Answer #1: Here [Rashi] explained that all agree that in the Mavuy we rely on Eruvei Chatzeros, which is always with bread!

Reiteration of Question #1: In any case, according to the opinion that they argue about with bread, it is difficult. Why doesn't Eruvei Chatzeros help for the Mavuy, since the law [of Shituf] is that it may be placed even in a house?

Does the name determine the law, that it is called Eruv, that it should help for Chatzeros and not for the Mavuy?!

Question #2: And according to the opinion that they argue also about wine, and he explains the Beraisa below "or they join in the Mavuy with wine, and they are permitted here and here (in the Chatzeros and in the Mavuy), but Eruvei Chatzeros with wine does not help, what is the reason?

Since Shituf helps, do not call it Eruv, rather, call it Shituf! It would be astounding to say that this that they called it Eruv nullifies the law of Shituf from it.

Poor Answer #1 (Ri): According to Rashi, at the beginning of the Eruv, only the people of one Chatzer were Me'arev, or two Chatzeros together, and they did not think that all of the members of the Mavuy will join together;

It turns out they did not give their Eruv for the sake of Shituf. Therefore, when all the members of the Mavuy are added to them, we do not consider it Shituf, since the first ones were not there and they never knew that all the others were added to them.

Answer #2 (Ri): The entire matter is precise. Eruv Chatzeros [must be] in a house in the Chatzer, and Shituf Mavo'os specifically in a Chatzer in the Mavuy, and not in a house;

This is because in the Chatzer it is more evident that it is for the sake of Shituf, for it pertains to the Mavuy more [than a house], and their (a Mavuy and Chatzer's) uses resemble each other. (Perhaps the word "d'Mavuy" should be deleted, or it should say "d'Mavuy ud'Chatzer.")

Consequence: This that it says below (73b) that when they were reclining in the house, they rely on bread on the table for Eruv - this does not mean even for Eruv, rather, specifically for Eruv, and not for Chatzer.

Implied question: It says in Sukah (3a) that a house that is not four by four [Amos], we may not put Eruvei Chatzeros in it, but one may put Shituf Mavo'os in it, for it is no worse than a Chatzer in the Mavuy;

Inference: All the more so, if it were a proper house, they could put Shituf in it!

Answer (Ri): Surely, a proper house is worse regarding Shituf;

It said "it is no worse" lest you say that just like [a house less than four by four] is excluded from [the status of] a house regarding Eruv, it is excluded also from [the status of] a Chatzer regarding Shituf, because walls interrupt, and the Chatzer must be four Amos, and this house does not have four Amos.

Consequence: The [Mishnah - 71a] of a Ba'al ha'Bayis who was a partner with his neighbors - to this with wine [and to this with wine, or with oil], and also above (68a) "the master should be Makneh a Revi'is of vinegar", we must say that the barrel was in the Chatzer, for it discusses Shituf Mavo'os, for Eruvei Chatzeros requires bread.

Observation: The Yerushalmi connotes like Rashi, that all the more so [Shituf may be placed in] a house. It says "an Eruv requires a house. Does Shituf require a house? Shmuel's teaching shows that it requires a house";

R. Avahu concludes in the name of R. Yochanan "he may put it in the air (empty part) of the Chatzer, or in the air of the Mavuy." This explicitly connotes that all the more so, [one may place it in] a house.

Explanation: In Ta'anis (26b) it explains that we do not rule like him, but if people do like him, we do not protest against them.

Question: How is protest relevant if people are stringent to make Eruv and Shituf?

Answer #1: It is not (i.e. we do not protest that it is) a Brachah Levatalah.

Answer #2: [We do not protest] if due to this they refrain from bringing a knife or hot water for the sake of Bris Milah.

Answer #3: It says above (49a) regarding a Chatzer between two Mavo'os, and it is frequent in one of them, if [that one, i.e.] the frequent [Mavuy] was Me'arev by itself, and the infrequent [Mavuy] was not Me'arev, and also [the Chatzer] was not Me'arev, we dispel [the Chatzer] to the infrequent, for Kofin Al Midas Sedom (we force one to benefit others, if he will not lose. Here, in any case the infrequent Mavuy and the Chatzer are forbidden. We force the Chatzer to use the infrequent Mavuy, lest it forbid the frequent through Drisas ha'Regel.)

Now, if the infrequent [Mavuy] made an Eruv, but not Shituf, and we dispel [the Chatzer] to the infrequent like R. Meir, who requires Shituf, we do not protest.

Alternatively, if the [Chatzer] made an Eruv with both, but made Shituf only with one of them, according to Rabanan it is as if was Me'arev with both, and it is forbidden with both. (Maharshal - this is because the Mavo'os were not Me'arev together. It is unlike R. Shimon. Maharsha - here, the Chatzer is frequent with both of them);

According to R. Meir, it is permitted with the one with which it did Shituf, since it did not do Shituf with the other, and Eruv does not help in place of Shituf.

Explanation: The case of these rooms and Aliyos is that each is open to the Chatzer, like Rashi explained, that these five groups that were Shoves in the hall, each has an opening from the hall to the Chatzer;

If each did not have an opening to the Chatzer, we would say that the inner one gives its Eruv, and this suffices, or the two inner ones according to R. Yochanan below (75b) regarding 10 houses one inside the other;

Distinction: However, if a person has a Chacham or teacher in his house, or like those bachelors who come to learn Torah and each dwells in a room or Aliyah by himself, even though they are separate from the Ba'al ha'Bayis in their bread (they eat their own food), they do not forbid him;

They do not need an Eruv, whether they have an opening to Reshus ha'Rabim or they do not have an opening to Reshus ha'Rabim.

This is not only if all eat in one place, even though each sleeps in his room. We hold like the opinion that says below (73a) that the place of bread determines [whether or not he must be Me'arev]. Rather, it is even according to Shmuel, who says that the place of lodging determines;

Or, it is even if each eats and sleeps in his room. They do not forbid each other;

This is because all of them do all uses in the house, e.g. baking and cooking. In every way, they are considered as if they eat and sleep if one place. Even if they have an opening to Reshus ha'Rabim, they are all called on the name of the Ba'al ha'Bayis.

Also, he does not lend to them his Reshus to forbid himself, and not to forbid each other, and he can evict them [whenever he wants].

Observation: They are like five Sechirim or five Lekitim. We do not say [that they are like residents] to be stringent, like we say above (66a) that one gives his Eruv, and it suffices, even if they dwell in rooms and Aliyos;

If they all dwelled in the house, Abaye (64a) would not have been unsure, that he said "what is the law?" Even if it was their house, they would not forbid each other!

Since regarding a Nochri, whose Dirah (residence) is not called Dirah, [his workers] do not forbid, rather, all are considered like one, all the more so regarding a Yisrael, whose Dirah is called Dirah, [his workers'] Dirah is Batel to the Dirah of the Ba'al ha'Bayis;

It is unlike when some dwell in rooms and Aliyos here, that this has rights just like this. (There is no Ba'al ha'Bayis to whom their Dirah is Batel.)

Implied question: [How can we learn from a Nochri? Chachamim] were more lenient about a Nochri than about a Yisrael!

When [a Nochri] lends a place to a Yisrael, we say that the Yisrael gives his Eruv and it suffices, even though the Nochri does not want to rent, and Bal Korcho (against the will) of the Nochri. We do not permit in such a case in a Yisrael's house!

Answer: Also there, the reason is because Dirah of a Nochri is not so important;

However, in any case we can learn from this that five Sechirim do not forbid each other regarding a Nochri, all the more so regarding a Yisrael, like I explained.

Implied question: Our Mishnah teaches that they agree when some dwell in rooms and Aliyos (even if the walls do not reach to the ceiling)!

Answer: There is different. (There are proper Mechitzos around the rooms.) Here we discuss temporary Mechitzos, such as curtains that divide until the ceiling.

Alternative text: R. Chananel's text says "ha'Savach", one who braids a lattice, like a turban or hat, like "Sechavim Ma'aseh Sechavah";

Alternatively, the text is "ha'Sachach." [He was called so] based on his city. Similarly in Sefer Yehoshua it is written "Midin u'Sechachah."

Implied question: Why don't we ask here "they should argue [in our Mishnah] about both of them", like it asks in Beitzah (2b)?

Answer: There, in order to make known the extremity of Beis Hillel, who forbid, [the Tana] should have taught both of them, because Ko'ach d'Heitera Adif (it is better to teach the extremity of the lenient opinion) of Beis Shamai is not so important, for Beis Shamai in place of (where they argue with) Beis Hillel is not a Mishnah (surely the Halachah does not follow Beis Shamai).

Implied question: We refute the first version of Rav Nachman from this [Beraisa! If Rav Nachman knew it and rules like it, he would not have taught unlike it!]

Answer: [This ruling of Rav Nachman] is like the latter version.

Question: Does he come to teach Beis Shamai's reason? This is not needed according to Beis Hillel. Even if they take their Eruv elsewhere, [Beis Hillel] says that one Eruv [suffices] for all of them!

The Gemara asks like this in Shabbos (135a).

Answer: This is relevant also according to Beis Hillel, in a case like rooms and Aliyos. Only when they take their Eruv, [the Beraisa] says that they need an Eruv for each group, but when the Eruv comes to them, one Eruv [suffices] for all of them!

A case like rooms and Aliyos according to Beis Hillel is like Mechitzos that do not reach to the ceiling according to Beis Shamai.

However, if they are truly rooms and Aliyos, it seems that we do not distinguish between when they take their Eruv, and when the Eruv comes to them, since it was so obvious to the Gemara, that it said "if you will say that there are truly rooms and Aliyos, this is obvious!"

Implied suggestion: Perhaps it is like Beis Shamai, and the Beraisa discusses when there are no residents with them, like we establish it below (73a);

However, in our Mishnah, when there are residents with them, Migo (since) these (other residents) forbid each other, also these [groups] forbid (force each to give an Eruv by itself)!

Rejection: What would be the case of these residents?

If they are in the Chatzer, in any case the entire hall is considered like one, and they transfer with each other in the entire hall without an Eruv when there are residents with them, just like when there are no residents with them!

If they need an Eruv among themselves when there are residents with them in the Chatzer, they should need also when there are no residents with them, for what is the relevance of residents in the Chatzer regarding the hall?!

Question: However, [the Gemara] could have said that the case is, there are proper rooms or Aliyos in the hall without an opening to the Chatzer. Rather, [the groups] go through the hall;

Migo (since) these forbid, these five groups also forbid!

Answer #1: It does not connote [to the Gemara] to establish our Mishnah like this.

Answer #2: Perhaps in such a case Beis Hillel would agree.

Implied question: The place of their bread and lodging is in their houses!

Answer: This that they eat from their father helps, so that if the Eruv comes to them, or there are no [other] residents with them, they need not be Me'arev.

Explanation: [He does not forbid] even if people dwell in it, like a Mishnah teaches below (85b).

Question: If it is a Beis Sha'ar of a house, the house forbids the members of the Chatzer, even if people do not dwell in [the house], just like a storehouse for straw!

Answer: The case is, the Ba'al ha'Bayis put his Eruv in it. The Chidush is that the one who dwells in the Beis Sha'ar need not be Me'arev, for he does not forbid.