Inference: If not [that he could go and eat the Eruv], it would not be a [valid] Eruv, because he is in one place, and his Eruv is elsewhere.

Assertion: This is why the first Tana holds that it is not an Eruv, and not because he holds like Sumchus [that the Me'arev must be able to eat it].

Observation: However, R. Yehudah connotes that he holds like Sumchus, since he said "and to eat."

Support: So [R. Yehudah] says in a Beraisa below (30b-31a) "one may be Me'arev for a Kohen with Tahor Terumah." This implies that he requires something that [the Me'arev] can eat. (Therefore, he permits only for a Kohen.)

Explanation #1: If this discusses Heset, that he totally moves it, "everything" is precise. (Anything he totally moves is Tamei.) In several places, Heset is called Masa.

Explanation #2: However, if it discusses Elyono Shel Zav (something that a Zav holds up) that he does not totally move, and some drags on the ground, this is not Heset, like it says in Toras Kohanim "what touching is like [touching] all of it? This is Heset"...

Question: The Ri was unsure whether or not [Elyono Shel Zav] applies to everything. We learn Elyono Shel Zav from "b'Chol Asher Yihyeh Tachtav", [i.e.] the Zav (is under it and holds it up). Is this like Mishkav and Moshav, which applies only to something proper (to sit on - correspondingly, here it applies only to something proper to be on top of him - Maharam, Tosfos ha'Rosh), or not?

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): It is Tahor from severe Tum'ah. It is not Metamei people or Kelim. However, it has light Tum'ah, e.g. to be Metamei food and drink, even though it is not proper for Mishkav or Moshav.

Proof (R. Tam) Citation (Nidah 54b) Suggestion: Just like [a Nidah] makes Mishkav u'Moshav... also her blood makes Mishkav u'Moshav to be Metamei a person to be Metamei his clothes!"

Citation (cont.) Rejection: It says "Hi", and not her blood.

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: Just like [a Nidah] is Metamei through Even Misma (a large rock), also her blood!

Question: Since we excluded her blood from the law of Mishkav u'Moshav, why do we suggest that it has Tum'as Even Misma? Even Misma is due to Mishkav u'Moshav, like it teaches in Toras Kohanim!

Citation (Toras Kohanim): Even 10 Kelim one on top of another, and even on Even Misma, what is the source (that a Zav who sits on them is Metamei all of them)? It says "Kol ha'Mishkav."

Explanation (R. Tam): Even Misma is a large rock. There are Kelim underneath it. The Kelim do not feel the weight of the Zav who sits on the rock (i.e. there is no significant difference), for [even] without the Zav, the rock is very heavy.

Answer #1 (R. Tam): The Gemara (in Nidah) means as follows. Just like she... i.e., granted, you excluded her blood from severe Tum'ah. However, what is the source that it does not have light Tum'ah?

Even though [a verse] excludes [her blood] from Mishkav u'Moshav, it must exclude from light Tum'ah, because even something not proper for Mishkav u'Moshav receives light Tum'ah.

Rebuttal: Toras Kohanim (Zavim 4:10,11) explicitly teaches "Kol Asher Yishkav Alav Yitma." Perhaps he is Metamei even something not proper for lying on it! No. Just like she is Metamei [only something proper to lie on it...] Perhaps he and she are not Metamei severe Tum'ah, but they are Metamei light Tum'ah! It says "Mishkav".

Note: This discusses Bo'el Nidah. This is why we learn his Tum'ah from hers. There are other differences between our text of Toras Kohanim and what Tosfos cites, but they do not affect the proof.

Inference: Something not proper for lying on it is totally Tahor!

Explanation #2: The Toras Kohanim [that R. Tam brought] includes Even Misma from "v'Chol ha'Mishkav", i.e. only for light Tum'ah. Perhaps in some place [a Drashah] excludes it from severe Tum'ah;

However, something not proper for Mishkav or Moshav does not have even light Tum'ah.

Answer #2 (to Question b:3): Therefore, even though her blood was excluded from the law of Mishkav u'Moshav regarding severe Tum'ah, we still need to exclude it from the law of Even Misma, which pertains to light Tum'ah.

Question: The verse says Merkav and Moshav, and their laws are different!

Answer: Granted, the verse distinguishes between sitting of riding and Stam sitting. In any case, the Tana says "except for what is proper for Mishkav u'Moshav", and he refers to all matters of sitting. We should not say that his general rule is not precise!

Therefore, it says that [Merkav] is [included in] Moshav (and he was precise).

Explanation: Below, we establish this when he put oil into them.

Question: It should suffice [to permit being Me'arev with it] due to the oil, like it asks below (27b) about [buying it with Kesef] Ma'aser. Here, the answer given below (he paid for the water and salt through Havla'ah) does not apply.

Answer: Here we need to teach [that one may be Me'arev with saltwater with oil] even if there is not enough oil for two meals.

Question: There are mushrooms, truffles, Kafniyos (bad unripe dates) and dry beans. We say below (28a, 28b) that one may not be Me'arev with them, even though presumably, one may buy them with Kesef Ma'aser, for they are Peros that grow from other Peros, and grow from the ground! (Rashash brings others who say that mushrooms and truffles are considered Gidulei Karka, unlike Rashi and the Gra.)

Answer: One may not be Me'arev with them because they are proper only through Tikun. For Eruv, we require something proper to eat at the time the Eruv takes effect;

However, regarding Tum'ah of food, or to buy them with Kesef Ma'aser, they are fine, since they are proper through Tikun.

However, something that does not need Tikun, if one may buy them with Kesef Ma'aser, all the more so one may be Me'arev with it.

Support #1: We answer like this regarding Kafniyos. Tum'as Ochel is different, for it is proper to fix them through fire.

Implied question: A Mishnah in Me'ilah (brought below, 29a) teaches [that all foods join towards] two meals for an Eruv, and k'Beitzah for Tum'as Ochel. This connotes that they depend on each other, like it says below!

Answer: That refers to something that does not need Tikun.

Implied question: Why did Rava say "may one be Me'arev with apples?!"

Answer: That was to sharpen the Chacham (who asked about the Shi'ur for apples).

Proof: Did [Rava] not know that [apples] may be bought with Kesef Ma'aser? They are Pri mi'Pri, and they grow from the ground!

Suggestion: Perhaps he discusses forest apples, which must be sweetened!

Rejection: If so, he did not bring a proper proof from our Mishnah in Me'ilah (since it discusses only things that do not need Tikun)!

Explanation: All these Drashos are from the extra "Beis" in the Peratim, for the Peratim are needed for the Prat u'Chlal;

No matter what you will say, we need two of them, like it says in Kidushin (17a) regarding gifts [given to an Eved Ivri who goes free].

Had it written [only] Tzon, one might have thought that one does not give Gidulei Karka. Had it written [only] Goren, one might have thought that one does not give living things.

Also the other Peratim are needed for some Drashah.

Support: Also in Shevuos (23a) and Yoma (76a) it asks "I should say Deveilah Ke'ilis (intoxicating dates)", and answers that we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Shechar-Shechar" from Nazir;

Here we learn from the fact that we include wine with the bottle. There, we need "Shechar-Shechar" lest we say that Shechar itself is Deveilah Ke'ilis. Here, we discuss [what we learn from] the Beis of "b'Shechar".

Question #1: How could we say here that one might have thought that the Beis of b'Shechar comes for Deveilah Ke'ilis? We learn this from the Klal u'Ferat, for it is Pri mi'Pri!

Question #2 (R. Shmuel): How did we want to say there that Shechar itself comes for Deveilah Ke'ilis? We say here that if not for a Yitur (something extra) to teach wine with the bottle, one might have thought that the Beis of b'Shechar comes for Deveilah Ke'ilis!

Answer: We wanted to say [there] that Shechar itself is needed for Deveilah Ke'ilis, and here we discuss Deveilah mixed with water, for so it is common to fix it. It is more important than Temed (water placed on grape peels and skins, that absorbed from them and fermented).

Question: Why is it not proven there that drinking is included in eating, since we include Temed (one may buy it with Kesef Ma'aser), and the Torah said "v'Achalta"!

You cannot say that it is through Anigron (a food to which wine or Temed is added), like it says there, for we require something that intoxicates, since we learn from the inclusion "b'Shechar"!

Answer: "V'Achalta" does not refer to [what we learn from] the letters Beis (before the Peratim), rather, to the verse itself.

Proof: Hide, shearings and bottles (which we learn from the letters Beis) are not edible.

Question: We learn this from wine with the bottle, for also hide is considered a Shomer, like it says in Chulin (118a)!

Answer: Hide is not such a Shomer for meat, for after it is flayed, it is not a Shomer. However, one cannot [keep] wine without a bottle.