עַד שֶׁיִּמְשְׁכֶנָּה אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכּוֹר אֶת מְקוֹמָהּ until he pulls it, or until he rents its place. How, then, can the opinion of the first tanna of the baraita be ascribed to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?
לָא קַשְׁיָא כָּאן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כָּאן בְּסִימְטָא The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here, where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states that a ship is acquired through passing, he is referring to a ship situated in the public domain. Since a ship in the public domain cannot be acquired through pulling, which must be performed in a domain that is in one’s possession, it is acquired through passing. By contrast, there, in the first baraita, the ship is situated in an alleyway [simta], which is not the public domain, as both parties have the right to keep their possessions there. A ship in this location must be acquired through pulling.
בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא לְהָא בָּתְרָיְיתָא בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֵימָא סֵיפָא וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיִּמְשְׁכֶנָּה וְאִי בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מִמַּאן אָגַר וְתוּ מְשִׁיכָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מִי קָנְיָא וְהָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מְסִירָה קוֹנָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם מְשִׁיכָה קוֹנָה בְּסִימְטָא וּבְחָצֵר שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם וְהַגְבָּהָה קוֹנָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם The Gemara asks: To what case did you interpret that last baraita to be referring? It was interpreted as referring to the public domain. If so, say the latter clause of the baraita: And the Rabbis say that the buyer does not acquire it until he pulls it or until he rents its place. The Gemara asks: But if the ship is situated in the public domain, from whom can he rent the place? And furthermore, does pulling in the public domain effect acquisition? But don’t Abaye and Rava both say with regard to the different methods of acquisition: Passing effects acquisition in the public domain or in a courtyard that does not belong to either of the parties; pulling effects acquisition in an alleyway or in a courtyard that belongs to both of the parties; and lifting effects acquisition in every place, even in the seller’s domain.
מַאי עַד שֶׁיִּמְשְׁכֶנָּה נָמֵי דְּקָאָמַר וּמַאי עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכּוֹר אֶת מְקוֹמָהּ דְּקָאָמַר הָכִי קָאָמַר עַד שֶׁיִּמְשְׁכֶנָּה מֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לְסִימְטָא וְאִם רְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים הִיא לָא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכּוֹר אֶת מְקוֹמָהּ The Gemara answers: What does the baraita mean when it says: Until he pulls it, and what does it mean when it says: Until he rents its place? This is what it is saying: The buyer does not acquire the ship until he pulls it from the public domain into an alleyway. And if the ship is located in the domain of some other owner, the buyer does not acquire it until he rents its place from the owner.
לֵימָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי כְּרַבִּי The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Abaye and Rava state their opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, not that of the Rabbis? The baraita indicates that only Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that one can acquire ownership by means of passing in the public domain.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי אִי דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנִי הָכִי נָמֵי הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לֵךְ מְשׁוֹךְ וּקְנֵי Rav Ashi said: The Rabbis agree that it is possible to effect acquisition in the public domain through the act of passing. Therefore, if it is a case where the seller says to him: Go take possession and thereby effect acquisition, so too he can effect acquisition through the act of passing, and does not need to pull it. Here the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as we are dealing with a case where the seller says to him: Go pull and thereby effect acquisition of it.
מָר סָבַר קְפִידָא וּמָר סָבַר מַרְאֶה מָקוֹם הוּא לוֹ Rav Ashi elaborates: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the seller is particular about the method by which the item is acquired, and therefore it can be acquired only through pulling. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that the seller is merely indicating the manner to him, i.e., he advises him to use this act of acquisition but he does not mind if the buyer prefers to perform a different act of acquisition.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא הַאי מַאן דִּמְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ שְׁטָרָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ צָרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב לֵיהּ קְנִי הוּא וְכׇל שִׁעְבּוּדָא דְּבֵיהּ אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא וַאֲמַרִית לֵיהּ טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב לֵיהּ הָכִי הָא לָא כְּתַב לֵיהּ הָכִי לָא קָנֵי § The Gemara returns to the issues of acquiring promissory notes. Rav Pappa says: One who sells a promissory note to another must write to him: Acquire it and all liens on property that are contained within it. Rav Ashi said: I stated this halakha before Rav Kahana, and I said to him the following analysis: The reason the buyer acquires it is that the seller wrote this for him. This indicates that if he did not write this for him, the buyer does not acquire the monetary rights recorded in the promissory note.
וְכִי לָצוֹר עַל פִּי צְלוֹחִיתוֹ הוּא צָרִיךְ אָמַר לִי אִין לָצוֹר וְלָצוֹר Rav Ashi asks: Why, then, did he purchase the promissory note? But does he require it to tie around the mouth of his flask as a stopper? Clearly, he purchased the document for the purpose of collecting the debt recorded in it. Rav Pappa said to me: Yes, it is possible that he purchased the promissory note in order to tie it around his flask. Since the owner did not transfer ownership of the obligation recorded in the promissory note, the buyer acquires only the paper itself.