Bava Metzia — Daf 8b

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'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,  but I do not know [to] which of the two [either decision was meant to apply].' But how is this to be understood?  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  — is there anyone who would say that he who leads an animal by himself does not acquire it?  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!  — 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.  The question then is: Is the rider to be given prefer — ence because he holds it,  or is perhaps the leader to be given preference because it moves through his action?  R. Joseph [then] said: Rab Judah said to me, Let us look [into the matter] ourselves.  For we learnt: He who leads [a team composed of an ox an and ass]  receives forty lashes,  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.  And since Samuel reverses [the Mishnah] and reads: 'And the Sages declare him who sits in the waggon free'  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! 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?  [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.' Some give another version:  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]  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,  [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  — which would prove that the 'rider' acquires it?  — Here we deal with one who drives [the animal] with his feet.  But if so, then it is the same as 'leading'.  There are two ways of 'leading':  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,