Bava Metzia 16

Chapter 16

א שמעית מיניה דמר שמואל תרתי רכוב ומנהיג חד קני וחד לא קני ולא ידענא הי מינייהו

1 'I heard two [laws] from Mar Samuel: If one rides [on an animal] and another leads [it], one of them acquires [the animal], and the other does not acquire it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab Judah remembered that Mar Samuel had stated the two cases, and had given his decision regarding each case, but he did not remember what Samuel's decision was in each case. ');">1 but I do not know [to] which of the two [either decision was meant to apply].' But how is this to be understood?2

ב היכי דמי אילימא רכוב לחודיה ומנהיג לחודיה מנהיג לחודיה מי איכא מאן דאמר לא קני אלא אי איכא למימר דלא קני רכוב הוא דאיכא למימר

2 If it refers to [two cases, in one of which there was] a man riding [on an animal] by himself and [in the other] there was a man leading [an animal] by himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If Samuel gave his decisions regarding two separate cases, in one of which a man claimed to have acquired an animal by riding on it, and in the other a man claimed to have acquired an animal by leading (or pulling) it, and in each case another person came along and pulled the animal away in order to acquire it for himself, the expression of doubt by Rab Judah as to which of the two cases either decision was meant to apply to, would accordingly have implied that he was not certain whether leading (or pulling) an animal is a legitimate way of acquiring it. ');">3 — is there anyone who would say that he who leads an animal by himself does not acquire it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab Judah could not have been in doubt on this point, as all are agreed that leading (or pulling) an animal is the legitimate way of acquiring it. Cf. Kid. 22b. ');">4

ג אלא רכוב במקום מנהיג איבעיא ליה מאי רכוב עדיף דהא תפיס בה או דלמא מנהיג עדיף דאזלא מחמתיה

3 If, therefore, it is to be said that one does not acquire [the animal], it can only be said of the one that rides on it!5 — Thus [it must be assumed that] the doubt [expressed] by Rab Judah concerns a case where one rides on an animal, and simultaneously someone else leads it.6

ד אמר רב יוסף אמר לי רב יהודה נחזי אנן דתנן המנהיג סופג את הארבעים והיושב בקרון סופג את הארבעים ר"מ פוטר את היושב בקרון

4 The question then is: Is the rider to be given prefer — ence because he holds it,7 or is perhaps the leader to be given preference because it moves through his action?8

ה ומדאפיך שמואל ותני וחכמים פוטרין את היושב בקרון שמע מינה רכוב לחודיה לא קני וכל שכן רכוב במקום מנהיג

5 R. Joseph [then] said: Rab Judah said to me, Let us look [into the matter] ourselves.9 For we learnt: He who leads [a team composed of an ox an and ass]10

ו אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף הא זמנין סגיאין אמרת לן נחזי אנן ולא אמרת לן משמיה דרב יהודה

6 receives forty lashes,11 and [likewise] he who sits in the waggon [drawn by such a team] receives forty lashes. R. Meir declares him who sits in the waggon free.12

ז א"ל אברא ודכרנן נמי דאמרי ליה היכי פשיט מר רכוב מיושב יושב לא תפיס במוסירה רכוב תפיס במוסירה ואמר לי רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו מוסירה לא קני

7 And since Samuel reverses [the Mishnah] and reads: 'And the Sages declare him who sits in the waggon free'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the decision of the majority of the Sages must be accepted, Samuel ascribes the decision which he favours, viz., that sitting in the waggon is of no consequence, to the anonymous Sages, not to R. Meir. Riding an animal (without moving it) would be the same as sitting in the waggon attached to the animal (without driving it). ');">13 it follows that [according to Samuel] he who rides [on an animal] by himself does not acquire it, and this would apply with even greater force to one who rides on an animal while someone else leads it!

ח איכא דאמרי א"ל אביי לרב יוסף היכי פשיט מר רכוב מיושב יושב לא תפיס במוסירה רכוב תפיס במוסירה א"ל הכי תנא אידי מוסירה לא קני

8 Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Have you not told us many times [the argument headed by the words]: 'Let us look [into the matter],' and yet you never told us it in the name of Rab Judah?14 [R. Joseph] answered him: Truly, [it is Rab Judah's argument]: I even remember saying to him, 'How can you, Sir, derive the decision regarding [the case of] One who rides [on an animal] from [the case of] one who sits [in the waggon], seeing that he who sits [in the waggon] does not hold the reins, while he who rides [on the animal] does hold the reins?' And he answered me: 'Both Rab and Samuel agree that one does not acquire [an animal] by holding the reins.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the case of a found animal. It is only by pulling the animal and causing it to move (even if it only moves one fore-leg and one hind-leg) that the finder can take possession of the animal. It is different with a bought animal. Cf. Kid., 22b and 25b. ');">15

ט אתמר נמי אמר רבי חלבו אמר רב הונא מוסירה מחבירו קנה במציאה ובנכסי הגר לא קני

9 Some give another version:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the argument advanced by R. Joseph, of Abaye's reply, and of R. Joseph's rejoinder. According to this version R. Joseph did not speak in the name of Rab Judah when he said, 'Let us look into the matter,' etc., but gave his own view, which Abaye challenged. ');">16 Abaye said to R. Joseph: How do you, Sir, derive the law regarding one who rides [on an animal] from that concerning one who sits [in a waggon pulled by an animal], [seeing that] he who sits [in the waggon] does not hold the reins, [while] he who rides does hold the reins? — [R. Joseph] answered him: Thus Idi learned: One does not acquire [an animal] by holding its reins. It has also been reported: R. Helbo said in the name of R. Huna: One [who buys an animal] may acquire it by taking over the reins from the neighbour [who sells it], but one who finds [an animal] and [one who seizes an animal which was] the property of a proselyte [who died without heirs]17

י מאי לשון מוסירה אמר רבא אידי אסברא לי כאדם המוסר דבר לחבירו בשלמא מחבירו קני דקא מסר ליה חבריה אלא במציאה ובנכסי הגר מאן קא מסר ליה דליקני

10 does not acquire it [in this way]. What is the derivation of the term 'Mosirah' [used for reins]? — Raba said: Idi explained it to me: [It is derived from 'masar', to hand over, and it indicates] the handing over of the reins by one person to another. [Such action] rightly [enables a person who buys an animal] from his neighbour to acquire it, as the neighbour transfers to him in this way [the possession of the animal]. But in the case of a found [animal] and [in that of an animal that was] the property of a proselyte [who died without heirs] — who transferred it to him that he should have a right to acquire it? An objection was raised: IF TWO RIDE ON AN ANIMAL etc. — whose opinion is that? If I should say that it is R. Meir's,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is of the opinion that even a person that sits in a waggon drawn by an ox and an ass has committed an offence, and who would thus regard 'sitting' as a legitimate way of acquiring an animal. The Mishnah would thus express the view of our Tanna only, and, as a minority decision, it would not be accepted. ');">18

יא מיתיבי היו שנים רוכבין על גבי בהמה וכו' מני אילימא רבי מאיר השתא יושב קני רכוב מיבעי אלא לאו רבנן ושמע מינה רכוב קני

11 [the question presents itself:] If the 'sitter' acquires it, need I be told that the 'rider' acquires it? It must therefore be [said that it is the opinion of the majority of] the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who attach no importance to 'sitting' but who nevertheless attach importance to 'riding', and they let us know in the Mishnah that 'riding' is a legitimate way of acquiring an animal. ');">19 — which would prove that the 'rider' acquires it?20

יב הכא במאי עסקינן במנהיג ברגליו אי הכי היינו מנהיג תרי גווני מנהיג מהו דתימא רכוב עדיף דהא מנהיג ותפיס בה קמ"ל

12 — Here we deal with one who drives [the animal] with his feet.21 But if so, then it is the same as 'leading'.22

יג ת"ש שנים שהיו מושכין בגמל ומנהיגין בחמור או שהיה אחד מושך ואחד מנהיג

13 There are two ways of 'leading':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although 'riding' is a form of 'leading' it was necessary to say 'or one rides, and the other leads it' and thus to indicate that the two actions are equally good, as otherwise one might regard 'riding' as more important and award the animal to him who claims to have acquired it by riding on it. ');">23 you might say that the 'rider' has a preference, because he drives it and holds it [at the same time], therefore we are informed [that leading is the same as riding]. Come and hear: If two persons were pulling a camel or leading an ass, or if one was pulling and one was leading,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter