(Mishnah): An animal and utensils follow the feet (Techum) of their owner.

One who transfers his animal to his son or to a shepherd, it follows the owner's feet.

If there are utensils that belong to a specific brother in a household, they follow his feet; if they do not belong specifically to him, they may only be taken to places where all of the household may walk.

(Gemara): The Mishnah discusses when he transferred the animal (to the shepherd) on Yom Tov; but if he transferred it before Yom Tov, it follows the feet of the shepherd.

It also discusses when there is another shepherd in the town; but if there is no other shepherd (and all of the inhabitants of the town give their animals to this shepherd, it follows the shepherd's feet.

Proof (Beraisa): If a person transfers his animal to a shepherd, even though he did not inform the shepherd, it follows the shepherd's feet.

(Mishnah): If a person borrows utensils from his friend before Yom Tov, they follow the feet of the borrower; if he borrows them on Yom Tov, they follow the feet of the lender.

If a woman borrowed spices, water and salt for her dough, they follow the feet of both (the borrower and the lender, and may only be taken to a place that both people may go).

R. Yehuda exempts water from this law, since it is not recognisable.

(Gemara - R. Ba): For the Techum of utensils, the Sages followed the Torah law (that even though the utensil was not actually lifted by the borrower; but for the purposes of Techum, it is considered that an acquisition was made when they made the agreement).

The Mishnah supports this. (Why does our Mishnah need to state that 'before Yom Tov, they follow the feet of the borrower'? It must be to teach that the ruling applies even if he did not make a physical acquisition).

In Bavel they quote Rav Chisda's statement, but it is unknown if he was teaching a tradition (received from his teachers) or a ruling from the Mishnah - Rav Chisda said 'even wood'. (If a person borrowed firewood and baked bread on them, the bread's Techum follows both of them.) They understood that (just as in the Mishnah, the water is exempted because it is not recognisable, so the firewood here is exempt, since it is not recognisable).

The Mishnah had taught: R. Yehuda exempts water from this law, since it is not recognisable.

Question: What is the practical difference between the two opinions?

Answer: The water in the food. According to R. Yehuda, it is not recognisable (and therefore exempt). According to Rabbanan, it is not absorbed into the food (so it acquires a location for Yom Tov).