וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ מַאי שְׁנָא לְכָאן וּלְכָאן דְּלָא דְּאֵין בְּרֵירָה מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב נָמֵי אֵין בְּרֵירָה And we discussed the following difficulty with regard to this teaching of Ayo: What is different about the case where two rabbis are coming to the two locations, one here and the other there, and one places two eiruvin, planning to decide on Shabbat which lecture he will attend? Why did Rabbi Yehuda state that this may not be done? It is because he held that there is no retroactive designation. But if so, in the first case as well, where only one rabbi comes, but the location of his lecture was not known before Shabbat, and one placed eiruvin in the east and the west, we should say that neither is effective because the rabbi’s location will not be known until Shabbat, and there is no retroactive designation.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּכְבָר בָּא חָכָם אַלְמָא לֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּרֵירָה And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in explanation: This first case is referring to a situation in which the rabbi had already arrived before the eiruv was placed, but the one placing the eiruv does not know the rabbi’s location. Therefore, it had already been determined which of the two eiruvin would be effective, although it was not yet known to him when Shabbat began. Apparently, then, Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept the principle of retroactive designation even in matters of rabbinic law, as he states that if the rabbi were to arrive after the eiruv was placed, it would not be effective retroactively.
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ וְכִי לֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּרֵירָה בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא אֲבָל בִּדְרַבָּנַן אִית לֵיהּ Rather, the Gemara rejects this approach and states: Actually, do not reverse the views of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Hoshaya; it is indeed Rabbi Hoshaya, also known as Rabbi Oshaya, who accepts retroactive designation, and Rabbi Yoḥanan who rejects it. As for Rabbi Oshaya’s statement with regard to the entrances to a house that contains a corpse, the following answer may be offered: And when does Rabbi Oshaya not hold of the principle of retroactive designation? With regard to matters of Torah law, such as the ritual impurity of the dead. But with regard to matters of rabbinic law, such as Shabbat limits and the placement of eiruvin, he does accept this principle.
דָּרֵשׁ מָר זוּטְרָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא Mar Zutra taught in a public lesson: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya with regard to retroactive designation.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל שׁוֹר שֶׁל פַּטָּם הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרַגְלֵי כׇּל אָדָם שׁוֹר שֶׁל רוֹעֶה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרַגְלֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר: Shmuel said: An ox of a fattener, one whose occupation is to fatten oxen in order to sell them for their meat, is as the feet of all people. It is as the feet of the one who acquires the animal on the Festival, even if the buyer is from another city, as the fattener’s intention when the Festival begins is that the ox belong to whoever buys it. But an ox of a shepherd, who raises oxen for himself but occasionally sells them to his neighbors or acquaintances, is as the feet of the people of that city, as his intention when the Festival begins is that he might sell the animal to someone in town, but not to someone from out of town.
הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב פְּשִׁיטָא לָא צְרִיכָא שֶׁלֹּא מְסָרוֹ לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּיוֹם טוֹב מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לָאו בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ אוֹקְמֵיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן § The mishna states: In the case of one who borrows a vessel from another on the eve of a Festival, it is as the feet of the borrower. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as the place of rest of the vessel has already been established in the possession of the borrower. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where one did not deliver the vessel to him until the Festival itself. Lest you say: Since the lender did not establish it in the borrower’s possession before the Festival began, it should remain as the feet of the lender, the mishna therefore teaches us that it is not so, but it is as the feet of the borrower.
מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נְתָנוֹ לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּיוֹם טוֹב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרַגְלֵי הַשּׁוֹאֵל: The Gemara comments: Interpreted in this manner, the mishna supports a statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who borrows a vessel from another on the eve of a Festival, even if he did not give it to him until the Festival itself, it is as the feet of the borrower.
בְּיוֹם טוֹב כְּרַגְלֵי הַמַּשְׁאִיל פְּשִׁיטָא לָא צְרִיכָא דִּרְגִיל וְשָׁאֵיל מִינֵּיהּ מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ קָא מוֹקֵים לֵיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן מֵימָר אָמַר דִּלְמָא מַשְׁכַּח אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא וְאָזֵיל וְשָׁאֵיל מִינֵּיהּ: § It is taught in the mishna: If one borrowed on the Festival itself, it is as the feet of the lender. The Gemara again wonders: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where this borrower is accustomed to borrowing such items from this lender. Lest you say that since it is a regular occurrence for this loan to take place, the lender establishes it in his possession ahead of time, and it should therefore be considered as though the object’s place of rest is established as the feet of the borrower, the mishna therefore teaches us that it is not so, as the lender certainly says to himself: Perhaps he will find someone else this time, and he will go and borrow from him. Consequently, the lender does not transfer possession of the object to the borrower until the latter takes it, and it may be carried only where the lender may go.
וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁאֲלָה מֵחֲבֶרְתָּהּ כִּי סְלֵיק רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּאֵימָא מִלְּתָא דְּתִתְקַבַּל כִּי סְלֵיק אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפִּי וְרַבִּי זֵירָא וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא וְיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי אַמַּאי וְלִבְטִיל מַיִם וָמֶלַח לְגַבֵּי עִיסָּה אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי אַבָּא § It is taught in the mishna: And similarly, a woman who borrowed spices from another to put in a dish, or water and salt to put in her dough, these are as the feet of both of them. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Abba ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he said: May it be God’s will that I say a statement of halakha that will be accepted by my listeners in Eretz Yisrael, so that I will not be put to shame. When he ascended, he found Rabbi Yoḥanan, Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, and Rabbi Zeira, and some say he found Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and they were sitting and saying in a discussion of the mishna: Why is this the halakha with regard to dough? But let the water and salt be considered nullified in the dough, and the status of the dough should follow its flour rather than its minor ingredients, such as water and salt. Rabbi Abba said to them: