From what I gather a set $x$ is $transitive$ if whenever $y \in z , z \in x \rightarrow y \in x$
And one of the properties of a well-ordered set is that $x \in y , y \in z \rightarrow x \in z$
Now I gather a set $x$ is an ordinal $\Leftrightarrow x$ is transitive and well-ordered by $\in$
My question is why is it necessary to say an ordinal is transitive, isn't it already covered in the definition of well-ordering?
(Sorry I'm probably missing something very obvious)
Take any singleton, $\{x\}$, then $\in$ well-orders $\{x\}$, since $\in\restriction(\{x\}\times\{x\})=\varnothing$ and $(\{x\}\,\varnothing)$ is a well-ordered set. However there is only one transitive singleton which is well-ordered by $\in$, which is $\{\varnothing\}$.
Another example can be $\{\omega,\omega_1\}$, which is also well-ordered by $\in$, since $\in\restriction(\{\omega,\omega_1\}\times\{\omega,\omega_1\})=\{(\omega,\omega_1)\}$ which is a well-ordering of $\{\omega,\omega_1\}$. And of course, any set of ordinals can be well-ordered using $\in$ that way. Regardless to being transitive or not.
The point is that $\in$ can be a transitive relation on a set, without the set being transitive.