Beitzah — Daf 37b

דלא כר' דוסא דתניא ר' דוסא אומר ואמרי לה אבא שאול אומר הלוקח בהמה מחברו מערב יו"ט אע"פ שלא מסרה לו אלא ביו"ט הרי היא כרגלי הלוקח והמוסר בהמה לרועה אע"פ שלא מסרה לו אלא ביו"ט הרי היא כרגלי הרועה

אפי' תימא ר' דוסא ולא קשיא כאן ברועה אחד כאן בשני רועים דיקא נמי דקתני לבנו או לרועה שמע מינה

אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן הלכה כר' דוסא ומי אמר ר' יוחנן הכי והאמר ר' יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן הבהמה והכלים כרגלי הבעלים

ולאו אוקימנא כאן ברועה אחד כאן בשני רועים

ת"ר שנים ששאלו חלוק אחד בשותפות זה לילך בו שחרית לבית המדרש וזה ליכנס בו ערבית לבית המשתה זה ערב עליו לצפון וזה ערב עליו לדרום זה שערב עליו לצפון מהלך לצפון כרגלי מי שערב עליו לדרום

וזה שערב עליו לדרום מהלך לדרום כרגלי מי שערב עליו לצפון

ואם מצעו את התחום הרי זה לא יזיזנה ממקומה

אתמר שנים שלקחו חבית ובהמה בשותפות רב אמר חבית מותרת ובהמה אסורה ושמואל אמר חבית נמי אסורה

מאי קסבר רב אי קא סבר יש ברירה אפי' בהמה תשתרי ואי קסבר אין ברירה אפילו חבית נמי אסורה

לעולם קסבר יש ברירה ושניא בהמה דקא ינקי תחומין מהדדי אמרי ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב לאיסור מוקצה לא חששו לאיסור תחומין חששו שתיק רב

מאי הוי עלה ר' הושעיא אמר יש ברירה ור' יוחנן אמר אין ברירה

וסבר ר' הושעיא יש ברירה והתנן המת בבית ולו פתחים הרבה כולן טמאים נפתח אחד מהן הוא טמא וכולן טהורים חשב להוציאו באחד מהן או בחלון שיש בו ארבעה על ארבעה מצלת על הפתחים כולן

ב"ש אומרים והוא שחשב עליו עד שלא ימות המת וב"ה אומרים אף משימות המת

ואתמר עלה אמר ר' הושעיא לטהר את הפתחים מכאן ולהבא מכאן ולהבא אין למפרע לא

אפוך ר' הושעיא אמר אין ברירה ור' יוחנן אמר יש ברירה

ומי אית ליה לר' יוחנן ברירה והאמר רב אסי א"ר יוחנן האחין שחלקו לקוחות הן ומחזירין זה לזה ביובל

וכי תימא כי לית ליה לרבי יוחנן ברירה בדאורייתא אבל בדרבנן אית ליה

ובדרבנן מי אית ליה והתני איו

ר' יהודה אומר אין אדם מתנה על שני דברים כאחד אלא אם בא חכם למזרח עירובו למזרח למערב עירובו למערב ואילו לכאן ולכאן לא

is not as R. Dosa, for it was taught: R. Dosa says — some say, Abba Saul says: If one buys a beast from his neighbour on the eve of the Festival, even though he did not deliver it to him until the Festival, it is [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the purchaser; and if one handed over a beast to a herdsman, even though he did not deliver it to him until the Festival, it is [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the herdsman! — You can even say, it is as R. Dosa, and there is no contradiction: Here it treats of one herdsman and there of two herdsmen.1 This call also be proved; for it teaches TO HIS SON ON TO A HERDSMAN;2 infer from this [that it is so]. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah is as R. Dosa. Did then R. Johanan say thus? But surely R. Johanan has said: The halachah is as an anonymous Mishnah, and we have learnt: CATTLE AND UTENSILS ARE AS THE FEET OF THE OWNERS [etc.]! — Have we not already explained, here it treats of one herdsman and there of two herdsmen! Our Rabbis taught: If two people borrowed one garment jointly,3 one to wear it4 in the morning at the Academy and the other to wear it in the evening5 at a banquet, the one setting an ‘erub on the north [side of the town] and the other on the south [side], [then] the one who set the ‘erub on the north [side] may walk in it to the north [side] only as far as the other who set his ‘erub on the south [side] is allowed to go; and the one who set the ‘erub on the south may wear it to the south only as far as the other who set the ‘erub on the north may go; and if they measured the Sabbath limit exactly,6 then it [the garment] may not be moved from its place.7 It was stated: If two [men] bought a barrel and an animal8 in partnership, Rab says: The barrel is permitted9 but the animal is forbidden;10 Samuel, however, says: The barrel too is forbidden. What is Rab's opinion? If he holds that selection is retrospective,11 then the animal too should be permitted; and if he holds that selection is not retrospective, then the barrel too should be forbidden! In reality he holds that selection is retrospective, but the case of an animal is different, because the territories draw their vitality from one another.12 R. Kahana and R. Assi said to Rab: They [the partners] do not take into account the prohibition of mukzeh, but they do take into account the prohibition of boundary limits!13 Rab was silent. How does the law stand? R. Oshaia says, Selection is retrospective, and R. Johanan maintains: Selection is not retrospective. Does then R. Oshaia hold the law of bererah? But surely we have learnt:14 If a corpse [lay] in a room which has many doors they are all unclean; if one of these [doors] was opened, it alone is unclean and all the others are clean. If he formed the intention to take it [the corpse] out through one of them, or through a window which [measures] four handbreadths square, this gives protection to all the other doors. Beth Shammai Say: Providing that he had formed his intention to take it out before the person died; but Beth Hillel Say: [It holds good] even [if his intention was formed] after the person died. And it was stated thereon: R. Oshaia said: [The statement of Beth Hillel is] with respect to the cleansing of the doors from now and onwards. Only ‘from now and onwards’ but not retrospectively! — Reverse [the authorities]; R. Oshaia Says, selection is not retrospective and R. Johanan maintains: Selection is retrospective. Does then R. Johanan hold that selection is retrospective? Surely R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: Brothers who have divided [an inheritance] are considered as purchasers15 and must restore [their shares] to one another in the year of Jubilee!16 And if you answer that R. Johanan does not hold that Selection is retrospective in the case of a Biblical [law]17 but with respect to a Rabbinical [law]18 he does hold, [I would object] does he then hold in the case of a Rabbinical [law], but Ayyo taught:19 R. Judah says: A man cannot conditionally reserve for himself two contingencies simultaneously; but if a scholar comes to the East, his ‘erub to the East is valid: if to the West, his ‘erub to the West is valid.20 However, he cannot [stipulate] when there are two scholars coming on different sides. restricted to the feet of the owner. But if there is only one, it is tacitly assumed that it will be entrusted to him, and therefore it automatically takes his status. only, and that is the same as where there are several herdsmen in the town. at the beginning of the Festival be accounted as cut off from the other. should be forbidden because it drew vitality from his partner's, (for if he had put it out of mind, his partner's portion would be forbidden to him as mukzeh, and his own too, on the present hypothesis, since it draws vitality from the other). Why then should we assume that he does take his partner's portion into account in respect of boundaries? Tosaf. explains this differently. very inheritance designated for him, v. B.K., Sonc. ed. p. 399 and notes. the other. Purchased property returns in the year of Jubilee to the former owners. V. Lev. XXV, 8ff. V. B.K. 69b, Git. 25a and 48a. may place two ‘erubs and on the Sabbath choose to which of these two he should go. R. Judah, according to Ayyo, disputes this.