(Shmuel): An ox that has been fattened for sale assumes the Techum of whomever purchases it (from whichever town), while privately owned oxen (which are sometimes sold to local people) assume the Techum of the local townspeople (the owner already placed it before Yom Tov in the domain of the prospective buyer).

(Mishnah): If someone borrows a vessel on Erev Yom Tov, the vessel follows the Techum of the borrower.

Question: Is this not obvious?

Answer: We might have prohibited where the owner agreed to lend him the vessels on Erev Yom Tov, but he only received it on Yom Tov.

This supports the teaching of R. Yochanan.

(Mishnah): Vessels borrowed on Yom Tov follow the lender.

Question: Without even a verbal assurance to the borrower before Yom Tov, this is surely obvious!?

Answer: We might have placed it in the Techum of the borrower in a case where the owner was accustomed to lending him those vessels.

(Mishnah): A woman borrowed spices, salt and water...

Question (Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael): Why aren't those ingredients Batel to the dish for the purposes of Techumin?

Answer (R. Aba, hoping to be favorably received): This case is akin to a case where one Kav of Reuven's wheat fell into ten Kabin of Shimon's wheat (and which is obviously not Batel).

The Amoraim laughed at his answer and still more at his challenge to their laughter.

(R. Oshaya): Their laughter was justified.

The proper analogy is to wheat and barley where even he had to admit that one kind is Batel (even ownership) in another.

Even wheat in wheat is Batel according to the Rabanan of R. Yehudah, who hold Min b'Mino is Batel.

(R. Safra): But R. Aba was correct, since the Bitul you are speaking of is only where there is Isur, not a mixture of things belonging to two people (which was R. Aba's point)!

Note: The Gemara assumes that perhaps such tiny amounts (as the spices, water and salt) should be Batel anyway.)

Question: But R. Chiya taught (citing Rav) that someone who picks pebbles from his friend's granary is obligated to pay him, as if he had removed wheat (even though the amount is small)!?

Answer (Abaye): The case of the dough is not comparable to picking pebbles from the granary since there, the money (i.e. the pebbles) has a claimant, whereas the water and the salt (which the owner gave her friend) do not.

Question (acc. to Rashi: R. Safra): But the concept of Bitul does not hinge on ownership (We see R. Chisda making a distinction between whether one Min may become like the other (as in the case of Neveilah falling into Shechutah) and he does not distinguish between ownership)!?

Answer: Perhaps if the Neveilah had no owner it would indeed not be Batel!?

Question: R. Yochanan b. Nuris has already taught that objects have a certain independence even if they have no owner who is claiming them (objects of Hefker acquire Shevisah as if they had an owner).

Answer (Abaye): Still, the differentiation must be made between money (the pebbles in the wheat) and Isur (Techum)!?

Question: What, then, is the real reason for the Din that the ingredients are not Batel?

Answer (Abaye): It is a decree lest they make a dough in partnership (and misapply the Din of Bitul).

Additional Answer (Rava): It is because spices are made specifically to give taste, and whatever is added for taste, cannot become Batel.

Answer (R. Ashi): The ingredients are not Batel because they are a Davar sheYesh Lo Matirin.