Siman - Eruvin Daf 71
- Machlokes Beis Shammai/Beis Hillel whether bitul reshus may take place on Shabbos
Two Baraisos were brought to challenge Rav Nachman’s position that an heir may be mevatel a reshus when he inherits it on Shabbos. Rebbe Yochanan said that the Baraisos follow Beis Shammai who say, אין ביטול רשות בשבת – that bitul reshus may not take place on Shabbos, whereas Rav Nachman holds like Beis Hillel that it can.
Abaye explains the machlokes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, saying that Beis Shammai holds, ביטל רשות מיקנא רשותא הוא – that bitul reshus is considered a kinyan, and making a kinyan on Shabbos is assur, whereas Beis Hillel say that bitul reshus is, אסתלוקי רשותא בעלמא הוא – a simple abandonment of rights, which is mutar to do on Shabbos.
- When is a partnership sufficient and no shituf is required?
The next Mishnah states, בעל הבית שהיה שותף לשכניו – if a baal habayis was a partner with his mavoi neighbors, לזה ביין ולזה ביין – with this one with wine and with that one with wine, אין צריכין לערב – they do not need to join in an eruv, i.e. shituf, because the partnership is sufficient. If, however, לזה ביין ולזה בשמן- he was a partner with this one with wine and with that one with oil, צריכין לערב – they must join in an eruv. Rashi explains that they may not rely on their partnership since the wine and oil are in different containers. Rebbe Shimon says, אחד זה ואחד זה אין צריכין לערב – in either case they do not need to join in an eruv.
Rav Yosef explained that the machlokes between the Tanna Kamma and Rebbe Shimon is based on a machlokes between Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri and the Rabbanon regarding terumah oil that is floating on top of terumah wine and a tevul yom touched the oil but not the wine. The Rabbanon hold that he has only invalidated the oil whereas Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri says, שניהן חיבורין זה לזה – both of them, the oil and wine, are connected to each other, and therefore they both become invalidated. The Tanna Kamma holds like the Rabbanon, that oil and wine are two separate entities, and Rebbe Shimon holds like Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri who views the wine and oil as a single entity.
- A partnership in the purchase of a barrel of wine
A third opinion is introduced in a Baraisa which states, Rebbe Elazar ben Tadai said, אחד זה ואחד זה צריכין לערב – in both cases in our Mishnah, they must join in an eruv, meaning a shituf. Rabbah explains that if each person poured his jug into the same barrel, Rebbe Elazar ben Tadai agrees with the Rabbanon that it is a valid eruv. He disagrees in a case where they purchased a barrel of wine in partnership. Rebbe Elazar ben Tadai holds, אין ברירה, that there is no retroactive determination of specific ownership and therefore, the eruv is invalid, whereas the Rabbanon hold, יש ברירה, that there is a retroactive determination of specific ownership and the shituf is valid. The Ritva explains that the barrel of wine is viewed as if it had been divided into individually owned jugs after the purchase and then poured back into the vessel.
