Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yosef reconciles the Mishnah on Amud Beis which forbids the residents to use the Mavoy, even if they used it before the Mevatel retracted, with Rebbi Meir here, who maintains that their prior Chazakah is effective - by changing the text in that Mishnah to 'Eino Oser'.

(b) Abaye establishes it when the other residents did not use the Chatzer first.

(c) The Beraisa which differentiates between Hichziku and Lo Hichziku, can only go like Rebbi Meir - it cannot go like Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who holds that Chazakah does not help.

(d) On the other hand, it could go like Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa (at the end of the previous Amud - because there, he argues with Rebbi Meir by a Tzedoki only because, in his opinion, a Tzedoki has the Din of a gentile, but as far as a Jew is concerned, he may well agree that a Chazakah helps.

(a) As we just explained, Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa, who learns that, once Shabbos comes in, the Tzedoki forbids the other residents from carrying - learns that a Tzedoki is considered a gentile, whereas in our Mishnah, where he learns that he only forbids them to carry once he carries into the Chatzer - he maintains that he is considered a Jew.

(b) The Gemara resolves the discrepancy between the Mishnah and the Beraisa - by changing 'Ad she'Lo Yotzi' (implying that the Tzedoki's Bitul helps until he retracts - in which case he is considered a Jew) to 'Ad she'Lo Yetzei ha'Yom' (to correspond with the Beraisa).

(c) Alternatively, our Mishnah is speaking about a Tzedoki who is a Mumar who breaks Shabbos privately (not in front of ten Jews), the Beraisa, about one who breaks Shabbos Befarhesya (in front of ten Jews).

(d) The Gemara amends the Beraisa 'Mumar *ve*'Giluy Panim Harei Zeh Eino Mevatel Reshus' - to read 'Mumar *be*'Giluy Panim' ... .

4)

(a) The Rabbanan hold a Jew who is suspect of disregarding one of the Taryag Mitzvos, is not suspected of disregarding them all, unless the one on which he is suspect is Avodah-Zarah.

(b) Initially, we explain that Rav Huna, who declares someone who breaks Shabbos publicly, to be a Mumar - is confined to the Din of Bitul Reshus (but not the Dinim of Mumar regarding his general status over which Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan argue).

(c) Alternatively, Rav Huna, who was referring to the same aspects of Mumar as Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan, holds in principle, like the Rabbanan.
However, he follows the opinion of those Tana'im, who (in another Beraisa) compare a Mumar Lechalel Shabbasos Befarhesya to someone who serves Avodah- Zarah.

5)

(a) When, from "Adam Ki Yikrav *Mikem*, the Beraisa precludes a Mumar from bringing a Korban - it is referring to a Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah Kulah; and when it includes him from "Min ha'Beheimah", it is referring to a Mumar le'Davar Echad.

(b) The Gemara changes 'Chutz min ha'Mumar, ve'Hamenasech ve'Hamechalel Shabbosos Befarhesya' to 'Chutz min ha'Mumar le'Nasech u'Lechalel Shabbosos Befarhesya'?

(c) The Gemara quotes this Beraisa - in order to vindicate Rav Huna, to present a Tana who holds like him (i.e. that a Mumar Lechalel Shabbasos Befarhesya has the same Din as one who serves Avodah-Zarah).

(a) Someone who is Mevatel Reshus, may use either of the following expressions: 'Reshusi Kenuyah Lach or 'Reshusi Mevuteles Lach'. Both are equally correct.

(b) Bitul Reshus does not require a Kinyan.

(a) The Mishnah, which permits *all* the residents of the Chatzer to carry from the houses of those who made an Eruv into the Chatzer and vice-versa, though to or from the house of the one who forgot, is forbidden to everyone - speaks when the owner was Mevatel Reshus from the Chatzer, but not from his house. Consequently, *the Chatzer* is theirs, but *the house* is still his.

(b) If the other residents of the Chatzer were Mevatel their Reshus in the Chatzer to the one who forgot - then *he* is allowed to carry from his house to the Chatzer and vice-versa, but *they* are not.

(c) If they were Mevatel their Reshus to *two* residents who forgot to participate in the Eruv - then no-one is allowed to carry in the Chatzer. This is because, whereas their houses are *individual* properties, the Chatzer is their's jointly, a situation which requires an Eruv.

(a) The Rabbanan forbid the other residents from carrying to and from the house of the Mevatel (when he was Mevatel his Reshus in the Chatzer, but not his house) - because they hold that a person tends to live in a house without a Chatzer; therefore, although he was Mevatel his Reshus in the Chatzer, he retains his Reshus in his house.

(b) *He* is nevertheless permitted to carry out from *their* houses - since he is not worse than a guest, who is always permitted to carry from his host's house.

(c) We do not however, consider the other residents guests of his (to permit *them* to carry out from his house) - because it is commonplace for one person to be a guest of five, but not vice-versa.

(a) The Gemara try to prove from the juxtaposition of 'Nasnu Lo Reshusan' etc., immediately after the Reisha, where *he* gave *them* Reshus - that Mevatlin ve'Chozrin u'Mevatlin'.

(b) This proof is rejected however, on the grounds that - the second case may well be a new one and not a continuation of the first one.

(c) When the Mishnah rules that the *two* residents who forgot to participate in the Eruv, and to whom the residents who made the Eruv were Mevatel Reshus, are not permitted to carry - it speaks when one of the two was subsequently Mevatel Reshus to the second; the Chidush is that since, at the time when he made the Bitul, he did not yet own a part of the Chatzer, his Bitul is inaffective.

Next daf