Explanation #1 (according to Rashi): This is precise. However, the middle may not bring (into the outer).

Explanation #2 (according to R. Tam): We can say that [R. Shimon] taught this for a bigger Chidush. All the more so, the middle may bring into the outer, for there is not so much reason to decree.

Explanation #3 (according to Ri): He mentioned this (that the outers may bring to the middle), for from it he challenges Rabanan "why is there different, that you argue and decree, and here you do not decree? What is this like...?

Explanation: With this bread they transfer ownership of Reshus to each other. Even though Peros cannot make Chalipin, they acquire through Kinyan Kesef.

Question: A Mishnah below (71a) says that if a Ba'al ha'Bayis was a partner with his neighbors - with this [neighbor he was a partner] in wine, and with this one in oil, he need not be Me'arev;

And it says below (73b) regarding a group that were reclining [and eating] and Shabbos came, they rely on the bread on the table for an Eruv!

According to the opinion that Eruv is due to residence, this is fine. (This is difficult only according to the opinion that it is due to Kinyan.)

Answer: Since there is camaraderie among them, Chachamim made it as if they were Makneh to each other.

Explanation: Also with other matters we are not Me'arev Eruvei Chatzeros. We use only bread, which is more common;

Regarding Shituf they were lenient not to obligate bread, and it is permitted with other matters, that are somewhat common, but not with a coin, which is not common at all.

Explanation: According to the opinion that it is due to Kinyan, we cannot be Me'arev with less than a Perutah, even if there is food for two meals.

Question: When there is a Perutah, is it an Eruv even if it is less than two meals? Even with a Kli it is an Eruv, according to the opinion that it is due to Kinyan. If so, why do we need [food for] two meals?

Note: Tosfos explains that the Kli itself is the Eruv, unlike Rashi, who explained that he acquired food through a Kli (Chalipin) without moving the food.

Answer: When he specifies and does in the way of a Kinyan, it need not be proper to eat, and he acquires even through a Kli. However, Stam, the way people normally are Me'arev, that they do not specify and be meticulous to do in the way of a Kinyan, we require that it has the importance of food.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): According to the opinion that it is due to Kinyan, a minor cannot be a Shali'ach for Eruvei Chatzeros, for he cannot make a Kinyan.

Question #1: [Through a minor] it should be as if they joined, like a Ba'al ha'Bayis who became a partner with his friend!

Question #2: Above (38b), Rav Huna said that a minor can collect the Eruv. It is difficult to say that he argues! (Me'iri - if others argued with Rav Huna, the Gemara would have said so there.)

Question #3: Shmuel himself, who said here that it is due to Kinyan, said in Gitin (64b) that a minor can acquire for others Shitufei Mavo'os, which is mid'Rabanan!

Answer: Here we discuss an absolute minor (below the age of Pa'utos, i.e. mature minors. He cannot acquire even mid'Rabanan.) Also there we distinguish between an absolute minor and one who is not an absolute minor.

Note: It seems that Question #1 is still difficult.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam, R. Chananel): Here we discuss in the minor's house.

Pesak: The Halachah follows Rabah, who says that Eruv is due to residence.

Source #1: Below (66a), R. Yochanan said that a tenant is like one who was Me'arev. It explains that just like one may be Me'arev with less than a Perutah [one can rent through less than a Perutah], and we hold like R. Yochanan against Shmuel.

Source #2: There, the Gemara explains so. If so, this is the Halachah.

Explanation (Ri): He acquires even without saying.

Source #1: We said above (38b) "but if he is awake, that if he wanted, he could have said, even though he did not say, it is as if he said."

Rebuttal: We can distinguish. There is different, for he goes to [the end of] the Techum in order to be Me'arev;

Source #2: However, since Rabanan argue with R. Yochanan [ben Nuri] about one who sleeps, this connotes that regarding one who is awake, they agree that he acquired, even if he did not say.

Source #2: Above (45a), a Mishnah says that one who rested on the road and rose and saw that he is close to the city, since he did not intend for it, he may not enter;

It is proven in the Gemara that he acquired Shevisah in his place, like the episode with R. Tarfon. It says that the Beis Midrash was within his Techum.

Implied question: Why does it say [here] "and he said [my Shevisah is my place]"?

Answer: This is due to (for parallel structure with) when he said "my Shevisah is in the place Ploni", or due to the Seifa "an Oni is Me'arev with his legs", but an Ashir cannot, even if he said ["my Shevisah is the place Ploni]."

Support: We find like this in Bava Metzi'a (11a). If one saw people running after a lame deer or after chicks that cannot fly, and he said "my field acquires for me", it acquired for him;

Also there, even if he did not say, he acquired, like it says there in the Gemara regarding the four Amos that Rabanan enacted for him, "if they enacted that [the four Amos around him] acquire for him, what difference does it make if he did not say?" (Surely he acquires even without saying!)

It mentioned "and he said" due to the Seifa "if a deer was running normally", even if he said ["my field acquires for me"], it has no effect.

Explanation: He diverted his mind from the place of his feet, and also under the tree he did not acquire. Therefore, he cannot move from his place.

Question: Above (35a), regarding if it rolled outside the Techum, it says that if it is a Safek (whether or not this was before Shabbos), he is in Chamar Gamal, and he has from his house until his Eruv 2000 Amos. It does not say that [he diverted his mind from his house, so] he cannot move from his place!

Answer (Ri): There, he stands in his city. He did not divert his mind from his city. He intends that if he does not acquire Shevisah there [through his Eruv], he should have the Techum of his house.

Explanation #1: Shmuel and the Beraisa below (50b) normally hold like Rabah. Here, [Chachamim] were lenient about Techumim; we should not be stringent.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps [Shmuel and the Beraisa] argue [with Rabah]!

Rejection: Here it connotes that the Halachah follows Shmuel, since [the Gemara on 50b] needed to give a weak answer and say that Rav is a Tana, and he argues [with the Beraisa that supports Shmuel].

Support: The Mishnah (Kidushin 50b) about one who was Mekadesh a woman and her daughter, we establish it like Rabah, according to how we rule there that Kidushin she'Ein Mesurim l'Bi'ah (the Kidushin itself forbids Bi'ah) is Kidushin.

Explanation #2: We can say that [Shmuel] holds that since he said "my Shevisah is under the tree", and the Shevisah is four Amos, it is as if he said "I should acquire four Amos amidst eight";

Shmuel agrees that if one specifies and says "my Shevisah is in all eight Amos under the tree", he does not acquire.

Implied question: We cannot say so about the Beraisa below (50b) of one who erred and was Me'arev in two directions. He intended to be Me'arev in two directions at once!

Answer: We can say that anyone who is Me'arev in two directions at once, he is unsure in his heart, and he intends that if he will not acquire both Shevisos, he should acquire one of them. Therefore, he has an Eruv with one of them.