Question: Tosfos explained earlier (on Daf 38.) that 'Davar she'Yesh lo Matirin is confined to 'Miyn be'Miyno'.

Answer #1: That is indeed correct, only here by Techumin it is different, in that it is strict as if it was 'Miyn be'Miyno', because it concerns money-matters.

Answer #2: Alternatively, since the dough can only be kneaded with water, and the dish is perfected with spices, once they are mixed together it is as if they are 'Miyn be'Miyno'.

Question: The Gemara in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 6.) says that 'If it is Hekdesh, it is not necessary to cover it, since people keep away from it'. So we see that people do keep away from Hekdesh?

Answer: It is true that they keep away from it when compared to Chulin, but when compared to Avodah-Zarah, they don't.

Question: Why is the vessel not Bateil to the flame?

Source: For so the Gemara says in Perek ha'Matzni'a (Shabbos Daf 93:) 'If one carries out food less than the Shi'ur, he is Patur on the vessel as well', because the vessel is Bateil to the food.

Answer: Here is different, since the flame is not Chashuv for the vessel to become Bateil to it, seeing as it is abstract.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked from the case itself, where it forbids the bathhouse because they are partners?

Answer: Only the case from which it asks is more straightforward (Tosfos Yeshanim).

Explanation #1: Rav Nachman holds 'Kanah Chaveiro', which is why he says that 'the water may go where the person on whose behalf it was drawn may go'.

Question: Rashi queries this from the Gemara in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 10. & 10:) where he specifically says 'ha'Magbihah Meyzi'a la'Chaveiro, Lo Kanah Chaveiro'?

Amended Text: Therefore Rashi changes the text to 'They argue over 'Magbihah Meyzi'a la'Chaveiro', and no more.

Explanation #2: And the explanation is like this - Rav Nachman holds 'Lo Kanah ha'Magbihah', since it was not his intention to acquire it, and so it remains Hefker until it reaches the hand of the person on whose behalf he drew it. He acquires it with Meshichah, seeing as he had in mind to acquire it.

Implied Question: And even though (he holds) 'ha'Magbihah ... Lo Kanah Chaveiro'?

Answer: That is only as long as it remains in the hands of the one who picked it up, since he is able to claim that he picked it up for himself.

Answer (cont.): But once his friend takes it (from him), he acquires it from Hefker, seeing as the one who picked it up did not do so on his behalf.

Source: As we learn there, "If after he gave it to him, he said 'I acquired it', it is ineffective".

Explanation #2 (cont.): That is why 'It can go where the one on whose behalf the water was drawn can go'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas Rav Sheishes says that When someone picks up an article on behalf of his friend, the one who picks it up acquires it first, and his friend receives it from him. Consequently, the water goes after the one who draws it.

Question #1: It is a Dochek to erase the text that appears in the Sefarim?

Question #2: Moreover, it is not logical what Rav Sheishes says that the one who picks it up acquires it first, without the intention of doing so?

Explanation #3: The Rashbam therefore explains that it is possible to resolve the problem with the current text ...

Reinstating Original Text #1: And what Rashi asks is not really a Kashya at all, because there is different, since the Gemara itself gives the reason as being that 'He takes something for one creditor at the expense of another one', seeing as others will subequently not be able to find the lost article. And that is why Rav Nachman holds that he does not acquire it.

Reinstating Original Text #1 (cont.): Whereas here Rav Nachman justifiably holds that the one on whose behalf the water is filled does acquire it, since, bearing in mind that plenty of water remains for others to draw, it is not at anybody else's expense.

Reinstating Original Text #2: Furthermore Rabeinu Tam explains that it is possible to retain the original text ...

Explanation #3: And to explain the Gemara as follows: 'The one who holds 'ha'Magbihah Meyzi'a la'Chaveiro, Kanah Chaveiro' is Rav Sheishes.'

Explanation #3 (cont.): Which is why he says 'that the water can go as far as the one who draws it can go, because 'Kanah Chaveiro' is based on the S'vara 'Migu de'Zachi le'Nafsheih ... (since he acquires it for himself, he can also acquire for his friend)'. And since the Kinyan comes about via him, it stands to reason that it can go wherever he can go.

Explanation #3 (cont.): Whereas Rav Nachman holds 'Lo Kanah Chaveiro'.

Resolving the Gemara in Bava Metzi'a: According to this explanation, the Gemara in Bava Metzi'a conforms with this Sugya, since there too, he does not acquire.

Explanation #3 (concl.): That being the case, the water remains Hefker as long as it has not reached the hands of the one on whose behalf it was drawn. And when it does, he will acquire it from Hefker. Therefore it can go wherever he can go.

The Maharshal erases this section from the text of Tosfos.