Beitzah 38a — the Talmud in English

And we raised this: What is different about “to here and to there” that it is not

an eruv, since

there is no berera."

If so, even when he said

“east and west” there is likewise no berera,

to say: The matter was clarified at the time when the day was sanctified, that the sage was destined to come from the side from which he arrived on the following day. For it is possible that the sage will come neither here nor there; and regarding the possibility that no sage will come at all, he stipulated and said: “I am like the inhabitants of my city.” It follows that at the time when the day was sanctified, it was not known whether his eruvin took effect, and their taking effect depended upon a clarification that would occur on the following day. But this is “there is no berera”?!

And Rabbi Yohanan said

to explain: Even regarding east and west, he cannot say, “If a sage comes to the east, my eruv is to the east, and if he comes to the west, my eruv is to the west.” The eruv is effective only if

the sage had already come

at the time when the day was sanctified, but he does not know it; and therefore he can make his eruv conditional upon a reality that is clear at the time of acquiring the eruv.

It follows

that we have learned:

Rabbi Yohanan does not hold of berera,

and how can you say that it was Rabbi Yohanan who said—regarding the animal and the barrel—that there is no berera?

As a result of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts its reversal of the statements of the amoraim who disagreed regarding the barrel and the partners’ animal, in order to resolve the contradiction in the words of Rabbi Oshaya, who holds that regarding the barrel and the partners’ animal there is berera, whereas regarding the openings of the house of the dead Rabbi Oshaya held that there is no berera. And it resolves it in another manner:

Rather, in fact, do not reverse it,

and indeed it was Rabbi Oshaya who said that regarding the barrel and the partners’ animal there is berera. Nevertheless, there is no difficulty from the openings of the house of the dead:

But does Rabbi Oshaya not hold of berera in matters of Torah law,

such as regarding the openings of the house of the dead?

But in matters of rabbinic law,

such as regarding tehumim,

he does hold

of berera, according to Rabbi Oshaya.

Mar Zutra expounded: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya.

Shmuel said:

An ox of a fattener

[one who fattens oxen in order to sell them]

is like the feet of every person,

meaning that anyone who bought it may lead it to every place to which he himself may go. Since it is the practice of a fattener to sell, the fattener had already, on the previous day, placed it in the possession of that purchaser who would come to buy it, and when the day was sanctified, the animal acquired the future purchaser’s place of residence.

But

an ox of a shepherd

[one who raises his own animals and sometimes sells some of his animals]

is like the feet of

the people

Rashi

of that city.

That is to say: If one of the inhabitants of the city bought it, he may lead it within the city’s tehum, even though the shepherd himself made an eruv in another direction and is not permitted to lead his belongings throughout the city’s entire tehum. For on the previous day the shepherd had placed it in the possession of a purchaser who was one of the city’s inhabitants, since the inhabitants of the city were accustomed to buy from him.

But if someone from another city bought it, he cannot lead it according to his feet, since the shepherd does not have the status there of a livestock merchant whom the inhabitants of another city would recognize and buy from [but he may lead it within the city’s tehum, Ran].

We learned in the Mishna:

One who borrows a utensil from his fellow on the eve of the Festival is like the feet of the borrower:

And we were astonished:

Is it obvious?!

And we answered:

It is necessary

for our Mishna to teach something new, but only in a case

where he handed it over to him only on the Festival,

and on the eve of the Festival he lent it to him only verbally, but he did not draw it into his possession.

And it is a novelty, for:

It might enter your mind to say that he did not place it in his possession

[the lender did not place it in the borrower’s possession] before daybreak, since he did not draw it into his possession, and it should therefore be like the feet of the lender, in whose possession it was when the day was sanctified.

It teaches us

our Mishna that nevertheless it is like the feet of the borrower, since once he promised it to him, he had already, on the eve of the Festival, placed it in his possession.

It supports

[our Mishna supports]

the

words of

Rabbi Yohanan, for Rabbi Yohanan said: One who borrows a utensil from his fellow on the eve of the Festival, even though he gave it to him only on the Festival, it is like the feet of the borrower.

We learned in the Mishna: One who borrows a utensil from his fellow, etc.,

on the Festival, it is like the feet of the lender:

And we were astonished: Since not even a mere verbal agreement existed on the eve of the Festival—for had there been a verbal agreement, this would be the first clause, in which we say that it is like the feet of the borrower—then

it is obvious

that the utensil acquires the place of residence of the lender, in whose possession it was when the day was sanctified?! And we answered:

It is necessary

for our Mishna to teach something new, but only in a case

where he regularly borrows from him

[with a borrower who regularly borrows it from him].

And it is a novelty, for:

It might enter your mind to say that he places it in his possession

[the lender places it in the borrower’s possession before daybreak], since he regularly does so.

It teaches us

our Mishna that since the borrower did not tell the lender before daybreak that he wished to borrow the utensil,

he says

[the lender says to himself]:

Perhaps he will find another person and go and borrow it from him

[perhaps the borrower found another person who would lend it to him], and therefore he does not place it in his possession.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise, a woman who borrowed from her fellow

spices, water, and salt for her dough, these are like the feet of both of them:

The Kehillot Yaakov wrote concerning the following passage that it is among the obscure passages in the Talmud. According to the version of the Baal HaMaor and the Meiri’s interpretation, the passage is more readily understood; and according to this version and the Meiri’s interpretation, the passage is explained here.

When Rabbi Abba ascended

[when Rabbi Abba ascended from Babylonia to the Land of Israel]

he said: May it be the will that I say a matter that will be accepted,

may it be the will that I say a matter of Torah that will be accepted in the eyes of the scholars of the place, and that I not be ashamed before them.

When he ascended, he found

[when he ascended to the Land, he found]

Rabbi Yohanan, Rabbi Hanina bar Pappi, and Rabbi Zeira—and some say: Rabbi Abahu, Rabbi Shimon ben

Pazi, and Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥ—and they were sitting and saying

[sitting and raising difficulties concerning our Mishna]:

Why

do they not lead the dough except according to the feet of the owner of the water and salt,

and let the water and salt be nullified with respect to the dough,

and why should the prohibition of the tehumim of the water and salt not be nullified within the rest of the dough—for most of the dough belongs to her, and she borrowed only a small amount of water and salt from her fellow—and every prohibition is nullified by the majority?!

Rabbi Abba said to them,

but does nullification apply here?!