Previous daf

1)

(a) We just concluded that Rav Hoshaya holds 'Ein Bereirah' by D'Oraysos, but 'Yesh Bereirah' by de'Rabanans. Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with him - he holds 'Ein Bereirah' by de'Rabanan's as well.

(b) The Halachah is like Rav Hoshaya - because Mar Zutra rules like him.

(a) 'Amar Shmuel, Shor shel Petem, Harei Hu ke'Raglei Kol Adam'. A 'Shor shel Petem' - is an ox that has been fattened in order to sell.

(b) 'Kol Adam' means whoever purchases it - even someone from another town who needed an Eiruv to come to this town.

(c) The reason for this is - because, since the animal has usually been sold by Erev Yom-Tov, they place the animal already then (assuming that it will not be sold by then), in the domain of whoever buys it on Yom-Tov .

(d) Shmuel says that a Shor shel Ro'eh - a private owned ox that the owner would often sell to people from his town. Shmuel says that it may go wherever the people of the town may go (i.e. two thousand Amos in all directions) - because (just like a Shor shel Petem) the owner already placed it before Yom-Tov in the domain of the town. (Consequently, this ruling will not be affected by the fact that the purchaser, or someone else in the town, made an Eiruv in any one direction).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if someone borrows a vessel from his friend on Erev Yom-Tov, the vessel follows the borrower regarding Techumin. This is not so obvious - because the Mishnah speaks when the owner agreed to lend him the vessels on Erev Yom-Tov, but he only received it *on* Yom-Tov (and we may otherwise have thought that we go after the time that the borrower received it).

(b) The Tana needs to tell us that vessels borrowed *on* Yom-Tov, follow the lender (and not the borrower) - in spite of the fact that the owner was accustomed to lending him those vessels. Nevertheless, unless he actually stated verbally that he will lend them to him, they remain firmly in the domain of the owner, and may go only wherever *he* may go.

(a) When Rebbi Aba went to Eretz Yisrael, he was keen to say something that would be accepted.

(b) The problem that the Amora'im of Eretz Yisrael have with our Mishnah, which rules that even the woman who owns the water and the salt prevents the woman who owns the flour from taking the dough where the other one cannot go, is - why the water and the salt should not become Bateil in the dough? Note: We appear to be dealing here with the little bit of water that does *not* become absorbed in the dough, because, the water that *does*, is certainly Bateil (seeing as it is no longer recognizable as a liquid).

(c) Rebbi Aba attempted to answer their Kashya - by comparing this to a case where one Kav of wheat belonging to Reuven fell into ten Kabin belonging to Shimon, which is obviously not Bateil (i.e. Shimon cannot claim ownership of Reuven's Kav and eat it), because one person's money does not become Bateil in another's.

5)

(a) The Amora'im reacted ...

1. ... to Rebbi Aba's answer - by laughing.
2. ... to Rebbi Aba's question when he asked them whether they had laughed because he took their 'Gulsa' - by laughing still more.

(b) Rav Oshaya justified their laughing, based on the fact that even Rebbi Aba did not ask from wheat and barley - because even he had to admit that one kind is Bateil in another (even when it comes to money matters). In that case, even wheat in wheat should become Bateil, too - according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah, who hold that something does become Bateil if it falls into the majority of the same kind.

(c) Rav said that someone who picks stones from his friend's granary is obligated to pay him, as if he had removed wheat.

(d) Rav Safra tries to substantiate Rebbi Aba from that ruling - from which we see that even something that is worth nothing does not become Bateil (in money matters), how much more so should the woman's water and salt not become Bateil in the other woman's dough.

(a) Abaye maintains that our case of the dough is not comparable to picking stones from his friend's granary - because *there*, the money (i.e. the stones) have a claimant, whereas the water and the salt (which the owner gave her friend) do not.

(b) Rav Chisda makes a distinction between a piece of Neveilah falling into a pot containing Shechutah - which *does* become Bateil (because the Shechutah can never be intrinsically forbidden like the Neveilah), and a piece of Shechutah falling into a pot of Neveilah - which does *not* (because the Neveilah, once it becomes unfit for a Ger to eat, becomes permitted, like the Shechutah).

(c) Rav Safra refutes Abaye's Kashya from there - because in our case too, even if the water and the salt do not now have claimants, and should therefore become Bateil, nevertheless, they will not be Bateil, because if it had an owner, it would not become Bateil.

(d) And he substantiates this with Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's statement that objects of Hefker acquire Shevisah independently as if they had an owner (and may consequently go two thousand Amos in all directions, and not wherever the person who finds them can go. So we see that objects have a certain independence even if they have no owner who is claiming them.

(a) Abaye nevertheless insists that the water and the salt should be Bateil - on the grounds that *Bitul* should apply in our case, because it is not an issue of Mamon, but one of Isur (Techumin) (Presumably, in cases of pure Isur, Rebbi Aba and Rav Safra will agree with Abaye. In our case however, they consider Eiruv Techumin, which is tied up with ownership, to be an issue of Mamon. [But it is Abaye who has the last word]).

(b) According to Abaye, the reason that the water and salt of the one woman prevent the owner of the flour from taking her dough to wherever *she* is permitted to go is - because of a decree, in case, next time, they will go on to make a dough in partnership, and think that, just as last time, the owner of the dough was permitted to take it to wherever she was allowed to go, so too, this time, will the dough be able to go wherever *either of them* can go.

(c) Rava explains that the *spices* are not Bateil in the dish - because spices are made specifically to give taste, and whatever is added for taste, cannot become Bateil (mi'de'Rabbanan). He agrees with Abaye's explanation regarding the dough, and Abaye agrees with his explanation regarding the cooked dish.

(d) Rav Ashi disagrees with the original Kashya. According to him, the water and the salt, as well as the spices, in fact do not become Bateil - because Techumin is an Isur which can become permitted without Bitul: either by waiting until tomorrow, in which case, one will then be permitted to take the dish or the dough wherever they want, or by eating it immediately without carrying it outside the T'chum (and such an Isur does not become Bateil - see Tosfos DH 'Mishum').