Explanation: The Gemara asks that people do not make a gold Talis for minors;

The text does not say "it is proper for both of them", for if so, what was the question from a gold Talis?

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He took [the item out of the owner's Reshus] based on his will and his friend's will, like it says in Bava Kama (78b).

Objection: There we discuss Shechitah [of a stolen ox or Seh, with his partner's consent]. Even if [a thief] says "go slaughter for me", he is liable [four or five], for we expound "Tachas" to include a Shali'ach [even though normally, Ein Shali'ach l'Davar Aveirah]!

Explanation #2: Rather, partners stole. Both of them lifted it.

Question: What is the source of this? Perhaps we do not say two Migos (like Ula explains Chachamim, below 9b)!

Two Chereshim who acquired, this is because Migo he acquires for himself, he acquires for his friend! (Tosfos ha'Rosh says that Rava does not distinguish one Migo from two.)

Version #1: Some texts do not say here "why do we need also this?", for from the Mishnah itself we derive that he says "half of it is mine" because he picked it up with his friend;

According to his words [if one who picks up a Metzi'ah for his friend does not acquire], he does not receive anything! Rather, surely one who picks up a Metzi'ah for his friend acquires for him.

Explanation: The Gemara asks what is the source that it discusses a Metzi'ah? Perhaps it discusses a sale!

Implied question: We could have rejected that he says "half of it is mine" for he held half of it in his hand, or he picked up all of it with intent to acquire half!

Answer: Still, we would have derived from the extra clause of our Mishnah [that one who picks up a Metzi'ah for his friend acquires for him];

Therefore, he rejects that even from the extra clause, one cannot derive this.

Version #2: According to the texts that say "why do we need also this?", we can say that this is because from the Mishnah itself we could not derive [that one who picks up a Metzi'ah for his friend acquires for him], like I explained.

Question: Why does it say "perhaps it discusses a sale"? Even if it discusses a Metzi'ah, we can reject, like it rejects!

Poor Answer: [We ask] what is the source that it discusses a Metzi'ah, and we do not establish it to discuss a sale, for we do not find a Chidush, other than one who picks up a Metzi'ah for his friend [that he acquires for him]?

Even if it discusses a sale, there is a Chidush, that we do not say that he is Meshiv Aveidah (he could have claimed the entire Talis), and the same applies if we discuss a Metzi'ah. Therefore, one cannot prove anything.

Implied question: R. Shimon (Kidushin 25b) holds that both small and large (i.e. work) animals are acquired only through Hagbahah!

Answer: In any case, we ask due to our Stam Mishnah, for the Mishnah says that if one was riding and one was leading...

Implied question - Citation (Kidushin 25b - Mishnah - R. Meir and R. Eliezer): A large animal is acquired through Mesirah.

Answer: They mean even through Mesirah, and all the more so through Meshichah;

Likewise, when the Gemara mentions Mesirah, it means even through Mesirah. When it mentions Meshichah, it is only through Meshichah, but not through Mesirah. Even without [our Gemara here], we must say so there.

Explanation: Our Mishnah of one who was riding [which connotes that one acquires through riding], below we reject that it refers to one who conducts with his legs.

Suggestion: He is Tofes through his legs, or since he is sitting on it.

Rejection: This is not called Tofes. Rather, since he holds the reins, he is called Tofes, for below we use this expression.

Assertion: We must say that he is Tofes, and also it goes a little due to him. [The Gemara asks] or perhaps leading is better, for it goes more due to him.

Proof: If we asked about riding (if it is better than leading) only because he is Tofes, how did we resolve below from sitting, who is exempt, and likewise riding does not acquire?

Kil'ayim does not depend at all on Tefisah. It depends only on going due to him. [In the Havah Amina that Tosfos rejects,] Kinyan depends only on Tefisah, but not on going due to him!

Question: We should resolve from our Mishnah that leading acquires [even] when another is riding!

And if riding [in our Mishnah] discusses conducting with his legs, all the more so leading is better than riding, for it acquires even when another rides and conducts, and all the more so when another only rides!

Answer: We cannot prove from our Mishnah that leading acquires when another rides, for even if it does not acquire, he is called Muchzak;

Since leading alone when no one rides acquires, he is called Muchzak even when another rides.

Implied question: If so, below, how do we prove from our Mishnah that riding alone acquires, since he is called Muchzak?

Answer: If even alone [riding] did not acquire, it is reasonable that he is not even Muchzak.

Support: Also above (8a), it says "if you will say that we learn from two who hold [a Talis], this one says 'I picked up all of it', but two who picked up did not acquire";

Also there, even though the way they are Tofes, they did not acquire, even so they are called Muchzak;

This is because if he would lift it alone, if his friend was not holding the other side, he would acquire. Therefore, he is called Muchzak even with his friend.

Suggestion: We can prove from the Seifa that riding and leading both acquire in the presence of the other, for it says "if both admit, they divide"!

Rejection: Both of them do not agree that they acquired it together, this one riding and this one leading. Rather, both acquired through leading or another Kinyan.

Assertion: Rav Yehudah was unsure if he heard from Shmuel about riding alone and leading alone, and then he resolved that riding does not acquire;

Or, perhaps he heard from him about riding in the presence of one leading, and then he was unsure which acquires.

Proof: If he was not unsure, rather, he heard from Shmuel about riding in the presence of one leading, and [he did] not [have a Safek if he heard] anything else...

If so, Shmuel holds that riding alone acquires, and now Rav Yehudah resolves that even alone it does not acquire!

Explanation: [One might have thought that] his (the rider's) Chazakah is better, and it is Mevatel the Chazakah of the one leading. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so, rather, both of them are Muchzak, and they divide.

Suggestion: The Gemara suggested that riding is better, and it is Mevatel the Kinyan of leading. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so, rather, both of them acquire, like I explained above.

Rejection: Even if [leading] did not acquire in the presence of one riding, he is called Muchzak, since leading alone acquires.

Question: Above, when we ask "now, sitting acquires. Is there any question about riding?!", we should have answered that the Chidush is that the Chazakah of one riding it, and it goes due to him, is not Mevatel the Chazakah of one leading!

Answer: It need not teach this. Obviously, riding alone without conducting with his legs, is not esteemed to be Mevatel the Chazakah of the one who is leading;

If [you will say that riding is better] because he is Tofes in it, also leading [has an advantage;] it goes due to him more than [due to] the rider.

However, now we discuss [a rider] who conducts with his legs. Since everything in leading is in riding, and additionally [the rider] is Tofes in it, [one might have thought that] it is Mevatel the Chazakah of the one leading. [The Mishnah] teaches that this is not so.

Conclusion: Now we establish it to discuss one who conducts with his legs, it is like Rabanan, and all the more so like R. Meir.