MISHNAH: TECHUMIN OF FOODS
If one's food is outside of his Techum, those who made an Eruv to come to his Techum may not transport his food on his behalf.
If he had made an Eruv to go to his food, they may bring his food to him.
One may not send back food with guests whose arrival was made possible by their having made an Eruv, unless the host made them the owner of the food before Yom Tov.
TECHUMIM IN CASES OF SHEMIRAH
(Rav): The food being watched has the Techum of the Shomer.
(Shmuel): It has the Techum of its owner.
Question: Are Rav and Shmuel here being consistent with their positions regarding the case of one who brings his animal into the Chatzer of another, with his permission!?
R. Huna cites Rav as ruling like the Chachamim, who obligate the owner of the Chatzer in damages done by the animal (and likewise the Techum follows the Shomer).
Shmuel rules like Rebbi who exempts the owner of the Chatzer until he explicitly indicates that he is accepting liability (and likewise the Techum remains that of the owner).
Answer: Each could maintain his position regarding the Shomer according to both positions in Bava Kama.
(Rav): Even Rebbi will agree that the fruit follows the Techum of the trustee since he explicitly accepted liability.
(Shmuel): Even Rabanan will hold that the fruit follows the Techum of the depositor since it depends on whether the owner desires that the liability (and the consequent Techum) should pass to the Shomer.
Question (on Rav): Then why, in our Mishnah, should the Eruv made by the owner of the fruit affect its Techum when it is in the home of the Shomer!?
Answer (R. Huna): The corner of the house where the food was stored had been designated as the property of its owner (and the food thus remains bound by its owner's Techum).
Question (on Rav): Why should it help to give the food to the guests (via a third party) before Yom Tov since it remains in his trusteeship when Yom Tov begins!?
Answer: Here, too, it is as if he designated the place where the food is stored as the property of the guests.
Alternate Answer: The procedure of transferring it to their ownership (entirely so that they may take it home) changes the picture.
A SEEMINGLY RELATED INCIDENT
R. Huna only permitted R. Chana to take the meat home if he himself had hung it on the door.
Question: But R. Huna, a student of Rav, surely held that in any case it would be restricted to the Techum of the Shomer (his hosts)!?
Answer: The hosts merely gave him a place to hang his meat, like those who had designated the place above.
Question: But why, if they hung it, should he not be able to take it!?
(R. Hillel of R. Ashi) What about the implication of the Halachah of Shmuel that the Techum follows the one for whom the food is to be designated.
(Ravina of R. Ashi) We were taught that the Halachah follows R. Dosa (where we allow for assumptions about whose Techum should prevail).
(R. Ashi of R. Kehana) The Mishnah taught that animals and utensils follow the owner.
Answer: Rather, the issue was unrelated to Techum, but to the rule of Basar sheNis'alem (and had R. Chana not hung the meat himself he would not have a Siman that it was his).
MISHNAH: GIVING WATER TO AND SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS
One may not water and slaughter Midbariyos, only Baysos.
Baysos overnight in the town while Midbariyos remain in the pasture overnight.
THE REFERENCE TO WATERING
Question: Why is the watering mentioned here?
Answer: For the incidental teaching that such pre- Shechitah drinking eases the flaying.
REBBI'S VIEW ON MIDBARIYOS AND BAYSOS
(Tana of the Beraisa): Midbariyos are those which leave after Pesach and return only with the first rains while Baysos return each night to the Techum of the city.
(Rebbi): The above are both Baysos since Midbariyos are those which never return from their grazing grounds.
Question (R. Shimon b. Rebbi of his father): This seems to be a Muktzah issue, Rebbi does not hold of Muktzah!?
This is evidenced by Rebbi's answer employing the opinion of R. Shimon who does not hold of Muktzah.
The question pertained to dates which must be placed in palm baskets to ripen.
Rebbi had replied that, in Rebbi Shimon's opinion, they are not Muktzah, because only figs and grapes that one placed on the roof to dry to become dried figs and raisins are Muktzah (while these dates were never fit to eat and cannot be considered pushed out of one's mind).
There are three possible answers to this question:
Midbariyos are like the figs and grapes and should be considered pushed away given that they are unfit (since he has sent them away).
Rebbi said to his son only the opinion of R. Shimon, not his own ruling.
He holds like R. Shimon but in the Beraisa he was speaking to the Rabanan who disagreed with him and he was asking them to concede that those animals that come in from their grazing grounds when the first rains arrive, would not be Muktzah (even according to R. Yehudah).