[69a - 31 lines; 69b - 43 lines]
1)[line 5]והתניאV'HATANYA- this Beraisa is brought as a proof, not a refutation
2)[line 5]עד שלא נתן רשותו הוציאAD SHE'LO NASAN RESHUS HOTZI- Before he nullified his Reshus, he carried from his house to the Chatzer. This person, by carrying from his house into the Chatzer even though he did not join in the Eruv, is performing a Melachah (d'Rabanan).
3)[line 8]במזיד אינו יכול לבטלB'MEZID EINO YACHOL L'VATEL- Rebbi Yehudah is of the opinion that one who publicly transgresses Shabbos has the Halachic status of a Nochri for Hilchos Eruvin, and therefore loses his ability to nullify his Reshus.
4)[line 16]עד שלא יוציא תנןAD SHE'LO YOTZI TENAN- In the Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah's version of the story had Raban Gamliel's father worried lest the Tzeduki bring something out of his house into the Chatzer, thereby invalidating his nullification. We see that according to Rebbi Yehudah, Raban Gamliel does not view a Tzeduki as a Nochri in terms of Hilchos Eruvin. Rather, Rebbi Yehudah understood that Raban Gamliel's father was of the opinion that seizing the Chatzer after the Tzeduki was Mevatel it does not prevent the Tzeduki from seizing it back.
5)[line 20]וגילוי פניםGILUY PANIM- a brazen person
6)[line 24]דנפק בחומרתא דמדושאD'NAFAK B'CHUMARTA D'MEDUSHA- who went out (into a Reshus where there was no Eruv on Shabbos) while wearing (a) a signet ring of which the signet and ring are made of two different materials; (b) a type of fragrant spice or herb that is tied up in a knot and worn around the neck (the problem with both explanations is that this constitutes carrying - RASHI)
7)[line 25]כסייהKASYEI- he covered it
8)[line 26]איזהו ישראל מומרEIZEHU YISRAEL MUMAR- who is considered an apostate?
9)[line 28]חשוד לדבר א' חשוד לכל התורה כולהCHASHUD L'DAVAR ECHAD, CHASHUD L'CHOL HA'TORAH KULAH- if a person is known to disregard a certain commandment, the Tana'im argue as to whether we can rely on his integrity regarding other Mitzvos. Rebbi Meir is of the opinion that if he does not observe a particular Mitzvah, we cannot rely on him in any other matter. We view him as one who has rejected the entire Torah.
10)[line 2]ליתן רשות ולבטל רשותLITEN RESHUS UL'VATEL RESHUS- a person who publicly desecrates Shabbos has the status of a Mumar such that he cannot nullify his Reshus without making a Halachically binding transfer of property or rental
11)[line 3]משמר שבתו בשוקMESHAMER SHIVTO B'SHUK- if he does not publicly desecrate Shabbos
12)[line 8]ואין צריך לזכותV'EIN TZARICH LI'ZKOS (KINYAN SUDAR)
(a)When a person buys an object, he must make a Ma'aseh Kinyan, a formal Halachically-binding act denoting his acquisition of the object, in order for the sale to be irrevocably binding.
(b)One example of such an act is Chalipin (exchange or barter), i.e. taking another object to demonstrate one's consent for the Kinyan (or for an agreement).
(c)The source for Kinyan Chalipin in the Torah is from the verse in Ruth 4:7-8, in which this Kinyan is used by Boaz. Although Kinyan Chalipin may be accomplished through the barter of two equally-valued items, it is normally no more than a symbolic act in which an object of little value is given over in order to represent the acquisition of an object of value. For example, Chalipin may be accomplished by taking possession momentarily of a scarf or piece of cloth (Sudar) that belongs to the other party in order to make a Kinyan on another object that is being transferred. For this reason, Chalipin is also known as "Kinyan Sudar."
(d)The Beraisa in our Sugya states that a Yisrael need not make a Kinyan Sudar in order to nullify or hand his Reshus over to the other members of his Chatzer on Shabbos.
13)[line 8]רב אשי אמרRAV ASHI AMAR- Rav Ashi argues with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (top line). He asserts that the statement of Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Rav Huna (69a) indeed meant that one who publicly desecrates Shabbos is considered a full-fledged apostate.
14)[line 10]מכם ולא כולכםMIKEM V'LO KULCHEM- The Torah introduces the concept of animal sacrifice with these words (Vayikra 1:2), "...when a man from among you brings a Korban to HaSh-m...." The Gemara infers: from among you, and not all of you.
15)[line 15]והמנסך ייןHA'MENASECH YAYIN- a person who pours wine as a libation to Avodah Zarah
16)[line 27]היו שניםHAYU SHENAYIM- if they (in favor of whom the rest of the residents of the Chatzer were Mevatel) were two (i.e. more than one individual)
17)[line 28]שאחד נותן רשות ונוטל רשות שניםSHE'ECHAD NOSEN RESHUS V'NOTEL RESHUS, SHENAYIM...- for an individual may both nullify his own Reshus as well as receive a Reshus nullified in his favor, whereas a group of more than one individual...
18)[line 32]אי דבטילIY D'VATIL- if he annulled his domain to the other residents of the Chatzer
19)[line 36]והן אסוריןV'HEN ASURIN- the residents of the Chatzer who nullified their Reshus are forbidden to bring anything out of any of the houses of the Chatzer, even the house of the person in whose favor they nullified their Reshuyos
20)[line 37]שמע מינה מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטליןSHEMA MINA MEVATLIN V'CHOZRIN U'MEVATLIN- the Gemara assumes that the second case mentioned in the Mishnah, in which the other residents nullified their Reshuyos in favor of one individual, is a continuation of the first case, in which an individual nullified his Reshus in favor of the rest
21)[line 40]דכיון דבעידנא דבטיל לא הוה ליה שריותא בהאי חצרD'KEIVAN DEB'IDNA D'BATIL LO HAVAH LEI SHARYUSA B'HAI CHATZER- Since the original nullification of the Bnei ha'Chatzer did not grant either of the two permission to carry in the Chatzer, it accomplished nothing. Since neither of them ever received what was intended to reach them - i.e. half of the rest of the Chatzer - they are not able to nullify this in favor of each other.