Previous daf

1)

(a) If five groups settle down in a large salon, each with its own exit to the courtyard, Beis Shamai requires each group to participate in the Eruv of the Chatzer independently.
Will this apply, even if there are no Mechitzos separating them?

(b) When there *are* Mechitzos, an Eruv is required.
What are the other two ramifications of this Halachah?

(c) Beis Hillel considers them as one family. In which case (in the Mishnah itself) do Beis Hillel agree that each group requires its own Eruv?

(a) According to the first Lashon of Rav Nachman, Beis Hillel will concede that, when a proper Mechitzah divides the groups, each group needs its own Eruv. They argue by a Mesipas.
What constitutes a proper Mechitzah, and what is a 'Mesipas'?

(b) What does Rav Nachman say in the second Lashon?

(c) Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi disagree with both Leshonos of Rav Nachman. One of them establishes the Machlokes by full-size Mechitzos that reach the ceiling.
What will be the Din if they don't?

(d) What does the other Lashon hold?

3)

(a) A Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yehudah ha'Sabar, who says that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue by Mechitzos that do *not* reach the ceiling, but when they *do*, they agree that the groups each require their own Eruv. This is clearly a proof for one of the opinions cited at the end of Amud Aleph and a Kashya on the other, of the opinions brought . It is also a Kashya on the first Lashon of Rav Nachman (that they argue specifically by a Mesipas).
Is it possible for the second Lashon of Rav Nachman (that they *also* argue by a Mesipas), to conform with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Sabar?

(b) In that case, since Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel disagree in *both* cases, why does the Tana present their Machlokes by a Mechitzah, and not by a Mesipas?

(c) So why do they not argue by a Mesipas to teach us the extent of Beis Shamai?

5)

(a) The Beraisa confines Beis Shamai's Din to when the five groups take their Eruv to one of the other houses of the Chatzer, but not to when the other residents of the courtyard bring their Eruvin to *them*. How does this Beraisa explain the basis of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel?

(b) Who will then be the author of the Beraisa which permits *one* of the participants in the Eruv of his Chatzer to place an Eruv in another Chatzer on behalf of his co-residents?

(c) And what is the basis of their Machlokes, according to the second Lashon of the Beraisa, which establishes the Machlokes when the Eruv is brought to *them*, but that, when it is *they* who place their Eruv in another house in the Chatzer, even Beis Hillel will agree that each group must place its own Eruv?

(a) Brothers who eat by their father but who sleep elsewhere in the Chatzer must make their own Eruv.
What is the Din with regard to Bitul Reshus? Is it necessary? Will it help?

(b) Does this mean that, with regard to Eruv, we go after the place where a person sleeps, as opposed to where he eats?

(c) In which two cases do the brothers not require an individual Eruv, and why is that?

(a) If someone owns the following in his friend's courtyard, is his friend obligated to make an Eruv in order to carry from his house to the Chatzer and vice-versa - according to the Tana Kama:

1. ... a 'gate-house', a porch or a balcony?
2. ... a straw-store, a cattle-barn or a store-house?

(b) What does Rebbi Yehudah say about this?