtyard - since the Eruv is not in his courtyard, but in the outer one.

(a) The case where Rava agrees that Bitul Reshus, according to Shmuel, will help by two courtyards - is when the Eruv was placed in the inner-courtyard, and it was one of the outer residents who forgot to combine in the Eruv. The outer residents would not normally have used the inner courtyard, and it is only on account of the Eruv that they now want to use it. Here Bitul Reshus helps on their part, seeing as the inner residents can say to them 'We only combined you in our Eruv for our benefit, but not for our loss!'
Consequently, the inner residents can shut the intervening gate and carry in their courtyard.

(b) It is only according to Rebbi Akiva (on Daf 75b) that Bitul Reshus is necessary; according to the Rabbanan, the argument of 'We only accepted you in our Eruv for our benefit, but not for our loss!' takes effect even without Bitul Reshus.

(c) This argument of 'We only accepted you in our Eruv for our benefit, and not for our loss!' would simply make no swense if it was one of the residents of the *inner* courtyard who forgot.

Next daf