Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 5, 2016 | 讙壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 9

Rav Yehuda holds that one riding on an animal does not effect acquisition of the animal. 聽3 tannaitic sources are brought to support his opinion and one to disprove it but all ttempts can be explained otherwise and not contradict. 聽Can one acquire vessels that are on an animal by pulling the animal if he is not actually acquiring the animal?

讘诪讚讛 讝讗转 拽谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖转讛讗 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙诪诇 讜讛谞讛讙讛 讘讞诪讜专

they have both acquired the animal in that manner. Rabbi Yehuda says: Actually, one acquires an animal only through pulling in the case of a camel or driving in the case of a donkey, as that is the manner in which they are normally directed.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讜砖讱 讜讗讞讚 诪谞讛讬讙 诪讜砖讱 讜诪谞讛讬讙 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 专讻讜讘 诇讗

In any event, it is taught in the baraita: Or one who was pulling and one who was driving, which indicates that pulling and driving are indeed effective modes of acquisition, but sitting in a riding position on an animal is not.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 专讻讜讘 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪讜砖讱 讜诪谞讛讬讙 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖转讛讗 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙诪诇 讜讛谞讛讙讛 讘讞诪讜专 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬驻讻讗 谞诪讬 拽谞讬

The Gemara rejects this inference: The same is true with regard to even sitting in a riding position on an animal; it is an effective mode of acquisition. And the reason that the baraita teaches specifically the modes of pulling and driving is only to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that one acquires an animal only through pulling in the case of a camel or driving in the case of a donkey. Therefore, the first tanna teaches us that even in the opposite manner, i.e., pulling a donkey or driving a camel, one acquires the animal.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜诇转谞讬谞讛讜 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪讜砖讻讬谉 讜诪谞讛讬讙讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讙诪诇 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讜专

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then let the first tanna combine the cases and teach them as follows: With regard to two people who were pulling or driving either a camel or a donkey, they each acquire the respective animal. The fact that this wording is not used indicates that the first tanna does not entirely disagree with Rabbi Yehuda.

讗讬讻讗 讞讚 爪讚 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讞诪讜专 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛谞讛讙讛 讘讙诪诇

The Gemara modifies its response: There is one manner of acquisition by which the first tanna concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that one does not acquire the animal if one employs it, and it is unclear what manner that is. Some say that by pulling a donkey one does not acquire it, as donkeys tend to not move at all when being pulled, and some say that by driving a camel one does not acquire it, as that is not the common way to move it.

讜讗讬转 讚诪讜转讬讘 诪住讬驻讗 讘诪讚讛 讝讜 拽谞讛 讘诪讚讛 讝讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 专讻讜讘 诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬驻讻讗

And according to an alternative version of this discussion, there are those who raise an objection to the opinion that one can acquire an animal by sitting on it in a riding position from the latter clause of the statement of the first tanna in the baraita: They acquire the animal in that manner. The phrase in that manner is stated to exclude what? Is it not to exclude one who sits in a riding position on the animal? The Gemara answers: No, it is stated to exclude the opposite cases: One who drives a camel or pulls a donkey does not acquire the animal.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 爪讚 讗讞讚 讚诇讗 拽谞讛 讗讬转 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讞诪讜专 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛谞讛讙讛 讘讙诪诇

The Gemara asks: If so, that is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to one manner of acquisition in which one does not acquire the animal. Some say that according to the first tanna, by pulling a donkey one does not acquire it, and some say that by driving a camel one does not acquire it.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讞讚 专讻讜讘 讞诪讜专 讜讗讞讚 转驻讜住 讘诪讜住讬专讛 讝讛 拽谞讛 讞诪讜专 讜讝讛 拽谞讛 诪讜住讬专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讻讜讘 拽谞讬

Come and hear proof from a baraita that one can acquire an animal by sitting on it in a riding position: If one person is sitting in a riding position on a donkey and one other person is holding the reins, this one, the one sitting on the donkey, acquires the donkey, and that one, who is holding the reins, acquires the reins. Learn from it that one who sits in a riding position on an animal acquires it.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪谞讛讬讙 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞拽谞讬 谞诪讬 专讻讜讘 讘诪讜住讬专讛 讗讬诪讗 讝讛 拽谞讛 讞诪讜专 讜讞爪讬 诪讜住讬专讛 讜讝讛 拽谞讛 讞爪讬 诪讜住讬专讛

The Gemara rejects this: Here too, the reference is to one who is not only sitting on the donkey but who is also driving it with his feet by squeezing or kicking it. The Gemara asks: If so, the one who is sitting should acquire part of the reins too. The fact that he does not acquire the reins indicates that his acquisition of the donkey is imperfect, which would not be the case if he were driving it. The Gemara answers: Emend the text and say: This one acquires the donkey and half of the reins, and that one acquires half of the reins.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讻讜讘 拽谞讬 讚拽诪讙讘讛 诇讬讛 讘谉 讚注转 讗诇讗 转驻讜住 讘诪讜住讬专讛 讘诪讗讬 拽谞讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, the one sitting on the donkey acquires half of the reins because a mentally competent person, the one holding the reins, has lifted it for him, but in what manner does the one holding the reins acquire half the reins? The other end of the reins is attached to the donkey, and because he does not acquire the donkey he cannot acquire the reins.

讗讬诪讗 讝讛 拽谞讛 讞诪讜专 讜讻讜诇讬讛 诪讜住讬专讛 讜讝讛 拽谞讬 诪讛 砖转驻讜住 讘讬讚讜

The Gemara answers: Emend the text and say: This one, the one sitting on the donkey, acquires the donkey and almost the entire reins, and that one, who is holding the reins, acquires only the part of the reins that is actually held in his hand.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛诪讙讘讬讛 诪爪讬讗讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽谞讛 讞讘讬专讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讙讘讛 诇讬讛 讗讚注转讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 讛讗讬 讗讚注转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪讙讘讛 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 诪拽谞讬

The Gemara asks: What is the basis for this understanding? Even if you say that in a case of one who performs an act of acquisition by lifting a found item on behalf of another, the other person, i.e., the latter, acquires ownership of the item, that statement applies only in a case where one lifts an item with the intention that another person will acquire it. In the case here, this person who is holding the reins is lifting them with the intention of acquiring them for himself. Since he himself does not acquire them, how can he acquire them for others?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讝讛 拽谞讛 讞诪讜专 讜讘讬转 驻讙讬讛 讜讝讛 拽谞讛 诪讛 砖转驻讜住 讘讬讚讜 讜讛砖讗专 诇讗 拽谞讛 诇讗 讝讛 讜诇讗 讝讛

Rav Ashi said: Emend the baraita and say: This one, who is sitting on the donkey and driving it, acquires the donkey and its halter, which is attached to its head; and that one, who is holding the reins, acquires only the part that is held in his hand. And with regard to the rest, the part of the reins that is neither attached to the donkey鈥檚 head nor held in the person鈥檚 hand, neither this one nor that one has acquired it.

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇谞转拽讛 讜诇讛讘讬讗讛 讗爪诇讜

Rabbi Abbahu said: Actually, do not emend the baraita; leave it as it is taught. The one holding the reins acquires them because he can detach them from the donkey and bring them toward himself. Since he is able to pull the reins into his possession, they are considered his even though he does not lift them.

讜讛讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讟诇讬转 砖讛讬讗 诪讜谞讞转 讞爪讬讛 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讜讞爪讬讛 注诇 讙讘讬 注诪讜讚 讜讘讗 讗讞讚 讜讛讙讘讬讛 讞爪讬讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛讙讘讬讛 讞爪讬讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 注诪讜讚 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚拽诪讗 拽谞讬 讜讘转专讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇谞转拽 讜诇讛讘讬讗 讗爪诇讜 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments: And this statement of Rabbi Abbahu is an error. As, if you do not say so, but instead accept Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 opinion, that would result in an incorrect halakhic ruling in the case of a garment, half of which was lying on the ground and half of which was lying on a pillar, and one came and lifted the half of it that was on the ground off the ground, and another person came and lifted the other half of it off the pillar. In that case, should one also rule that the first one acquires the garment and the latter one does not acquire it, since the first one was able to detach it from the pillar and bring the entire garment toward him? That is certainly not the halakha. Rather, clearly this statement of Rabbi Abbahu is an error. In any event, the question of whether one can acquire an animal by sitting on it in a riding position remains unresolved.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 专讻讜讘 讘砖讚讛 讜诪谞讛讬讙 讘注讬专 拽谞讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪谞讛讬讙 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 诪谞讛讬讙 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 诪谞讛讬讙

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof from a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: If one sits on an animal in the field or leads an animal in the city, he acquires it. This proves that one can acquire an animal by sitting on it. The Gemara rejects this proof: Here too, the reference is to one who leads, i.e., drives, the animal with his feet. The Gemara asks: If so, that is the same as leading the animal. Why would the baraita mention the same case twice? The Gemara answers: The baraita is discussing two types of leading.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讻讜讘 讘注讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇专讻讜讘 讘注讬专

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the reason that one who sits on an animal in the city does not acquire it? Rav Kahana said: It is because people do not normally ride in the city, as it is crowded.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讙讘讬讛 讗专谞拽讬 讘砖讘转 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗专谞拽讬 讘砖讘转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚注讘讚 注讘讚 讜拽谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 讚注讘讚 注讘讚 讜拽谞讬

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: If that is so, that by means of an unusual action one cannot effect an acquisition, then if one lifted a purse that he found on Shabbat, has he also not acquired it, since people do not normally lift a purse on Shabbat due to the prohibition of set-aside [muktze]? That is clearly not the halakha. Rather, how should one rule in that case? What he did, he did, and he acquires the purse. Here too, if one sat on an animal in the city, what he did, he did, and he acquires the animal.

讗诇讗 讘诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 讻讚专讱 砖讘谞讬 讗讚诐 拽讜谞讬谉

Rather, the baraita is not referring to the case of a found animal, which one can acquire it even by sitting on it in the city. In fact, we are dealing with a case of buying and selling an animal, where the seller said to the buyer: Acquire the animal the way that people normally acquire an animal. Therefore, the buyer cannot acquire it in the city by sitting on it.

讜讗讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讗 拽谞讬 讜讗讬 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讛讜讗 拽谞讬 讜讗讬 讗砖讛 讛讬讗 拽谞讬讗 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讝讬诇讗 讛讜讗 拽谞讬

And if he rides it in the public domain, he acquires it, as people commonly ride animals in the city鈥檚 public domain. And if he is an important person, who always rides his animal rather than leading it, he acquires it even in an alleyway. And if the buyer is a woman, she acquires the animal, as women do not normally lead animals. And if the buyer is a detestable person, who rides even where other people do not, he too acquires the animal.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪砖讜讱 讘讛诪讛 讝讜 诇拽谞讜转 讻诇讬诐 砖注诇讬讛 诪讛讜

Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says to another, to whom he wishes to sell vessels: Pull this animal in order to acquire the vessels that are upon it, what is the halakha? Can the buyer acquire the vessels by pulling the animal?

诇拽谞讜转 诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜讱 讘讛诪讛 讝讜 讜拽谞讬 讻诇讬诐 砖注诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 诪讛谞讬讗 诪砖讬讻讛 讚讘讛诪讛 诇讗拽谞讜讬讬 讻诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗

Before discussing the dilemma, the Gemara clarifies the issue. If the vendor merely says: In order that you will acquire the vessels, how can the buyer acquire them? Did he say to him in the imperative: Acquire the vessels? Without the seller鈥檚 explicitly instructing the buyer to acquire the vessels, the buyer cannot acquire them. Rather, Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 dilemma is with regard to a case where the seller says to the buyer: Pull this animal and thereby acquire the vessels that are upon it. What is the halakha? Is pulling the animal effective in order to acquire the vessels upon it, or not?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讜拽谞讬 讻诇讬诐 诪讬 拽谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讞爪专 诪讛诇讻转 讛讬讗 讜讞爪专 诪讛诇讻转 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rava said: It is clearly not effective, as even if he said to him: Acquire the animal and acquire the vessels, does the buyer acquire the vessels? Although one can acquire an item by having it placed in his courtyard, and one鈥檚 animal is the equivalent of his courtyard, it is considered a mobile courtyard, and a mobile courtyard does not effect acquisition of items that are placed in it.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻砖注诪讚讛 讜讛讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 诪讛诇讱 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讜诪讚 讜讬讜砖讘 诇讗 拽谞讛

And if you would say that the animal can function as a courtyard when it is standing still, not walking, while being pulled, isn鈥檛 there a principle which states that anything that does not effect acquisition when moving also does not effect acquisition when it is standing or sitting?

讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讻驻讜转讛

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the buyer can acquire vessels by having them placed on the animal鈥檚 back only when the animal is bound. In that circumstance, when the buyer acquires the animal it assumes the legal status of his courtyard, and he also acquires the items that are placed upon the animal.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜拽驻爪讜 讚讙讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛住驻讬谞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讞爪专 诪讛诇讻转 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住驻讬谞讛 诪讬谞讞 谞讬讬讞讗 讜诪讬讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪诪讟讜 诇讛

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: If that is so, in a case where one was sailing on a boat and fish jumped and fell into the boat, is the boat also considered a mobile courtyard, and therefore he does not acquire the fish? Rava said to them: A boat is not considered a mobile courtyard, as the boat itself sits idle, and it is the water that moves it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讬转讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讝专拽 诇讛 讙讟 诇转讜讱 讞讬拽讛 讗讜 诇转讜讱 拽诇转讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讙专砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽诇转讛 诪讬谞讞 谞讬讬讞讗 讜讗讬讛讬 讚拽讗 诪住讙讬讗 诪转讜转讛

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, that one does not acquire items that are placed in his mobile courtyard, then if a woman was walking in the public domain and her husband threw a bill of divorce into her lap, i.e., onto her person, or into her basket that she was carrying on her head, here too, is she not divorced because the basket was moving? Rav Ashi said to him: Her basket is not considered a mobile courtyard, as it sits idle, and it is she who walks beneath it.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 专讜讻讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讜专讗讛 讗转 讛诪爪讬讗讛 讜讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 转谞讛 诇讬 谞讟诇讛 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 讝讻讬转讬 讘讛 讝讻讛 讘讛 讗诐 诪砖谞转谞讛 诇讜 讗诪专 讗谞讬 讝讻讬转讬 讘讛 转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

MISHNA: If one was riding on an animal and saw a found item, and said to another person who was walking beside him: Give it to me, if the pedestrian took it and said: I have acquired it for myself, he has acquired it by means of lifting it, even though he did not see it first. But if, after giving it to the one riding the animal, he said: I acquired it for myself at the outset, he has said nothing and the rider keeps the item.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 诪讬 砖诇讬拽讟 讗转 讛驻讗讛 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 注谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讝讻讛 诇讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬转谞谞讛 诇注谞讬 讛谞诪爪讗 专讗砖讜谉

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Pe鈥檃 4:9): With regard to one who gleaned the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe鈥檃], and said: This produce is for so-and-so, a poor person, Rabbi Eliezer says: He thereby acquired it on the poor person鈥檚 behalf. And the Rabbis say: He did not acquire it for the poor person; rather, he should give it to the first poor person that he encounters.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 诪注砖讬专 诇注谞讬

Ulla said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: This dispute is in a case where the pe鈥檃 was gleaned by a rich person, who is not entitled to take the pe鈥檃 for himself, on behalf of a poor person.

讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诪讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪驻拽专 谞讻住讬讛 讜讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜诪讙讜 讚讝讻讬 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讝讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讞讚 诪讙讜 讗诪专讬谞谉 转专讬 诪讙讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

As Rabbi Eliezer holds that since [miggo], if he so desires, he can renounce ownership of his property and he would then be poor, and the pe鈥檃 would then be suitable for him, now too, it is considered potentially suitable for him even though he is wealthy. And since [miggo] he can acquire it for himself, he can acquire it on behalf of another poor person as well. And the Rabbis hold that we say miggo once, but we do not say miggo twice. Therefore, a wealthy person cannot acquire pe鈥檃 for a poor person.

讗讘诇 诪注谞讬 诇注谞讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讝讻讛 诇讜 讚诪讙讜 讚讝讻讬 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讝讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讞讘专讬讛

But in a case where the pe鈥檃 was gleaned by a poor person on behalf of another poor person, everyone agrees that he acquires it on behalf of the other person, as since [miggo] he can acquire it for himself, he can acquire it on behalf of another person as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 诪注谞讬 诇注谞讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讚讛讗 诪爪讬讗讛 讛讻诇 注谞讬讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讜转谞谉 讛讬讛 专讜讻讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讜专讗讛 讗转 讛诪爪讬讗讛 讜讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 转谞讛 诇讬 谞讟诇讛 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 讝讻讬转讬 讘讛 讝讻讛 讘讛

Rav Na岣an said to Ulla: But shouldn鈥檛 the Master say that the dispute is even in a case where the pe鈥檃 was gleaned by a poor person on behalf of another poor person? This can be proven from the mishna, as everyone is considered like poor people with regard to a found item, i.e., everyone has the right to acquire a found item just as a poor person is entitled to glean pe鈥檃, and we learned in the mishna: If one was riding on an animal and saw a found item, and said to another person: Give it to me, if the pedestrian took it and said: I have acquired it for myself, he has acquired it.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪注谞讬 诇注谞讬 诪讞诇讜拽转

Granted, if you say the dispute pertains to a case where the pe鈥檃 was gleaned by a poor person on behalf of a poor person,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 9

讘诪讚讛 讝讗转 拽谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖转讛讗 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙诪诇 讜讛谞讛讙讛 讘讞诪讜专

they have both acquired the animal in that manner. Rabbi Yehuda says: Actually, one acquires an animal only through pulling in the case of a camel or driving in the case of a donkey, as that is the manner in which they are normally directed.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讜砖讱 讜讗讞讚 诪谞讛讬讙 诪讜砖讱 讜诪谞讛讬讙 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 专讻讜讘 诇讗

In any event, it is taught in the baraita: Or one who was pulling and one who was driving, which indicates that pulling and driving are indeed effective modes of acquisition, but sitting in a riding position on an animal is not.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 专讻讜讘 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪讜砖讱 讜诪谞讛讬讙 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖转讛讗 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙诪诇 讜讛谞讛讙讛 讘讞诪讜专 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬驻讻讗 谞诪讬 拽谞讬

The Gemara rejects this inference: The same is true with regard to even sitting in a riding position on an animal; it is an effective mode of acquisition. And the reason that the baraita teaches specifically the modes of pulling and driving is only to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that one acquires an animal only through pulling in the case of a camel or driving in the case of a donkey. Therefore, the first tanna teaches us that even in the opposite manner, i.e., pulling a donkey or driving a camel, one acquires the animal.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜诇转谞讬谞讛讜 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪讜砖讻讬谉 讜诪谞讛讬讙讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讙诪诇 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讜专

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then let the first tanna combine the cases and teach them as follows: With regard to two people who were pulling or driving either a camel or a donkey, they each acquire the respective animal. The fact that this wording is not used indicates that the first tanna does not entirely disagree with Rabbi Yehuda.

讗讬讻讗 讞讚 爪讚 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讞诪讜专 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛谞讛讙讛 讘讙诪诇

The Gemara modifies its response: There is one manner of acquisition by which the first tanna concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that one does not acquire the animal if one employs it, and it is unclear what manner that is. Some say that by pulling a donkey one does not acquire it, as donkeys tend to not move at all when being pulled, and some say that by driving a camel one does not acquire it, as that is not the common way to move it.

讜讗讬转 讚诪讜转讬讘 诪住讬驻讗 讘诪讚讛 讝讜 拽谞讛 讘诪讚讛 讝讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 专讻讜讘 诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬驻讻讗

And according to an alternative version of this discussion, there are those who raise an objection to the opinion that one can acquire an animal by sitting on it in a riding position from the latter clause of the statement of the first tanna in the baraita: They acquire the animal in that manner. The phrase in that manner is stated to exclude what? Is it not to exclude one who sits in a riding position on the animal? The Gemara answers: No, it is stated to exclude the opposite cases: One who drives a camel or pulls a donkey does not acquire the animal.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 爪讚 讗讞讚 讚诇讗 拽谞讛 讗讬转 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讞诪讜专 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛谞讛讙讛 讘讙诪诇

The Gemara asks: If so, that is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to one manner of acquisition in which one does not acquire the animal. Some say that according to the first tanna, by pulling a donkey one does not acquire it, and some say that by driving a camel one does not acquire it.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讞讚 专讻讜讘 讞诪讜专 讜讗讞讚 转驻讜住 讘诪讜住讬专讛 讝讛 拽谞讛 讞诪讜专 讜讝讛 拽谞讛 诪讜住讬专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讻讜讘 拽谞讬

Come and hear proof from a baraita that one can acquire an animal by sitting on it in a riding position: If one person is sitting in a riding position on a donkey and one other person is holding the reins, this one, the one sitting on the donkey, acquires the donkey, and that one, who is holding the reins, acquires the reins. Learn from it that one who sits in a riding position on an animal acquires it.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪谞讛讬讙 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞拽谞讬 谞诪讬 专讻讜讘 讘诪讜住讬专讛 讗讬诪讗 讝讛 拽谞讛 讞诪讜专 讜讞爪讬 诪讜住讬专讛 讜讝讛 拽谞讛 讞爪讬 诪讜住讬专讛

The Gemara rejects this: Here too, the reference is to one who is not only sitting on the donkey but who is also driving it with his feet by squeezing or kicking it. The Gemara asks: If so, the one who is sitting should acquire part of the reins too. The fact that he does not acquire the reins indicates that his acquisition of the donkey is imperfect, which would not be the case if he were driving it. The Gemara answers: Emend the text and say: This one acquires the donkey and half of the reins, and that one acquires half of the reins.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讻讜讘 拽谞讬 讚拽诪讙讘讛 诇讬讛 讘谉 讚注转 讗诇讗 转驻讜住 讘诪讜住讬专讛 讘诪讗讬 拽谞讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, the one sitting on the donkey acquires half of the reins because a mentally competent person, the one holding the reins, has lifted it for him, but in what manner does the one holding the reins acquire half the reins? The other end of the reins is attached to the donkey, and because he does not acquire the donkey he cannot acquire the reins.

讗讬诪讗 讝讛 拽谞讛 讞诪讜专 讜讻讜诇讬讛 诪讜住讬专讛 讜讝讛 拽谞讬 诪讛 砖转驻讜住 讘讬讚讜

The Gemara answers: Emend the text and say: This one, the one sitting on the donkey, acquires the donkey and almost the entire reins, and that one, who is holding the reins, acquires only the part of the reins that is actually held in his hand.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛诪讙讘讬讛 诪爪讬讗讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽谞讛 讞讘讬专讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讙讘讛 诇讬讛 讗讚注转讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 讛讗讬 讗讚注转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪讙讘讛 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讗讞专讬谞讬 诪拽谞讬

The Gemara asks: What is the basis for this understanding? Even if you say that in a case of one who performs an act of acquisition by lifting a found item on behalf of another, the other person, i.e., the latter, acquires ownership of the item, that statement applies only in a case where one lifts an item with the intention that another person will acquire it. In the case here, this person who is holding the reins is lifting them with the intention of acquiring them for himself. Since he himself does not acquire them, how can he acquire them for others?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讝讛 拽谞讛 讞诪讜专 讜讘讬转 驻讙讬讛 讜讝讛 拽谞讛 诪讛 砖转驻讜住 讘讬讚讜 讜讛砖讗专 诇讗 拽谞讛 诇讗 讝讛 讜诇讗 讝讛

Rav Ashi said: Emend the baraita and say: This one, who is sitting on the donkey and driving it, acquires the donkey and its halter, which is attached to its head; and that one, who is holding the reins, acquires only the part that is held in his hand. And with regard to the rest, the part of the reins that is neither attached to the donkey鈥檚 head nor held in the person鈥檚 hand, neither this one nor that one has acquired it.

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇谞转拽讛 讜诇讛讘讬讗讛 讗爪诇讜

Rabbi Abbahu said: Actually, do not emend the baraita; leave it as it is taught. The one holding the reins acquires them because he can detach them from the donkey and bring them toward himself. Since he is able to pull the reins into his possession, they are considered his even though he does not lift them.

讜讛讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讟诇讬转 砖讛讬讗 诪讜谞讞转 讞爪讬讛 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讜讞爪讬讛 注诇 讙讘讬 注诪讜讚 讜讘讗 讗讞讚 讜讛讙讘讬讛 讞爪讬讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛讙讘讬讛 讞爪讬讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 注诪讜讚 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚拽诪讗 拽谞讬 讜讘转专讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇谞转拽 讜诇讛讘讬讗 讗爪诇讜 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments: And this statement of Rabbi Abbahu is an error. As, if you do not say so, but instead accept Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 opinion, that would result in an incorrect halakhic ruling in the case of a garment, half of which was lying on the ground and half of which was lying on a pillar, and one came and lifted the half of it that was on the ground off the ground, and another person came and lifted the other half of it off the pillar. In that case, should one also rule that the first one acquires the garment and the latter one does not acquire it, since the first one was able to detach it from the pillar and bring the entire garment toward him? That is certainly not the halakha. Rather, clearly this statement of Rabbi Abbahu is an error. In any event, the question of whether one can acquire an animal by sitting on it in a riding position remains unresolved.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 专讻讜讘 讘砖讚讛 讜诪谞讛讬讙 讘注讬专 拽谞讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪谞讛讬讙 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 诪谞讛讬讙 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 诪谞讛讬讙

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof from a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: If one sits on an animal in the field or leads an animal in the city, he acquires it. This proves that one can acquire an animal by sitting on it. The Gemara rejects this proof: Here too, the reference is to one who leads, i.e., drives, the animal with his feet. The Gemara asks: If so, that is the same as leading the animal. Why would the baraita mention the same case twice? The Gemara answers: The baraita is discussing two types of leading.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讻讜讘 讘注讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇专讻讜讘 讘注讬专

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the reason that one who sits on an animal in the city does not acquire it? Rav Kahana said: It is because people do not normally ride in the city, as it is crowded.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讙讘讬讛 讗专谞拽讬 讘砖讘转 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗专谞拽讬 讘砖讘转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚注讘讚 注讘讚 讜拽谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 讚注讘讚 注讘讚 讜拽谞讬

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: If that is so, that by means of an unusual action one cannot effect an acquisition, then if one lifted a purse that he found on Shabbat, has he also not acquired it, since people do not normally lift a purse on Shabbat due to the prohibition of set-aside [muktze]? That is clearly not the halakha. Rather, how should one rule in that case? What he did, he did, and he acquires the purse. Here too, if one sat on an animal in the city, what he did, he did, and he acquires the animal.

讗诇讗 讘诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 讻讚专讱 砖讘谞讬 讗讚诐 拽讜谞讬谉

Rather, the baraita is not referring to the case of a found animal, which one can acquire it even by sitting on it in the city. In fact, we are dealing with a case of buying and selling an animal, where the seller said to the buyer: Acquire the animal the way that people normally acquire an animal. Therefore, the buyer cannot acquire it in the city by sitting on it.

讜讗讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讗 拽谞讬 讜讗讬 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讛讜讗 拽谞讬 讜讗讬 讗砖讛 讛讬讗 拽谞讬讗 讜讗讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讝讬诇讗 讛讜讗 拽谞讬

And if he rides it in the public domain, he acquires it, as people commonly ride animals in the city鈥檚 public domain. And if he is an important person, who always rides his animal rather than leading it, he acquires it even in an alleyway. And if the buyer is a woman, she acquires the animal, as women do not normally lead animals. And if the buyer is a detestable person, who rides even where other people do not, he too acquires the animal.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪砖讜讱 讘讛诪讛 讝讜 诇拽谞讜转 讻诇讬诐 砖注诇讬讛 诪讛讜

Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says to another, to whom he wishes to sell vessels: Pull this animal in order to acquire the vessels that are upon it, what is the halakha? Can the buyer acquire the vessels by pulling the animal?

诇拽谞讜转 诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜讱 讘讛诪讛 讝讜 讜拽谞讬 讻诇讬诐 砖注诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 诪讛谞讬讗 诪砖讬讻讛 讚讘讛诪讛 诇讗拽谞讜讬讬 讻诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗

Before discussing the dilemma, the Gemara clarifies the issue. If the vendor merely says: In order that you will acquire the vessels, how can the buyer acquire them? Did he say to him in the imperative: Acquire the vessels? Without the seller鈥檚 explicitly instructing the buyer to acquire the vessels, the buyer cannot acquire them. Rather, Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 dilemma is with regard to a case where the seller says to the buyer: Pull this animal and thereby acquire the vessels that are upon it. What is the halakha? Is pulling the animal effective in order to acquire the vessels upon it, or not?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讜拽谞讬 讻诇讬诐 诪讬 拽谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讞爪专 诪讛诇讻转 讛讬讗 讜讞爪专 诪讛诇讻转 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rava said: It is clearly not effective, as even if he said to him: Acquire the animal and acquire the vessels, does the buyer acquire the vessels? Although one can acquire an item by having it placed in his courtyard, and one鈥檚 animal is the equivalent of his courtyard, it is considered a mobile courtyard, and a mobile courtyard does not effect acquisition of items that are placed in it.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻砖注诪讚讛 讜讛讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 诪讛诇讱 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讜诪讚 讜讬讜砖讘 诇讗 拽谞讛

And if you would say that the animal can function as a courtyard when it is standing still, not walking, while being pulled, isn鈥檛 there a principle which states that anything that does not effect acquisition when moving also does not effect acquisition when it is standing or sitting?

讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讻驻讜转讛

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the buyer can acquire vessels by having them placed on the animal鈥檚 back only when the animal is bound. In that circumstance, when the buyer acquires the animal it assumes the legal status of his courtyard, and he also acquires the items that are placed upon the animal.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜拽驻爪讜 讚讙讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛住驻讬谞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讞爪专 诪讛诇讻转 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住驻讬谞讛 诪讬谞讞 谞讬讬讞讗 讜诪讬讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪诪讟讜 诇讛

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: If that is so, in a case where one was sailing on a boat and fish jumped and fell into the boat, is the boat also considered a mobile courtyard, and therefore he does not acquire the fish? Rava said to them: A boat is not considered a mobile courtyard, as the boat itself sits idle, and it is the water that moves it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讬转讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讝专拽 诇讛 讙讟 诇转讜讱 讞讬拽讛 讗讜 诇转讜讱 拽诇转讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讙专砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽诇转讛 诪讬谞讞 谞讬讬讞讗 讜讗讬讛讬 讚拽讗 诪住讙讬讗 诪转讜转讛

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, that one does not acquire items that are placed in his mobile courtyard, then if a woman was walking in the public domain and her husband threw a bill of divorce into her lap, i.e., onto her person, or into her basket that she was carrying on her head, here too, is she not divorced because the basket was moving? Rav Ashi said to him: Her basket is not considered a mobile courtyard, as it sits idle, and it is she who walks beneath it.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬讛 专讜讻讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讜专讗讛 讗转 讛诪爪讬讗讛 讜讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 转谞讛 诇讬 谞讟诇讛 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 讝讻讬转讬 讘讛 讝讻讛 讘讛 讗诐 诪砖谞转谞讛 诇讜 讗诪专 讗谞讬 讝讻讬转讬 讘讛 转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

MISHNA: If one was riding on an animal and saw a found item, and said to another person who was walking beside him: Give it to me, if the pedestrian took it and said: I have acquired it for myself, he has acquired it by means of lifting it, even though he did not see it first. But if, after giving it to the one riding the animal, he said: I acquired it for myself at the outset, he has said nothing and the rider keeps the item.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 诪讬 砖诇讬拽讟 讗转 讛驻讗讛 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 注谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讝讻讛 诇讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬转谞谞讛 诇注谞讬 讛谞诪爪讗 专讗砖讜谉

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Pe鈥檃 4:9): With regard to one who gleaned the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe鈥檃], and said: This produce is for so-and-so, a poor person, Rabbi Eliezer says: He thereby acquired it on the poor person鈥檚 behalf. And the Rabbis say: He did not acquire it for the poor person; rather, he should give it to the first poor person that he encounters.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 诪注砖讬专 诇注谞讬

Ulla said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: This dispute is in a case where the pe鈥檃 was gleaned by a rich person, who is not entitled to take the pe鈥檃 for himself, on behalf of a poor person.

讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诪讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪驻拽专 谞讻住讬讛 讜讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜诪讙讜 讚讝讻讬 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讝讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讞讚 诪讙讜 讗诪专讬谞谉 转专讬 诪讙讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

As Rabbi Eliezer holds that since [miggo], if he so desires, he can renounce ownership of his property and he would then be poor, and the pe鈥檃 would then be suitable for him, now too, it is considered potentially suitable for him even though he is wealthy. And since [miggo] he can acquire it for himself, he can acquire it on behalf of another poor person as well. And the Rabbis hold that we say miggo once, but we do not say miggo twice. Therefore, a wealthy person cannot acquire pe鈥檃 for a poor person.

讗讘诇 诪注谞讬 诇注谞讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讝讻讛 诇讜 讚诪讙讜 讚讝讻讬 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讝讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讞讘专讬讛

But in a case where the pe鈥檃 was gleaned by a poor person on behalf of another poor person, everyone agrees that he acquires it on behalf of the other person, as since [miggo] he can acquire it for himself, he can acquire it on behalf of another person as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 诪注谞讬 诇注谞讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讚讛讗 诪爪讬讗讛 讛讻诇 注谞讬讬诐 讗爪诇讛 讜转谞谉 讛讬讛 专讜讻讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 讜专讗讛 讗转 讛诪爪讬讗讛 讜讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 转谞讛 诇讬 谞讟诇讛 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 讝讻讬转讬 讘讛 讝讻讛 讘讛

Rav Na岣an said to Ulla: But shouldn鈥檛 the Master say that the dispute is even in a case where the pe鈥檃 was gleaned by a poor person on behalf of another poor person? This can be proven from the mishna, as everyone is considered like poor people with regard to a found item, i.e., everyone has the right to acquire a found item just as a poor person is entitled to glean pe鈥檃, and we learned in the mishna: If one was riding on an animal and saw a found item, and said to another person: Give it to me, if the pedestrian took it and said: I have acquired it for myself, he has acquired it.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪注谞讬 诇注谞讬 诪讞诇讜拽转

Granted, if you say the dispute pertains to a case where the pe鈥檃 was gleaned by a poor person on behalf of a poor person,

Scroll To Top