Question (Abaye): If one of five people in a Chatzer forgot to be Me'arev, must he be Mevatel to each of the others? (Or, does it suffice to be Mevatel to one of them?)

Answer (Rabah): He must be Mevatel to each one.

Question (Beraisa): One person who was not Me'arev can give Reshus to one who was Me'arev;

Two who were Me'arev can give Reshus to one who was not Me'arev;

Two who were not Me'arev can give Reshus to two who were Me'arev, or to one who was not Me'arev;

However, one who was Me'arev cannot give Reshus to one who was not Me'arev;

Two who were Me'arev cannot give Reshus to two who were not Me'arev;

Two who were not Me'arev cannot give Reshus to two who were not.

Question: The Reisha says that one who was not Me'arev (Reuven) can give Reshus to one who was Me'arev (Shimon). What is the case?

[By definition] one cannot be Me'arev by himself. We must say that Shimon was Me'arev with Ploni, and it suffices to be Mevatel just to Shimon!

Answer (for Rabah): We must say that Shimon was Me'arev with Ploni, and Ploni died.

Question (Seifa): One who was Me'arev cannot give Reshus to one who was not Me'arev.

If Ploni died, surely Shimon can give Reshus to Reuven! (There is no one else in the Chatzer.)

We must say that Ploni is alive. Surely, also in the Reisha he is alive!

Answer: No, in the Reisha he died, but in the Seifa he is alive.

Support (for Rabah - Seifa of the Reisha): Two who were not Me'arev can give Reshus to two who were Me'arev, or to one who was not.

They can give Reshus to two who were Me'arev. It does not suffice to give Reshus to one of them!

Rejection (Abaye): It means that they can give Reshus to one of two [who were Me'arev].

Question: If so, it should have said 'they can give Reshus to one who was Me'arev (we would assume that the other person who was Me'arev is alive), or to one who was not!

This is left difficult.

(Beraisa): One who was not Me'arev can give Reshus to one who was.

Abaye explains that the [one who was] Me'arev is alive. It teaches that one need not Mevatel to each person;

Rabah explains that the Me'arev died. It teaches that we do not decree due to when he is alive.

(Beraisa): Two who were Me'arev can give Reshus to one who was not Me'arev.

Objection: This is obvious! (We need not decree about the other direction, for one may be Mevatel to two who were Me'arev together.)

Answer: One might have thought that we fine one who was not Me'arev, and say that Bitul does not permit him. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa): Two who were not Me'arev can give Reshus to two who were.

Rabah explains that this teaches about the Reisha. (Here, when both Me'arvim are alive, one must be Mevatel to each. We must say that in the Reisha, the other Me'arev died);

According to Abaye, the Chidush is that we do not decree lest two who were Me'arev give Reshus to two who were not.

(Beraisa): [Two who were not Me'arev can give Reshus...] or to one who was not Me'arev.

Question: Why do we need this clause?

Answer: One might have thought that Bitul works only when some were Me'arev and others were not, but when no one was Me'arev it is forbidden, lest [they do so every week, and in the end] the Mitzvah of Eruv be forgotten. (Children in this Chatzer will never see it.) The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa): However, one who was Me'arev cannot give Reshus to one who was not.

(All agree that this is obvious, for there is another Me'arev who did not give Reshus.) Abaye says that this teaches that also the Reisha is when the other Me'arev is alive;

Rabah explains that this is for parallel structure with the Reisha [even though the case is different, for in the Reisha the other Me'arev died].

(Beraisa): Two who were Me'arev cannot give Reshus to two who were not.

Question: Why do we need this clause? (Surely, the receivers forbid each other!)

Answer: The case is, one of the receivers subsequently was Mevatel to the other. One might have thought that this works;

The Beraisa teaches that this is not so, because the first Bitul did not permit them.

(Beraisa): Two who were not Me'arev cannot give Reshus to two who were not.

Question: Why do we need this clause? (Surely, they forbid each other!)

Answer: The extra clause teaches that even if one received Reshus on condition to give Reshus to the other, it does not help.

Question (Rava): [If Ploni was not Me'arev and died on Shabbos,] can his heir be Mevatel?

Perhaps only one who could have been Me'arev can be Mevatel. The heir was unable (he did not own the property before Shabbos);

Or, perhaps he can be Mevatel, for an heir is in place of the one he inherited from!

Answer (Rav Nachman): I say that he can be Mevatel. Talmidim of Shmuel's academy teach a Beraisa that says that he cannot.

Question (Beraisa): The general rule is, whatever was permitted for part of Shabbos is permitted for all of Shabbos. Whatever was forbidden for part of Shabbos is forbidden for all of Shabbos, except for Mevatel Reshus.

Whatever was permitted for part of Shabbos is permitted for all of Shabbos. The case is, an Eruv was made relying on an opening [or window] between two Reshuyos, and the opening became closed [on Shabbos];

'The general rule' includes a Mavoy whose Lechi or Korah was removed [on Shabbos].

Whatever was forbidden for part of Shabbos is forbidden for all of Shabbos. The case is, two houses were on opposite sides of Reshus ha'Rabim, and on Shabbos Nochrim made walls [enclosing an area between the houses. The owners cannot be Mevatel on Shabbos, for they could not have made an Eruv before Shabbos];

Question: 'The general rule is' also refers to this clause. What do we include from these words?

Answer: They include when a Nochri died on Shabbos.

Version #1 (Rashi) Summation of question: It says that Bitul Reshus is the only exception. An heir is not an exception! (He cannot be Mevatel on Shabbos to permit part of Shabbos.)

Answer: It means "except for all cases of Bitul Reshus." (This includes an heir. He is Mevatel in place of his father.)

Version #2 (R. Chananel) Summation of question: It says that [every case of] Mevatel Reshus is an exception, i.e. even an heir!

Answer: It means "except for one in the Parashah of Bitul" (i.e. he could have made an Eruv. This excludes an heir, who had no Reshus when Shabbos began.) (end of Version #2)

Question (Beraisa #1): If someone in a Chatzer died, and bequeathed to Ploni outside the Chatzer (Rashi; Ra'avad - 'in' [or 'out'] of the Chatzer refer to one who did [or did not] make an Eruv):

If he died before Shabbos, Ploni forbids. If he died on Shabbos, Ploni does not forbid.

If someone outside a Chatzer died, bequeathing to Ploni inside the Chatzer --

If he died before Shabbos (Rashi 26b DH Hachi Garsinan - before Ploni was Me'arev), Ploni does not forbid. If he died on Shabbos (after Ploni was Me'arev), Ploni forbids.

Summation of question: If an heir can be Mevatel, why does he forbid? He can be Mevatel!

Answer #1: It means that he forbids until he is Mevatel.