Siman - Eruvin Daf 68
- Why Abaye and Rabbah did not have an eruv
On Daf 67b an incident involving spilled hot water indicated that the chatzeir that Abaye and Rabbah lived in had no eruv nor shituf. On our Daf, Rabbah bar Rav Chanin asked Abaye how it was possible that a mavoi that had these two great men live in it did not have an eruv or shituf?
Abaye responded that there was not anything that he could do. It was not the אורחיה (literally "way") of Rabbah to collect the shituf. Rashi explains that it would be beneath his dignity to collect the food. Abaye said that he himself was too busy learning, and the other residents did not care if there was a shituf. He also said that it was not possible for him to transfer ownership of the bread in his basket to the other residents, since if they were to request their portion of the eruv, he would not be able to give it to them. Rashi explains that since Abaye could not afford to give away his bread every week it indicates that he was not willing to treat the others as full-fledged partners. Abaye brought a Baraisa that stated, אחד מבני מבוי שביקש יין ושמן ולא נתנו לו בטל השיתוף – If one member of the mavoi requested the wine or oil of the shituf and they did not give it to him, the shituf is annulled.
- מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין
There is a machlokes whether one resident of a chatzeir can be mevatel his reshus to the second resident, and then that second resident be mevatel his reshus back to the first resident. Rav said, מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין and Shmuel said, אין מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין. The Gemara suggests that their machlokes is linked to the machlokes between the Chochomim and Rebbe Eliezer on Daf 26b whether when one who is mevatel his rights in his chatzeir is also mevatel his rights in his house. Rav holds like the Chochomim that he retains his rights in his house, and therefore, someone who is mevatel his rights to the chatzeir is not completely removed from it and is not viewed as a member of another chatzeir. Shmuel holds like Rebbe Eliezer who holds that he does relinquish his rights to his house, thereby totally removing himself from the chatzeir, and he is therefore considered like a resident of another chatzeir and may not receive back the rights to his former chatzeir. While this linkage is rejected by some, Rav Ashi did accept this explanation.
- The status of a Tzaduki
In the Mishnah on Daf 61b, Rabban Gamliel mentioned an incident with a Tzaduki that lived in his chatzeir, from which we learned that a Tzaduki may be mevatel his rights in a chatzeir. The Gemara here asks why Rabban Gamliel mentioned a Tzaduki when the Tanna Kamma did not discuss a Tzaduki at all, and answers that it is a case of חסורי מיחסרא. The Tanna Kamma stated, צדוקי הרי הוא כנכרי – a Tzaduki is like a nochri in that he may not be mevatel his reshus, ורבן גמליאל אומר צדוקי אינו כנכרי – and Rabban Gamliel said that a Tzaduki is not like a nochri and he may relinquish his rights. That is why Rabban Gamliel’s father told them to hurry and carry out their keilim to the mavoi. Meaning, the story was that the Tzaduki was mevatel his rights in the chatzeir, and Rabban Gamliel's father told them to carry out their keilim before the Tzaduki carried out his own keilim into the mavoi and restrict them. Rashi explains that they must use the mavoi after the start of the Shabbos to demonstrate that they have seized the Tzaduki’s rights which he was mevatel.
