(Mishnah - R. Meir and R. Eliezer): A large animal is acquired through mesirah (handing over). A small animal is acquired through hagbahah (lifting).

Chachamim: A small animal is acquired through meshichah (taking to one's domain).

(Gemara - Rav Huna): Mesirah does not acquire the property of a convert (who died without inheritors, as it was not handed over by anyone).

Question (R. Chizkiyah/ R. Ba/ R. Elazar): If a person had ten camels tied one to the next, if he handed over the reins of one of them, does he acquire all of them or only that animal?

Rav Chisda: If a person said, "Take and acquire this animal'', he acquires it; "Take it to acquire its offspring'', he does not acquire anything (since he was not acquiring to animal itself). "Take and acquire it and its offspring'', he acquires it.

Question: (Against the ruling that he does not acquire its offspring) If he said, "Take this animal to acquire only its load'', would he not acquire the load?

Answer (R. Yosi): Rav Chisda was referring to when the animal was not pregnant, but if it was, they view it like a load and he would acquire the offspring.

Proof (R. Aba/ Rav Huna citing Rav): If a person made an acquisition of meshichah on a leather bottle of wine and the bottle split open in his hand and the wine was spilt, would he not be responsible for the wine even though he did not intend to acquire the bottle? (So too, if he took the animal to acquire only the load, he acquires only the load.)

R.Yosi bei R. Bu n: Rav is teaching that even if he took the bottle merely to take it to his shop so that no-one else should buy it, he has become responsible for it.

Question: (If a person said, "Sell me a barrel of wine'' and the seller agreed; if the buyer took the barrel) do we say that he becomes responsible to pay for the wine since he would have been agreeable to a low price (or do we say that he did not intend to acquire it at the time since the price was not yet fixed when he took it)? (Note: See the explanation of the Pnei Moshe.)

Answer (R. Chagai citing R. Yosi): There is a Mishnah that teaches us that he did not acquire it according to the lowest price...

Mishnah (in Maseches Avodah Zarah): (If wine was touched by a gentile or money was paid for a gentile's wine, Chazal decreed a prohibition to benefit from that wine/money) When a Jew sells wine to a gentile, if a price was fixed but the wine was not measured out (i.e. touched by the gentile), the money is still permitted (to the Jew); if it was measured out but the price had not yet been fixed, the money is prohibited.

Conclusion of answer: If you say that he acquires it according to the lowest price, even in the latter case the money should be permitted.

Question (Shmuel): If a buyer took a chicken and held it to check it (before the price was fixed) and the chicken flew away, is the buyer responsible even though he did not yet acquire, since he was negligent? (Note: This entry and the next one follow the explanation of the Pnei Moshe.)

Clarification (R. Shmuel bar Avudama): This doubt is only in big cities like Tzur, Kisarin and similar sized cities (where it is impossible to find and identify the chicken since there are many like it); but here (in a small town), he would certainly be required to chase it until he catches it.

R. Shimon ben Lakish citing R. Yanai: When a person sells sheep, as soon as he handed over the mashkochis, the buyer acquires the whole flock.

Question: What is a mashkochis?

Answer: Some say it is a stick, some say a bell and some say a goat (that leads the flock).

R. Yaakov bar Acha/ R. Shimon bar Aba citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi: When a person sells a pit, as soon as he handed over the bucket, the buyer acquires it.

R. Ami citing R. Yochanan: When a person sells a house, as soon as the seller piled up the buyer's produce in the house, the buyer acquires it (through making a chazakah).

Question (R. Yuda ben Pazi): Does the buyer also acquire it through the seller handing him the key?

Answer (R. Zecharyah son-in-law of R. Levi): It is a dispute between R. Shimon and the Chachamim...

Mishnah in Maseches Taharos: One who gives his house key to an ignoramus (who is not careful with the laws of tumah and taharah), the (contents of the) house remains tahor, as he only gave him the key to guard.

Beraisa: R. Shimon says that the (contents of the) house is tameh. (By giving him the key, it is as if he has given him permission to go throughout the house; so too in a sale, giving him the key signifies the buyer taking possession of the house.)

R. Abahu citing R. Shimon ben Lakish: If a person sells 1/10th of the fruits that his field will produce, he has done nothing (as one cannot sell something that does not yet exist).

This ruling also applies to selling the offspring of one's slave woman, the offspring of one's animal and the air of one's fallen house (as one cannot sell something that has no substance).

However, one can sell his field and retain 1/10th for himself, sell his slave woman and retain the offspring for himself, sell his animal and retain the offspring for himself and sell his fallen house and retain the air for himself.

Question: But how could a person actually sell the air of his fallen house?

Answer: The seller says, "Pick something (e.g a weed) from the (ground of the) fallen house, (thereby improving the house), and acquire 1/10th of it'' (thereby also acquiring the air). Here also, concerning 1/10th of the fruits, this type of acquisition is possible, by saying, "Pick from the field and acquire 1/10th of it''.

R. Shmuel/ R. Zeira/ R. Chiya bar Ashi citing Rav: Acquisition through meshichah does not work in a courtyard that belongs to neither of them (as it is viewed like a public domain, where meshichah does not work).

The Beraisa of R. Chiya disagrees with this...

Beraisa: Where are movables acquired through meshichah? In a public domain or in a courtyard that belongs to neither of them.

But in the buyer's domain, as soon as the seller agreed to the price, the buyer acquires it (without the need for meshichah).

And in the seller's domain, the buyer cannot acquire it until he lifts it or does meshichah (draws it) out of the owner's domain.

In the domain of the one with which the seller deposited the produce, the buyer only acquires it when he actually lifts it or removes it from that domain, or when he rents that area of land from the owner of the land.

The Mishnah above taught: Chachamim say that a small animal is acquired through meshichah.

What is the Rabbanan's source? The pasuk states (Shemos 12, 21), "Take and (thereby) acquire for yourselves one of the flock for your families''.

This is like the question that Rav Yehuda sent to be asked in the Study Hall - how is a large animal acquired?

Answer: Through mesirah (handing over).

Then they asked him: Is it not explicitly written in the Mishnah (above 25-1) (b)) - A large animal is acquired through mesirah...?

Answer: There are tanaim who have a different text and say that one could also acquire it through meshichah. (Rav Yehuda wished to clarify whether mesirah is the only method or whether meshichah is also allowed.)

Question (Rav Yehudah to R. Elazar): What is the law of a firstborn son that became a tereifah (unable to live) within 30 days of his birth? (Do we say that without this accident he would have lived 30 days, so he is not considered 'a stillborn' who would be exempt from redemption of the firstborn; or do we say that as a result of this accident, he will not live until 30 days so he has become exempt?)

Answer (R. Elazar): It is as if he is dead and he is exempt from the redemption.

Question (Rav Yehudah to R. Elazar): If a placenta came out partially on one day and partially on the next day (the mother must observe days of impurity for childbirth, since there cannot be a placenta without a foetus and the foetus must have dissolved inside the mother. But from which day does she count them)?

Answer (R. Elazar): For 'pure blood', she counts from the first day; for 'impure blood' she counts from the second day. (A woman who gives birth must count 7 impure days for a boy, followed by 33 days of 'pure blood' i.e. when her menstrual blood is pure; for a girl, she keeps 14 days of impurity followed by 66 days of 'pure blood' - here, due to doubt, we are stringent in the application of these 2 laws.)

R. Matanya: This only applies when it was not accompanied by a foetus; if it was, whether for pure blood or impure blood, she only counts from when the foetus came out.

Question (Rav Yehudah to R. Elazar): If a watchman handed over the item to another watchman (and the item became damaged; which watchman must pay)?

Answer (R. Elazar): The first is liable (since he was appointed by the owner to guard it - although afterwards, the first could demand repayment from the second).

R. Yochanan: The first is liable.

R. Shimon ben Lakish: The second is liable.

Mishnah in Maseches Bava Metzia: One who rented a cow and lent it to someone and it died whilst being used in the regular way, the renter makes an oath that it died in the regular way (since a renter is exempt from accidental loss) and the borrower must pay the renter (since a borrower is liable for accidental loss).

R. Yosi: How can the renter earn from a cow that does not belong to him? Rather, the payment of the borrower should be paid to the owner.

R. Ila citing Rav Yanai: This applies only if the owner gave permission to the renter to lend it, but if not, the renter cannot exempt himself with an oath.

Support (R. Chiya's Beraisa): A borrower cannot lend, nor can a renter rent out, nor can a borrower rent out, nor can a renter lend, nor can one entrusted to watch an item give the item to another to watch, unless he was given permission by the owner. If any of these people changed from the intent of the owner, he is liable for accidental loss.

Question: A borrower is liable for accidental loss even if he did not change from the owner's intent?!

Answer: Since there is a Mishnah (in Bava Metzia) that teaches that an unpaid watchman can stipulate that he will be exempt from an oath (if he claimed that the item was lost or stolen and would usually be required to make an oath in order to be exempt from payment) or a borrower that he will be exempt from paying for accidental loss; one might have said that even if he made such a stipulation with the owner but he then made a change by lending it to someone else, he would be liable. (Note: This follows the explanation of the Pnei Moshe in the parallel sugya in Yerushalmi Kesubos Daf 54b.)

Question: (An animal owner rented out his animal and agreed that the renter is exempt from an oath in case of death of the animal. If, with the permission of the owner, the renter lent it out and the animal died,) can the owner require the borrower to make an oath?

Answer (Mishnah in Maseches Kesubos): If a man wrote a document to his wife saying, "I cannot require from you any vow or oath (that you have not taken any payment of your Kesubah money)'', he cannot require an oath. But if she died, he can require an oath from her inheritors or others who are demanding her Kesubah payment.

This shows that the owner can require the borrower to make an oath.

And the case of Kesubah is learned from the case of the renter here, that if the husband did not exempt his wife from an oath, he can require her to make an oath, just as an animal owner can require a renter to make an oath.

Rejection (R. Chanina): This law does not need to be learned from the case of the owner and renter; it is clear from the Mishnah in Kesubos itself, that taught that he can release her from any requirement to make an oath - this shows that usually he could require it.

The law that must be learned from that case was said by R. Hila citing R. Yanai - when the owner gave permission to lend it out. Here also, the husband gave permission for her children to act as guardians. However, if he had not given permission, even if the husband had exempted her from making an oath, he can still require it since she made a change.

R. Yanai said earlier (see (d)) that if the owner did not give the renter permission to lend it, the renter is liable for accidental damage. R. Yosa said - the renter must pay him rent for the entire rental period.

Question (R. Zeira to R. Avina): If the owner himself borrowed the animal from the renter and it died, what is the law?

Answer (R. Avina): The owner must pay even he borrowed it from the renter and ate it.

Rejection (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): The owner ate his own property, so he should be exempt!

Question (R. Zeira to R. Yosa): What is the Halacha when a watchman handed over to another watchman?

Answer (R. Yosa): There are two (R. Yehudah and Raish Lakish who say that the second is liable) against four (R. Elazar, R. Yanai, R. Chiya and R. Yochanan who say that the first is liable). Should we not follow the four?

Refutation (R. Zeira): It is really two against two as R. Elazar is a student of R. Chiya and R. Yochanan is a student of R. Yanai.

Question (Rav Yehudah to R. Elazar): If brothers inherited the estate of their father and then one died and the others divided the estate, if one of them then performed yibum - do we say that although the inheritance was divided before the yibum, upon performing yibum he receives back the entire estate of the dead brother (as is usually the case when a brother performs yibum)? Or alternatively, since at the time that they divided, all of the brothers were suitable to do yibum, they all received equal portions of the brother's estate?

Answer (R. Elazar): All receive equal portions in the dead brother's estate.

Ula bar Yishmael: R. Elazar has aligned his understanding to that of Raish Lakish...and there is no difference whether they first divided and then he performed yibum or vice-versa.

Question: So why did R. Elazar not express this in his answer (that it actually applies to both cases)?

Answer: He answered the question that he was asked.

Question: So why did R. Yehudah not also ask it (i.e. when there was first yibum and then they divided)?

Answer (R. Avina citing R. Asi): If a firstborn received an equal portion as his brothers in his father's estate (even though the Torah awards him double portion) he has waived his claim on the double portion. (Since the case of first yibum and then division is also referred to as a case of a firstborn - as the Torah states that the yavam will take the place of his firstborn brother - it is obvious that he has waived his claim and that all receive equal portions in the dead brother's estate.

Question (Rav Yehudah to R. Elazar): If brothers were partners in their father's estate and they later wish to divide it, what do they divide?

Answer (R. Elazar): They divide even the clothes on their backs, but not the clothes on the backs of their children.

R. Imi: If one had clothes made for his wife and they have a significant value, when the children come to divide their late father's estate, they also include these clothes in the division. (Note: This entry and the next one follow the explanation of the Pnei Moshe.)

If one had a katala (a piece of jewellery that looks like a choker) made for his wife, it is not brought to divide amongst the inheritors (as they are assumed to relinquish their right to it).

This applies to jewellery that is suitable for weekday use, but if it is (so expensive that it is) only suitable for use on festivals, it is divided amongst the inheritors.

R. Mana: Clothing for festivals is divided, but clothing for Shabbos is questionable.

It was clear to R. Avin that both festival and Shabbos clothing are divided.

Question (R. Zeira to R. Mana): Are glass mirrors also divided?

Response (R. Mana): It is clear that you have many glass mirrors and that is why you are asking me. They are also divided.

Question (R. Yehudah to R. Elazar): One can collect a debt of a father only from the fields of the orphans but not from the movables. Is a slave viewed as a field (or as a movable object) in this law?

Answer (R. Elazar): Slaves are like fields i.e. it is permitted to collect them as payment.

R. Elazar instructed the House of R. Yanai to collect slaves like fields.

Question (R. Yehudah to R. Elazar): A coercer, a thief or a burglar who took an animal and it died, or utensils and they broke, do we evaluate the carcass or broken utensils, give those items to the owner and reduce their value from the payment that must be given to the owner?

Answer (R. Elazar): The assumed position is that the owner does not deal with the carcass. Rather, it belongs to the thief and the full value of the animal/utensils must be paid to the owners.

Question: What is the source for this assumed position?

Answer (R. Ba bar Mamal): The pasuk states (Shemos 22, 3), "...he must pay double'' the live value of the animal but not its dead value.

Question: This only explains a burglar, but what about a thief?

Answer (R. Avun): The Pasuk states (Vayikra 5, 23), "He shall return the stolen item that he stole'' - when it still exists, as he stole it; but if it died, he must pay the full equivalent value.