Remark: This is the text in all old Seforim, and it is R. Chananel's text.

Explanation (R. Avraham): The entire Sugya means as follows. This was already taught (26b) "we may be Me'arev with anything..." Stam (Me'arvin) connotes both Eruvei Chatzeros and Eruvei Techumim!

Rabah said, it teaches unlike R. Yehoshua, who says that only bread... "We may be Me'arev with anything..." refers to all Eruvin, and R. Yehoshua argues about all of them, and says that only bread may be used;

This is why it had to be taught twice. Had it not taught again the clause here, we would have established above (26b) to discuss [Eruvei] Techumim, which that entire Perek discusses, and R. Yehoshua's teaching here to discuss [Eruvei] Chatzeros, which were discussed above. The Mishnah above would not contradict R. Yehoshua here at all!

However, now that [above] taught also regarding R. Yehoshua's teaching, [the Mishnah above] contradicts him. [R. Yehoshua] comes to argue.

Explanation (cont.): Abaye asked [from a Beraisa]... Abaye challenged what [Rabah] said that R. Yehoshua holds that even Eruvei Techumim is only with bread. The text [of the Beraisa] in all old Seforim says "we are Me'arev Eruvei Techumim with anything..."

We are thinking that "we are Me'arev with anything" refers to all kinds of Peros. Whom do we know that he said [only] bread (like the Seifa teaches), but not anything else? R. Yehoshua did, for R. Eliezer said that "we are Me'arev with anything" refers to Chatzeros and Techumim;

And [the Beraisa] teaches regarding Techumim "anything". This shows that R. Yehoshua holds that Techumim is with anything!

Explanation (cont.): [Rabah bar bar Chanah answered that] rather, [our Mishnah] teaches unlike R. Yehoshua... Rather, "we are Me'arev with anything" means that we are Me'arev with any kind of bread, whether full [loaves] or incomplete.

Consequence: Now, our Mishnah "we are Me'arev with anything" applies only to Chatzeros, which we discussed above. It argues with R. Yehoshua, who requires full [loaves] for Chatzeros.

Implied question: Why didn't we answer Abaye's question that surely, R. Yehoshua admits that Eruvei Techumim are with everything, and our Mishnah teaches "we are Me'arev with anything" even for Chatzeros, and R. Yehoshua argues only about Chatzeros?

Answer: This is because if R. Eliezer discusses both of them, and R. Yehoshua argues only about Chatzeros, he should have explained that he discusses only Chatzeros.

Explanation (Ri): We discuss only when it is Tevel to Chalah (Chalah was not separated), or Meduma (it was mixed with Terumah). If there is no need for Tikun, there is enmity, even for a small Chisaron! The wording of our Mishnah connotes that they must be absolutely whole.

Question: The word "Kedei" (the amount of) is difficult. It should have said "its Chalah or Dimu'a was removed"! (Kedei connotes that this amount was removed, but it was not necessarily Chalah or Dimu'a.)

Answer (Ri): [The Tana] said "Kedei" to teach that even if he removed for the sake of Chalah, if he separated more than the amount needed, there is enmity.

Question: Since he taught Kedei Chalasah, which is one part in 48 (the Shi'ur for a baker), all the more so Kedei Dimu'ah, which is [one part in] more than 100 (i.e. one part in 101)!

Answer (Ri): One might have thought that since Dimu'a is proper for a Kohen, there is enmity even for a small amount [of Chisaron].

Explanation: They did so to test why Hash-m commanded Yechezkel [to make such bread].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is written after this "Lechem Anashim Lo Sochal." This shows that such bread (of wheat, barley, beans, lentils...) is not bread.

Correction: R. Tam changed the text, for this verse "Lechem Anashim" is written regarding Havra'ah (an Avel's first meal, i.e. after Yechezkel's wife died), which is very far from this Parshah (of inferior bread)!

Explanation #2: That [bread] was of other species, for it says 'v'Atah Kach Lecha", and it is eaten in the days of siege and in pressed circumstances. It is bread only for a hungry person, for a hungry dog will swallow its excrement (Bava Kama 92b).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Even if the grocer was Me'arev for all the others, and was Zocheh also for this one (who gave to him money), it is not an Eruv, for he did not intend to give to him a free gift, like others who are Mezakeh an Eruv, rather, to acquire the coin, and it is not acquired to him (since coins do not acquire).

Objection and Explanation #2: There was no need to explain like this. Even if he intended to be Makneh to him for free, and even if he was Mezakeh to him through someone else or took the coin and bought for him from the market, it is not an Eruv, since the giver intended to acquire from the grocer, and his coin does not acquire for him.

All Zechiyos that the grocer does are without the Da'as of the Ba'al ha'Bayis, and we are Me'arev only with his Da'as.

Support: Also the words of Rashi prove like this below.

Citation: In Chulin (83a) it explains [that the four times are] Erev (the day before) the first Yom Tov of Pesach, Erev Shavu'os, Erev Shemini Atzeres, and Erev Rosh Hashanah, and in Galil, also Erev Yom Kipur.

Implied question: Why doesn't it include Erev of the first Yom Tov of Sukos?

Answer (R. Tam): This is because everyone is busy with Sukah and Lulav, and they are not free to slaughter so much.

Explanation: He comes to explain Rav Huna's words, who established it when he was Moshech. I.e. this was Meshichah that was Mezakeh for him through another.

Support: This is why it does not say "Ela" (which denotes retraction), because he did not retract at all.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It says about redeeming Hekdesh "v'Nasan ha'Kesef v'Kam Lo", and all the more so one who buys from a person [acquires through coins];

Reish Lakish, who says that the Torah explicitly says that Meshichah acquires, and coins do not acquire, holds that we do not learn from Hekdesh. Kesef acquires for Hekdesh because Meshichah does not apply to Hekdesh, for wherever it is, it is in the treasure-house of Hash-m. (Meshichah is taking to the buyer's Reshus.)

Rebuttal: This is not so correct. In any case we should learn from Hekdesh that Kesef acquires also from a person!

Explanation #2 (Ri): It is because both cannot acquire for a person;

Source: In Bechoros (13b), R. Yochanan expounded "Oh Kano mi'Yad Amisecha" (one acquires from a Yisrael with Kesef), but with a Nochri, he acquires through Meshichah;

If both Meshichah and Kesef would acquire [for Yisraelim], how would a Nochri acquire?!

Suggestion: A Nochri would acquire through Kesef. He expounds [the exclusion] mi'Yad Amisecha to discuss Meshichah (it is only for Yisrael, but not for Nochrim).

Rejection: Still, since a Nochri acquires only through one [Kinyan], also a Yisrael acquires only through one! (This shows that we cannot say that both acquire for Yisrael.) The Gemara says like this there.

Explanation #3 (Ri): The reason that coins acquire mid'Oraisa is because Stam Kinyan written in the Torah is Kesef, like we find in several places that Kinyan is through Kesef, e.g. "Ochel ba'Kesef Tashbireni" and "Sados ba'Kesef Yiknu."

Implied question: It is written "Sefer ha'Miknah", from which we learn Kinyan through a document!

Answer #1: Even so, Stam Kinyan everywhere is through Kesef.

Answer #2: It is proven that the verse ["Oh Kano mi'Yad Amisecha"] discusses Kesef, for [the end of the verse says] "Al Tonu" (do not deceive about the value), and it refers to the buyer and seller.

Note: I do not understand this proof that the Kinyan was through Kesef. Tosfos ha'Rosh (Bava Metzi'a 47b) says that Ona'ah is only with Kesef.

Question: Why did Chachamim totally uproot Kinyan Kesef, which is mid'Oraisa? They should have enacted to require Kesef and Meshichah!

Answer #1 (Ri): They did so for Takanas ha'Shuk (to facilitate buying and selling), not to obligate both Meshichah and coins.

Answer #2 (Rivan): If Meshichah alone would not acquire, the buyer will tell the seller "your wheat burned in the Aliyah" (he will not toil to save it, for he can retract).

Question: If so, when the buyer gave coins and did not do Meshichah, the seller will tell him "your coins burned in the Aliyah", since the coins did not acquire (they still belong to the buyer)!

Answer #1: If not for the Rivan's answer, we could say that we are not concerned for this, for it is not common to delay Meshichah after giving the coins, since the coins do not acquire;

However, according to his answer, we cannot say so, for if so, also we should not be concerned lest the buyer say "your wheat burned in the Aliyah", for it is not common to delay the coins after Meshichah of the Peros, since Meshichah alone did not acquire!

Answer #1: It is easy to guard coins, and there is no toil to save them, like there is regarding Peros, which he can save only through great toil.

Answer #2 (Ri): Regarding coins, he cannot say "your coins burned in the Aliyah", for even if [the seller] were a Shomer Chinam on them, we say in Bava Metzi'a (42a) that [proper] Shemirah [of coins] is only in the ground;

If he did not put them in the ground, this is negligence [due to theft, and also] regarding a fire, like is proven there regarding the one who put coins in a hut of willow branches.

Question: How are we concerned lest [the seller] tell him "your wheat burned in the Aliyah"? He is a Shomer Sachar on them, and if he will not save, he will pay, just like regarding coins, the seller is a Shomer Sachar!

It connotes like this in Bava Metzi'a (49a) regarding the man who gave coins for sesame, and retracted. [The seller] told him "take your coins", and he did not take them, and they were stolen;

Rava said "in every such case, not only is [the seller] not a Shomer Sachar..." This implies that had he not told him "take your coins", he would be a Shomer Sachar on them. Likewise regarding the wheat, he is a Shomer Sachar!

Answer #1 (Ri): Really, also regarding coins he is not a Shomer Sachar;

[Rava] said "not only is he not a Shomer Sachar...", i.e. when [the owner] gives to [a Shomer Sachar] wages, and [the Shomer retracts, and] says "take your coins", he removed himself not only from the liability of a Shomer Sachar. Rather, he is not even a Shomer Chinam.

Support: We must explain so about the other case in which he said "these coins should be a deposit by you, for it is getting dark for me (Shabbos is coming)", and [the other replied] "my house is in front of you."

We conclude about this "not only is he not a Shomer Sachar..." You are forced to say that this means that [even if the owner] gives to him wages.

Answer #2: Even though regarding coins he is a Shomer Sachar, this is because it is permitted to spend them. (However, he is not a Shomer Sachar on wheat.)

Implied question: If one deposits coins with a Ba'al ha'Bayis, a Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a (43a) says that [the Shomer] may not use them!

Answer: Even so, a seller may use them. Since mid'Oraisa coins acquire, he has great power, and he can spend [them], even though Rabanan enacted that he acquires only through Meshichah.

The text: The text says "R. Yehoshua ben Levi said, wherever R. Yehudah taught 'when is this' or 'in what case' in our Mishnah, [he does not argue.] He merely explains the first Tana."

Support: It seems that [this is] the correct text, like Seforim that say "in our Mishnah", for in a Beraisa we find that R. Yehudah says 'when is this?' to argue, in Chulin (88a) regarding blood that splashed, and on the knife, and in Gitin (7a) regarding one who brings a Get on a boat. It is not proper to elaborate here. (See also Tosfos Beitzah 9b, Sukah 41a, Gitin 7b, Shevu'os 48a and Chulin 88a.)