Study Guide Beitzah 38 Today's daf is sponsored by Sara and Danny Berelowitz "in honor of our newest granddaughter Avigayil Yova, daughter to Meyer and Chava Sterman." The Gemara proves that Rabbi Yochanan does not hold by laws of breira, retroactive designation, even in rabbinic laws, by bringing a case of a condition made regarding an eruv techumim. Therefore, they revert back to saying that Rabbi Hoshaya was the one who holds by breira, but only in rabbinic laws, not Torah laws. Some questions are raised against parts of the Mishna as they seem to be obvious and therefore why would the Mishna need to state them. When Rabbi Abba went to Israel he wanted to make a good impression. However, they asked him a question about the woman who borrowed ingredients for her dough and wanted to know why the water and salt weren’t’ nullified into the dough. Rabbi Abba gave an example of one who has 10 kav of wheat and someone else’s kav of wheat got mixed in and it was not nullified. The rabbis in Israel laughed at him as they held that also regarding the wheat they would be nullified as the rabbis hold that even when something mixes with the type of item (min b’mino) it is nullified. Rav Safra defended Rabbi Abba’s position by comparing it to a case of one who takes pebbles out of a batch of wheat. One is required to replace them, even though one would say that the pebbles are nullified as the owner could have sold the wheat with the pebbles as if they were wheat. The same can be said for the dough – that the water and salt add volume and therefore are not nullified. However, Abaye rejects the comparison. Rav Safra tries to support his claim but Abaye continues to reject it. The Gemara goes back to answering the question of the rabbis in Israel – why are the water and salt not nullified. Three answers are brought.