Question: In the case of the baby below, Rava told them "ask his mother. If she needs [hot water], heat for [the baby] along with his mother";

Even if she did not need [there was a solution]. Was there not a Nochri in the entire city, to tell him to heat water for the baby to circumcise him?!

Answer: In Gitin (8b DH Af Al Gav) I explained this. (Chachamim permitted telling a Nochri to do a Melachah on Shabbos only for the sake of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael. One may tell him to transgress Shevus, e.g. carrying without an Eruv, only for a Mitzvah like Bris Milah, which overrides Shabbos.)

Pesak: One must be careful when making an Eruv not to be Me'arev with something that he is adamant about, e.g. matters that he prepared to honor Shabbos, or a nice loaf called Gashtil or Pashtida (a meat pie) and similar matters, for if they if would ask from him and he would not give, the Eruv is Batel.

Inference: He said for the sake of Shituf Mavo'os, for Eruvei Chatzeros requires bread.

Implied question: It says below (81a) "who said that only bread and nothing else [is valid for Eruvei Chatzeros]? R. Yehoshua did." (I.e. this is an individual's opinion!)

Answer: We hold like R. Yehoshua against R. Eliezer, who argues with him there.

Support: Below (71b), both R. Meir and Rabanan hold that Eruvei Chatzeros is only with bread, and it seems that all the Amora'im in that Sugya hold like this.

Explanation (Ri): We must say that the barrel of vinegar here was in the Chatzer, and not in the house, for it says below (85b) that Eruvei Chatzeros is in a house in the Chatzer, and Shituf Mavo'os is in a Chatzer in the Mavuy. Both of these must be exactly like this, like I will explain below (71b DH b'Pas);

Similarly, the case of the Ba'al ha'Bayis who was a partner with his neighbors, with this [neighbor he was a partner] in wine... discusses when it was resting in the Chatzer.

Question: Does Abaye hold like Beis Shamai? We conclude that [the Beraisa that forbids, like Abaye,] is like Beis Shamai!

Answer #1: Abaye disagrees with R. Oshaya, who says that one Beraisa is like Beis Shamai, and the other is like Beis Hillel. Abaye holds that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel did not argue about this. We find several arguments of Tana'im and Amora'im regarding Bereirah.

Answer #2 (Ri): Abaye establishes all (i.e. both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel) like himself. All agree that retroactively all [openings] are Tamei, for Ein Bereirah. He explains like Rabah, who concludes in Beitzah (10a, 37a) that [they argue about] being Metaher the openings from now and onwards.

Question (R. Tam): Here, Rav Oshaya establishes the argument about Bereirah, and in Beitzah (10a, 37b) he concludes that they argue about being Metaher the openings from now and onwards;

Since Tum'ah came on them, according to Beis Shamai it leaves only through an action. According to Beis Hillel, intent suffices.

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Rav Oshaya and R. Oshaya are not the same. Here, the text in all Seforim is Rav Oshaya, and there the text is R. Oshaya;

Note: Old texts of Tosfos say that Rav Oshaya and Rav Hoshaya are not the same. The Bach changes our text to say so. Our text is based on Maharshal.

We find that Rav Oshaya was among later Amora'im, after the Sugya in Beitzah (38b) about water and salt being Batel in a dough. Rav Oshaya said "they properly laughed at him!"

In Yevamos (18b), regarding R. Oshaya's teaching that R. Shimon argued even in the Reisha, it says that Rav Oshaya asked...

In Gitin (25a), Rav Oshaya asked a question to Rav Yehudah.

Answer #2 (R. Menachem of Yuni): They do not argue here about Bereirah, rather, to be Metaher the openings from now and onwards, like it says in Beitzah. It means as follows:

This [Beraisa] is like Beis Shamai. They hold that intent does not help to be Metaher the openings. Likewise, it does not help for Eruv, even though he is Mezakeh for them, since initially it was not placed in the barrel for the sake of Eruv;

According to Beis Hillel, who say that intent helps there, it helps also here.

Consequence: The Mishnah below (71a) of a Ba'al ha'Bayis who was a partner with his neighbors, and the Mishnah below (82a) that one places the barrel... are like Beis Hillel, who do not require intent for the sake of Eruv.

Support: Now it is fine that [Rav Oshaya] abandoned other arguments of Tana'im about Bereirah, of one who buys wine from Kusim, and other places (and said that the Beraisos argue like Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about Tum'ah).

Implied question: Now, Abaye holds like Beis Shamai. (Rav Oshaya should have challenged him!)

Answer: He was not concerned to challenge him, for even without this, he could have challenged him "he should acquire for them a Revi'is of vinegar in a Kli"! Rather, [Abaye] was not concerned to toil so much to be Me'arev.

Implied question: This is astounding, if Beis Shamai hold that Zikuy does not help if it was not placed in the Kli for the sake of Eruv!

Answer: (It is not astounding.) Also below (73b), we ask "according to this, if he was Makneh to him bread in his basket, will you say that it is not Shituf?!", i.e. and Shituf will not help because he did not take it out and bring it in through the openings to the Mavuy.

Question #1: However, the following is difficult. Rather, than asking from a Beraisa, which says that we do Shituf with a storehouse, he should have asked from our Mishnah, of a Ba'al ha'Bayis who was a partner with his neighbors, and several Mishnayos that do not require placing in the Kli for the sake of Eruv!

Question #2: What is the connection of intent to be Metaher openings, and intent of Eruv?!

Reference: In Gitin (8b DH Af Al Gav) I explained this. (After seven days, a Yisrael may not be Mechalel Shabbos for a Yoledes, even if she says that she needs. It is difficult to say that this is seven days of 24 hours, and this episode, on the day of the Bris, was within seven 24-hour days of the birth. Also, then it would be forbidden to add for the baby! Rather, he told a Nochri to warm for the mother, and to add for the baby. Perhaps one may not add for other Mitzvos. Chachamim permitted telling a Nochri to do a Melachah on Shabbos only for the sake of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael, and to transgress Shevus for a Mitzvah like Milah, which overrides Shabbos.)

Observation: It could have said the reason above, that Rabanan's words should not be ludicrous!

Question: This is not like "they fined Shogeg due to Mezid" elsewhere, for here we do not fine him at all. Even without this he is forbidden! (We are stringent about others due to when he was Mezid.)

Answer: Rather, they decreed Shogeg due to Mezid.

Observation: Rav Ashi disagrees with what Rava said above (66b) according to Shmuel that sometimes they can be Mevatel, and sometimes they cannot be Mevatel.

Source: We concluded above (67a) that [Rava] said so according Rabanan. Here, according to Rav Ashi, Shmuel holds like R. Eliezer.

Reference: I explained this in my Perush on our Mishnah (61b DH Amar. Both Tzedukim and Kusim are not like Nochrim regarding residence. Here, we say only that R. Gamliel says that a Tzeduki is not like a Nochri], for the Tartzan came to answer only "we were not discussing Tzedukim!" Alternatively, R. Gamliel himself mentioned only a Tzeduki, for he brought a proof only from an episode with a Tzeduki.)

Explanation: This is said b'Nichusa (not a question). He brings a support that Rabanan argue about a Tzeduki, but in any case we must say that this Beraisa is abbreviated (the full version brings that R. Gamliel holds that a Tzeduki is unlike a Nochri), lest the episode contradict [the Halachah taught].

It is totally unreasonable to distinguish [and say that we need not say that this Beraisa is abbreviated] because our Mishnah taught Stam, but the Beraisa concludes "these are R. Meir's words", that he taught the words of his Rebbeyim (i.e. it is fine if the episode is unlike the first Tana, for a different Tana taught it).

Explanation: [Take out] or bring in, for one of them is a Chazakah, when he does something that is forbidden without Bitul.

Implied question: It says below (69a) "if one gave Reshus and then took out, whether this was b'Shogeg or b'Mezid, he forbids"! (This connotes that it is only if he took out.)

Answer: It is not only if he took out, rather, even if he brought in.

Inference: The words connote that he properly thought to distinguish between when they (the Kosher Yisraelim) take out, and then he (the Tzeduki) takes out, and when he takes out first.

Question: If so, what was difficult to him? We can establish our Mishnah "one who gave Reshus..." when he was Motzi first, like Abaye answers "here, they were Machazik"!

Suggestion: "One who gave Reshus and was Motzi" connotes to [the Makshan] in every case that he was Motzi, even if they were Motzi first.

Rejection: When Rav Yosef answers "[the text of the Mishnah] should say 'he does not forbid'", you are forced to say that it is not in every case, for he wants to say that when he was Motzi first, he forbids!

Answer (Ri): "One who gave Reshus" connotes to [the Makshan] that his gift was totally finished, i.e. they were Machazik, i.e. they were Motzi first, since it did not teach "one who was Mevatel", which connotes mere speech like it taught above "for he was Mevatel his Reshus to you";

Abaye, who establishes it when they were not Machazik, holds that it is reasonable to teach "one who gave" even though we discuss when they were not Machazik.

Support: [Abaye] brings a support from the Beraisa, which taught "one who gave", and the Seifa teaches "what is the case? This is when they were not Machazik."

Abaye did not need to bring the Beraisa to prove that we distinguish when they were Machazik and when they were not Machazik, for we know this from the Beraisa above, which teaches "hurry, and take out before he takes out..." Why is this [Beraisa a better proof] than this (the one above)?!