Presumably, then, R. Yehudah is not lenient regarding salt in the dough.

Question: But we learned that R. Yehudah groups water and salt together as being Beteilim both in a dough and in a cooked dish!?

Answer: That Beraisa refers to (the very fine) Sedomis salt.

Question: But we find that R. Yehudah differentiates between a dough (where water and salt are Batel) and a cooked dish (where water is not Batel)!?

Answer: The latter Beraisa speaks of a more liquid dish, whereas the former Beraisa speaks of a dish where the liquid is not noticeable.

A coal is restricted by the Techum of its owner.

A flame is not restricted.

A coal of Hekdesh carries the penalties of Me'ilah, while a flame (though one may not derive benefit from it) would not.

One would be Chayav for transporting a coal, but not a flame.

Five distinctions are taught between a coal and a flame.

Question: Why is the flame of Avodah Zarah permitted, while Chazal forbade the flame of Hekdesh!?

Answer: There was no need to intervene and prohibit that which is disgusting.

Question: But a Beraisa states that one is Chayav!?

Answer (R. Sheshes): One is Chayav if he transports the flame on a splinter of wood.

Question: Then the splinter should be the cause of his Chiyuv!?

Answer: The splinter is too small for Chiyuv on its own (as established in the cited Mishnah).

Answer (Abaye): He is Chayav when he rubs oil on a Kli and carries it aflame.

Question: Then the Kli should cause his Chiyuv!?

Answer: We are speaking of a pottery-shard.

Question: He should be Chayav for the shard!?

Answer: It is less than the Shiyur (as taught).

Question: How, practically, could one transport a flame without it being attached to anything!?

Answer: He cast an unattached flame into the street.

Water in a private well is restricted by the Techum of its owner.

Water in a communal well has the restrictions of the residents of that city.

Water in a well of Olei Bavel has the restriction of whomever draws it.

Question (Rava of R. Nachman): But we find that water does not acquire Shevisah at all!?

Answer (Rabah): That speaks of moving water (no Shevisah) while our Mishnah speaks of collected, standing water (has Shevisah) as cited in the name of Shmuel.

(R. Nachman): Such water has the Techum of the intended beneficiary.

(R. Sheshes): It is restricted by the Techum on the one who drew it.

Question: What is the basis of their argument?

Answer: Whether we view the water as Hefker, and may not be claimed by one on behalf of another (R. Sheshes) or is it jointly owned and may be drawn for another using Bereirah (R. Nachman).

Question (Rava of R. Nachman): We see that these cisterns could not be viewed as jointly owned, or those who had taken oaths not to benefit from one another could not draw from the wells of Olei Bavel (yet we are taught that they would be so permitted while the Mishnah teaches that they could not bathe in one- another's well)!?

Answer: Indeed, they would be prohibited to bathe in the wells of Olei Bavel, and the permission to draw water from them is because of Bereirah (each is drawing that which turns out to have been his own).

Question: But R. Nachman holds Ein Bereirah!?

This is evidenced by his ruling that even if the brothers divided the inheritance sheep for sheep (not one type of animal against another) they are viewed as buyers and not as inheritors.

Note: If they later rejoin they would be obligated for the Kalbon and exempt from Ma'aser Beheimah.

Answer: Rather, they are arguing whether one acquires for himself a Metziah which he attempted to (but cannot) acquire on behalf of another (R. Sheshes) or whether he cannot since he never intended himself as an owner (R. Nachman).