Bava Metzia 9 - March 8, 28 Adar 1

Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Helen Zibitt on her 24th yahrzeit. "Mom was a devoted and loving mother, grandmother and great-grandmother, who lived a life filled with middot, chesed, learning and ahavat Yisrael. May her memory be a blessing."

Today’s daf is dedicated by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson to Cheryl Savitsky. "A celebration of the inauguration of our friend and co-learner, Cheryl, into the grandparents’ club. No matter what the new prince (born to Eliana and Shimmy) will call you and  Avi, we are certain of two things: that he has wonderful role models of Torah, avoda and gemilut chasadim, and that you will have enormous nachat from him and the entire family! תזכו לגדלו לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים!"

Rav Yehuda holds that riding on an animal does not mean that one has acquired the animal. A braita is brought to support his opinion – first by an inference and then by a particular use of wording in the braita. But both attempts are rejected. Two braitot are brought to raise a difficulty against Rav Yehuda, but they are resolved. The first braita itself seems to be difficult and to resolve it, they change the wording of the braita. Rabbi Avahu explains the difficulty without changing the wording, but the Gemara rejects his explanation. The second braita explains that actions can create an acquisition of an animal when the action taken is a typical one such as riding an animal in a field or leading an animal in the city. Rabbi Elazar asks if one can acquire objects that are on an animal by pulling the animal if one does not intend to acquire the animal. His question presumes that if one acquires the animal, then one acquires the objects that are on the animal. Rava questions this presumption as the animal is like a “walking courtyard” that cannot acquire items in it. To resolve this, they assume that Rabbi Elazar’s question was only relevant in a case where the animal was tied up. Two difficulties are raised against Rava’s ruling that a “walking courtyard” does not acquire items, but are resolved. The Mishna says that if one sees a lost item and asks someone to pick it up for him/her, as long as the one who picks it up has not yet handed the lost item to the person who asked for it, the person can claim it as their own. The Gemara quotes a Mishna in Peah 4:9 that describes someone who collects part of the corner of another's field on behalf of a poor person. Ulla and Rav Nachman disagree about whether the debate in the Mishna in Peah is only when a wealthy person takes the item for a poor person or even a poor person for a poor person. Rav Nachman raises a difficulty with Ulla’s ruling from our Mishna.