CAN AN HEIR BE MEVATEL? (cont.)
(Beraisa #1): If a Yisrael and a convert [without heirs] live in a common granary (their rooms open to a common Chatzer), and the convert died before Shabbos, even if another Yisrael did Chazakah in his property (acquired it), he forbids;
If he died on Shabbos, even if no one was Machazik, it is permitted.
Question: "Even if another was Machazik" implies that all the more so, if no one was Machazik [he forbids]. Just the contrary! If no one was Machazik it is permitted!
Answer #1 (Rav Papa): It means that even if no one was Machazik [it is forbidden].
Objection: It says "even if another was Machazik"!
Answer: [The Beraisa is abbreviated.] It means that even if another was not Machazik before Shabbos, rather, on Shabbos, since he could have been Machazik before Shabbos, it is forbidden.
(Beraisa #2): If he died on Shabbos, even if no one was Machazik, it is permitted.
Question: "Even if no one was Machazik: implies that all the more so, if one was Machazik [it is permitted]. Just the contrary! If one was Machazik it is forbidden!
Answer (Rav Papa): It means that even if one was Machazik [it is forbidden].
Objection: It says "even if no one was Machazik"!
Answer: [The Beraisa is abbreviated.] It means that even if another was Machazik on Shabbos, since he could not have been Machazik before Shabbos, it is permitted.
Question: The Reisha teaches that [when he died before Shabbos, if another Yisrael was Machazik,] he forbids. If an heir can be Mevatel, why does he forbid? One who was Machazik should be able to be Mevatel [like an heir]!
Answer #1: It means that he forbids until he is Mevatel.
Answer #2 (to Question (k) and Question 3:f (70b) - R. Yochanan): Beraisa #1 and Beraisa #2 are Beis Shamai, who say that one may not Mevatel on Shabbos:
(Mishnah - Beis Shamai): One may give Reshus [only] before Shabbos;
Beis Hillel say, one may give Reshus [even] on Shabbos.
Question (Ula): What is Beis Hillel's reason? (This is like acquisition on Shabbos!)
Answer #1 (Ula): They consider Bitul on Shabbos like the case of 'take nicer ones!' (If Reuven entered Shimon's field, gathered produce, and separated Terumah without consulting Shimon, and when Shimon saw him he said 'take nicer ones!', if there is nicer produce that Reuven did not make Terumah, Shimon is sincere, and the Terumah takes effect. His words reveal that he was pleased with the separation from the beginning. Likewise, Bitul on Shabbos reveals that he wanted to be Me'arev [but forgot], so Bitul is not considered a [new] transfer of Reshus on Shabbos.)
Objection (Abaye): When a Nochri dies on Shabbos, this reasoning does not apply! (Yisraelim in the Chatzer may do Bitul, even though before Shabbos they did not expect him to die, and thought that there is no way to permit the Chatzer.)
Answer #2 (Abaye): Beis Shamai consider Bitul to be transfer of Reshus. This is forbidden on Shabbos. Beis Hillel consider Bitul to be withdrawal from Reshus. This is permitted on Shabbos.
ONE PERSON WITH TWO PARTNERS
(Mishnah): If Reuven was a partner with each of Shimon and Levi (his neighbors in the Mavoy) in wine, they need not be Me'arev;
If he was a partner with one in wine and with one in oil, they must be Me'arev;
R. Shimon says, in either case they need not be Me'arev.
(Gemara - Rav): [They need not be Me'arev] only if all the wine is in one Kli.
Support (Rava - Seifa): If he was a partner with one with wine and with one with oil, they must be Me'arev.
We understand this if the Reisha discusses one Kli and the Seifa discusses two. However, if both of them discuss two Kelim, what is the difference whether the second partnership is with wine or oil? (Shimon has no share in Levi's Kli. Surely, they need not be Me'arev because Reuven joins them. This applies even to wine and oil!)
Rejection (Abaye): If both partnerships are with wine, one can mix them together. If one is with oil, they cannot be mixed. (Therefore it is not considered an Eruv.)
(Mishnah - R. Shimon): In either case they need not be Me'arev.
Question: Does he say this even if one partnership is with wine and the other is with oil?!
Answer #1 (Rabah): The case is, Reuven is in a Chatzer between two Mavo'os. This is like R. Shimon taught elsewhere:
(Mishnah - R. Shimon): [If each of three people is permitted only four Amos, and one is between the other two,] this is like three Chatzeros [in a row] open to each other and open to Reshus ha'Rabim:
If the outer Chatzeros made Eruvin with the middle Chatzer, it is permitted with them, they (the outer Chatzeros) are permitted with it, and they are forbidden with each other;
Question (Abaye): There is different. There, the outer Chatzeros are forbidden with each other. Here, R. Shimon permits without any Eruv at all!
Answer (Rabah): No. 'They need not be Me'arev' with Reuven, but they must be Me'arev with each other.
Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): (They discuss one Mavoy. Everything must be in one Kli.) R. Shimon and Chachamim argue like R. Yochanan ben Nuri and Chachamim:
(Mishnah): If [Terumah] oil is floating on top of [Terumah] wine and a Tevul Yom touched the oil, only the oil is Nifsal. (It is not considered connected to the wine);
R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, they are connected. (Both are Nifsalim.)
R. Shimon holds like R. Yochanan ben Nuri. (The wine and oil are like one.) Chachamim hold like Chachamim. (They are separate.)
DO WE NEED BOTH SHITUF AND ERUV CHATZEROS?
(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Tadai): In either case they must be Me'arev.
Question: Is this required even when both Eruvin were with wine?!
Answer #1 (Rabah): If everyone poured his own wine into the barrel, all agree that it may be used for the Eruv;
They argue about when a barrel was bought jointly. R. Eliezer holds that Ein Breirah (it was never determined which wine belongs to each partner, so it is like a [mere] monetary partnership), and Chachamim hold that Yesh Breirah.
Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): They argue about whether or not we may rely on Shituf [of the Mavoy] in place of Eruvin [in the Chatzeros]. R. Eliezer says that we may not, and Chachamim say that we may.
Support (Rav Yosef, for himself): Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav that the Halachah follows R. Meir [below, that we may not rely on Shituf in place of Eruvin], and Rav Beruna said in the name of Rav that the Halachah follows R. Eliezer;
Surely, Rav ruled like both of them because both laws are based on the same reason!
Question (Abaye): If both are based on the same reason, there is no need to rule like both of them!
Answer (Rav Yosef): He ruled like both of them to teach that we do not follow two stringencies [of one Tana] regarding Eruvin (Tosfos R. Peretz - unless one specifies. He rules like both to explicitly teach that we are stringent not to rely on Shituf in place of Eruvin like R. Meir regarding wine and bread. Rashi - one stringency is attributed to R. Eliezer. It is as if Rav rules like only one [additional] stringency of R. Meir. R. Chananel's text says '...we do follow two stringencies...')
Question: What is the argument of R. Meir and Chachamim?
Answer (Beraisa): Bread must be used for Eruv Chatzeros. Wine may not be used;
Wine is used for Shituf Mavo'os. Bread may be used.
R. Meir says, we make [both] Eruvin in the Chatzeros and [even if Chatzeros open to each other and were Me'arev together] Shituf in the Mavoy [to permit the Mavoy. We may not rely on Shituf alone], lest children [who do not see what happens in the Mavoy] will think that their parents did not make Eruvin, and the Mitzvah will be forgotten;
Chachamim say, we make an Eruv or a Shituf.
(R. Nechumi or Rabah): All agree that bread may be used for both (Ri - if it was placed for Shituf; Rashi - whether it was placed for Eruv or Shituf). They argue about wine;
(The other of R. Nechumi and Rabah): All agree that if wine was used for Shituf, Eruvin are still required. They argue about when bread was used.