1)

(a)According to Rav, fruit that is given to someone to look after, follows the Techum of the trustee. Shmuel says - that it follows the Techum of the owner.

(b)According to the Rabanan in a Mishnah in Bava Kama, if Reuven authorizes Shimon to bring his belongings into his Chatzer, he automatically takes full responsibility for any damages that they sustain. Rebbi says that he does not, unless he specifically stipulates that he does.

(c)Rav rules like the Rabanan; Shmuel rules like Rebbi. We try to establish that Rav here follows his opinion there - since the owner's belongings enter the trustee's domain regarding responsibility, they will also enter his domain regarding Techumin; whereas, according to Shmuel, in the same way as the owner retains ownership regarding responsibility there, so too, will he retain ownership here with regard to Techum Shabbos.

(d)We reject this suggestion however, concluding that it would be possible to establish ...

1. ... Rav here even like Rebbi - on the grounds that Rebbi only said that one cannot take for granted that the trustee takes responsibility for the owner's belongings (as long as he has not specifically said so); whereas Rav is talking about someone who specifically undertakes to look after the fruit. In that case, even Rebbi will agree that the fruit follows the Techum of the trustee.

2. ... Shmuel here even like the Rabanan - because it is only in there, where the owner will be delighted if the trustee takes responsibility, that the Rabanan rule accordingly; whereas in our case, where the owner will not be at all pleased for the trustee to take over ownership as regards Techumin, even the Rabanan will agree that the fruit remains in the domain of the depositor.

2)

(a)Rav will establish the Reisha of our Mishnah (which permits the trustees of the fruit of a man who lives in another town to bring it to him, provided he made an Eruv) - when they designated a room for him (indicating that the fruit is to remain in his domain).

(b)We establish the Seifa of our Mishnah, which permits the visiting guests to take food back with them, provided, before Shabbos, the owner placed it in their domain through a third person, in two ways; the first, like we just explained the Reisha to reconcile it with Rav. Alternatively - the very fact that the owner handed it to a third person on their behalf, indicates that he wants the fruit to be entirely in their domain.

3)

(a)The meat that was hung on the bolt of the door where Rav Chana bar Chanila'i - was given to his host on his behalf before Yom-Tov.

(b)Rav Chana himself - had come, by means of an Eruv, from a town that was outside the Techum.

(c)It was the butchers - of that town who had given him the meat on Erev Yom-Tov.

(d)Rav Chana now asked Rav Huna - whether he was permitted to take the meat home with him (or whether it was considered in the domain of the innkeeper, who had not made an Eruv enabling him to go to his town).

4)

(a)Rav Huna replied - that if he had had hung it there, yes; but no if it was the butchers (or the inn-keeper) who had hung it there.

(b)The fact that Rav Huna was a disciple of Rav creates a problem - because, according to Rav, the fruit shares the Techum of the trustee, who in this case, was the inn-keeper. So even if Rav Chana was the one to have hung it up, why did Rav Huna permit him to carry the meat home, seeing as the meat had acquired Shevisah with the inn-keeper.

(c)When we answer that 'Ibra d'Dasha' is different - we mean that the fact that he himself hung up the meat, and did not give it to the inn-keeper to do so, is equivalent to the owner designating a corner for him to put his things, in which case our Mishnah permits the owner to take them home.

(d)We still have some problems with the other half of Rav Huna's statement (that if others hung up the meat on Rav Chana's behalf, he would be forbidden to take it with him), in that ...

1. ... Rav Hillel asked Rav Ashi from the Din of Shor shel Petem - (an ox that is being fattened shares the Techum of anyone who purchases it) - from which we see that, since the owner has in mind to place the animal in the domain of whoever will purchase it from him on Yom-Tov, it shares that person's Techum (even without the animal having to be placed in a designated location). How much more so ought Rav Huna to have permitted the piece of meat to share the Techum of Rav Chana bar Chanilai, in whose domain the butchers had specifically placed it already before Yom-Tov.

2. ... Ravina asked Rav Ashi from Rebbi Dosa (like whom Rebbi Yochanan ruled earlier in the Perek) - from which we see that, when there is only one shepherd in town, and there is no doubt that it is to him that the owner will give his animal, then the animal automatically follows the shepherd; how much more so Rav Chana bar Chanilai, into whose domain the butchers specifically placed it!?

3. ... Rav Ashi himself asked Rav Kahana from the Mishnah of 'ha'Behemah v'ha'Kelim k'Raglei ha'Be'alim' - from which we see that a person's belongings follow him as regards Techumin. In that case, why should the meat not automatically share the Techum of Rav Chana, who was the owner, irrespective of who hung the meat on the bolt!? Note: It is unclear as to why they did not query Rav himself, in whose opinion the fruit shares the trustee and not the owner.

5)

(a)We conclude that Rav Chana bar Chanila'i was a great man who was deeply involved in his Torah-study. The issue no longer concerned carrying the meat back to his home-town, which Rav Huna would clearly have permitted in all cases - but 'Basar she'Nis'alem min ha'Ayin' (meat that is left unguarded, even for a short space of time [and that a raven might subsequently have exchanged for non-Kosher meat]),which Rav forbade (unless it has a Siman that one recognizes), and whose opinion Rav Huna, his disciple, followed.

(b)Had Rav Chana hung up the meat, then it no longer falls under the category of 'Basar she'Nis'lem min ha'Ayin', as he would inevitably have kept an eye on it (in spite of his concentration in his learning).

6)

(a)Our Mishnah forbids watering and Shechting the Midbariyos, but permits watering and Shechting the Baysos. The Tana there describes ...

1. ... Baysos - as animals that stay overnight in the town (after returning from their grazing-grounds).

2. ... Midbariyos - as those that remain in their grazing-grounds overnight.

(b)The Tana includes watering in his statement - as a side Chidush: to teach us to water the animal before Shechting it, to facilitate its skinning (because the water loosens the skin).

(c)The Tana of the Beraisa describes Midbariyos - as animals that leave for their grazing-grounds after Pesach, and return only when the first rains come (in Mar-Cheshvan), and Baysos - as animals that return each night.

(d)According to Rebbi, both of these are considered Baysos. Midbariyos - are animals that do not return from their grazing-grounds at all.

7)

(a)Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi asked his father about 'Patzilei Temarah' - dates that do not ripen on the tree, which are then placed in palm-branch baskets to ripen.

(b)Rebbi replied that, in Rebbi Shimon's opinion, they are not Muktzeh, because only 'Gerogros and Tzimukin' (figs and grapes that one placed on the roof to dry - to become dried figs and raisins) are Muktzeh.

(c)The two specifications of 'Gerogros and Tzimukin' are - 1. that (having been fit to eat as figs and grapes) they have been temporarily discarded by the owner; and 2. that they are unfit to eat until the finished product is ready. Patzilei Temarah, on the other hand (which are not fit to eat to begin with, and) which cannot be described as having been discarded by the owner, are not Muktzeh.

8)

(a)But did we not just see (with regard to Midbariyos) - that Rebbi holds of Muktzeh even when it is not like Gerogros and Tzimukim?!

(b)We present three answer to resolve the discrepancy. Firstly, that the Midbariyos in our Mishnah are comparable to Gerogros and Tzimukim, and secondly, that Rebbi really holds like he says in the Mishnah - and in the Beraisa, he is merely citing the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, even though he does concur with it.

(c)In the third answer, Rebbi really holds like Rebbi Shimon (like he told his son) - and in the Mishnah, where he was speaking to the Rabanan who disagreed with him, he was saying that, as far as he was concerned, the animals were not Muktzeh anyway (because he holds like Rebbi Shimon). Would they not agree with him, he was asking them, that at least those animals that come in from their grazing-grounds when the first rains arrive, are not Muktzeh (even according to Rebbi Yehudah)?!

(d)To which the Rabanan replied - that in their opinion, they too, are considered Midbariyos and are therefore Muktzeh.

HADRAN ALACH 'MASHILIN PEIROS' U'SELIKA MASECHES BEITZAH