שֶׁאֵין מִן הַכֹּל זוֹכֶה אָדָם לִלְמוֹד. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיוֹסֵף הַכֹּהֵן שֶׁהָלַךְ אֵצֶל רַבּוֹ לְצַיְדָן לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה.

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.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָמָּה לִי? וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי!

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.

אָמַר אַבַּיֵי: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעֲתָךְ אָמִינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – בְּמַתְנִיתִין, אֲבָל בְּבָרַיְיתָא – אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

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.

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: הָנֵי כְּלָלֵי לָאו דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל נִינְהוּ, דְּהָא רַב לֵית לֵיהּ הָנֵי כְּלָלֵי.

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.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חֶפְצֵי נָכְרִי אֵין קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה.

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.

לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לְרַבָּנַן – פְּשִׁיטָא! הָשְׁתָּא חֶפְצֵי הֶפְקֵר, דְּלֵית לְהוּ בְּעָלִים, אֵין קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה – חֶפְצֵי הַנָּכְרִי, דְּאִית לְהוּ בְּעָלִים מִיבָּעֲיָא?!

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?

אֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי. וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה – הָנֵי מִילֵּי חֶפְצֵי הֶפְקֵר, דְּלֵית לְהוּ בְּעָלִים. אֲבָל חֶפְצֵי הַנָּכְרִי, דְּאִית לְהוּ בְּעָלִים – לֹא.

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.

מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מִן הַנָּכְרִי בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְכֵן הַמַּשְׁאִיל לוֹ לַנָּכְרִי כְּלִי מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב וְהֶחֱזִירוֹ לוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְהַכֵּלִים וְהָאוֹצָרוֹת שֶׁשָּׁבְתוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם – יֵשׁ לָהֶן אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ. וְנָכְרִי שֶׁהֵבִיא לוֹ פֵּירוֹת מִחוּץ לַתְּחוּם – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְזִיזֵם מִמְּקוֹמָן.

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.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי חֶפְצֵי נָכְרִי קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה, הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי הִיא.

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.

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי חֶפְצֵי הַנָּכְרִי אֵין קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה, הָא מַנִּי? לֹא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי וְלֹא רַבָּנַן!

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.

לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי “חֶפְצֵי הַנָּכְרִי קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה״, וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר כְּרַבָּנַן. וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ לְרַבָּנַן פְּשִׁיטָא – מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: גְּזֵירָה בְּעָלִים דְּנָכְרִי אַטּוּ בְּעָלִים דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

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.

וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֶפְצֵי נָכְרִי קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה, גְּזֵירָה בְּעָלִים דְּנָכְרִי אַטּוּ בְּעָלִים דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.

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.

הָנְהוּ דִּכְרֵי דְּאָתוּ לְמַבְרַכְתָּא, שְׁרָא לְהוּ רָבָא לִבְנֵי מְחוֹזָא לְמִיזְבַּן מִינַּיְיהוּ.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: מַאי דַּעֲתִיךְ – דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חֶפְצֵי נָכְרִי אֵין קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה,

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.

וְהָא שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֶפְצֵי נָכְרִי קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה, גְּזֵירָה בְּעָלִים דְּנָכְרִי אַטּוּ בְּעָלִים דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל!

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.

הֲדַר אֲמַר רָבָא: לִיזְדַּבְּנוּ לִבְנֵי מַבְרַכְתָּא. דְּכוּלָּה מַבְרַכְתָּא לְדִידְהוּ כְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דָּמְיָא.

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.

תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: חֵרֶם שֶׁבֵּין תְּחוּמֵי שַׁבָּת – צָרִיךְ

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a baraita : A water-filled ditch [ ḥerem ] that lies between two Shabbat limits requires