20וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁאֲלָה מֵחֲבֶרְתָּהּ מַיִם אוֹ מֶלַח וְלָשָׁה בָּהֶן עִסָּתָהּ אוֹ בִּשְּׁלָה בָּהֶן תַּבְשִׁיל הֲרֵי הָעִסָּה אוֹ הַתַּבְשִׁיל כְּרַגְלֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן. וְכֵן שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלָּקְחוּ בְּהֵמָה בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת וְשָׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלָּקַח כָּל אֶחָד מְנָתוֹ הֲרֵי כָּל הַבָּשָׂר כְּרַגְלֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן. אֲבָל אִם לָקְחוּ חָבִית בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת וְחָלְקוּ אוֹתָהּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב הֲרֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל כָּל אֶחָד כְּרַגְלָיו. הוֹאִיל וּתְחוּמִין מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים יֵשׁ בְּרֵרָה בָּהֶן וְנַחְשֹׁב כְּאִלּוּ חֵלֶק שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לָזֶה הָיָה בָּרוּר לוֹ וּמֻבְדָּל בֶּחָבִית מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב וּכְאִלּוּ לֹא הָיָה מְעֹרָב. וְאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר כֵּן בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁחֵלֶק זֶה שֶׁהִגִּיעוֹ אֲפִלּוּ נַחְשֹׁב אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מֻבְדָּל בִּבְהֵמָה מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב וּכְאִלּוּ הָיָה בָּרוּר הֲרֵי יָנַק מֵחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה קַיֶּמֶת שֶׁכָּל אֵיבָרֶיהָ יוֹנְקִין זֶה מִזֶּה וְנִמְצָא כָּל אֵיבָר וְאֵיבָר מְעֹרָב מֵחֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק חֲבֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ הֵן כְּרַגְלֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן:
Similarly, when a woman borrows water or salt from a friend to use in the kneading of dough or in the preparation of food, [the holiday limits of] the dough or the food are dependent on those of both women. By the same token, if two people purchased an animal in partnership and slaughtered it on a holiday, [the holiday limits of] the meat are dependent on those of both [partners]. If, by contrast, they purchased a jug [of wine] in partnership, and divided it on the holiday, [the holiday limits of] each partner's portion follow those of [its owner]. [What is the difference between these two laws? In the latter instance,] since the [prohibition against going beyond the holiday] limits is Rabbinic in origin, the principle of b'reirah applies. Thus, it is considered as if the portion that is given to [either partner] were distinct and separated as his in the jug before the holiday; [i.e.,] it is as if [the two portions of wine] were not mixed with [the other]. This cannot be said with regard to an animal. Even if the portion that was given to [either partner] were considered to be separated within the animal, and it is as if it were distinct [leniency cannot be shown in this instance]. For the portion derived nurture from the portion belonging to the other colleague while the animal was alive, since all of an animal's limbs derive nurture from each other. Thus, all the animal's limbs are considered as being intermingled with the portions belonging to both partners. Therefore, [the holiday limits of the animal] are dependent on both of them.