Bava Metzia 8b — the Talmud in English

I heard two teachings from Mar Shmuel.

Rav Yehuda heard two halakhot from Shmuel, concerning two distinct ways of acquiring an animal.

One halakha he stated concerning the case in which the buyer was

riding

on the animal,

and

a second halakha concerning the case in which the buyer was

leading

it.

In one

case, he acquires it

the animal,

and

in another

case, he does not acquire it.

Rav Yehuda added and said to Rav Yosef:

But I do not know which of them,

I do not know regarding which case Shmuel said that the acquisition is effective, and regarding which case this is not an act of acquisition.

The Gemara discusses the matter:

What are the circumstances? If we say

that Shmuel was speaking about two distinct cases, one in which the buyer was

riding alone, and

the other in which the buyer was

leading alone,

meaning, one person was riding an animal without another person leading it, and another person was leading an animal without anyone riding it, and Shmuel said in this regard that one act of acquisition is effective and another act of acquisition is not effective,

that is not possible, for

is there anyone who says that one who leads an animal alone does not acquire it!?

It is impossible that Rav Yehuda heard from Shmuel that one of these acts is effective and the other is not, and did not know which was which. For it is certainly the case that one who leads an animal alone is effective, since leading the animal constitutes acquisition through pulling, and we have established that an animal is acquired through pulling.

Rather,

necessarily,

if there is room to say that one does not acquire it, it is the rider regarding whom there is room to say so.

If this is what he heard—that one acquires it and the other does not—then certainly acquisition through leading is effective, whereas acquisition through riding is not; and this was not Rav Yehuda’s uncertainty.

Rather, his uncertainty was regarding a rider in the presence of one who leads.

The entire uncertainty is in a case where one person was riding an animal and the other was leading the animal, and both come before us, each saying: “I found it, and it is all mine.” Whose act of acquisition is superior—the rider’s or the one who leads it?

This was Rav Yehuda’s uncertainty:

What is the halakha?

Is

the rider superior, since he is holding it, or perhaps the one who leads it is superior, since it walks on account of him?

And these are the sides of the uncertainty: Whose act of acquisition is superior—the rider’s, because he is holding the animal itself at the time of acquisition, or perhaps the act of acquisition of the one who leads it is more significant, because the animal moves from its place on account of him? And in this manner Rabbi Yehuda heard from Shmuel that one of them acquires it and the other does not, but he did not know which of them.

Rav Yosef said:

Rav Yehuda further

said to me: Let us see,

I can resolve my uncertainty from another statement of Shmuel, and from it we will know whether the one who leads acquires the animal or the rider acquires it.

As we learned

in tractate Kilayim [8:3], concerning the prohibition against leading diverse kinds—a bull and a donkey—together:

One who leads

a bull and a donkey together

receives

forty

lashes for the transgression of leading diverse kinds.

And

likewise,

one who sits in a wagon

that is being led by a bull and a donkey together also

receives forty lashes.

Rabbi Meir exempts one who sits in the wagon.

That is, Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree as to whether one who sits in the wagon is also flogged. According to the Rabbis, the one sitting in the wagon also contributes something to the leading of the donkey and the bull together, and he is liable for this. According to Rabbi Meir, only the one who leads is liable.

And since Shmuel reversed the wording and taught, “The Sages exempt one who sits in the wagon,”

Shmuel taught the statements of the disputants in the beraita in reverse: Rabbi Meir obligates both of them, while the Rabbis exempt one who sits in the wagon and obligate only the one who leads,

conclude from it

that according to Shmuel, who reversed the opinions,

a rider alone does not acquire the animal.

And

if so,

all the more so, a rider in the presence of one who leads does not acquire it!

That is, from the fact that Shmuel reversed the opinions in the Mishna and identified the view that exempts the rider with the Rabbis, who are the majority and whose ruling is followed, it is proven that according to him a rider is not considered to contribute anything to the leading of the animal. Only Rabbi Meir holds that a rider is equivalent to one who leads. It is therefore proven that according to Shmuel, the one who leads contributes more to the animal’s being led than does the rider; consequently, if one person was riding and another was leading, the one who leads acquired it.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: You have told us many times, “Let us see!” But you did not tell us this in the name of Rav Yehuda.

Many times you derived from the Mishna of one who sits in a wagon that leading is superior to riding, but you did not state this in the name of Rav Yehuda. Rather, you presented this resolution as your own.

He said to him,

Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

Indeed!

The truth is that Rav Yehuda himself resolved it from the case of one who sits in a wagon.

And I also remember that I said to him: How does my master resolve the case of a rider from that of one who sits,

and I remember that I said to Rav Yehuda: How can you resolve the uncertainty concerning a rider and one who leads from the law of one who sits in a wagon? For there is a distinction between them in the manner of riding, since the

one sitting

in the wagon

does not hold the reins,

whereas

a rider holds the reins.

One who sits in a wagon does not hold the rope tied to the animal’s neck, whereas with regard to a rider, there is reason to say that he acquires it because he is holding the reins.

And he said to me,

Rav Yehuda

said: This is the teaching of Idi

[the name of a Sage]:

Rav and Shmuel both say: Holding the reins does not acquire the animal!

That is, Rav Yehuda rejected my statement: What difference does it make that the rider is holding the reins? Holding the reins of a found animal does not effect acquisition unless there is a displacement of hand and foot. But holding the reins alone does not effect acquisition. If so, a rider is like one who sits in a wagon.

Some say

that this is what

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

How does my master resolve the case of a rider from that of one who sits,

for

one who sits does not hold the reins,

whereas

a rider holds the reins?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef

said:

This is the teaching of Idi: Holding the reins does not acquire the animal.

It was also stated:

Rabbi Helbo said that Rav Huna said:

An acquisition of an animal effected by holding its

reins—if this was an act of acquisition

from another person,

he acquires it.

But if it was an acquisition

of a found item or of the property of a convert

[who died without heirs, so that his property is ownerless]—he does not acquire it. The reason is that acquisition through handing over is effective only in a sale or a gift, where there is an owner who transfers the animal to another person by handing it over, but not with regard to a found item, where there is no owner who can hand over the found item.

The Gemara explains why acquisition through the reins is effective only when acquiring from another person, but not with regard to a found item.

For

what

is the meaning of

the term “reins”?

Rava said: Idi explained it to me:

He explained to me why the reins are called by this name: They are named for the act of acquisition of handing over that is performed with them, whose meaning is

like a person handing an object to another person.

Therefore, the name of the reins indicates the nature of acquisition through handing over, which is the transfer of an object from one hand to another.

Therefore,

granted, when acquiring from another person, he acquires

through the act of handing over,

as his fellow hands it to him. But with regard to a found item or the property of a convert, who hands it to him so that he should acquire it!?

When acquiring through a sale or a gift from another person, the item is transferred from the seller to the buyer. But with regard to a found item or the property of a convert, which becomes ownerless after his death when he has no heirs, there is no transfer from hand to hand; therefore, acquisition through handing over cannot apply there.

If so, in conclusion, when one rides an animal that is a found item, even if he is holding the rope called the reins, this is not an advantage, since it is a found item, with regard to which there is no transfer from hand to hand. Consequently, we can resolve the case from that of one who sits in a wagon: the one who leads acquired it, whereas the rider did not acquire it.

The Gemara raises an objection

to Rav Yehuda from our Mishna, in which we learned:

If two people were riding on an animal, or if one was riding and one was “leading”

[by calling to it, walking beside it, or striking it with a stick, but not pulling it with a rope, for then he is “pulling” and not “leading”]

, they divide it.

And it is thereby proven that riding constitutes an act of acquisition even in the presence of one who leads, since the Mishna says that they divide it.

The Gemara demonstrates that the Mishna’s words are authoritative.

Whose opinion is it?

According to whom does our Mishna follow?

If it is Rabbi Meir,

who holds that one who sits in the wagon is flogged together with the one who leads, this is impossible! For

now, if one who sits acquires it, is it necessary to state that a rider acquires it!?

If, according to him, sitting in the wagon constitutes an act of leading a bull and a donkey together, for which one is flogged, then according to him one also acquires the animal through sitting in the wagon. All the more so, one who rides on the animal itself acquires it; and if so, there would have been no need for the Mishna to teach the law of a rider.

Rather, it is the Rabbis.

Necessarily, our Mishna comes to teach a novel point according to the Rabbis,

and conclude from it that a rider acquires the animal.

Our Mishna comes to teach that although one who sits in the wagon is not flogged, nevertheless, a rider acquires the animal. If so, this is difficult for Rav Yehuda: How could he have resolved that a rider’s acquisition is ineffective from the case of one who sits in a wagon? After all, in our Mishna we see that riding is effective even in the presence of one who leads.

The Gemara answers:

With what are we dealing here? With one who leads with his feet.

There is no proof from the Mishna against Rav Yehuda’s resolution from the case of the wagon, because in truth a rider alone does not acquire the animal when another person is leading it. As for the Mishna’s statement that when one is riding and one is leading they divide it, in that case the rider is also leading the animal to some degree, by kicking it with his feet, causing it to move on account of him. In such a case, acquisition through riding is effective even when another person is leading.

The Gemara asks:

If so, that is leading!

If the rider in the Mishna is also leading, the Mishna should have said: “If two people were riding, or if two people were leading.”

The Gemara answers:

There are two types of leading.

There are two types of leading an animal. Therefore, had the Mishna said, “If two people were leading, they divide it,” we would not know that they also divide it when one is riding and leading with his feet while the other is merely leading.

For

it might have entered your mind to say that the rider is superior, since he both leads and holds it; therefore it teaches us

that one might have thought that the act of acquisition of the rider who leads is superior to that of one who leads alone, since he both leads the animal and performs pulling, and also holds the animal. Therefore, the Mishna comes to teach us that nevertheless, the rider who leads is not superior to the one who leads, and they divide it between them.

From now on, Rav Yehuda’s statement is properly understood: A rider alone, without leading the animal with his feet, does not acquire it.

The Gemara now brings a proof for Rav Yehuda’s statement:

Come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita:

If two people were pulling a camel and leading a donkey, or if one was pulling and one was leading—