Previous daf

1)

(a) Accoring to Rav, the 'Makom Dirah' required by Rebbi Yehudah (to create a need for an Eruv) means the place where he eats. What does Shmuel hold?

(b) According to Rav, why do shepherds and guards create their own independent Eruv (two thousand Amah limit) where they *sleep* out in the fields, despite the fact that they *eat* in the town?

(c) Rav Yosef claimed that he had not heard of Rav's Din before.
How did Abaye prove to him that he had?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah maintains that five women who have their own sleeping quarters in their husband's Chatzer, and who receive their food from him do not require an Eruv. In the same situation however, five slaves do. Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava holds the reverse.
Why does he disagree by slaves?

(b) What will be the equivalent Din with regard to Talmidim by their Rebbe?

(a) Rabah rules that it is sufficient for *one* of five residents of a Chatzer who made an Eruv to give bread to combine with the Eruv of another Chatzer.
The Gemara then asks how he accounts for our Mishnah, which considers five brothers as if they had combined, yet each one is required to give again, in order to combine with the other members of the Chatzer. What leads the Gemara to contend that one considers brothers as if they would have combined?

(b) How does the Gemara answer the Kashya? What is in fact, the difference between the two cases?

(c) How does the Gemara prove this?

(a) If Talmidim eat at the nearest inn, but sleep in their lodgings at the Yeshivah, do they measure their Techum Shabbos from where they eat or from where they sleep, and why is this?

(b) From where does someone who places his Eruv in one place, but who sleeps at home, measure his Techum Shabbos? Why the difference?

(a) Do a father and son who live together, or a Rav and his Talmid constitute Yechidim or a Rabim when there is nobody else living in the same Chatzer?

(b) Which two other possible ramification of this ruling is brought in the Gemara?

(c) Rashi brings a second ramification with regard to a father and son who live in an inner-courtyard.
What is it?

(d) What does the Gemara conclude with regard to whether a afther ans son require an Eruv, and whether, or not, the Mavoy becomes permitted through a Lechi or Koreh?

(a) Who is the author of our Mishnah, which rules that an Eruv Chatzeros cannot double as a Shituf Mavu'os?

(b) Then how do we explain the next case 've'Im Nishtatfu be'Mavoy, Mutarin Kahn ve'Kahn'?

7)

(a) The Seifa of the Mishnah reads 'Shachach Echad mi'B'nei Mavoy ve'Lo Nishtatfu, Mutarin ba'Chatzeros, va'Asurin be'Mavoy'. Assuming that this too, goes like Rebbi Meir, would the Tana be speaking with or without Bitul Reshus?

(b) The Gemara contends that this reflects on the previous statement 'Shachach Echad mi'Bnei Chatzer, ve'Lo Erav, Mutarin Kahn ve'Kahn'.
Who would now have to be the author of this statement, and what is the problem with that?

(c) How does we dispel the problem and still establish the entire Mishnah (including the last-mentioned case) like Rebbi Meir?

(a) Our Mishnah reads 'Chamesh Chatzeros, u'Pesuchos le'Mavoy ... ve'Im Nishtatfu be'Mavoy, Mutarin Kahn ve'Kahn'. Why does Rav, and perhaps Rav Kahana, omit the phrase 'Pesuchos Zu le'Zu'?

(b) What is the problem with this from the Mishnah that we learnt above 'Ba'al ha'Bayis she'Hayah Shutaf li'Shecheinav la'Zeh be'Yayin, ve'la'Zeh be'Yayin, Ein Tzerichin le'Arev'?

(c) What does the Gemara answer?

(a) Will an Eruv placed in one of the Chatzeros of the Mavoy qualify as ...

1. ... an Eruv Chatzeros?
2. ... as a Shituf Mavu'os?

(b) What did Rav say - in connection with Eruv - about a group of people who were eating when Shabbos came in, that refutes the contention held in the previous question?

(c) What then, is Rav's real reason for erasing 'Pesuchos Zu le'Zu' from our Mishnah?