Eruvin 70a

עירובין ע׳ ע״א

Learn Eruvin 70a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Eruvin 70a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

ביטול רשות in a shared חצר: who may give away courtyard rights to whom, and whether one ביטול must be made to each resident

Overview

This amud continues the גמרא's discussion of ביטול רשות, where a resident who did not join the עירוב gives up his rights in a shared חצר so carrying becomes permitted on שבת. First the גמרא finishes explaining why the משנה needed to say that two may give rights to one, and why it needed to say that rights may not be received, even through 'קני על מנת להקנות.' Then אביי asks רבה whether a forgetful resident among five must give up his rights to each of the others separately, and רבה says yes. אביי challenges him from a ברייתא that lets a non-joiner give his rights 'to one who joined.' רבה answers that the second joiner died, and the two sides argue over how to read the ברייתא's clauses. The question against אביי's reading of 'to two' ends as a קשיא. The גמרא then goes through every clause of the ברייתא and explains why each one is needed according to both אביי and רבה. Finally, רבא asks רב נחמן whether an heir may do ביטול רשות, and the discussion continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (33)

1. ResolutionWhy the משנה had to say two may give rights to one
2. QuestionWhy does the משנה need to say rights may not be received
3. ResolutionEven 'acquire in order to pass on' does not work
4. QuestionMust a forgetful resident renounce to each person separately
5. Responseרבה: he must renounce to each one
6. Challengeאביי challenges from a ברייתא about giving rights to one
7. ChallengeThe rest of the ברייתא: cases where giving up rights does not work
8. ChallengeLooking closely at the first clause: who did the joiner join with?
9. ChallengeSo there were two joiners, and giving to one was still enough
10. Resolutionרבה's answer: the second joiner died
11. ChallengeThe latter clause does not fit the 'he died' explanation
12. ChallengeSo both clauses must involve a living second joiner
13. RejectionEach clause can describe its own situation
14. ProofProof from the ברייתא: 'to two', not 'to one'
15. Rejectionאביי reads 'to two' as 'to one of the two'
16. ChallengeThen the ברייתא should have said 'to one'
17. ConclusionThe challenge to אביי stands
18. StatementFirst clause of the ברייתא according to אביי
19. StatementFirst clause of the ברייתא according to רבה
20. ChallengeIsn't the second clause obvious?
21. ResolutionNo penalty for the one who didn't join
22. ResolutionThird clause according to רבה: it explains the first clause
23. ResolutionThird clause according to אביי: no decree out of fear of mix-ups
24. ChallengeWhy does the ברייתא add 'or to one who did not join'?
25. ResolutionEven when nobody joined, there is no penalty
26. StatementThe ברייתא: a joiner cannot give his rights to a non-joiner
27. Resolutionאביי: this clause explains the earlier clause
28. Resolutionרבה: this clause is only there to match the earlier one
29. ChallengeWhy say that two joiners cannot give to two non-joiners?
30. ResolutionCase: one non-joiner then gives his rights to his friend
31. ChallengeWhy say that two non-joiners cannot give to two non-joiners?
32. ResolutionCase: 'acquire on condition to pass it on' does not work
33. QuestionCan an heir give up rights in the courtyard?