שאין מן הכל זוכה אדם ללמוד ואמר רבי יוסי מעשה ביוסף הכהן שהלך אצל רבו לצידן ללמוד תורה
a person does not merit to learn from everyone, and it is possible that the only suitable teacher for him lives outside of Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Yosei reported in support of his position: It once happened that Yosef the priest went to his teacher in Tzeidan, outside Eretz Yisrael, to learn Torah, although the preeminent Sage of his generation, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, lived in Eretz Yisrael.
ואמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי יוסי ולמה לי והא אמרת רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי הלכה כרבי יוסי
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said about this: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yoḥanan to issue this ruling? Didn’t you say: In disputes between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and so it should be obvious that this halakha is in accordance with his opinion? Apparently, this principle is not accepted.
אמר אביי איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי במתניתין אבל בברייתא אימא לא קא משמע לן
Abaye said: It was nonetheless necessary to issue this ruling, , it could have entered your mind to say that this principle applies only with regard to disputes in the Mishna. But with regard to disputes in a baraita, say no, the principle does not apply. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan is teaching us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in this case as well.
אלא הכי קאמר הני כללי לאו דברי הכל נינהו דהא רב לית ליה הני כללי:
Since no proof has been found to support Rav Mesharshiya’s statement that there are no principles for issuing halakhic rulings, the Gemara emends his statement. Rather, this is what Rav Mesharshiya is saying: These principles were not accepted by all authorities, as in fact Rav did not accept these principles, as demonstrated above.
אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חפצי נכרי אין קונין שביתה
The Gemara returns to addressing acquisition of residence. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire residence and do not have a Shabbat limit, either on their own account or due to the ownership of the gentile. Accordingly, if they were brought into a town from outside its limits, a Jew may carry them two thousand cubits in each direction.
למאן אילימא לרבנן פשיטא השתא חפצי הפקר דלית להו בעלים אין קונין שביתה חפצי הנכרי דאית להו בעלים מיבעיא
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was this statement made? If you say that it was made in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is obvious. Now, if unclaimed objects, which do not have owners, do not acquire residence, is it necessary to say that a gentile’s objects, which have an owner, do not acquire residence?
אלא אליבא דרבי יוחנן בן נורי וקא משמע לן אימר דאמר רבי יוחנן בן נורי קונין שביתה הני מילי חפצי הפקר דלית להו בעלים אבל חפצי הנכרי דאית להו בעלים לא
Rather, this statement must have been made in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, and Shmuel is teaching us that when we say that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said that objects acquire residence, this applies only to unclaimed objects, which have no owners; but it does not apply to objects belonging to a gentile, which have owners.
מיתיבי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר השואל כלי מן הנכרי ביום טוב וכן המשאיל לו לנכרי כלי מערב יום טוב והחזירו לו ביום טוב והכלים והאוצרות ששבתו בתוך התחום יש להן אלפים אמה לכל רוח ונכרי שהביא לו פירות מחוץ לתחום הרי זה לא יזיזם ממקומן
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to a Jew who borrowed a utensil from a gentile on a Festival, and similarly with regard to a Jew who lent a utensil to a gentile on the eve of a Festival and the gentile returned it to him on the Festival, and likewise utensils or bins that acquired residence within the city’s Shabbat limit, in all these cases the utensils have, i.e., can be moved, two thousand cubits in each direction. But if a gentile brought the Jew produce from outside the Shabbat limit, the Jew may not move it from its place.
אי אמרת בשלמא קסבר רבי יוחנן בן נורי חפצי נכרי קונין שביתה הא מני רבי יוחנן בן נורי היא
Granted if you say that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds that objects that belong to a gentile acquire residence, one can say that this baraita is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, that even a gentile’s objects acquire residence.
אלא אי אמרת קסבר רבי יוחנן בן נורי חפצי הנכרי אין קונין שביתה הא מני לא רבי יוחנן בן נורי ולא רבנן
However, if you say that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds that objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire residence, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is neither in accordance with that of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri nor that of the Rabbis.
לעולם קסבר רבי יוחנן בן נורי חפצי הנכרי קונין שביתה ושמואל דאמר כרבנן ודקאמרת לרבנן פשיטא מהו דתימא גזירה בעלים דנכרי אטו בעלים דישראל קא משמע לן
The Gemara answers: Actually, say that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds that a gentile’s objects acquire residence, and that Shmuel, who said that they do not acquire residence, spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And with regard to that which you said, that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, it is obvious that a gentile’s objects do not acquire residence, so this ruling need not have been stated at all. The Gemara answers: That is incorrect, as you might have said that the Sages should issue a decree in the case of gentile owners that his objects acquire residence in his location and that they may not be carried beyond two thousand cubits from that spot, lest people carry objects belonging to a Jewish owners beyond their two-thousand-cubit limit. Therefore, it is teaching us that no decree was issued.
ורב חייא בר אבין אמר רבי יוחנן חפצי נכרי קונין שביתה גזירה בעלים דנכרי אטו בעלים דישראל
Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin, however, said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Objects that belong to a gentile indeed acquire residence, due to the aforementioned decree issued in the case of gentile owners due to the case of Jewish owners.
הנהו דכרי דאתו למברכתא שרא להו רבא לבני מחוזא למיזבן מינייהו
The Gemara relates that certain rams were brought to the town of Mavrakhta on Shabbat. Rava permitted the residents of Meḥoza to purchase them and take them home, although Mavrakhta was outside the Shabbat limit of Meḥoza and could be reached by the residents of Meḥoza only by way of an eiruv of Shabbat limits.
אמר ליה רבינא לרבא מאי דעתיך דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חפצי נכרי אין קונין שביתה
Ravina said to Rava: What is your reasoning in permitting these rams? You must rely upon that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire residence, and so they are permitted even if they were brought to Meḥoza from outside the Shabbat limit.
והא שמואל ורבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי יוחנן ואמר רב חייא בר אבין אמר רבי יוחנן חפצי נכרי קונין שביתה גזירה בעלים דנכרי אטו בעלים דישראל
Isn’t the principle, in disputes between Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan? And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin already said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Objects that belong to a gentile acquire residence, based on a decree in the case of a gentile owner, due to the case of a Jewish owner. The halakha is in accordance with his opinion.
הדר אמר רבא ליזדבנו לבני מברכתא דכולה מברכתא לדידהו כארבע אמות דמיא
Rava reconsidered and said: Let the rams be sold only to the residents of Mavrakhta. Although the rams acquired residence, and may be moved only four cubits as they were taken beyond their Shabbat limit, the legal status of all Mavrakhta is like four cubits for them. However, they may not be sold to the residents of Meḥoza, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
תני רבי חייא חרם שבין תחומי שבת צריך
Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a baraita: A water-filled ditch [ḥerem] that lies between two Shabbat limits requires