Explanation #1: According to Rashi, the Gemara thinks that the Chacham arrived on Shabbos, via a tree or a wall, and he arrived from outside the T'chum by declaring that his Shevisah was underneath it.

Question: How can he arrive on Shabbos on both the east and the west side of the town, seeing as there are more than two thousand Amos between them?

Explanation #2: Tosfos therefore explains like Rashi in Eruvin (Daf 36:) that in fact, he is only able to arrive on Shabbos on one side of the town.

Explanation #2 (cont.): One nevertheless needs to come on to B'reirah, in case he (the Chacham) does not move from his place.

Explanation #2 (cont.): When the Beraisa there says ''ve'Im La'av', what it means is if the Chacham does not come to either location - 'I will remain like the other residents of my town'.

Implied Question: And when it says 'to the east and to the west' ...

Refuted Answer: It is La'av Davka, because if it was, it would imply that one needs to mention 'to the east; because of the west and 'to the west' because of the east.

Answer: But what it means is that even to the east or to the west we also say 'Ein B'reirah', since the Chacham may well not move from his place.

Explanation #3: ha'Rav R. Peretz also explains that it is possible for the Chacham to arrive from either side of the town on Shabbos, even without a tree or a wall ...

The Case: Where for example, he was six thousand Amos to the north of the town, and he wants to arrive within four thousand Amos, either to the north-east or to the north-west ...

Reason: Because there is a spot there that is convenient for a D'rashah, and there is no location closer to the town that is suitable.

Explanation #3 (cont.): Consequently, a person will not place his Eiruv due east or due west of the town, only as close to the Chacham as he possibly can ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): So he places his Eiruv two thousand Amos on the east side towards the north, and likewise two thousand Amos on the west side towards the north ...

Explanation #3 (concl.): It therefore transpires that he is able to come within two thousand Amos of the Shevisah of the Chacham, which is the distance of the diagonal of four thousand Amos towards the north (See Maharsha), by means of the Eiruv that he places to the east or to the west.

Conclusion: And when the Tana says 'to the east and to the west, he means to the east ... of the T'chum of the town, or to the east of the Chacham. And it is easy to understand this.

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer by drawing a distinction between someone who relies on himself and someone who relies on others.

Question (cont.): To say that 'le'Ka'n u'le'Ka'n, not', is because he relies on himself, but 'le'Mizrach u'le'Ma'arav', where he relies on the Chacham, he holds of 'B'reirah?

Answer: Rebbi Yochanan maintains that there is no difference between someone who relies on himself and someone who relies on others.

Answer (cont.): And it is Rebbi Yochanan himself who asks 'Mai Sh'na?' in order to answer that 'the Chacham has already arrived.

Precedent: And we find the similar set-up in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 21.), where the Gemara asks 'How much', and Rebbi Yitzchak answers. There too, the questioner is also Rebbi Yitzchak.

Question: How can the Gemara ask from the Beraisa of Ayo on Rebbi Yochanan, seeing as, since Rebbi Yochanan does not differentiate between someone who relies on himself and someone who relies on others, we are forced to say that he holds of B'reirah.

Source: Because that is what the Gemara says in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin, Daf 36: & 37a.) 'A man may make a condition on two things ... . Rebbi Yehudah rules that if one the two Chachamim was his Rebbe, he should go where his Rebbe is; Whereas if they are both his Rebbes, he may go wherever he chooses, since he holds of B'reirah.

Source (cont.): And the Gemara, which rejects the Mishnah in face of Ayo, asks maybe one ought to reject Ayo in face of the Mishnah which permits a person to stipulate on his Eiruv?

Source (cont.): And it answers because the Beraisa 'Someone who purchases wine from among the Kutim ... ' supports Ayo's Beraisa ...

Source (cont.):And it is better to erase one in face of two.

Source (cont.): And the Ri asks there ' To the contrary, we ought to reject the Beraisa of Ula and that of 'Someone who purchases ... ', which do not hold of B'reirah, in face of the Mishnah in Perek Mi she'Achzo (Gitin, Daf 73.) 'What is she during that period? She is like a married woman in all regards; and when he dies, the Get is valid.

Source (cont.): And we extrapolate from there that Rebbi Yehudah holds B'reirah?

Source (cont.): And we also learned (in Bava Kama) that 'A Ba'al ha'Bayis may declare that whatever the poor pick today should be Hefker. So we see, that all these Tana'im hold B'reirah according to Rebbi Yehudah, in which case we ought to erase the two Beraisos in face of the three?

Source (cont.): And the Ri answers that in fact, we hold like Ayo, since all the Tana'im are speaking about cases where one relies on others, and that is why all hold of B'reirah, whereas Ayo is speaking where one relies on oneself ...

Question (concl.): That being the case, Rebbi Yochanan, who does not hold of that distinction, must erase Ayo in face of the three Beraisos, so why does the Gemara query him from the Beraisa of Ayo?

Answer #1: Perhaps it is because the Gemara wants to answer 'Le'olam Lo Teipuch' that it asks a simple Kashya (that is easy to refute), even though Rebbi Yochanan may well not hold like Ayo.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Rebbi Shimshon from Shantz answers that even if we do not hold like Ayo, in that Rebbi Yehudah did not say it, nevertheless, some Tana did say it ...

Conclusion: Which is why Rebbi Yochanan resolves the Beraisa 'that the Chacham already arrived, in which case, the Gemara's Kashya is justified.

Clarification: Rashi explains that it is because the dough compises the majority.

Question: But it is 'Something that will become permitted' which does not become Bateil even in a thousand?

Answer #1: That applies specifically to Miyn be'Miyno, where Miyn be'sheEino Miyno, such as here, does become Bateil.

Support: And this is explicitly given by the Yerushalmi.

Answer #2: Moreover, the Isur here is not like other Isurim, where the Isur is based on the taste, whereas here the Isur of T'chumin is based on who is the owner of the object. Now in this case, the person who owns dough is the owner and not the one who owns the water and the salt.

Answer #2 (cont.): Consequently, it ought to become Bateil, even though it gives taste and would therefore not become Bateil by other Isurim.

Clarification (cont.): And Rebbi Aba replied that the name of the owner of the water and the salt does not become Bateil, any more than the name of the owner of a Kav becomes Bateil in ten Kabin, despite the fact that they are the majority.

Question: Why did the Gemara wait till now to ask this Kashya? Why did it not ask it whenever the Gemara rules that one in two is Bateil?

Answer: The Gemara cannot ask it elsewhere, seeing as one cannot compare Isur to Mamon.

Answer (cont.): Only here in our Mishnah (can it ask it) since it is basically Mamon.

Answer (cont.): Even though there is an Isur Techumin, nevertheless, the Isur Techumin only comes on account of the intention of the owner, where elsewhere by other Isurim, one in two becomes Bateil ...

Answer (concl.): And what the Gemara is asking from the case of 'Someone whose Kav of wheat gets mixed up ... ', is that, just as there, on account of Bitul, the owner does not lose his ownership, so too here, on account of Bitul, the owner ought not to lose his ownership ...

Conclusion: And the water and the salt will acquire Shevisah by the owner and are not Bateil.

Clarification: Shall he rejoice over something that he did not work for?

Clarification (cont.): So too here, her name does not become Bateil from here, seeing as the water (and the salt) acquired Shevisah by her (the original owner).

Refuted Question: Nor can one ask - that since she lent it to her or gave it to her as a gift, it ought to become permitted?

Refutation: Because we go after Bein-ha'shemashos.

Conclusion: And the Gemara's Kashya is from the minority and the majority. Rashi.

Halachah: From here it would seem that the Halachah is like the Rabbanan - that 'Miyn be'Miyno is Bateil'.

Proof: Since the Gemara states this opinion S'tam.

Clarification: Rashi explains that it is certainly Bateil

Question: But Rav Safra is coming to establish the answer of Rebbi Aba, and Rebbi Aba maintains that even where there are no claimants, it does not become Bateil, as is the case in our Mishnah, how much more so here, where there are claimants?

Question (cont.): So how can he (Rav Safra) bring a proof that even where there are claimants, it is Bateil? On the contrary, he should ask from here on himself?

Answer: On Rav Safra, there is no Kashya, since Isur is different than Mamon, even where there are claimants.

Answer (cont.): And here it speaks where the Isur Neveilah became mixed up with the Isur Shechutah. Therefore it becomes Bateil even if there are claimants.

Clarification: And Rav Safra is saying that we see how something to which Bitul applies, the fact that there are claimants does not help at all, to say that since the name of the owner is attached to it, it does not become Bateil; because it does!

Clarification (cont.): So we see that claimants plays no role in the issue.

Clarification (concl.): In that case, our Mishnah too, even though there are no claimants, since Bitul does not apply, seeing as it is Mamon, and the Isur Techumin comes about due to the owner, and the name of the owner is attached to it, it acquires Shevisah by him, and Bitul will not apply to it.

Clarification: So we see that even though it has no claimants, it acquires Shevisah where it is.

Question: How can the Gemara ask from Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri ...

Question (cont.): Bearing in mind that the Rabbanan argue with him, and we rule like the Rabbanan, who say that, seeing as there are no claimants, the articles only acquire Shevisah like the 'legs of the finder'. Why can we not say the same thing in our Mishnah?

Answer: The Rabbanan only argue with Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri there where there is no owner at all, such as objects of Hefker, which acquire Shevisah where they are.

Answer (cont.): But where there is an owner, as is the case in our Mishnah, even the Rabbanan will concede that we go after the owner, even though there is currently no claimant.

Answer (concl.): And from Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri we will extrapolate the Rabbanan's opinion, inasmuch as, just as according to Rebbi Yochanan objects of Hefker acquire Shevisah where they are, even though there are no claimants, so too, according to the Rabbanan, where there was a claimant, even though there are none now, they acquire Shevisah where they are.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Abaye gives the reason for 'the dough', and Rava answers 'the pot', and they do not argue.

Refutation: But this is a Dochek.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that Abaye answers 'the dough' and the same applies to 'the pot' - which they might also make together.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas Rava answers 'the pot', and the same applies to 'the dough', since salt adds taste to the dough, and the water, which is the main part of the dough, is important (And is therefore not Bateil).