Bava Metzia 17

Chapter 17

א במדה זאת קנו ר' יהודה אומר לעולם לא קנה עד שתהא משיכה בגמל והנהגה בחמור

1 they acquired it by this method. R. Judah says: One never acquires a camel except by pulling it, and [one never acquires] an ass [except by] leading it.1

ב קתני מיהת או שהיה אחד מושך ואחד מנהיג מושך ומנהיג אין אבל רכוב לא

2 In any case it is taught [here]: 'or if one was pulling, and the other was leading,' [from which we may infer that] pulling and leading are [legitimate methods of acquiring an animal], but not riding? — The same law applies also to riding, but the reason why 'pulling' and 'leading' is given here is [that it was desired] to exclude the view of R. Judah, who says, 'one never acquires a camel except by pulling it, and [one never acquires] an ass [except by] leading it.' We are thus informed that even if [the methods are] reversed they [the animals] are also legitimately acquired.2

ג הוא הדין דאפילו רכוב והא דקתני מושך ומנהיג לאפוקי מדר' יהודה דאמר עד שתהא משיכה בגמל והנהגה בחמור קמשמע לן דאפילו איפכא נמי קני

3 But if so,3

ד אי הכי ליערבינהו וליתנינהו שנים שהיו מושכין ומנהיגין בין בגמל בין בחמור

4 let [the Tanna] combine them and teach: 'If two persons were pulling and leading either a camel or an ass'? — There is one side which [prevents the combination, as one of the two actions mentioned] is invalid [in the case of one of the animals]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the Tanna could not adopt the phrasing first suggested, and he had to say: 'If two persons were pulling a camel or leading an ass, or if one was pulling and one was leading,' viz., the animal which can be acquired by either method, — but this would not apply to the other animal, which could only be acquired by one of the methods. ');">4

ה איכא חד צד דלא קני איכא דאמרי משיכה בחמור ואיכא דאמרי הנהגה בגמל

5 some say, it is [the act of] pulling [in the case of] an ass, and others say, it is [the act of] leading [in the case of] a camel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Some of the Rabbis thought that an ass could not be acquired by pulling (while a camel could be acquired either by pulling or by leading), and others thought that a camel could not be acquired by leading (while an ass could be acquired either by leading or by pulling). ');">5

ו ואית דמותיב מסיפא במדה זו קנה במדה זו למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי רכוב לא למעוטי איפכא

6 There are some who construe the objection [to the validity of riding as a means of acquiring an animal] from the conclusion [of the quoted passage]: 'They acquire it by this method.'6

ז אי הכי היינו ר' יהודה איכא בינייהו צד אחד דלא קנה אית דאמרי משיכה בחמור ואיכא דאמרי הנהגה בגמל

7 What are [the words] 'by this method' intended to exclude? [Are they] not [intended] to exclude riding? — No. [They are intended] to exclude the reversed [methods].7

ח ת"ש אחד רכוב חמור ואחד תפוס במוסירה זה קנה חמור וזה קנה מוסירה שמע מינה רכוב קני

8 But if so, this view is identical with that of R. Judah? — There is a difference between them [in so far as according to the first Tanna] there is only one side which is invalid:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Judah pulling is applicable to a camel only, and leading is applicable to an ass only, while according to the first Tanna one of the animals can be acquired by either method. ');">8

ט הכא נמי במנהיג ברגליו אי הכי נקני נמי רכוב במוסירה אימא זה קנה חמור וחצי מוסירה וזה קנה חצי מוסירה

9 some say, it is [the act of] pulling [in the case of] an ass, and others say, it is [the act of] leading [in the case of] a camel.

י בשלמא רכוב קני דקמגבה ליה בן דעת אלא תפוס במוסירה במאי קני

10 Come and hear: If one rides on an ass, and another holds the reins,9

יא אימא זה קנה חמור וכוליה מוסירה וזה קני מה שתפוס בידו

11 one acquires the ass, and the other acquires the reins. This proves that one acquires [an animal] by means of riding? — Here also [it is understood that the rider] drives it with his feet. But if so let the rider also acquire the reins?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the rider has acquired the ass legitimately, the reins should also go to him, as they are attached to the ass and are intended to serve as an ornament for the animal. ');">10

יב האי מאי אם תימצי לומר המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו הני מילי היכא דקא מגבה ליה אדעתא דחבריה האי אדעתא דידיה קא מגבה ליה איהו לא קני לאחריני מקני

12 — Say: one acquires the ass and half of the reins, and the other acquires half of the reins. But [it is argued] the rider rightly acquires [his part] seeing that a rational person lifted up for him [the other end of the reins from the ground], but he who holds the reins — how does he acquire [his part]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the other end is attached to the ass and has not been lifted up by the person to whom the reins are awarded, and seeing also that an ownerless object can be acquired only by one who removes the whole of it, how can the person that holds the reins attached to the ass be said to have acquired them? ');">11

יג אמר רב אשי זה קנה חמור ובית פגיה וזה קנה מה שתפוס בידו והשאר לא קנה לא זה ולא זה

13 — Say: One acquires the ass and [nearly] all of the reins, and the other acquires what he holds in his hand.12

יד רבי אבהו אמר לעולם כדקתני הואיל ויכול לנתקה ולהביאה אצלו

14 But how is this? Even if you say that if a man lifts up a found object for his neighbour the neighbour acquires it,it could only apply to [a case] where he lifted it up on behalf of his neighbour, but this one lifted up [one end of the reins] on his own behalf: if he himself does not acquire it [by this action], how is he to enable others to acquire it? — Said R. Ashi: The one acquires the ass with the halter, and the other acquires what he holds in his hand, but the rest [of the reins] neither of them acquires.13

טו והא דר' אבהו ברותא היא דאי לא תימא הכי טלית שהיא מונחת חציה על גבי קרקע וחציה על גבי עמוד ובא אחד והגביה חציה מעל גבי קרקע ובא אחר והגביה חציה מעל גבי עמוד הכי נמי דקמא קני ובתרא לא קני הואיל ויכול לנתק ולהביא אצלו אלא הא דר' אבהו ברותא היא

15 R. Abbahu said: In reality we may leave it as taught [at first].14

טז ת"ש ר' אליעזר אומר רכוב בשדה ומנהיג בעיר קנה הכא נמי מנהיג ברגליו אי הכי היינו מנהיג תרי גווני מנהיג

16 [and] the reason is that he [who holds the reins] can pull them violently and bring [the other end also] to himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The person that holds the other end of the reins could, by violent pulling, remove also the end that is attached to the head of the ass, as owing to the elevated position of the ass's head it would be easy to pull off the halter with the reins by one sharp tug. ');">15

יז אי הכי רכוב בעיר מאי טעמא לא קני אמר רב כהנא לפי שאין דרכן של בני אדם לרכוב בעיר

17 But R. Abbahu's view is a mistake: for if you do not say so, [how would you decide in a case where] one half of the garment lies on the ground and the other half [rests] upon a pillar, and one person comes and lifts up the half from the ground, while another person comes and lifts up the half from the pillar — will you maintain here also that the first one acquires it but the last one does not acquire it, for the reason that [the first one] can pull it violently and bring [the other half also] to himself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a distinction were to be made between cases on the ground that the position of the other end, or the other half, of the found object might facilitate its removal by the person that holds the first end or first half, then if a garment is found one half of which rests on a pillar, or on some other elevation that would facilitate the removal of the whole garment by one strong pull on the part of the person that has seized the low-lying end, the law of our Mishnah which divides the garment between the two claimants should not apply, and the first claimant (who seized the low-lying end of the garment) should receive the whole garment. But the law recognises no such distinction. Hence R. Abbahu is mistaken in the view he advances ');">16

יח אמר ליה רב אשי לרב כהנא אלא מעתה הגביה ארנקי בשבת שאין דרכן של בני אדם להגביה ארנקי בשבת הכי נמי דלא קני אלא מאי דעבד עבד וקני הכא נמי מאי דעבד עבד וקני

18 [We must] therefore [say that] the view of R. Abbahu is a mistake.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word used in describing R. Abbahu's error occurs in several places in the Talmud. It is regarded as a courteous substitute for other terms which might be used in refuting wrong decisions, but which would appear derogatory to the dignity of the Rabbis who committed the error. The term is associated with the word [H], meaning something external, which does not fit in, and which is therefore rejected. In other places, however, (such as Pes. 11a; B.B. 145a) the rendering is [H], an invention, an unfounded assertion. ');">17

יט אלא במקח וממכר עסקינן דאמר ליה קני כדרך שבני אדם קונין

19 Come and hear: R. Eliezer says: One who rides [on a found animal] in the country, or one who leads [a found animal] in the city, acquires it!18 — Here also the rider drives [the animal] with his feet.19 But if so, it is the same as 'leading'? — There are two ways of 'leading'.20 But if so, why does not he who rides [on an animal] in the city acquire it? — R. Kahana said: It is because people are not in the habit of riding in a city.21 R. Ashi then said to R. Kahana: According to this, he who picks Up a purse on a Sabbath should not acquire it either, seeing that people are not in the habit of picking up a purse on a Sabbath?22 But in fact he does acquire [the purse] because [we say:] What he has done is done;23 so here also [we ought to say]: What he has done is done, and he acquires [the animal by riding on it in the city]! — It must therefore be that we deal here with [a case of] buying and selling, where he says to him:24 'Acquire it in the way people usually acquire [a bought article]',25

Previous Chapter Next Chapter