Question: What is the source of this? Perhaps all the more so, one who is riding and Tofes [acquires]!

Suggestion: Perhaps [we infer] because the Tana did not teach [riding].

Rejection: In every place, does the Tana teach all Kinyanim?!

Answer: We infer from the extra [clause] in the Beraisa. It should have taught these together! If two were pulling (doing Meshichah) or leading, either a camel or a donkey..., and no more;

Since he taught more than this, this shows that he comes to exclude riding.

Support: This is why it asks afterwards "it should have taught these together!"

Question: Still, we can ask what is the source to exclude riding!

Perhaps the Tana did not teach them together, in order to teach that Meshichah is standard for a camel, and leading is standard for a donkey, and even so, when one was pulling a camel and one was leading, Meshichah, which is standard for a camel, is not Mevatel leading, which is not standard!

Similarly, it teaches oppositely about a donkey (leading, which is standard, is not Mevatel Meshichah, which is not standard). This is why it teaches afterwards "one was pulling, and one was leading", and not to exclude riding!

Answer: Since he taught that pulling and leading both acquire a camel and a donkey, obviously one is not Mevatel the other [just] because this one is standard, and this one is not standard.

Distinction: However, our Mishnah properly teaches that one who rides and conducts with his legs is not Mevatel one who only leads, because riding has everything that leading has, and also he is Tofes in it.

Explanation: According to the Havah Amina that riding acquires, and Meshichah and leading, both regarding a camel and donkey "in this way he acquired" comes to exclude any other Kinyan, or riding in the presence of leading.

Observation: He could have asked from the Beraisa itself, "or one was pulling and one was leading [they acquired]." This shows that in one case (i.e. a camel or donkey, even in the way that is not standard,) he acquires!

Explanation: If the text says "if so", it means as follows. Granted, if you will say that it is when he does not conduct with his legs, and riding acquires because he is Tofes in it, this is fine that he does not acquire the halter;

The Kinyan of Mosirah does not apply to Metaltelim. Hagbahah or Meshichah applies;

However, if we discuss one who conducts with his legs, he should acquire also the halter through Meshichah of the animal, if we say that "pull this animal and acquire the Kelim on it" acquires [the Kelim];

Below (9b), we ask whether or not he acquires. We should resolve from here that he does not acquire!

Explanation: Even if we say that "pull this animal and acquire the Kelim on it" acquires [the Kelim], here, since the one holding the halter does not acquire, also the rider does not acquire;

This is like we say "he did Hagbahah with intent for himself [to acquire]. He did not acquire. (Does he intend to help the other one acquire?!)"

Question: This is slightly difficult. What is his source that R. Avahu does not argue also about this?

Question: This implies that that if he disengaged it, he acquires, because through him, it was elevated above three Tefachim [above the ground];

What is this different than an Oni knocking down olives from the top of the tree (Gitin 59b)? It is theft only due to the ways of Shal-m [to take the olives that he knocked down. According to letter of the law, he did not acquire them!]

Also in Bava Kama (98a), it says that if one throws his friend's coin to the sea, he is exempt. We establish this when he knocked his friend's hand. (He did not acquire it like a thief.)

Inference: This is not considered [Hagbahah], this that it was elevated through him, since it is destined to fall!

Answer #1: Here is different, for he holds one of the ends.

Answer #2: Here the case is, when he disengaged it from the pillar, it is not so long that the other end will reach the ground.

Implied question: In Chulin (141b), it says "go hit the nest, and [the birds] will go up, and acquire them"!

Answer: Also there, they were elevated through him more than initially, for they fly a little above. Therefore, he acquires.

Explanation: If the text says "if so", it means as follows. Granted, if you will say that we do not discuss one who conducts with his legs, therefore he does not acquire in the city;

It does not go due to him, for many people speak together, and there are many things in the middle of the road.

However, if we say that he conducts with his legs, if so it does very much due to him. Why doesn't he acquire?!

Explanation: He asks, since Meshichah of the animal, which walks by itself, does not apply to the Kelim, he should not acquire the Kelim;

However, if he said "pull this box, and acquire the Kelim inside, obviously he acquires.

Question: He should resolve this from the Beraisa in Bava Basra (85b), which says that if the buyer was Moshech donkey-drivers and workers [carrying the seller's Peros] into his house, either party can retract;

Inference: He does not acquire Peros through Meshichah of the animal [carrying them]!

Answer #1: There, he did not say "acquire". Therefore, he did not acquire.

Answer #2: There, he was Moshech donkey-drivers. He was not Moshech the donkey.

Implied question: It says [there] "whether he set a price but did not measure [the Peros, or he measured the Peros but did not set a price, either party can retract]. Also if he set a price and measured, they can retract!

Note: Pnei Yehoshua did not understand how this relates to what Tosfos said above. In any case this is difficult!

Answer: Because the Seifa distinguishes between setting a price without measuring, and measuring without setting a price, the Reisha adopted this expression.

Support: We must answer so in the Seifa, which teaches that if he unloaded them and entered them into the house, if he set a price but did not measure, they cannot retract;

There, we wanted to resolve from it that the seller's Kli in the buyer's Reshus does not acquire (i.e. prevent the buyer from acquiring through his premises), i.e. the sale stands. This shows that the Kli is Batel to the Reshus;

Inference: He does not acquire due to Meshichah, because it is in the seller's Kelim.

When we answer there that [the Peros] were poured from the seller's Kelim, or they were bundles of garlic [which are not put into Kelim], this connotes that if they were in the seller's Kelim, [the buyer] would not acquire, even though he entered them into his house, i.e. Meshichah.

Question: Why [doesn't he acquire through Meshichah]? It is clear to us that if he said "pull this box, and acquire the Kelim inside", he acquires!

Answer #1: There, we can say that it is because he did not say "acquire", and he wants to acquire only through Meshichah of the Peros themselves.

Answer #2: We can say that there, it connotes to him that he did not set a price until after Meshichah. Therefore, he did not acquire through Meshichah.

Question: Why does it say "be Moshech this animal", and it does not say "acquire"?

Suggestion: If he said "acquire", it is obvious that he acquires [through the animal] due to Chatzer, even though it walks.

Rejection: If so, also regarding "be Moshech", why is he unsure? Since he lent it to him, it is as if it is his until after the Kinyan. He should acquire due to Chatzer!

Answer #1: When he said "be Moshech", he did not lend the animal to him to acquire the Kelim due to Chatzer, rather, through Meshichah of the animal.

Answer #2: Had he asked [about one who said] "acquire the animal and Kelim", and [the Tartzan] would have answered that he acquired, he could not know that through Meshichah of the animal, he acquires the Kelim. Perhaps it is due to Chatzer, when [the animal] is tied [so it is not a moving Chatzer]!

Therefore, he asked [about one who said] "be Moshech."

Implied question: In Kidushin (33b) we say that a riding Chacham is like one who walks (people must stand for him)!

Answer: Here, a Chatzer is included due to Yad, and it is properly like a hand, which is stationary. [The person] brings it with his body.

Implied question - Citation (Shabbos 5b): A nut floating on water is not considered Hanachah. What is the law of a nut in a Kli, and the Kli floats on water?

Answer: There, it is because we require [Melachah] to be similar to Melachah of the Mishkan. They did not store away items in something that moves and shakes;

However, regarding buying, since it is like his hand, he acquires.

Explanation (Rashi): The Mishnah says that if he threw a Get into her basket, she is divorced.

Question: (What is difficult?) We should establish it when she is tied up [and cannot move]!

Answer #1: Perhaps it seems to him difficult [to establish it in such a case].

Answer #2: Here he asks from reasoning, like he asks from a boat, and not based on the Mishnah.

Explanation: [We can say that] they argue about one who seizes for a creditor in a case that this harms others, and not due to Migo!

Source: Rav Chisda, who says like Rav Nachman below, holds that one who picks up a Metzi'ah for his friend, his friend does not acquire...

In Gitin (11b), he holds that they argue about Tofes l'Ba'al Chov, and not due to Migo, until Rav Papa rejected that perhaps they argue about Migo.