(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 9



(a) We ask on Shmuel (who holds that Rachuv is not Koneh) from the Beraisa, which equates Meshichah and Hanhagah with regard to a camel or a donkey. 'Meshichah' constitutes - pulling the animal from the front (which is how one normally drives a camel; Hanhagah, from the back, which is how a donkey is usually driven.

(b) This is the opinion of the Tana Kama. According to Rebbi Yehudah - if one is Moshech a donkey or Manhig a camel, one is not Koneh it.

(c) The Kashya on Shmuel stems from the fact - that the Tana discusses these two Kinyanim, to the apparent exclusion of Rachuv (even when he is Manhig be'Raglav).

(a) We answer that the Tana Kama specifically mentions Meshichah and Hanhagah (and omits Rachuv) - in order to preclude the S'vara of Rebbi Yehudah (i.e. to validate even the reverse).

(b) The Tana Kama cannot simply state that Meshichah and Hanhagah are effective both by a camel and by a donkey. He is forced to connect Meshichah to the camel and Hanhagah to the donkey (one of them deliberately, and the other one, to balance the first one) - because he only validates the reverse in the case of one of them (either Meshichah by a donkey or Hanhagah by a camel), but not by the other. And we don't know which is which.

(c) Others ask on Shmuel from the Tana Kama's words 'be'Midah Zos Kanu', which seemingly comes to preclude Rachuv - to which we reply that the Tana is not coming to preclude Rachuv, but the reverse (as we explained in the first Lashon).

(d) Even though this statement of the Tana Kama precludes the reverse, he nevertheless differs from Rebbi Yehudah - in either Meshichah by a Chamor or Manhig by a camel, as we explained in the first Lashon.

(a) In the case where Reuven is riding the animal and Shimon is holding the reins - the Tana rules that Reuven acquires the animal and Shimon, the reigns.

(b) According to Shmuel - 'Rachuv' means leading it with his legs.

(c) In light of this, we initially amend the statement 'Zeh Kanah Chamor, ve'Zeh Kanah Mosirah' to mean - that Reuven acquires the donkey plus half the reins, and Shimon acquires half the reins.

(d) We object to the ruling that Shimon acquires the reins because he is holding them - in view of the fact that one does not acquire an object until one has picked it up entirely, and in this case, seeing as Shimon only picked-up half the reins, and the other half remained where it was, he is not the reins at all.

(a) The problem with the previous ruling (enabling Reuven to acquire half the reins through Shimon's Kinyan on the reins (even according to Rami bar Chama, who holds 'ha'Magbihah Mezti'ah la'Chavero, Kanah Chavero') is - that is only if he picked it up on behalf of his friend, which is not the case here (where Shimon picked up the Talis in order to acquire it).

(b) So Rav Ashi further amends the Beraisa, to read that Shimon acquires what he is holding - whereas Reuven acquires only the bridle-harness, which one acquires together with the donkey.

(a) Rebbi Avahu reinstates the original wording of the Beraisa. According to him, Shimon will acquire the reins - by virtue of the fact that when he picks-up the one end from the ground, it is easy to pull the other end towards him.

(b) If Reuven first picked up one end of a Talis from the floor, and Shimon then picked up the other end from a pillar - both of them will acquire the Talis.

(c) We know that the first one is not Koneh the entire Talis (like he ought to according to Rebbi Avahu) - because then the Din of two people picking up a Metzi'ah is subject to how the object is lying, and we know of no Tana who makes such a distinction.

(d) This proves - that Rebbi Avahu's explanation is nothing more than a joke?

(a) When Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa states that someone who rides an animal in town or leads it in the field, acquires it, he is coming to preclude riding in town, which is not Koneh.

(b) It is not customary to ride an animal in town - because it is considered to lack modesty.

(a) We conclude that 'Rochev' means Manhig be'Raglav, and that Rebbi Eliezer is referring to two different kinds of Manhig. According to Rav Kahana, one does not acquire the animal by riding it in town - because people do not usually ride animals in town as we explained.

(b) Rav Ashi disproves Rav Kahana from the Din of someone who picks up a purse on Shabbos - and acquires it even though people do not usually pick up purses on Shabbos (in other words, time and location do not affect Kinyanim - notwithstanding certain Kinyanim, which Chazal only instituted in certain locations).

(c) So Rav Ashi establishes Rebbi Eliezer (not by the case of Metzi'ah, but) - by the case of purchase, where the seller specified that the purchaser must acquire it in the way that people normally do.

(d) We cite three exceptions to Rebbi Eliezer's ruling. The purchaser will acquire the animal even through riding it in town, if 'he' is ...

1. ... riding in a main road - because then, in order not to become separated from his animal, everyone tends to ride rather than lead the animal.
2. ... a man of high esteem - for whom it is undignified to lead his animal.
3. ... a woman - who feels safer on the animal's back.
4. ... a man with no self-respect - who sees nothing wrong with riding in town.



(a) Rebbi Elazar asked what the Din will be if Reuven says to Shimon 'Meshoch Beheimah Zu Li'knos Keilim she'Alehah'. However the wording of the She'eilah is erroneous - because Reuven failed to instruct Shimon to acquire the vessels. Consequently, he is merely telling him to have in mind to acquire them, but that he is not giving them to him.

(b) So we amend the wording to 'Meshoch Beheimah Zu u'K'ni Keilim she'Alehah', and Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah is whether the recipient will acquire the vessels by means of the Kinyan on the animal (even though he is not acquiring the animal itself).

(c) Rava comments on the She'eilah - that clearly Rebbi Elazar takes for granted that if he meant to acquire the animal as well, he would certainly acquire the vessels. That is not such a simple matter however. He ought not to acquire the vessels ...

1. ... even if he means to acquire the animal as well - because a walking Chatzer is not Koneh.
2. ... even if the animal is standing still - because a Chatzer that is able to walk is not Koneh even if it is static.
(d) We know that a walking Chatzer is not Koneh - because Kinyan Chatzer stems from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Im Himatzei Simatzei be'Yado", 'Le'rabos Gago, Chatzero ve'Karfifo' (which, like "Yado", cannot move without his consent).
(a) We finally justify the She'eilah, by establishing that it is possible to acquire the vessels together with the animal - when the animal is trussed up.

(b) Despite the fact that a walking Chatzer is not Koneh ...

1. ... Rava explained to Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua the accepted Halachah that fish which leap into a boat belong to the owner - on the grounds that a ship is not a walking Chatzer, since it is basically static, and it is the water which moves it (a definition will presumably not apply to modern ships which are propelled by a motor).
2. ... Rav Ashi explained to Ravina the Halachah (cited in the Mishnah in Gitin) that if a man throws a Get into the basket that his wife is carrying in the street, she is divorced - because the basket (like the ship) is static, and it is the woman who is moving.
(a) Our Mishnah rules in a case where following a request from Reuven to pick up a Metzi'ah on his behalf, Shimon picks it up ...
1. ... and promptly declares that he acquired it for himself - that it belongs to Shimon.
2. ... hands it to him, and then declares that he acquired it first - that it belongs to Reuven.
(b) The latter Halachah will apply even according to those who hold 'ha'Magbihah Metzi'ah la'Chavero, Lo Kanah Chavero' - because 'Mah Nafshach', if Shimon acquired the article, then he gave it to Reuven as a gift, and if he did not, then Reuven acquired it from Hefker, when he took it from Shimon's hand.
(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah in Pe'ah, if a rich man picks up Pe'ah on behalf of a poor man, the latter acquires it - This Halachah does not extend to the owner of the field, based on the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Lo Selaket, le'Ani" from which we learn that even if the owner is a poor man, he is forbidden to take Pe'ah from his own field.

(b) The Rabbanan hold - that the poor man does not acquire it (until it reaches his hand). Consequently, any other poor man may help himself to it first.

(c) Ula Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi confines the Rabbanan's ruling to a rich man acquiring on behalf of a poor one. According to him ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer permits the poor man to keep the Pe'ah - because he applies two 'Migus' ('Migu' that he could declare his property Hefker and become eligible to take Pe'ah, and 'Migu de'Zachi le'Nafsheih, Zachi Nami le'Chavreih'.
2. ... the Rabbanan rule he may not, because they only apply one 'Migu' at a time, but not two.
(d) The Rabbanan concede to Rebbi Eliezer in the case of a poor man picking up the Pe'ah on behalf of another poor man - because that only requires one 'Migu', and the Rabbanan do not argue with the concept of 'Migu de'Zachi le'Nafsheih, Zachi Nami le'Chavreih'.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that where Shimon, in apparent compliance with Reuven's request, picks up the Metzi'ah that Reuven asked him to pick up on his behalf, and declares that he acquired it for himself, it is his. According to Ula, Shimon claims that he originally picked up the article on his own behalf (as we explained in our Mishnah). Rav Nachman, interprets the Mishnah to mean - that it is *now* that Shimon wishes to acquire the object, even though originally, he picked it up on behalf of Reuven.

(b) Rav Nachman extrapolates from this - that the Tana holds 'Hamagbihah Metzi'ah la'Chavero, Lo Kanah Chavero', even in a case where there is a 'Migu'.

(c) He then goes on to prove from here that the Rabbanan must argue with Rebbi Eliezer even in the case of *a poor man* picking up Pe'ah on behalf of a poor man (because they do not hold of 'Migu de'Zachi le'Nafsheih ... '). Otherwise, who will be the author of our Mishnah (seeing as both Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabanan hold ' ... Zachi Nami le'Chavreih')?

(d) Even according to Rav Nachman, however - even the Tana of our Mishnah holds of 'Migu de'Zachi le'Nafsheih ... ', provided he also acquires it partially for himself (because our Sugya is speaking specifically when Shimon acquires the article or the Pe'ah on behalf of Reuven exclusively).

(a) Ula answers that the Tana must be speaking when Shimon said that he picked up the object initially on Reuven's behalf, as we explained, and he proves this from the Tana's use of the word 'Techilah' in the Seifa (where he said, after having giving it to Reuven 'Ani Zachisi Bah Techilah'). The problem with this per se would be - that it is obvious, and hardly needs to be mentioned, since otherwise, how could Shimon possibly expect to acquire the article that he already gave to Shimon?

(b) Ula therefore concludes - that the Tana must insert 'Techilah' in the Seifa, to reveal that the Reisha too, speaks when he said 'Techilah'.

(c) Rav Nachman, to counter Ula's proof - explains that the Tana inserts 'Techilah' in the Seifa, implying that the Reisha speaks when he did not say 'Techilah'.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,