Bava Batra 76
וּבִשְׁטָר.
and by means of a bill of sale.
אוֹתִיּוֹת מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמַיְיהוּ? חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: סְפִינָה נִקְנֵית בִּמְשִׁיכָה, וְאוֹתִיּוֹת בִּמְסִירָה. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: סְפִינָה וְאוֹתִיּוֹת נִקְנוֹת בִּמְשִׁיכָה וּבִשְׁטָר.
The Gemara clarifies the baraita: Letters in promissory notes, who mentioned anything about them? Why would Rabbi Natan speak about promissory notes, which are not discussed by the first tanna? The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: A ship is acquired by pulling, and letters, i.e., the content of a promissory note, are acquired by merely transferring the document, not through pulling. Rabbi Natan says: A ship and letters are acquired by pulling and also by means of a bill of sale.
שְׁטָר לִסְפִינָה לְמָה לִי? מִטַּלְטְלֵי הִיא! אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָתָנֵי: סְפִינָה נִקְנֵית בִּמְשִׁיכָה, וְאוֹתִיּוֹת בִּמְסִירָה. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: סְפִינָה בִּמְשִׁיכָה, וְאוֹתִיּוֹת בִּשְׁטָר?
The Gemara asks: Why do I need a bill of sale for a ship? A ship is movable property, which is acquired not by means of giving a bill of sale, but through other acts of acquisition. Rather, is it not correct to say that this is what the baraita is teaching: A ship is acquired by pulling, and letters of credit by passing. Rabbi Natan says: A ship is acquired by pulling, and letters, i.e. the contents of a promissory note, are acquired either through pulling or by means of a bill of sale.
סְפִינָה בִּמְשִׁיכָה – הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אֶלָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ? לָא; דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – אִי כְּרַב, אִי כִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וּבִסְפִינָה כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי;
The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Natan holds that a ship is acquired by pulling, his opinion is apparently identical to the opinion of the first tanna. Rather, the practical difference between the two opinions is the dispute of Rav and Shmuel. According to the opinion of one tanna the buyer must move the entire ship out of its current location, while the other tanna maintains that one must move the ship only a minimal amount. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone, Rabbi Natan and the first tanna, holds either in accordance with the opinion of Rav, or in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. And with regard to a ship, everyone agrees that it is acquired through pulling.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּאוֹתִיּוֹת, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי נָתָן לְתַנָּא קַמָּא: בִּסְפִינָה – וַדַּאי מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ; בְּאוֹתִיּוֹת – אִי אִיכָּא שְׁטָר, אִין; אִי לָא, לָא.
When they disagree, it is with regard to acquiring letters, i.e. the contents of a promissory note. And this is what Rabbi Natan is saying to the first tanna: With regard to a ship, I certainly concede to you that it is acquired by pulling. But with regard to letters, whereas you maintain that passing suffices to acquire them, I hold that if in addition there is a bill of sale, yes, the acquisition is valid, but if not, the act of passing is not effective.
וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי – דְּתַנְיָא: אוֹתִיּוֹת נִקְנוֹת בִּמְסִירָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין כָּתַב וְלֹא מָסַר, בֵּין מָסַר וְלָא כָּתַב – לֹא קָנָה, עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב וְיִמְסוֹר.
And according to this interpretation, the first tanna and Rabbi Natan disagree with regard to the dispute between these tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita: Letters, i.e., the contents of a promissory note, are acquired by merely transferring the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: Whether one wrote a bill of sale but did not transfer the promissory note to the buyer, or whether he transferred the promissory note but did not write a bill of sale, the buyer does not acquire the documents until the seller both writes a bill of sale and transfers the promissory note.
בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא – כְּרַבִּי? סְפִינָה נָמֵי תִּיקְּנֵי בִּמְסִירָה! דְּתַנְיָא: סְפִינָה נִקְנֵית בִּמְסִירָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא קָנָה
The Gemara asks: In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the opinion of the first tanna of the aforementioned baraita? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, then let a ship be acquired also by passing, not only through pulling, as stated in the following baraita. As it is taught in a baraita: A ship is acquired by passing; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: The buyer does not acquire it
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.
