Objection (Abaye): Are Persians the majority of the world?! (The Halachah is not based on a minority practice!)

(Beraisa): Clothes proper for Aniyim (e.g. cloth three by three fingers, it can be used for a patch) are Mekabel Tum'ah (Tosfos - of Mishkav u'Moshav) if an Oni owns them. Clothes proper for Ashirim (rich people, e.g. three by three Tefachim) are Mekabel Tum'ah even for Ashirim;

An Oni's clothes need not befit an Ashir. (Since they befit the Oni, even though they do not befit others, the smaller Shi'ur is Mekabel Tum'ah. Likewise, since roasted meat is an accompaniment for most people, the smaller Shi'ur should suffice for an Eruv!)

Suggestion: We are stringent in both cases [to be Metamei for the smaller Shi'ur, and to require more food for an Eruv]!

Rejection (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): We may be Me'arev for one who is sick or old with the amount of food he eats (it is less than for average people), and for a gluttonous person with the amount that average people eat.

This is left difficult.

Question: R. Shimon ben Elazar is not lenient in both directions!

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): [If a Mes is in a house and all its openings are closed, every opening is Tamei, i.e. it is Metamei whatever is under the lintel. If an opening or a window four by four Tefachim was opened, it is Tamei and saves (is Metaher) the others. A giant such as] Og Melech ha'Bashan requires an opening through which he can fit. (If there is no such opening, all openings the size of a normal fist are Temei'im.)

Answer (Abaye): There, it is unreasonable for a small opening to save - will they cut up the Mes into pieces to take it out?! (The text 'v'Abaye...' suggests that the question was against Abaye. Seemingly, the Beraisos contradict each other! Maharsha - this is because Abaye brought the first Beraisa, i.e. it was not widely known.)

Question: Do Chachamim argue with R. Shimon ben Elazar?

Answer: Rabah bar bar Chanah taught that four Tefachim is an opening for Og Melech ha'Bashan.

Rejection: The case is, all of the other openings are less than four. Surely, they will widen that opening to take him out!

(Rav Chiya bar Rav Ashi): One may be Me'arev with raw meat.

(Rav Simi bar Chiya): One may be Me'arev with raw eggs.

Question: How many are required?

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Rav Yosef requires two.

(Mishnah): If one vowed to forbid Mazon [to himself], he is permitted water and salt.

Inference: Water and salt are not called Mazon, but everything else is called Mazon!

Suggestion: This refutes Rav and Shmuel!

(Rav and Shmuel): We bless Borei Minei Mezonos only on the five grains.

Question: They were already refuted!

Answer: We suggest that also our Mishnah refutes them. (This is astounding, for everyone knows the Mishnayos!)

Rejection (Rav Huna): The Mishnah discusses one who forbade 'anything that is Zan' (satiates. This includes everything except for water and salt. However, only what sustains, i.e. the five grains, is called Mazon.)

Inference: Water and salt do not satiate, but everything else does.

Question: Rabah bar bar Chanah said 'when we followed R. Yochanan to eat Peros Ginosar (sweet fruits from near the Kineret):

If there were 100 of us, everyone would take 10 fruits for him. If there were 10 of us, everyone would take 100. (In any case, we took 1000 for him.) A three-Se'ah basket would [Maharshal - not] hold 100 fruits;

He would eat them, and swear that he did not taste Ziyuna (anything satiating).

Answer: Rather, R. Yochanan swore that he did not taste Mazona (something that sustains).

(Rav Huna): If one swore not to eat a loaf, (a Shevu'ah does not forbid benefit, therefore) he may be Me'arev with it. (Others could eat it);

If he vowed 'it is Alai', he may not be Me'arev with it. (This is a Neder, which forbids all benefit from it.)

Question (Beraisa): If one vowed not to eat a loaf, we may be Me'arev for him with it.

Suggestion: He said '[It is] Alai'.

Answer: No, he swore '[I will not eat] this'.

Support (the middle clause): This is if he said 'I swear that I will not taste it.'

Inference: If he said 'Alai', he may not be Me'arev with it;

Question: If so, why does the Seifa teach that one may not be Me'arev with Hekdesh? Rather, it should distinguish regarding Chulin! He may be Me'arev with it if he swore not to eat 'it', but not if he said 'Alai''

Counter-question: You hold that even if he said 'Alai', he may be Me'arev with it. This is unlike the middle clause!

Answer: The Beraisa is abbreviated. It means as follows. If one vowed not to eat a loaf, we may be Me'arev for him with it. This is even if he said 'Alai', it is as if he said 'I swear not to taste it.'

The question (m) against Rav Huna remains!

Answer: He holds like R. Eliezer:

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If one swore 'I will not eat this loaf', we may be Me'arev for him with it;

If he said 'it is Alai', we may not be Me'arev for him with it.

Question: R. Eliezer contradicts himself!

(Beraisa): The general rule is, if a person forbids himself to [eat] a food (i.e. a Shevu'ah), we may be Me'arev for him with it. If a food is forbidden to a person (i.e. a Neder), we may not be Me'arev for him with it;

R. Eliezer says, if he said 'it is Alai', we may be Me'arev for him with it. If he said 'it is Hekdesh', we may not be Me'arev for him with it, because we do not Me'arev with Hekdesh.

Answer: Tana'im argue about the opinion of R. Eliezer.

(Mishnah): We may be Me'arev for a Nazir with wine.

Our Mishnah is unlike Beis Shamai;

(Beraisa #1 - Beis Shamai): We may not be Me'arev for a Nazir with wine, or for a Yisrael with Terumah.

Beis Hillel: Surely you agree that we may be Me'arev for an adult on Yom Kipur [even though only children may eat]!

Beis Shamai: We agree.

Beis Hillel: Just like we may be Me'arev for an adult on Yom Kipur, we may be Me'arev for a Nazir with wine, or for a Yisrael with Terumah.

Beis Shamai: No. An adult was permitted to eat the Eruv before dark [on Erev Yom Kipur], but wine and Terumah were forbidden to a Nazir or Yisrael even before dark!

Suggestion: This is unlike Chananyah:

(Beraisa #2 - Chananyah): Beis Shamai disqualify an Eruv, unless he takes his bed and all Kelim he needs [for Shabbos] to the desired place [of Shevisah. In Beraisa #1, Beis Shamai hold that an Eruv helps without this.]

Question: Who is the Tana of the following Beraisa?

(Beraisa): If one was Me'arev with black clothing, he may not rely on it to go out with white clothing, and vice-versa.

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Chananyah taught it, according to Beis Shamai.

Objection: Chananyah forbids [according to Beis Shamai] to go out with black clothing if he was Me'arev with [only] white. This implies that he may go out with white clothing;

Chananyah requires taking out the bed and all Kelim that he needs!

Correction: It means that if he was Me'arev with white clothing and needed black clothing, he may not go out even with white clothing.

Question: Who is the Tana?

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Chananyah taught it; according to Beis Shamai.

(Mishnah - Sumchus): He must be Me'arev with Chulin.

Inference: Sumchus argues only here, but he agrees that a Nazir can be Me'arev with wine.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: He could regret his vow of Nezirus and ask a Chacham to annul it.

Question: If so, he should also permit an Eruv of Terumah for a Yisrael, since it is possible to annul making it Terumah!

Answer #1: If he would do so, it would revert to being Tevel.

Question: He could make other food [elsewhere] Terumah to permit the Eruv!

Answer: We do not suspect lest a Chaver (someone trustworthy about Terumah) be Torem (declare Terumah) Lo Min ha'Mukaf (i.e. when the Terumah is not near the Tevel that it exempts, for this is forbidden).

Question: He could make some of the Eruv itself Terumah to permit the rest!

Answer: The case is, there is a minimal Shi'ur for the Eruv. If he makes some of it Terumah, less than the Shi'ur will remain.

Objection: Why should we assume that this is the case? (The Mishnah implies that Sumchus never permits Terumah!)

Answer #2: Sumchus holds like Chachamim, who forbid Shevus (mid'Rabanan Isurim of Shabbos. This includes separating Terumah) Bein ha'Shemashos. (Therefore, he cannot permit the Eruv at this time.)

Question: Who is the Tana of the following Mishnah?

(Mishnah): [The Shi'urim of] some things are according to the size of the person himself: Kometz of a Minchah (the handful taken and burned on the Mizbe'ach), the double handful of Ketores (the Kohen Gadol burns it in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim on Yom Kipur), drinking Malei Lugmav (the amount that one can hold in his mouth when one cheek sticks out, to be liable) on Yom Kipur, and food for two meals for an Eruv.

Answer (R. Zeira): It is like Sumchus, who says that one must be able to eat his Eruv.

Suggestion: The Mishnah argues with R. Shimon ben Elazar:

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): We may be Me'arev for one who is sick or old with the amount of food he eats, and for a gluttonous person with the amount that an average person eats.

Rejection: It can be like R. Shimon. The Shi'ur of two meals for an Eruv is according to the person himself regarding a sick or old person. We are not concerned for the habits of a glutton, for the Halachah is based on normal people.

(Mishnah): One may be Me'arev for a Kohen in Beis ha'Pras.

This is due to Rav Yehudah's teaching;

(Rav Yehudah): A person may walk through a Beis ha'Pras if he bends down and blows the dirt before each step [to clear away any small bones that might be there].

(Rav Yehudah bar Ashi citing Rav Yehudah): If many people walked through a Beis ha'Pras, it is Tahor (we assume that any bones have been crushed to less than the Shi'ur to be Metamei, i.e. the size of a barley seed).

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): One may be Me'arev for a Kohen even in a cemetery.

(Beraisa): This is because he could be shielded from Tum'as Ohel by going in a coach or box.

He holds that an Ohel Zaruk (moving on the ground) is considered an Ohel. (If it is above Tum'as Mes, it is Metamei what is underneath it, and what is above remains Tahor. Tosfos - all agree that an airborne Ohel is not an Ohel.)

(The first Tana permits in a Beis ha'Pras, but not in a cemetery.) He and R. Yehudah argue like the following Tana'im;

(Beraisa - Rebbi): One who enters Chutz La'aretz in a coach or box becomes Tamei;

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, he remains Tahor;

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah considers an Ohel Zaruk to be an Ohel, and Rebbi does not.