(Gemara) Question: We already learned this in another Mishnah!

(Mishnah (26b)): One may be Me'arev or Mishtatef with anything except for water and salt.

Answer #1 (Rabah): Our Mishnah is needed to show that Chachamim argue with R. Yehoshua, who requires a loaf [for Eruvin of Chatzeros and Techumim (Tosfos). One might have thought that the above Mishnah discusses Eruv Techumim, but regarding Eruvei Chatzeros we are concerned for strife, if some residents contribute less important food than others, so we require bread].

Version #1 (our text, Rashi) Objection (Abaye - Beraisa): One may make Eruvei Chatzeros or Shitufei Mavo'os with anything. Bread is required only for [Eruv of] a Chatzer;

This is like R. Yehoshua, who requires bread for Eruvei Chatzeros, and the Reisha permits anything [for Chatzeros. This must mean any kind of bread. Perhaps also our Mishnah, which permits anything for Eruvei Chatzeros, refers to any kind of bread!]

Version #2 (Tosfos) Question (Abaye - Beraisa): One may make Eruvei Techumim or Shitufei Mavo'os with anything. Bread is required only for Eruvei Chatzeros;

This is like R. Yehoshua, who requires bread for Eruvei Chatzeros, and it permits anything for Eruv Techumim! (end of Version #2)

Answer #2 (Rabah bar bar Chanah): Our Mishnah is needed to show that Chachamim argue with R. Yehoshua, who requires a full loaf.

Question: Why does he require a full loaf?

Answer (R. Yosi ben Sha'ul): This is due to strife. (Those who give full loaves might resent those who give pieces.)

Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): If everyone gives a piece, is it permitted?

Answer (Rav Ashi): No. We are concerned lest the old problem return. (Another time some will contribute full loaves, and there will be strife).

(R. Yochanan ben Sha'ul): If one removed from a loaf the [minimal] Shi'ur for Dimu'a (one part in 50 or 100 - see note 28 in Appendix) or Chalah, it may be used.

Question (Beraisa): If the amount for Dimu'a was removed, it may be used. If the amount for Chalah was removed, it may not be used.

Answer: R. Yochanan permits a baker's Shi'ur of Chalah, and the Beraisa forbids a regular person's Shi'ur:

(Mishnah): The Shi'ur of Chalah [for a regular person] is one part in 24, whether it is for himself or his son's wedding feast;

If a baker or woman makes bread to sell it, the Shi'ur is one part in 48.

(Rav Chisda): If a loaf was Nifresah (Me'iri - sliced; Mishnah Berurah - a small slice was removed) and one connected the ends together using a chip, one may be Me'arev with it.

Question (Beraisa): One may not be Me'arev with it.

Answer: One may be Me'arev with it if it is not evident that it was Nifresah.

(R. Zeira citing Shmuel): One may be Me'arev with bread made from rice or millet.

(Mar Ukva citing Shmuel): One may be Me'arev with rice bread, but not with millet bread.

(R. Chiya bar Avin): One may be Me'arev with lentil bread.

Question: Someone made such bread in the days of Shmuel. He fed it to a dog, and the dog did not eat it!

Answer: That was made of many (Rashi; Me'iri - repulsive) ingredients;

"Kach Lecha Chitim u'S'orim v'Dochan v'Chusmin..." (Rashi - bread of many ingredients is improper - "v'Lechem Anashim Lo Sochel" (24:17). Tosfos - it signified that there would be a siege, when starving people eat indecent food.)

(Rav Papa): It (Yechezkeil's bread) was roasted in human excrement - "v'Hi b'Gelelei Tze'as ha'Adam Te'ugenah."

Question: Why does it say "v'Ugas Se'orim Tochlenah"? (It was not only of barley!)

Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): We read "Se'orim" like 'Shi'urim.' (Eat it [sparingly] by measure);

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): It should be kneaded in a trough (some texts - the loaves should be shaped in a way) appropriate for barley, and not [as nice as] for wheat.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): One may give money to a grocer or baker [who lives in the same Mavoy] to acquire [wine or bread] for [Shituf or] Eruv;

Chachamim say, the money does not acquire for him. (The seller thinks that the buyer acquired the food, but he did not. The buyer did not intend to make the seller a Shali'ach to be Me'arev with his own food);

Chachamim agree that one may give money to anyone else to acquire for him. (He makes him a Shali'ach to be Me'arev for him.)

[It does not work regarding a baker [or grocer] because] one cannot be Me'arev for another without his Da'as.

R. Yehudah says, this applies only to Eruv Techumim, but one may make Eruv Chatzeros for someone even without his Da'as;

This is because Zachin l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav, v'Ein Chavin l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav. (When a person is not here, one may do for him Zechus (something intrinsically advantageous), but not Chov (something with a detrimental side).)

(Gemara) Question: What is R. Eliezer's reason? He did not do Meshichah (bring the food to his property. Money does not acquire!)

Answer (Rav Nachman): R. Eliezer makes this like four times during the year (when money acquires, like R. Yochanan will explain):

(Mishnah): There are four times (Erev Simchas Torah, Erev Pesach, Erev Shavu'os, Erev Rosh Hashanah) when one who paid for meat from an animal [to be slaughtered] can force the butcher to slaughter it, even if the animal is expensive and only a small amount of the meat was sold;

Therefore, if the animal dies, the buyer loses what he paid [since he acquired part of the animal].

At other times, one cannot force the butcher to slaughter it. Therefore, if the animal dies, the butcher suffers the loss himself. (The animal still belongs to him.)

Question: The buyer only gave money. How did he acquire part of the animal without Meshichah?

Answer #1 (Rav Huna): The case is, he did Meshichah.

Objection: If so, at all times we should force the butcher to slaughter, and the buyer loses if the animal died!

Answer #2 (Rav Shmuel bar R. Yitzchak): Really, the buyer did not do Meshichah. Rather, someone else acquired on his behalf (he was not asked to do so);

At the four times (everyone eats beef), it is a Zechus to buy, therefore someone else can Zocheh for him she'Lo b'Fanav;

At other times, it is a Chov, and Ein Chavin l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav.

Answer #3 (R. Yochanan): At these four times, [regarding meat] Chachamim leave in force the Torah law that money acquires:

(R. Yochanan): Mid'Oraisa, money acquires Metaltelim. Chachamim enacted that Meshichah works [and not money], lest [a fire erupt in the seller's premises] and the seller will [not toil to save what he sold because he will not suffer the loss, for he can] tell the buyer 'your wheat burned.'

(Mishnah): Chachamim agree that one may give money to anyone else...

Question: Who is considered 'anyone else'?

Answer (Rav): It is a Ba'al ha'Bayis. (He does not normally sell bread or wine.)

Shmuel agrees with Rav;

(Shmuel): The Mishnah applies only to a baker, but [if one gave money to] a Ba'al ha'Bayis [he] acquires for him.

(Shmuel): The Mishnah applies only when he gave money [to acquire], but if he acquired using a Kli (Chalifin), the Eruv is valid.

(Shmuel): The Mishnah applies if he said 'acquire for me.' If he said 'be Me'arev for me', he made him a Shali'ach, so it is valid.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): This applies [only to Eruv Techumim, but not to Eruv Chatzeros].

(Rav Yehudah): The Halachah follows R. Yehudah. In fact, the Halachah always follows R. Yehudah in Eruvin.

Question (Rav Chana Bagdata'ah): Does this apply even regarding a Korah of a Mavoy that fell down [on Shabbos? R. Yehudah permits the entire Shabbos.]

Answer (Rav Yehudah): No. The rule applies only to [validity of] Eruvin, but not to Mechitzos.

Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): 'The Halachah follows R. Yehudah' implies that Chachamim argue with him. R. Yehoshua ben Levi taught that whenever R. Yehudah says in a Mishnah 'when is this?' or 'what is the case?', he does not argue, rather, he explains the first Tana!

Question (against R. Yehoshua ben Levi): They do argue!

(Mishnah): If new residents joined the Chatzer, one must add and be Mezakeh more food. He must inform them.

Answer: That refers to a Chatzer between two Mavo'os.

Question: Rav Shizbi said 'this teaches that Chachamim argue with R. Yehudah'!

Answer (Rav Ashi): Rav Yehudah is an Amora, just like R. Yehoshua ben Levi. He can argue with him. (R. Yehoshua ben Levi holds that Chachamim agree with R. Yehudah. Rav Yehudah disagrees [and so does Rav Shizbi].)