The Elliot B. Sit edition of the audio series on the Talmud Bavli, specifically focusing on Masechet Beitzah, has been dedicated anonymously for the refuah shlema of Meir ben Esther. We recite the prayer: "El na refa na lo, el na refa na lo, el na refa na lo be-toch shear cholei ammo Yisrael, Amen." Additionally, Masechet Beitzah is also dedicated to the memory of Sarah bat Mazal, with the hope that her soul finds rest in the Garden of Eden. We bless our anonymous sponsor that, with the help of God, he should be granted long life, health, wealth, and honor, and may he soon merit to raise a family and continue his good work for the community, Amen. Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Rachamim ben Victoria, and may his soul find rest in the Garden of Eden, Amen.
We begin today's daf, Daf lamed chet, on lamed chet amud rishon, starting from seven lines down with the words of Amar Shmuel. The Gemara states: "Amar Shmuel, shor shel pattam, harei hu ke-raglei kol adam." This brings us back to the laws of techumin that we discussed in the previous daf. Here, we have an ox belonging to a pattam, which is a term for a merchant who fattens oxen for sale. Rashi explains that a pattam is known for fattening oxen to sell them, and people come from all over to purchase these oxen. The law states that this ox is considered to adopt the techum of the buyer, even before the sale is finalized.
For example, if a buyer arrives on Yom Tov and the ox is still with the seller, the understanding is that the ox is not intended for the seller's personal use. Therefore, even a person from another city can follow the techum of the buyer. This is because it is customary for merchants to sell their goods to outsiders. Rashi notes that even if someone from another city comes to purchase it, they can take the ox back to their city, as it was already in the buyer's possession before Yom Tov.
In contrast, we have the case of an ox belonging to a ro'eh, a shepherd. The shepherd primarily sells to locals, and thus the ox only adopts the techum of the local buyers. If an outsider were to buy it, they would not receive the techum of the shepherd, as it is not expected for someone from outside the city to purchase from a shepherd. The Gemara emphasizes the difference: a pattam has customers from afar, while a ro'eh serves only local clients. Therefore, an ox from a ro'eh adopts the techum of the city, which is limited to alpayim ama in every direction.
Even if the shepherd made a personal eruv allowing for an additional alpayim ama to the north, this does not affect the locals who purchased the ox on Yom Tov. They can take the ox to the opposite direction of the shepherd's eruv without restriction. This distinction highlights the difference between the pattam and the ro'eh. The pattam is recognized as a prominent seller with a wide reach, while the ro'eh is limited to local transactions.
The Gemara then transitions to discuss the principle of berirah. We previously learned that Shmuel held that when a person is a partner in a chavit or an animal, they can only move it within the shared space of the partners. This indicates that Shmuel does not accept the principle of berirah. If berirah were to apply, the partner could claim ownership of a portion of the item based on their share, but Shmuel argues that the movement is limited to the common area.
However, in the case of the pattam, it appears there is a retroactive assumption of ownership. The Gemara questions how this can be reconciled with Shmuel's previous stance on berirah. Some suggest that the difference lies in the nature of the transaction. In a partnership, the agreement can be dissolved, creating uncertainty regarding ownership. Conversely, a seller has a clear intent to sell, making it reasonable to assume that the buyer's ownership is established even before the sale is completed.
This leads to a discussion on the case of a woman who borrows ingredients to make challah. According to the Tanna Kamma, the challah must follow the techum of both women, as the ingredients belong to each of them. The Gemara questions why we do not apply the principle of bittul, which would nullify the minority ingredients in favor of the majority. However, this case involves ownership rather than prohibition, and thus the techum remains significant.
As the discourse continues, Rabbi Abba joins the discussion, reiterating the importance of understanding the nature of bittul in the context of ownership and the implications for techum. The Gemara explores the distinctions between various cases, ultimately affirming that the ownership rights of the original owners must be respected.
In conclusion, the dialogue between the sages enriches our understanding of the complexities surrounding ownership, techum, and the principles of bittul and berirah. Each case examined reveals the nuanced application of halachic principles, emphasizing the importance of context and intent in determining the outcomes of these discussions.