Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 66

66b

QUESTION: Shmuel states that in a case of "Osrin v'Ein Me'arvin" -- i.e. where a person's rights in the Chatzer make it forbidden to carry in the Chatzer, and even an Eruv will not help to permit carrying -- Bitul is not an option. The Gemara explains that Shmuel is referring to a case where a gentile arrives at his home in the middle of Shabbos. Since a gentile's presence prohibits carrying in the Chatzer, and he cannot be part of an Eruv (instead he must leases his Reshus to the Jews), therefore even if he agrees to lease his Reshus to the Jews of the Chatzer, the Jews cannot make Bitul Reshus and carry in the Chatzer. Bitul is dependent on the ability to make an Eruv prior to Shabbos.

Why is this case called "Ein Me'arvin," a case where it is not possible to make an Eruv on Erev Shabbos? The Halachah follows the opinion (47a) that when a gentile is not home on Shabbos, his property does not present an obstacle to the Eruv of the Chatzer. If so, since the gentile was not home on Erev Shabbos, the residents of the Chatzer *could* have made an Eruv! (Only when the gentile returned would the Eruv become invalidated; see Insights to 65b).

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI (DH Ela) seems to learn that indeed, it was *not* possible to make an Eruv when the gentile was not home. Shmuel apparently rules, unlike the Halachic opinion cited above, like Rebbi Meir (on 47a) who says that a gentile's property *does* present an obstacle to the Eruv even when its owner out of town. (This answer of Rashi is consistent with the second version of Rashi which we discussed in the Insights to 65b.)

(b) TOSFOS (DH Ela) explains that an Eruv *could* have been made on Erev Shabbos. However, even if an Eruv would have been made the gentile's arrival on Shabbos would have invalidated it. Since the Eruv is not operational from the moment that the gentile arrives, it is called a case of "Ein Me'arvin." Even though the Eruv was valid when it was made on Erev Shabbos, since an Eruv cannot work now that the gentile has returned, it can be said that "Ein Me'arvin."

(c) However, other Rishonim (such as the RA'AVAD) learn that if an Eruv was made from Erev Shabbos, even if a gentile comes in middle of Shabbos and invalidates the Eruv, the Eruv becomes re-activated ("Chozer v'Ne'ur) when the Reshus of the gentile is leased from him, and a new Eruv is not necessary. Why, then, is it called a case of "Ein Me'arvin?"

The RITVA answers that it is called "Ein Me'arvin" because we never know whether the gentile will consent to rent to us his Reshus. Since when he arrives we do not know if he will consent, even if he eventually does consent, Bitul is not an option. because the Eruv made on Erev Shabbos was not certainly going to help, since it was possible that the gentile would refuse to cooperate. Therefore it is called a situation of "Ein Me'arvin."

Rava discusses the permutations of a case of one Chatzer located on the inner side of another Chatzer (i.e. on the side away from Reshus ha'Rabim). The inner Chatzer's only access to Reshus ha'Rabim is via the outer Chatzer. (See Chart #9.)

To better understand these Halachos, we must familiarize ourselves with four points:

(a) BITUL RESHUS - If the residents of a Chatzer did not make an Eruv Chatzeros together before Shabbos, then there is a second option available to them on Shabbos in order to permit carrying in the Chatzer: Bitul. If most of the residents made an Eruv but one person did not join the Eruv, then that person is Mevatel his Reshus in the Chatzer to the others. He abrogates his rights in the Chatzer (and, according to some Tana'im, his right to both the Chatzer and his house), giving it to the collective unit of those who made the Eruv. If no one in the Chatzer made an Eruv, then all the residents are Mevatel their Reshus in the Chatzer to one person. Bitul basically means that the Mevatel temporarily gives up his rights to the Chatzer. As a result, the Chatzer is owned only by those to whom the Bitul was made. Since the recipient of the Bitul is a single entity (either a group who made an Eruv together or a single person), the Chatzer and the houses therein are all under one single ownership. The residents to whom the Reshus was given may carry in the Chatzer and the houses. The persons who were Mevatel their Reshus may not carry from their houses to the Chatzer, because by doing so they will re-acquire their share in the Chatzer, thus revoking the Bitul. However, they may carry in the Chatzer and the other people's houses, just like If the residents made an Eruv and one person forgot to join, there is a question among the Amora'im whether that person must be Mevatel his Reshus to *all* of the residents in the Chatzer who made the Eruv, or it suffices to be Mevatel to any *one* of the residents who had joined the Eruv. The other people automatically have a share in his Reshus because they are joined together by the Eruv. (This is the question of Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua, Daf 67a.)

(b) REGEL HA'ASURAH BI'MEKOMAH OSERES SHE'LO BI'MEKOMAH - If people do not make an Eruv, or for whatever other reason they are not permitted to carry in their Chatzer, they cause the residents of any other Chatzer through which they usually trample (Derisas ha'Regel) to be forbidden to carry as well. The normal illustration of such a case is that of an inner Chatzer and an out Chatzer. The people of the inner Chatzer trample through the outer Chatzer. If the residents of the inner Chatzer are forbidden to carry in their own Chatzer, then they forbid the residents of the outer Chatzer from carrying in the outer Chatzer (even if the members of the outer Chatzer made an Eruv). However, they only forbid the residents of the outer Chatzer from carrying there when they themselves are forbidden to carry in their own (inner) Chatzer. When the residents of the inner Chatzer are permitted to carry in their own Chatzer (for example, they made an Eruv, or there is only one person in the inner Chatzer), then since they have the rights to carry in their own Chatzer, we tell them to "close the doors" and not to make use of the outer Chatzer (Eruvin 59b). As a result, the residents of the outer Chatzer -- if they made an Eruv -- *may* carry in the outer Chatzer. (The reason why we do not make the inner Chatzer "close its doors" even when its residents are not allowed to carry is because their only Shabbos pleasure (since they are not permitted to carry) is to stroll out into the outer Chatzer. If we were to make them close their doors, so to speak, we would be hindering their Shabbos pleasure -- see Rashi 59b, DH Regel ha'Muteres and DH d'P'nimis).

This is the opinion of the Rabanan -- that the inner Chatzer forbids the residents of the outer Chatzer from carrying only if the residents of the inner Chatzer themselves are forbidden to carry. Rebbi Akiva, however, maintains that even if the residents of the inner Chatzer are *permitted* to carry in their Chatzer, they forbid the residents of the outer Chatzer from carrying. (Rebbi Akiva does not hold of the concept of telling the inner residents to "close the doors.")

There is also a case where the members of the *outer* Chatzer can prohibit those of the inner Chatzer from carrying. This is when they have "trampling rights" in the inner Chatzer by virtue of an Eruv that joins the two Chatzeiros together. When this Eruv is placed in the inner Chatzer, it moves the residents of the outer Chatzer into the inner Chatzer as well (this is called "Hergel Eruv"). Therefore, if the members of the outer Chatzer are forbidden to carry (for example, one of the residents there forgot to join the Eruv), then the members of the inner Chatzer are also forbidden to carry in their Chatzer because of the trampling of the people of the outer Chatzer who did join the Eruv with the inner Chatzer.

(c) EIN BITUL RESHUS ME'CHATZER LE'CHATZER - The opinion of Shmuel is that a person in one Chatzer may not be Mevatel his Reshus to residents of a different Chatzer. According to Rava, this applies whether or not he is causing the other Chatzer to be prohibited from carrying. That is, when there are two adjacent Chatzeros, each of which has an opening into Reshus ha'Rabim, and there is a door between them, a resident of one Chatzer does not prohibit the members of the other Chatzer from carrying (when that Chatzer made an Eruv), since he does not have trampling rights there. In such a case, one may certainly not be Mevatel his Reshus to the other Chatzer. Rava adds that even when there is an inner Chatzer and an outer Chatzer,and the residents of the inner Chatzer *do* prohibit the residents of the outer Chatzer from carrying (due to their trampling rights through the outer Chatzer), the residents of the inner Chatzer may still not be Mevatel their Reshus to the outer Chatzer.

There is, however, one exception to this rule: when the residents of the outer Chatzer made an Eruv with the inner Chatzer and the Eruv was placed in the inner Chatzer. The residents of the outer Chatzer now have "Hergel Eruv" (see above) in the inner Chatzer, which gives them trampling rights in the inner Chatzer. Consequently, they prohibit the residents of the inner Chatzer from carrying (that is, if one of the members of the outer Chatzer forgot to join the Eruv, thus making all of the residents of the outer Chatzer forbidden to carry in the outer Chatzer, and Regel ha'Asurah bi'Mekomah Oseres she'Lo bi'Mekomah). Rava says that only in that case will Shmuel permit the residents of the outer Chatzer to be Mevatel their Reshus to the residents in the inner Chatzer, since all they have to remove from that Chatzer is their "Hergel Eruv." They are not actually residents of that Chatzer. Their Bitul Reshus suffices to remove their "Hergel Eruv" even though the Bitul is from one Chatzer to another; Bitul can remove the presence they have in the inner Chatzer as a result of the Eruv, leaving the residents of the inner Chatzer to once again be allowed to "close the door" (see below, (d)) and carry in their Chatzer.

(d) ACHDA LE'DASHA U'MISHTAMSHA - The people in the outer Chatzer are stuck, so to speak, with the people in the inner Chatzer, because the people in the inner Chatzer have trampling rights through the outer Chatzer to get to Reshus ha'Rabim. Therefore, there is no way that the outer Chatzer can ignore them (and the residents of the outer Chatzer must always take into account the presence of the inner Chatzer whenever discussing the possibility of permitting carrying in the outer Chatzer). However, the residents of the inner Chatzer do not need to reckon with the residents of the outer Chatzer, since they are not considered to be "living" in the inner Chatzer, since the outer Chatzer does not have trampling rights through the inner Chatzer.

Therefore, when the residents of the inner Chatzer invited the residents of the outer Chatzer to come and make an Eruv with them in the inner Chatzer, but one member of the outer Chatzer forgot to join the Eruv, the inner Chatzer has a solution. They may revoke the outer Chatzer's affiliation with the Eruv and "close their door" to the residents of the outer Chatzer so that they are not considered residents of the inner Chatzer. This option of the inner Chatzer is called "Achda le'Dasha u'Mishtamsha."

However, there is a Machlokes in the Mishnah (75b) whether this is the only action that is required (Rabanan), or whether it is *also* necessary for the residents of the outer Chatzer to acquiesce, through Bitul, and *relinquish* their rights to use the inner Chatzer (Rebbi Akiva). Our Gemara follows the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. Therefore, when Rava says that there is one way in which Bitul may be done from one Chatzer to another, it is in this case -- when the inner residents want to close the door from the outer residents (who had joined an Eruv in the inner Chatzer) and the outer residents agree by being *Mevatel* their Reshus to the inner Chatzer.