שְׁמַעִית מִינֵּיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל תַּרְתֵּי: רָכוּב וּמַנְהִיג, חַד קָנֵי וְחַד לָא קָנֵי. וְלָא יָדַעְנָא הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ.

I heard two halakhot from Master Shmuel, one halakha with regard to one who sits in a riding position on an animal, and the other halakha with regard to one who leads an animal. With regard to one case I heard that he thereby acquires the animal, and with regard to the other one I heard that he does not acquire the animal. But I do not know which halakha applies to which of them.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא רָכוּב לְחוֹדֵיהּ וּמַנְהִיג לְחוֹדֵיהּ – מַנְהִיג לְחוֹדֵיהּ מִי אִיכָּא מַאן דְּאָמַר לָא קָנֵי? אֶלָּא אִי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּלָא קָנֵי – רָכוּב הוּא דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that this is referring to one who sits in a riding position alone and to one who leads alone, is there anyone who says that one who leads an animal alone does not acquire it? Pulling an item, or leading an animal, is a classic mode of acquisition (see Kiddushin 25b). Rather, if there is a case where it could be said that one does not acquire the animal, it is obviously in the case of one who sits in a riding position that it could be said. Therefore, why was Rav Yehuda uncertain?

אֶלָּא רָכוּב בִּמְקוֹם מַנְהִיג אִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ. מַאי: רָכוּב עָדִיף – דְּהָא תָּפֵיס בַּהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא מַנְהִיג עָדִיף – דְּאָזְלָא מֵחֲמָתֵיהּ?

The Gemara answers: Rather, his dilemma was with regard to a case where one sits in a riding position on the animal while another leads it. What is the halakha? Which of them acquires the animal? Does the one sitting in a riding position on the animal take precedence, as the animal is in his grasp, since his legs are grasping the sides of the animal, or perhaps the one leading the animal takes precedence, as it walks because of him?

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, אָמַר לִי רַב יְהוּדָה: נֶחְזֵי אֲנַן, דִּתְנַן: הַמַּנְהִיג סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים, וְהַיּוֹשֵׁב בַּקָּרוֹן סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. רַבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹטֵר אֶת הַיּוֹשֵׁב בַּקָּרוֹן.

Rav Yosef said: Rav Yehuda said to me: Although I do not remember what Shmuel said, let us see if we can analyze this ourselves, as we learned in a mishna concerning the prohibition against leading animals of diverse kinds (Kilayim 8:3): If two animals of diverse kinds, e.g., a horse and a donkey, are harnessed to the same wagon, the one leading the animals incurs the forty lashes for transgressing the Torah prohibition: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (Deuteronomy 22:10), and the one sitting in the wagon [bakaron] also incurs the forty lashes. Rabbi Meir deems the one sitting in the wagon exempt, as he did not perform any action.

וּמִדְּאָפֵיךְ שְׁמוּאֵל וְתָנֵי: וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין אֶת הַיּוֹשֵׁב בַּקָּרוֹן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רָכוּב לְחוֹדֵיהּ לָא קָנֵי, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן רָכוּב בִּמְקוֹם מַנְהִיג.

And from the fact that in his version of the mishna Shmuel reversed the opinions and taught: And the Rabbis deem the one sitting in the wagon exempt, it can be inferred that he agrees with this opinion that the one sitting in the wagon is considered to have not performed any action, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in their disputes with Rabbi Meir. Conclude from it that one who sits on an animal alone does not acquire it, as sitting on an animal is not considered a significant action, and all the more so one who sits on an animal while another leads the animal does not acquire the animal.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: הָא זִמְנִין סַגִּיאִין אֲמַרְתְּ לַן: נֶחְזֵי אֲנַן, וְלָא אֲמַרְתְּ לַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Didn’t you say to us many times with regard to this halakha: Let us see if we can analyze this ourselves, followed by the proof from the aforementioned mishna? And you did not say to us that this statement was in the name of Rav Yehuda. Rav Yosef had an illness that caused him memory loss. Consequently, some of his later statements of halakha were inaccurate, and Abaye suspected that he attributed this statement to Rav Yehuda erroneously.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִבְרָא! וּדְכִירְנָא נָמֵי דַּאֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: הֵיכִי פָּשֵׁיט מָר רָכוּב מִיּוֹשֵׁב? יוֹשֵׁב לָא תָּפֵיס בְּמוֹסֵירָה, רָכוּב תָּפֵיס בְּמוֹסֵירָה! וַאֲמַר לִי רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מוֹסֵירָה לָא קָנֵי.

Rav Yosef said to him: Indeed [ivra], I remember that Rav Yehuda stated this proof, and I also remember that I said to him in response: How can the Master resolve the case of one who sits on an animal via proof from the case of one who sits in the wagon? One who sits in the wagon does not hold the reins, whereas one who sits on the animal holds the reins. And Rav Yehuda said to me in response: Rav and Shmuel both say that holding the reins of an ownerless animal does not effect acquisition of it. Consequently, there is no difference between sitting on an animal and sitting in a wagon drawn by an animal.

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: הֵיכִי פָּשֵׁיט מָר רָכוּב מִיּוֹשֵׁב? יוֹשֵׁב לָא תָּפֵיס בְּמוֹסֵירָה, רָכוּב תָּפֵיס בְּמוֹסֵירָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי תְּנָא אִידֵּי: מוֹסֵירָה לָא קָנֵי.

There are those who say that the exchange between Abaye and Rav Yosef was as follows: Abaye said to Rav Yosef: How can the Master resolve the case of one who sits on an animal via proof from the case of one who sits in the wagon? One who sits in the wagon does not hold the reins, whereas one who sits on the animal holds the reins. Rav Yosef said to him: Idi taught in a baraita like this: Holding the reins of an ownerless animal does not effect acquisition of it.

אִתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מוֹסֵירָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – קָנָה. בִּמְצִיאָה וּבְנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר – לָא קָנֵי.

It was also stated that Rabbi Ḥelbo says that Rav Huna says: With regard to holding the reins of an animal in order to acquire it, if he is attempting to acquire it from another person, he acquires the animal. But with regard to acquisition of a found animal, or with regard to acquisition of an animal that was the property of a convert who died without heirs, leaving his property ownerless, it does not effect acquisition.

מַאי לְשׁוֹן מוֹסֵירָה? אָמַר רָבָא: אִידִי אַסְבְּרָא לִי כְּאָדָם הַמּוֹסֵר דָּבָר לַחֲבֵירוֹ. בִּשְׁלָמָא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ קָנֵי, דְּקָא מָסַר לֵיהּ חַבְרֵיהּ. אֶלָּא בִּמְצִיאָה וּבְנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר מַאן קָא מָסַר לֵיהּ דְּלִיקְנֵי?

The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the term reins [moseira]? Rava said: Idi explained to me that they are used like a person who transmits [moser] an item to another, i.e., they are used to transfer the ownership of the animal. Granted, in a case where one takes the reins from another, this effects acquisition of the animal, as the other person hands them to him. But in a case of a found animal or of one that was the property of a convert, who is handing him the reins, enabling him to acquire the ownerless animal? Since there was no transaction, one cannot acquire the animal by merely holding the reins.

מֵיתִיבִי: הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה וְכוּ׳. מַנִּי? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר – הַשְׁתָּא יוֹשֵׁב קָנֵי, רָכוּב מִיבְּעֵי?! אֶלָּא לָאו רַבָּנַן, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רָכוּב קָנֵי.

The Gemara raises an objection from the mishna: If two people were sitting in a riding position on an animal, or if one was sitting on it in a riding position and the other was leading it, they divide it after taking an oath. In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, now, in his opinion, even one who sits in a wagon acquires the animal that is pulling the wagon. Is it necessary to state that one who sits in a riding position on an animal acquires it? Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis? And learn from it that one who sits in a riding position on an animal acquires it.

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּמַנְהִיג בְּרַגְלָיו. אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ מַנְהִיג! תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי מַנְהִיג, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רָכוּב עָדִיף, דְּהָא מַנְהִיג וְתָפֵיס בַּהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the one sitting on the animal also leads, i.e., drives it by squeezing or kicking it with his legs. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as leading the animal by pulling the reins, as the essential factor in both is that one causes the animal to move, so why does the mishna need to mention it? The Gemara answers: The tanna teaches two types of leading, both pulling the animal by the reins and driving it while sitting on it. Lest you say that one who is sitting in a riding position on the animal takes precedence, as he is both leading the animal and also holding it by the reins, the tanna teaches us that the claim of the one sitting in a riding position on the animal is not stronger than the claim of the one leading it by the reins.

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מוֹשְׁכִין בְּגָמָל, וּמַנְהִיגִין בַּחֲמוֹר, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מוֹשֵׁךְ וְאֶחָד מַנְהִיג,

Come and hear a different proof from a baraita: With regard to two people who were pulling a camel or driving a donkey together, or one who was pulling it and one who was driving it,