Explanation (Rashi): When there are nicer ones, he revealed his intent that he is pleased. He is like one who made a Shali'ach from the beginning.

Question: In Bava Metzi'a (22a), we establish it when he made him a Shali'ach! (We cannot learn from here to when he did not make him a Shali'ach.)

Answer: Granted, he made him a Shali'ach to take Terumah, but he did not make him a Shali'ach to take Terumah from the nice ones;

Regarding this, Rashi explained that he is like one who make him a Shali'ach to take Terumah from the nice ones, since nicer ones were found.

Question: In Gitin (77b), regarding a Shechiv Mera, [Rava] said that he should be Makneh to her the place where the Get was resting. She will go and close and open [the door to acquire it]. It was Shabbos, like it says there!

Answer: They permitted a Shechiv Mera, lest he get frantic (which could kill him).

Question: Perhaps only a Kinyan that is not needed is permitted, like the case in Bava Basra (156b) that even without a Kinyan he acquires, like it says there that the Halachah does not follow R. Elazar (who requires a Kinyan. Rather, he acquires even without a Kinyan!)

Rejection: It connotes there that if the Halachah followed R. Elazar, all the more so it would be fine, that they would need to permit! (It is easier to permit a Kinyan that is needed.)

Also here (the Shechiv Mera who divorced), there is concern for lest he get frenzied, if he could not divorce her like he wanted!

Proof: Even without a Kinyan, there is an Isur to divorce on Shabbos, like a Tosefta teaches "we are not Mekadesh or Megaresh on Shabbos"!

Rather, surely they permitted only regarding a Shechiv Mera, lest he get frenzied, for he fears lest he die on Shabbos, and he does not want to wait until Chol (Motza'ei Shabbos). Likewise, they permitted also a Kinyan.

Support: also the Rashbam ruled like this. Even a partial Matanas Shechiv Mera, which requires a Kinyan, one may acquire from him on Shabbos.

Implied question: The same applies to wine and wine in two Kelim!

Answer #1: The Beraisa discusses a common case. (It is not normal to put wine in two Kelim.)

Answer #2: (He taught wine and oil in order to be concise.) There was no need for the Tana to specify that Stam wine and oil are in two Kelim.

Implied question: Beis Hillel permitted above (49a) an Eruv put in two Kelim when he filled the Kli was there was left over!

Answer: That is when they collected for the sake of Eruv, like Rashi explained. However, here it was not for the sake of Shituf. It is valid in one Kli, but not in two.

Implied question: All foods join for [the Shi'ur of] two meals for an Eruv, and the same applies to liquids!

Answer: That is only when they became partners for the sake of Eruv.

Implied question: Why didn't he establish it to literally discuss three Chatzeros, like the other Mishnah?

Answer: Eruvei Chatzeros require bread, both according to R. Meir and Rabanan below (71b). He does not want to establish it like the one who says with wine, and he argues with R. Meir and Rabanan.

Explanation: [R. Shimon] does not decree according to Rav Sheshes, who establishes it above (48a) that two put their Eruv in the middle [Chatzer], and in two houses;

Here, even in one house and in two Kelim, it is like two houses, since he did not do so for the sake of Shituf;

No matter what you will say, here both of them are in the Chatzer, for Shituf Mavo'os is [placed] in a Chatzer in the Mavuy.

Explanation: Here it connotes that oil is considered a liquid, since R. Yochanan ben Nuri says "both of them are connected." If it were considered a food, since a Tevul Yom only disqualifies (he is not Metamei something to enable it to disqualify something else), the oil would not be Metamei the wine;

It is unreasonable to say that Rabanan and R. Yochanan ben Nuri argue about this, whether or not one can separate between one and the other.

Support #1: A Beraisa in Pesachim (17a) says that blood, water, oil and wine are liquids of the Mizbe'ach.

Support #2: The verse in Chagai "v'El ha'Yayin v'El ha'Shemen" proves that it is a liquid.

Support #3: A Mishnah there (14a) teaches "R. Akiva added, all the days of Kohanim, they never refrained from burning oil disqualified through a Tevul Yom in a lamp that became Tamei through a Tamei Mes, even though they increase its Tum'ah";

The Gemara says that R. Akiva holds that the Tum'ah of liquids to be Metamei others is mid'Oraisa.

Question (R. Tam): It says in Menachos (31a) that R. Meir says that oil of a Tevul Yom (he touched it) is always a Rishon l'Tum'ah. (Chachamim decreed that Tamei liquids are always a Rishon). Chachamim say, even honey (is always a Rishon). R. Shimon Shezuri says, wine;

We conclude that R. Shimon Shezuri says only wine, but not oil. It connotes there that the Halachah follows R. Shimon Shezuri!

Answer (R. Tam): There it discusses congealed [liquids], like the Reisha in Taharos (3:1) "oil, milk and bean porridge, when they are wet, they are a Rishon. If they congealed, they are a Sheni." I.e. they are foods;

R. Meir says, oil is always a Rishon. "Always" means even if it congealed, unlike Rashi explained in Menachos "whether it became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah, or through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah.

Explanation: This is not like Bereirah everywhere else, like Rashi explained, for it is as if they joined with coins. The wine was not clarified to each one.

Version #1: This is Rashi's text.

Version #2: R. Chananel's text says "we do like two stringencies in Eruv." I.e. here we do like two stringencies.

Question: The words "in Eruv" are not so compatible with this, for they connote in every [law of] Eruv!

Inference: This connotes a little that l'Chatchilah, the Mitzvah is with wine more than with bread, since it did not teach similar to the Reisha "we join in the Mavuy with bread, and if they wanted to join with wine, they join."

Perhaps with wine it is more evident that it is Shituf. However, anything helps, like the Mishnah above (26b);

Also below (80a), a Beraisa says "how do we do Shituf in a Mavuy? They bring a barrel of wine, oil, dates, dried figs or any kind of Peros..."

Explanation: This is because bread suffices here and here (for Shituf and Eruv Chatzeros).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Both according to this one and this one (R. Meir and Chachamim), we rely in the Mavuy on Eruvei Chatzeros, which is always with bread;

Therefore, what was taught "we are Me'arev in Chatzeros and make Shituf in the Mavuy", we need not say that after being Me'arev in Chatzeros, there is still a need for Shituf in the Mavuy;

Rather, we are Me'arev in Chatzeros with bread, even though they make Shituf in the Mavuy with wine.

Objection #1: The words do not connote like this.

Objection #2: A Mishnah below (73b) says that if five Chatzeros were open to each other and open to a Mavuy, if the Chatzeros were Me'arev and they did not do Shituf in the Mavuy, they are permitted in the Chatzeros and forbidden in the Mavuy;

The Gemara says who [taught this]? It is R. Meir, who says that we require Eruv and we require Shituf.

Answer: We can establish that Sugya like the opinion that they argue about bread, and the opinion that they do not argue about bread, holds like Rav, that the text does not say "open to each other."

Explanation #2 (Ri): This refers to Shituf with bread. Since it suffices with wine, and they forced themselves to do it with bread, and made it stronger, it helps even for the Chatzeros.

Also, Shituf is for all the houses and all the Chatzeros, for they all join together, but Eruvei Chatzeros with bread should not help so much in the Mavuy.

Consequence: According to what [the Ri] explained that even the opinion that they do not argue about bread, agrees that they argue about Eruvei Chatzeros with bread, whether it helps for the Mavuy...

The Ri says that we can explain "two stringencies in Eruvin" above, that had [Rav] said that the Halachah follows R. Eliezer ben Tadai, we would not know what is his reason;

And had he said that the Halachah follows R. Meir, one might have thought in one [way], that we do not rely on Eruv in place of Shituf;

R. Meir's words connote like this. He said "we are Me'arev in Chatzeros and make Shituf in the Mavuy." This connotes that even though they were Me'arev, they still need to make Shituf. However, we rely on Shituf in place of Eruv.

He taught unlike this - the Halachah follows R. Eliezer ben Tadai. We do not rely on Shituf in place of Eruv. Presumably, he comes to reveal that the Halachah follows R. Meir totally.

Remark: Rashi's Perush above regarding two stringencies is better.

Question #1: When they were Me'arev in the Chatzeros with bread, and they left the Eruv in one of the houses, it should help according to everyone for the Mavuy!

Suggestion: [It does not] because a Beraisa below (85b) teaches that Eruv Chatzeros is placed in a house, and Shituf Mavo'os in a Mavuy. Since this was placed in a house, it is not called Shituf, rather, Eruv.

Rebuttal #1: Rashi explained below (73b) regarding "here they were reclining in the house, and here they were reclining in the Chatzer", that this that we say that Shituf Mavo'os is in a Chatzer in the Mavuy, and all the more so [it is valid] in a house! [Rashi] explained like this also in Sukah (3b).