Bava Metzia

'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,