ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) Shmuel rules that Shor shel Petem - (an ox that has been fattened in order to sell) Harei Hu k'Raglei Kol Adam'.
(b) 'Kol Adam' means - whoever purchases it (even someone from another town who needed an Eruv to come to this town).
(c) The reason for this ruling is - because based on the fact that the animal has usually been sold by Erev Yom-Tov, the owner, assuming that his animal will be no exception, places the animal already before Yom-Tov, in the domain of whoever buys it on Yom-Tov.
(a) Shmuel rules that a Shor shel Ro'eh - (a privately-owned ox that the owner would often sell to people from his town) shares the Techum of the people of the town ...
(b) ... (i.e. two thousand Amos in all directions).
(c) It does not share the Techum of the respective purchaser (assuming he made an Eruv in any one direction) - because (just like a Shor shel Petem) the owner already placed it before Yom-Tov, in the domain of the town.
(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, a statement that 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 well have thought that we go after the time that the borrower received it).
(b) This serves as a proof for Rebbi Yochanan, who said - that a vessel that Reuven borrows from Shimon on Erev Yom-Tov shares Reuven's Techum, even if he only received it on Yom-Tov.
(c) The Tana needs to tell us that vessels that are borrowed on Yom-Tov, share the Techum of the lender - even in a case where the owner was accustomed to lending him those vessels, because when the borrower failed to come for them on Erev Yom-Tov, the owner assumes that he must have found somebody else from whom to borrow.
(a) When Rebbi Aba went to Eretz Yisrael, he was keen to say something that would be accepted.
(b) The problem Rebbi Avin (or Rebbi Avahu) and his colleagues had 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 Batel to the dough!?
(c) Rebbi Aba in an attempt to answer their Kashya - compared this to a case where one Kav of wheat belonging to Reuven fell into ten Kabin belonging to Shimon, which is obviously not Batel (since one person's money cannot become Batel in another's).
(d) The Chachamim 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' - (a smart garment worn underneath one's outer garment, that one takes off before sitting down) by laughing still more.
(a) 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 Batel in another (even when it comes to money matters). In that case, even wheat in wheat should become Batel, too - according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Yehudah, who hold that something does become Batel if it falls into the majority of the same kind ...
(b) ... and that Shimon can keep Reuven's wheat and pay him money instead.
(c) Rav Safra tries to substantiate Rebbi Aba from a statement of Rebbi Chiya Ketuspa'ah Amar Rav, who rules - that someone who picks stones from his friend's granary is obligated to pay him, as if he had removed wheat ...
(d) ... and if even something that is worth nothing does not become Batel (in money matters), how much more so should the woman's water and salt not become Batel in the other woman's dough (like Rebbi Aba).
(a) Abaye maintains that our case (of the water and salt in the dough) is not comparable to picking stones from his friend's granary - because there (in the latter case), the stones (which are stolen) have a claimant, whereas the water and the salt (which the owner lent her friend) do not.
(b) Rav Safra counters by citing a ruling of Rav Chisda - who rules that a piece of Neveilah that fell into a pot containing Shechutah becomes Batel (because the Shechutah can never be intrinsically forbidden like the Neveilah), whereas a piece of Shechutah which fell into a pot of Neveilah does not (because the Neveilah, once it becomes unfit for a Ger to eat, becomes permitted, like the Shechutah).
(c) Rav Safra now 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 Batel, nevertheless, they will not become Batel, because if they had an owner, they would not become Batel.
(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 (a proof that objects have a certain independence even if there is no claimant).
(a) Abaye nevertheless insists that the water and the salt should become Batel - on the grounds that Bitul should apply in our case, because it is not an issue of Mamon, but one of Isur Techumin (Note, that in cases of pure Isur, it is safe to assume that Rebbi Aba and Rav Safra will agree with Abaye. In our case however, they consider Eruv Techumin, which is tied up with ownership, to be an issue of Mamon. [But it is Abaye who has the last word]).
(b) And to resolve the Chachamim's original Kashya (as to why 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) - Abaye cites a decree, in case, next time, the two women will decide 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 each woman be able to take it wherever she is permitted to go.
(c) Rava explains that the spices do not become Batel to the dish - because spices are made specifically to give taste, and whatever is added for taste, cannot become Batel (mid'Rabanan). He agrees with Abaye's explanation regarding the dough, and Abaye agrees with his explanation regarding the cooked dish.
(a) Rav Ashi dismisses the Chachamim's Kashya outright. To explain why the water and the salt do not become Batel - he cites the principle 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin, Lo Batel' (Something does not become Batel if it will become permitted even without Bitul) ...
(b) ... which in this case incorporates either waiting until tomorrow (when one will in any case be permitted to take the dish or the dough wherever one wants), or by eating it immediately without carrying it outside the Techum (see Tosfos DH 'Mishum').