Today's Daf Yomi
April 9, 2017 | 讬状讙 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.
Bava Batra 77
Ameimar paskens on the issue regarding how one can transfer a document of a loan to another. 聽There are 2 different versions of the gemara – each having the opposite conclusion. 聽The gemara questions Ameimar and then resolves the contradiction. 聽The mishna then discusses other parts of an item that one acquires or doesn’t acquire with the sale of the item. 聽There is a debate in the mishna聽whether or not we can look at the amount of money and that will be telling about what the purchase was for.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛 讻专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讙诪专讗 讗讜 住讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 住讘专讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讜转讬讜转 诪讬诇讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诪讬诇讬 讘诪讬诇讬 诇讗 诪讬拽谞讬谉
Ameimar says: The halakha is that letters are acquired by merely transferring the document to the buyer, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Is your ruling based on a tradition or on your own logical reasoning? Ameimar said to him: It is based on a tradition. Rav Ashi said: It also stands to reason that the contents of a promissory note are acquired through transferring, as letters, i.e., the contents of a promissory note, are words, i.e., the buyer is acquiring the right to a monetary obligation, not a physical item, and words cannot be acquired through other words.
讜诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛诐 讝讻讜 讘砖讚讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讜讝专 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讘砖讚讛
The Gemara asks: And is it true that documents cannot be acquired through words? But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar Yitz岣k say that Rav says: There are two types of documents. The first type is where one says to others: Take possession of this field for so-and-so and write the document for him as proof of the sale of the field. In this case, he may renege with regard to the document, i.e., he may change his mind and tell them not to write it. But he may not renege with regard to the field, as the buyer has already acquired it.
注诇 诪谞转 砖转讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讜讝专 讘讬谉 讘砖讟专 讘讬谉 讘砖讚讛
The second type of document is where he said: Take possession of this field for so-and-so on the condition that you write him a document. If the document has not yet been delivered he can retract his instruction both with regard to the document and with regard to the field, as the transfer of the field is dependent on the writing of the document.
讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖诇砖讛 砖讟专讜转 讛谉 转专讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讗讬讚讱 讗诐 拽讚诐 诪讜讻专 讜讻转讘 讗转 讛砖讟专
And Rav 岣yya bar Avin says that Rav Huna says: There are actually three types of documents. Two are those that we stated above, and the other is if the seller wrote the document in advance.
讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 诇诪讜讻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞 注诪讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬拽 讝讛 讘拽专拽注 谞拽谞讛 砖讟专 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讘讻住祝 讜砖讟专 讜讞讝拽讛
This is like that which we learned in a mishna (167b): A scribe may write a bill of sale for the seller even if the buyer is not with him when the seller presents his request. In a case of this kind, once this buyer takes possession of the land the deed is acquired wherever it is. And this is that which we learned in another mishna (Kiddushin 26a): Property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired together with property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, when the land is acquired by means of giving money, or by means of giving a document, or by means of taking possession. This shows that a bill of sale can be transferred without any act of acquisition performed for the document, and certainly through words, which presents a difficulty to Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion.
讗讙讘 砖讗谞讬 讚讛讗 诪讟讘注 讚诇讗 谞讬拽谞讬 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜讗讙讘 讗专注讗 谞讬拽谞讬
The Gemara answers: Acquiring a bill of sale by means of acquisition of land is different, as it is similar to acquisition through an item, not by means of words. The reason is that money, which cannot be acquired through symbolic exchange, a pro forma act of acquisition effecting the transfer of ownership of an item, nevertheless can be acquired by means of land.
讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 转专讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讝讜讝讬 讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗拽谞讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讞讗 讗讙讘 讗住讬驻讗 讚讘讬转讬讛 讻讬 讗转讗 谞驻拽 诇讗驻讬讛 注讚 转讜讜讱:
This is like that incident where Rav Pappa had deposited twelve thousand dinars with bailees in Bei 岣zai. He transferred ownership of the money in Bei 岣zai to his agent Rav Shmuel bar A岣 by means of the threshold of his house. The Gemara adds: When Rav Shmuel bar A岣 came from Bei 岣zai with the money, Rav Pappa was so happy that he was bringing him his money that he went out all the way until Tavakh to greet him.
讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讗 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讗转 讛诪专爪讜驻讬谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讗谞转讬拽讬 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 讗谞转讬拽讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 注讬住拽讗 讚讘讙讜讜讛:
搂 The mishna teaches that when one sells a ship he has sold various other items; but he has not sold the slaves, nor the packing bags, nor the antikei. But when one said to the buyer: You are purchasing the ship and all that it contains, all of these are sold as well. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of antikei? Rav Pappa said: It means the merchandise that is on the ship. This merchandise is not sold together with the ship.
诪转谞讬壮 诪讻专 讗转 讛拽专讜谉 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讛驻专讚讜转 诪讻专 讗转 讛驻专讚讜转 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讛拽专讜谉 诪讻专 讗转 讛爪诪讚 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讛讘拽专 诪讻专 讗转 讛讘拽专 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讛爪诪讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讚诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬注讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讻讜专 诇讬 爪讬诪讚讱 讘诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讛讚讘专 讬讚讜注 砖讗讬谉 讛爪诪讚 讘诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讚诪讬诐 专讗讬讛:
MISHNA: One who sold a wagon [hakkaron] has not sold the mules that pull the wagon. Similarly, if one sold the mules, he has not sold the wagon. One who sold a yoke [hatzemed] has not sold the oxen, and one who sold the oxen has not sold the yoke. Rabbi Yehuda says: The sum of money indicates what one has sold. How so? If the buyer said to the seller: Sell me your yoke for two hundred dinars, since it is a known matter that a yoke is not sold for two hundred dinars he clearly intended to purchase the oxen as well. And the Rabbis say: The sum of money is not proof.
讙诪壮 转谞讬 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 诪注专讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讻专 讗转 讛拽专讜谉 诪讻专 讗转 讛驻专讚讜转 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 诇讗 诪讻专 转谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬住诪讬讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬转专讙诐 诪转谞讬转讬讱 讘讗讚讜拽讬谉 讘讜:
GEMARA: Rav Ta岣ifa, from the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, taught a baraita before Rabbi Abbahu. If one sold a wagon, he has sold the mules together with it. Rabbi Abbahu asked: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that he has not sold the mules? Rav Ta岣ifa said to him: Should I erase this baraita, as it is incorrect? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: No, do not erase it; you should explain that your baraita is referring to a case where the mules are fastened to the wagon. In that situation, one who purchases the wagon receives the mules as well.
诪讻专 讗转 讛爪诪讚 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讛讘拽专 讜讻讜壮: 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽专讜 诇爪讬诪讚讗 爪讬诪讚讗 讜诇讘拽专 讘拽专 驻砖讬讟讗 爪讬诪讚讗 讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讘拽专 诇讗 讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讜讗诇讗 讚拽专讜 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讘拽专 爪讬诪讚讗 讻讜诇讬讛 讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛
The mishna teaches: One who sold a yoke has not sold the oxen; and the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree over whether the sum of money proves exactly what was sold. The Gemara analyzes their disagreement: What are the circumstances? If we say that the mishna is referring to a place where they call a yoke: Tzimda, and they call oxen: Bakar, it is obvious that he sold him a yoke and did not sell him the oxen. But if the mishna is referring to a place where they also call oxen: Tzimda, then the seller sold him everything.
诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讗转专讗 讚拽专讜 诇讬讛 诇爪讬诪讚讗 爪讬诪讚讗 讜诇讘拽专 讘拽专 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讚拽专讜 诇讘拽专 爪讬诪讚讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讚诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬注讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讛讚诪讬诐 专讗讬讛 讜讗讬 讗讬谉 讛讚诪讬诐 专讗讬讛 诇讬讛讜讬 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞
The Gemara explains: No, their dispute is necessary in a place where they call a yoke: Tzimda, and call oxen: Bakar, but there are also those who call oxen: Tzimda. Since it is unclear what is meant by the term: Tzimda, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the sum of money indicates whether he purchased a yoke or oxen, and the Rabbis hold that the amount of money does not serve as proof. The Gemara asks: But if the amount of money does not serve as proof, then in a case where the buyer paid two hundred dinars and received only a yoke, let the transaction be nullified.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Bava Batra 77
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛 讻专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讙诪专讗 讗讜 住讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 住讘专讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讜转讬讜转 诪讬诇讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诪讬诇讬 讘诪讬诇讬 诇讗 诪讬拽谞讬谉
Ameimar says: The halakha is that letters are acquired by merely transferring the document to the buyer, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Is your ruling based on a tradition or on your own logical reasoning? Ameimar said to him: It is based on a tradition. Rav Ashi said: It also stands to reason that the contents of a promissory note are acquired through transferring, as letters, i.e., the contents of a promissory note, are words, i.e., the buyer is acquiring the right to a monetary obligation, not a physical item, and words cannot be acquired through other words.
讜诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛诐 讝讻讜 讘砖讚讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讜讝专 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讘砖讚讛
The Gemara asks: And is it true that documents cannot be acquired through words? But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar Yitz岣k say that Rav says: There are two types of documents. The first type is where one says to others: Take possession of this field for so-and-so and write the document for him as proof of the sale of the field. In this case, he may renege with regard to the document, i.e., he may change his mind and tell them not to write it. But he may not renege with regard to the field, as the buyer has already acquired it.
注诇 诪谞转 砖转讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讜讝专 讘讬谉 讘砖讟专 讘讬谉 讘砖讚讛
The second type of document is where he said: Take possession of this field for so-and-so on the condition that you write him a document. If the document has not yet been delivered he can retract his instruction both with regard to the document and with regard to the field, as the transfer of the field is dependent on the writing of the document.
讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖诇砖讛 砖讟专讜转 讛谉 转专讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讗讬讚讱 讗诐 拽讚诐 诪讜讻专 讜讻转讘 讗转 讛砖讟专
And Rav 岣yya bar Avin says that Rav Huna says: There are actually three types of documents. Two are those that we stated above, and the other is if the seller wrote the document in advance.
讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 诇诪讜讻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞 注诪讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬拽 讝讛 讘拽专拽注 谞拽谞讛 砖讟专 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讘讻住祝 讜砖讟专 讜讞讝拽讛
This is like that which we learned in a mishna (167b): A scribe may write a bill of sale for the seller even if the buyer is not with him when the seller presents his request. In a case of this kind, once this buyer takes possession of the land the deed is acquired wherever it is. And this is that which we learned in another mishna (Kiddushin 26a): Property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired together with property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, when the land is acquired by means of giving money, or by means of giving a document, or by means of taking possession. This shows that a bill of sale can be transferred without any act of acquisition performed for the document, and certainly through words, which presents a difficulty to Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion.
讗讙讘 砖讗谞讬 讚讛讗 诪讟讘注 讚诇讗 谞讬拽谞讬 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜讗讙讘 讗专注讗 谞讬拽谞讬
The Gemara answers: Acquiring a bill of sale by means of acquisition of land is different, as it is similar to acquisition through an item, not by means of words. The reason is that money, which cannot be acquired through symbolic exchange, a pro forma act of acquisition effecting the transfer of ownership of an item, nevertheless can be acquired by means of land.
讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 转专讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讝讜讝讬 讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗拽谞讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讞讗 讗讙讘 讗住讬驻讗 讚讘讬转讬讛 讻讬 讗转讗 谞驻拽 诇讗驻讬讛 注讚 转讜讜讱:
This is like that incident where Rav Pappa had deposited twelve thousand dinars with bailees in Bei 岣zai. He transferred ownership of the money in Bei 岣zai to his agent Rav Shmuel bar A岣 by means of the threshold of his house. The Gemara adds: When Rav Shmuel bar A岣 came from Bei 岣zai with the money, Rav Pappa was so happy that he was bringing him his money that he went out all the way until Tavakh to greet him.
讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讗 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讗转 讛诪专爪讜驻讬谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讗谞转讬拽讬 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 讗谞转讬拽讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 注讬住拽讗 讚讘讙讜讜讛:
搂 The mishna teaches that when one sells a ship he has sold various other items; but he has not sold the slaves, nor the packing bags, nor the antikei. But when one said to the buyer: You are purchasing the ship and all that it contains, all of these are sold as well. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of antikei? Rav Pappa said: It means the merchandise that is on the ship. This merchandise is not sold together with the ship.
诪转谞讬壮 诪讻专 讗转 讛拽专讜谉 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讛驻专讚讜转 诪讻专 讗转 讛驻专讚讜转 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讛拽专讜谉 诪讻专 讗转 讛爪诪讚 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讛讘拽专 诪讻专 讗转 讛讘拽专 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讛爪诪讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讚诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬注讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讻讜专 诇讬 爪讬诪讚讱 讘诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讛讚讘专 讬讚讜注 砖讗讬谉 讛爪诪讚 讘诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讚诪讬诐 专讗讬讛:
MISHNA: One who sold a wagon [hakkaron] has not sold the mules that pull the wagon. Similarly, if one sold the mules, he has not sold the wagon. One who sold a yoke [hatzemed] has not sold the oxen, and one who sold the oxen has not sold the yoke. Rabbi Yehuda says: The sum of money indicates what one has sold. How so? If the buyer said to the seller: Sell me your yoke for two hundred dinars, since it is a known matter that a yoke is not sold for two hundred dinars he clearly intended to purchase the oxen as well. And the Rabbis say: The sum of money is not proof.
讙诪壮 转谞讬 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 诪注专讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讻专 讗转 讛拽专讜谉 诪讻专 讗转 讛驻专讚讜转 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 诇讗 诪讻专 转谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬住诪讬讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬转专讙诐 诪转谞讬转讬讱 讘讗讚讜拽讬谉 讘讜:
GEMARA: Rav Ta岣ifa, from the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, taught a baraita before Rabbi Abbahu. If one sold a wagon, he has sold the mules together with it. Rabbi Abbahu asked: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that he has not sold the mules? Rav Ta岣ifa said to him: Should I erase this baraita, as it is incorrect? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: No, do not erase it; you should explain that your baraita is referring to a case where the mules are fastened to the wagon. In that situation, one who purchases the wagon receives the mules as well.
诪讻专 讗转 讛爪诪讚 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讛讘拽专 讜讻讜壮: 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽专讜 诇爪讬诪讚讗 爪讬诪讚讗 讜诇讘拽专 讘拽专 驻砖讬讟讗 爪讬诪讚讗 讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讘拽专 诇讗 讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讜讗诇讗 讚拽专讜 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讘拽专 爪讬诪讚讗 讻讜诇讬讛 讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛
The mishna teaches: One who sold a yoke has not sold the oxen; and the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree over whether the sum of money proves exactly what was sold. The Gemara analyzes their disagreement: What are the circumstances? If we say that the mishna is referring to a place where they call a yoke: Tzimda, and they call oxen: Bakar, it is obvious that he sold him a yoke and did not sell him the oxen. But if the mishna is referring to a place where they also call oxen: Tzimda, then the seller sold him everything.
诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讗转专讗 讚拽专讜 诇讬讛 诇爪讬诪讚讗 爪讬诪讚讗 讜诇讘拽专 讘拽专 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讚拽专讜 诇讘拽专 爪讬诪讚讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讚诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬注讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讛讚诪讬诐 专讗讬讛 讜讗讬 讗讬谉 讛讚诪讬诐 专讗讬讛 诇讬讛讜讬 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞
The Gemara explains: No, their dispute is necessary in a place where they call a yoke: Tzimda, and call oxen: Bakar, but there are also those who call oxen: Tzimda. Since it is unclear what is meant by the term: Tzimda, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the sum of money indicates whether he purchased a yoke or oxen, and the Rabbis hold that the amount of money does not serve as proof. The Gemara asks: But if the amount of money does not serve as proof, then in a case where the buyer paid two hundred dinars and received only a yoke, let the transaction be nullified.
