Explanation: Since he forbids him, he resolves and is Makneh to him. Regarding Techumim, he must be Zocheh, for he does not forbid him, and he does not resolve to be Makneh, like Rashi explained;

According to Shmuel, in the Mavuy he must be Zocheh, for it is to be Makneh Reshus. He holds above (49a) that Eruvei [Chatzeros] is due to Kinyan;

Even according to the opinion that it is due to Dirah, he must be Zocheh, in order to acquire Dirah in his friend's house.

Explanation #1: Regarding Techumim, Shmuel holds that he need not be Zocheh, for he does not acquire others' Reshus.

Explanation #2: Or, since we make Eruvei Techumim only for a Mitzvah, due to the Mitzvah he resolves and is Makneh.

Explanation #3: Also, since we are Me'arev Eruvei Techumim only with the person's consent, his Amirah, when he says "go be Me'arev for me", is considered like Zechiyah.

Conclusion: Now, there are matters that we are more stringent about in [Eruvei] Chatzeros than in Techumim. For Chatzeros, one must be Zocheh according to Shmuel, and bread is required. For Techumim, he need not be Zocheh, and bread is not required.

There are matters in which we are more stringent about Techumim [than Chatzeros]. For Techumim we require two meals for every person, and for Chatzeros, when there are many people, food for two meals suffices for all of them, and when there are few, a Grogeres for each person suffices, like we say below (80b);

One who sends his Eruv with a Cheresh, lunatic or child, it is not an Eruv for Techumim, but for Eruvei Chatzeros, a minor can collect the Eruv [from the people of the Chatzer].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This episode was with [Eruvei] Techumim. Even though regarding Chatzeros, our Mishnah is unlike Rav, Rav is a Tana, and he disagrees.

Objection: The primary question was only from Chatzeros. No answer was given for this at all! (The Gemara omitted the real answer, that Rav is a Tana, and he disagrees.)

Explanation #2: This episode was with Eruvei Chatzeros. Also R. Chananel explained like this. Rav holds like R. Yishmael, and Rav holds that our Tana taught that Zechiyah is needed for Chatzeros, and all the more so for Techumim, for all hold that Techumim require Zechiyah.

Observation: According to Rashi, who establishes [the episode] with Eruvei Techumim, we can say that R. Chiya, and R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi in the name of his father, hold like they taught elsewhere;

R. Chiya holds above (17b) that Techumim are mid'Oraisa, and therefore he is stringent about them;

R. Yosi is lenient, like he taught above (35a) that a Safek Eruv [Techumim] is Kosher.

Pesak: This is the Halachah. Also the She'altos in Parshas Beshalach ruled that all of them require Zechiyah - Eruvei Techumim, Eruvei Chatzeros, Shitufei Mavo'os and Eruvei Tavshilin.

Implied question: Rav Nachman asked "what is the law?" regarding Eruvei Tavshilin!

Answer: Abaye concluded that Rav did not hear Shmuel's teaching. Had he heard it, he would not have asked "what is the law?" regarding Eruvei Tavshilin!

Question: Why didn't [Rav Yehudah] bring a proof from what he said above (64a) in the name of Shmuel that a Sachir or Lakit of a Nochri gives his Eruv, and this suffices, and all the more so his wife [can give]! This would be a proof from a Nochri to a Nochri!

Answer: He preferred to bring a proof from his wife to his wife.

Explanation: It forbids the one in which it is regular, like an opening normally used, but the one in which it is not regular, it does not forbid.

Explanation: This that it says "they take their Shituf Bal Korcho" is [against the will] of the Ba'al ha'Bayis, but his wife's Da'as (consent) is needed.

Implied question: We conclude that a man's wife may be Me'arev for him without his Da'as. This shows that she can be Zocheh for the people of the Mavuy or the people of the Chatzer to give [his] bread for them!

Answer: Granted, she can give for herself without his Da'as, but she has no power to be Zocheh for her neighbors without his Da'as.

Pesak: One must be careful that a woman not acquire for her neighbors when her husband is not in the city;

And even though if everyone gives bread, it seems that it is permitted, even if they do not forbid each other, as long as the husband did not protest, for presumably, he is not upset...

In any case, one may not rely on this for her to be Zocheh for others.

Question: If this Ba'al [ha'Bayis] does not have a wife in the city, only people of his household, one must be meticulous [to determine] whether his household can be Me'arev with the Ba'al ha'Bayis' [food], for below (80b) a Mishnah says that if [residents] were added, he adds, and he must inform;

Also when the food was diminished, it teaches that he must inform [if he will add] another kind [of food]!

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): It is proper that we force one to make a Lechi or Korah, for Mechitzos help to permit carrying inside them, even if they were made against a person's will;

This is unlike an Eruv. Whether it is due to Dirah or due to Kinyan, it should not help against a person's will.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): Rashi did not explain like this. (He said that we do not force one to permit carrying. We force to build Mechitzos, for they are needed for guarding.)

Observation: According to texts [like ours, and Rashi's] that say "there is different, for there are no Mechitzos", we can explain so (like R. Tam). When there are no Mechitzos, it is forbidden to carry inside, it is proper that we force him to make a Tikun to permit carrying;

However, we should not force him to make a Tikun to permit carrying from the houses and from the Chatzeros into [the Mavuy].

Implied question: Also a Lechi has a required height, and it needs also Mashehu thickness!

Answer #1: Even so, since it needs only a small Shi'ur, [Chachamim] were not stringent about it.

Answer #2 (R. Avraham): A Lechi, if one would stick together the pieces on the wall, it is a Lechi, as long as they are not taken in the wind.

Implied question: We disqualify a Lulav of an Asheirah, even on Yom Tov Sheni. This connotes that it is as if it does not exist!

Answer: [Chachamim] were stringent about a Lulav of Mitzvah.

Question: Above (78b) we are Machshir a ladder of an Asheirah, even though it must be four wide. We do not say Kesusei Michtas Shi'urei (it is as if it was burned, so it lacks the required Shi'ur), like we say about a Korah!

Answer (Ri): There, [the ladder] is considered an opening, since it would be proper for ascent, if not for the Isur of an Asheirah. However, Chachamim obligated for a Korah a Shi'ur of importance.

Explanation: We are thinking that [there is no difference between when it finished and when it decreased;] the Beraisa mentioned "it finished" due to [a bigger Chidush in the case of] one species. Even if it finished, he need not inform.

Question (R. Tam): In a Mishnah below (82b), R. Shimon says that two thirds of a loaf that is a third of a Kav. I.e. the Shi'ur of two meals is five and a third eggs, for a loaf is eight eggs;

When you divide 18 Grogeros to five and a third eggs, for both of these are the Shi'ur of two meals, it turns out that each egg is three Grogeros and three eighths of a Grogeres, for in five and a third eggs, there are 16 thirds of an egg. (Each third of an egg is one and an eighth Grogeros;

A Grogeres is bigger than a k'Zayis, like is proven in Shabbos (91a).

In Toras Kohanim it teaches, and [also] in Yoma (80a), that Chachamim estimated that the gullet does not hold more than [the volume of] a hen's egg;

Summation of question: In Kerisus (14a), we say that one can eat one eating (swallow, and be liable five Chata'os. He cannot be obligated another, for a k'Zayis of blood,) because the gullet does not hold more than two olives! (We said that it holds an egg, which is more than three Grogeros, which are more than three olives!)

Suggestion: Below, Tana'im argue with R. Shimon. (We hold like one of them. E.g. if there are 10 eggs in two meals, each egg is almost two Grogeros. This can equal two olives.)

Rejection: We hold like R. Shimon, for everywhere we say that k'Beitzah is the Shi'ur for Tum'as Ochlin, which is like R. Shimon. E.g. it is taught below (83a) "and half of half of half [of the loaf]" is the Shi'ur for Tum'as Ochlin;

According to R. Shimon, the Shi'ur is k'Beitzah, but not according to the other Tana'im. "[Half of half of half is the Shi'ur for Tum'as Ochlin] applies to all Tana'im, like the Sugya below proves.

Answer (Ri): According to all the Tana'im, the Shi'ur for Tum'as Ochel is k'Beitzah. The Beraisa that teaches below "and half of half of half..." does not refer to R. Meir and R. Yehudah, rather, to R. Shimon and R. Yochanan ben Brokah, who mentioned the Shi'ur of a loaf.

Proof: The Beraisa in the Gemara teaches "what is the Shi'ur of half a Pras (half-loaf)? It is two eggs less a small amount. These are R. Yehudah's words";

Inference: He holds like R. Shimon, who considers half of half [a loaf] to disqualify the body (one who eats this amount of Tamei food may not eat Terumah) to be two eggs.

Support: Now, nothing is difficult. Regarding two meals of Eruv, the Halachah does not follow R. Shimon, rather, R. Meir or R. Yehudah, like is proven below, that Rav Yosef and Rabah hold like R. Meir below (82a);

Also the two loaves that Rav Yehudah and Rav Ada bar Ahavah say (below, 82b) is like R. Meir or R. Yehudah.