Previous daf

1)

(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. What is the difference between Meshichah and Hanhagah, particularly with regard to driving a camel and a donkey?

(b) This is the opinion of the Tana Kama.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(c) What is the Kashya on Shmuel?

(a) How do we answer the Kashya on Shmuel? Why does the Tana Kama specifically mention Meshichah and Hanhagah (and omit Rachuv)?

(b) Then why does the Tana Kama not simply state that Meshichah and Hanhagah are effective both by a camel and by a donkey? Why does he connect Meshichah to the camel and Hanhagah to the donkey?

(c) Others ask on Shmuel from the Tana Kama's words 'be'Midah Zos Kanu', which seemingly comes to preclude Rachuv.
If not, then what is he coming to preclude?

(d) If this statement of the Tana Kama precludes the reverse, how does he differ from Rebbi Yehudah?

(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa rule in the case where Reuven is riding the animal and Shimon is holding the reins?

(b) What does 'riding' mean according to Shmuel?

(c) In light of this, how do we initially amend the statement 'Zeh Kanah Chamor, ve'Zeh Kanah Mosirah'?

(d) What objection do we raise to the ruling that Shimon acquires the reins because he is holding them? Then what *does* he acquire?

(a) What problem do we have 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'?

(b) So how does Rav Ashi further amend the Beraisa? If Shimon acquires what he is holding, what does Reuven acquire?

(a) Rebbi Avahu reinstates the original wording of the Beraisa.
On what grounds does Shimon acquire the reins, according to him?

(b) What would be the Halachah in the case where Reuven first picked up half a Talis from the floor, and Shimon then picked up the other half from a pillar?

(c) How do we know that the first one is not Kohen the entire Talis (like he ought to according to Rebbi Avahu)?

(d) What does this prove?

(a) When Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa states that someone who rides an animal in town or leads it in the field acquires it, what is he coming to preclude?

(b) Why is it not customary to ride an animal in town?

(a) We conclude that 'Rochev' means Manhig be'Raglav, and that Rebbi Eliezer is referring to two different kinds of Manhig.
How does Rav Kahana explain the inference? Why does one not acquire the animal by riding it in town, according to him?

(b) How does Rav Ashi disprove Rav Kahana from the Din of someone who picks up a purse on Shabbos?

(c) So how does Rav Ashi establish the Beraisa? If Rebbi Eliezer is not referring to a Metzi'ah, then what is he referring to?

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

1. ... riding in a main road?
2. ... a man of high esteem?
3. ... a woman?
4. ... a man with no self-respect?

8)

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked what the Din will be if Reuven says to Shimon 'Meshoch Beheimah Zu Li'knos Keilim she'Alehah'.
What is wrong with this wording?

(b) So we amend the wording to 'Meshoch Beheimah Zu u'K'ni Keilim she'Alehah'.
What exactly is Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah?

(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.
Why is that not such a simple matter? Why should he not acquire the vessels ...

1. ... even if he means to acquire the animal as well?
2. ... even if the animal is standing still?

(d) From where do we know that a walking Chatzer is not Koneh?

(a) How do we finally justify the She'eilah? When is it possible to acquire the vessels together with the animal?

(b) Now that a walking Chatzer is not Koneh, how did ...

1. ... Rava explain to Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua the accepted Halachah that fish which leap into a boat belong to the owner?
2. ... Rav Ashi explain 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?

(a) What does our Mishnah rule 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?
2. ... hands it to him, and then declares that he acquired it first?

(b) Why will the latter Halachah apply even according to those who hold 'ha'Magbihah Metzi'ah la'Chavero, Lo Kanah Chavero'?

(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.
Does this Halachah extend to the owner of the field?

(b) What do the Rabbanan hold?

(c) Ula Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi confines the Rabbanan's ruling to a rich man acquiring on behalf of a poor one.
What is the basis of the Machlokes according to him? On what grounds ...

1. ... does Rebbi Eliezer permit the poor man to keep the Pe'ah?
2. ... do the Rabbanan rule that he may not?

(d) Why will the Rabbanan concede to Rebbi Eliezer in the case of a poor man picking up the Pe'ah on behalf of another poor man?

(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).
How does Rav Nachman interpret the Mishnah?

(b) What does he then extrapolate from our Mishnah (regarding 'Migu de'Zachsi le'Nafsheih ... ')?

(c) How does he go 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? What problem would our Mishnah otherwise pose?

(d) Does this mean that, according to Rav Nachman, the Tana of our Mishnah does not hold of 'Migu de'Zachi le'Nafsheih ... ' at all?

(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').
What would be the problem with this statement per se?

(b) What does Ula therefore prove from there?

(c) How does Rav Nachman counter Ula's proof?

Next daf