## Beitzah Daf 38a

###### Beitzah 38a:1
[Beitzah 38a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/38a:1)

וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַאי שְׁנָא לְכָאן וּלְכָאן דְּלָא — דְּאֵין בְּרֵירָה, מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב נָמֵי אֵין בְּרֵירָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we discussed** the following difficulty **with regard to this** teaching of Ayo: **What is different** about the case where two rabbis are coming to the two locations, one **here and** the other **there,** and one places two *eiruvin*, planning to decide on Shabbat which lecture he will attend? Why did Rabbi Yehuda state that this may not be done? It is because he held that **there is no** retroactive **designation.** But if so, in the first case **as well,** where only one rabbi comes, but the location of his lecture was not known before Shabbat, and one placed *eiruvin* in the **east and** the **west,** we should say that neither is effective because the rabbi’s location will not be known until Shabbat, and **there is no** retroactive **designation.**


###### Beitzah 38a:2
[Beitzah 38a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/38a:2)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּכְבָר בָּא חָכָם. אַלְמָא: לֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּרֵירָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan said** in explanation: This first case is referring to a situation in which the **rabbi had already arrived** before the *eiruv* was placed, but the one placing the *eiruv* does not know the rabbi’s location. Therefore, it had already been determined which of the two *eiruvin* would be effective, although it was not yet known to him when Shabbat began. **Apparently,** then, **Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept** the principle of retroactive **designation** even in matters of rabbinic law, as he states that if the rabbi were to arrive after the *eiruv* was placed, it would not be effective retroactively.


###### Beitzah 38a:3
[Beitzah 38a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/38a:3)

אֶלָּא: לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ, וְכִי לֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּרֵירָה — בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל בִּדְרַבָּנַן — אִית לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara rejects this approach and states: **Actually, do not reverse** the views of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Hoshaya; it is indeed Rabbi Hoshaya, also known as Rabbi Oshaya, who accepts retroactive designation, and Rabbi Yoḥanan who rejects it. As for Rabbi Oshaya’s statement with regard to the entrances to a house that contains a corpse, the following answer may be offered: **And when does Rabbi Oshaya not hold** of the principle of retroactive **designation?** With regard to matters of **Torah** law, such as the ritual impurity of the dead. **But with regard to** matters of **rabbinic** law, such as Shabbat limits and the placement of *eiruvin*, **he does accept** this principle.


###### Beitzah 38a:4
[Beitzah 38a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/38a:4)

דָּרֵשׁ מָר זוּטְרָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra taught in** a public **lesson:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Oshaya** with regard to retroactive designation.


###### Beitzah 38a:5
[Beitzah 38a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/38a:5)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שׁוֹר שֶׁל פַּטָּם — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרַגְלֵי כׇּל אָדָם. שׁוֹר שֶׁל רוֹעֶה — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרַגְלֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel said: An ox of a fattener,** one whose occupation is to fatten oxen in order to sell them for their meat, **is as the feet of all people.** It is as the feet of the one who acquires the animal on the Festival, even if the buyer is from another city, as the fattener’s intention when the Festival begins is that the ox belong to whoever buys it. But **an ox of a shepherd,** who raises oxen for himself but occasionally sells them to his neighbors or acquaintances, **is as the feet of** the people of **that city,** as his intention when the Festival begins is that he might sell the animal to someone in town, but not to someone from out of town.


###### Beitzah 38a:6
[Beitzah 38a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/38a:6)

הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁלֹּא מְסָרוֹ לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּיוֹם טוֹב. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לָאו בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ אוֹקְמֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: In the case of **one who borrows a vessel from another on the eve of a Festival,** it is as the feet of the borrower. The Gemara asks: It is **obvious** that this is the case, as the place of rest of the vessel has already been established in the possession of the borrower. The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to state this *halakha* in a case **where one did not deliver** the vessel **to him until the Festival** itself. **Lest you say:** Since the lender **did not establish it in** the borrower’s **possession** before the Festival began, it should remain as the feet of the lender, the mishna therefore **teaches us** that it is not so, but it is as the feet of the borrower.


###### Beitzah 38a:7
[Beitzah 38a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/38a:7)

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נְתָנוֹ לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּיוֹם טוֹב — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרַגְלֵי הַשּׁוֹאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: Interpreted in this manner, the mishna **supports** a statement of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who borrows a vessel from another on the eve of a Festival, even if he did not give it to him until the Festival** itself, **it is as the feet of the borrower.**


###### Beitzah 38a:8
[Beitzah 38a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/38a:8)

בְּיוֹם טוֹב — כְּרַגְלֵי הַמַּשְׁאִיל. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּרְגִיל וְשָׁאֵיל מִינֵּיהּ, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ קָא מוֹקֵים לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, מֵימָר אָמַר: דִּלְמָא מַשְׁכַּח אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא וְאָזֵיל וְשָׁאֵיל מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is taught in the mishna: If one borrowed **on the Festival** itself, **it is as the feet of the lender.** The Gemara again wonders: This is **obvious.** The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to state this *halakha* in a case where this borrower **is accustomed to borrowing** such items **from** this lender. **Lest you say** that since it is a regular occurrence for this loan to take place, the lender **establishes it in his possession** ahead of time, and it should therefore be considered as though the object’s place of rest is established as the feet of the borrower, the mishna therefore **teaches us** that it is not so, as the lender **certainly says** to himself: **Perhaps he will find someone else** this time, **and he will go and borrow from him.** Consequently, the lender does not transfer possession of the object to the borrower until the latter takes it, and it may be carried only where the lender may go.


###### Beitzah 38a:9
[Beitzah 38a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/38a:9)

וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁאֲלָה מֵחֲבֶרְתָּהּ. כִּי סְלֵיק רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר: יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּאֵימָא מִלְּתָא דְּתִתְקַבַּל. כִּי סְלֵיק, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפִּי וְרַבִּי זֵירָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, וְיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: אַמַּאי? וְלִבְטִיל מַיִם וָמֶלַח לְגַבֵּי עִיסָּה! אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי אַבָּא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is taught in the mishna: **And similarly, a woman who borrowed** spices **from another** to put in a dish, or water and salt to put in her dough, these are as the feet of both of them. The Gemara relates: **When Rabbi Abba ascended** from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, **he said: May it be** God’s **will that I say a statement** of *halakha* **that will be accepted** by my listeners in Eretz Yisrael, so that I will not be put to shame. **When he ascended,** he found **Rabbi Yoḥanan, Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, and Rabbi Zeira, and some say** he found **Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and** they **were sitting and saying** in a discussion of the mishna: **Why** is this the *halakha* with regard to dough? **But let** the **water and salt be** considered **nullified in the dough,** and the status of the dough should follow its flour rather than its minor ingredients, such as water and salt. **Rabbi Abba said to them:**