Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 10, 2017 | 讬状讚 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 78

What parts of the donkey are included in a sale of a donkey? 聽It depends on whether one holds what the main purpose of buying a donkey was – for riding or for carrying. 聽Are offspring included in the sale of a nursing cow or donkey? 聽Further drashot are brought regarding the theme of arrogance as well as the righteous being rewarding and the wicked being destroyed.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜讻专 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讛诪讛 讜诪专讙诇讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讜谞讗讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗转 讗诇讜

And if you would say that the Rabbis do not hold that in a case of exploitation of less than one-sixth one must return the money and that if it was more than one-sixth there is nullification of the transaction, can it be maintained that they do not accept these halakhot? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bava Metzia 56b) that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in the case of one who sells a Torah scroll, an animal, or a pearl, these items are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as they have no fixed price. The Rabbis said to him: The early Sages stated that only these items listed earlier in the mishna, i.e., land, slaves, and documents, are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation. Therefore, the Rabbis should agree that the sale of the yoke is nullified.

诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讚诪讬诐 专讗讬讛 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讛讜讬 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讜谞讗讛 讜讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讘讻讚讬 砖讛讚注转 讟讜注讛 讗讘诇 讘讻讚讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讚注转 讟讜注讛 诇讗 讗讬诪讜专 诪转谞讛 讬讛讘 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the mishna that teaches that according to the opinion of the Rabbis the sum of money is not proof? This means that the transaction is nullified. And if you wish, say instead that the sale of the yoke is not nullified, because when the Sages spoke of exploitation and the nullification of a transaction, they meant that these halakhot apply only in a case where the difference in price is an amount about which one could be mistaken and believe that this is the correct price. But when the difference in price is so great a sum that one could not be mistaken, this sale is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation. In that case, one must say that the buyer gave the extra money to the seller as a gift; he could not have thought that this was the actual price of the object.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇讗 诪讻专 讻诇讬讜 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜诪专 诪讻专 讻诇讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 驻注诪讬诐 诪讻讜专讬谉 驻注诪讬诐 讗讬谞谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 讞诪讜专 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讻诇讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 诪讻讜专 诇讬 讞诪讜专讱 讝讛 讛专讬 讻诇讬讜 诪讻讜专讬谉 讞诪讜专讱 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讻诇讬讜 诪讻讜专讬谉

MISHNA: One who sells a donkey has not sold its vessels, i.e., its equipment, with it. Na岣m the Mede says: He has sold its vessels. Rabbi Yehuda says: There are times when the vessels are sold, and there are times when they are not sold. How so? If the donkey was before him and its vessels were on it, and the buyer said to him: Sell me this donkey of yours, its vessels are sold. If the buyer said to him: Is the donkey yours; I wish to purchase it, its vessels are not sold.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖拽 讜讚讬住拽讬讗 讜讻讜诪谞讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 住转诐 讞诪讜专 诇专讻讜讘 拽讗讬 讜谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 住讘专 住转诐 讞诪讜专 诇诪砖讗讜讬 拽讗讬 讗讘诇 讗讜讻祝 讜诪专讚注转 拽讬诇拽诇讬 讜讞讘拽 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讻讜专讬谉

GEMARA: Ulla says: The dispute in the mishna is referring to the donkey鈥檚 sack and the saddlebag [disakkaya] and the kumni, a term explained later in the Gemara. As the first tanna holds: An ordinary donkey is used primarily for riding, and therefore these articles, which are not used for riding but for carrying burdens, are not included in the sale. And Na岣m the Mede holds: An ordinary donkey is used for carrying burdens, and therefore the items that serve this purpose are sold along with the donkey. But with regard to the saddle and the saddlecloth, the harness and the saddle band, everyone agrees that they are sold, as they are used both for riding and for carrying burdens.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞诪讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讻专 讗转 讛讗讜讻祝 讜讗转 讛诪专讚注转 讜讗转 讛拽讬诇拽诇讬 讜讗转 讛讞讘拽 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讻专 砖拽 讜讚讬住拽讬讗 讜讻讜诪谞讬 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 讛讜讗 讚拽谞讬 讗讜讻祝 讜诪专讚注转 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. If a seller says: I am selling you a donkey and its vessels, this one has sold the saddle, and the saddlecloth, and the harness, and the saddle band. But he has not sold the sack, and the saddlebag, and the kumni. And when the seller said to the buyer: I am selling it and everything that is on it, to you; the donkey and all of these items are sold. It can be inferred from here that the reason that the buyer acquires the saddle and the saddlecloth is that the seller said to him: I am selling you a donkey and its vessels. By inference, if the seller did not say this, the buyer does not acquire them.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 谞诪讬 讗讜讻祝 讜诪专讚注转 诪讻讜专讬谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 砖拽 讜讚讬住拽讬讗 讜讻讜诪谞讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

The Gemara answers: The same is true even if the seller did not say to him: I am selling you a donkey and its vessels. In that case as well, the saddle and the saddlecloth are sold. And this is what the baraita teaches us: That even though the seller said to him: I am selling you a donkey and its vessels, the buyer still does not acquire the sack and the saddlebag and the kumni.

诪讗讬 讜讻讜诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讻讘转讗 讚谞砖讬

The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of: And the kumni? Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said: This is the saddle used by women.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讘砖讗讬谞谉 注诇讬讜 诪讜讚讛 诇讛讜 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘砖讗讬谞谉 注诇讬讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇谞讞讜诐 转讗 砖诪注 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖注诇讬讜 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this dispute apply only to a case where the vessels are on the donkey, but when the vessels are not on the donkey, Na岣m the Mede concedes to the Rabbis that they are not sold? Or perhaps the dispute applies to a case where the vessels are not on the donkey, but when the vessels are on the donkey the Rabbis concede to Na岣m that the vessels are sold. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the aforementioned baraita: And when the seller said to the buyer: I am selling it and everything that is on it, the donkey and all of these items are sold. In this case, the vessels are on the donkey, and everything is sold.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖讗讬谉 注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讻讜专讬谉 讛讗 诪谞讬

Granted, if you say that the dispute applies when the vessels are on the donkey, in accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is the opinion of the Rabbis that although in general one does not acquire the vessels, if the seller explicitly says that he is selling the donkey and everything on it, the buyer acquires it all. But if you say that the dispute applies when the vessels are not on the donkey, but when the vessels are on the donkey everyone agrees that they are sold, in accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? Even according to the opinion of the Rabbis there is no need to say explicitly that he is selling everything.

诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讗讬谉 注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讗讬诪讗 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖专讗讜讬 诇讛讬讜转 注诇讬讜

The Gemara answers: Actually, the dispute applies when the vessels are not on the donkey, and the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the language of the baraita should be emended to say: And when he said to him: I am selling it and everything that is fit to be on it, i.e., those items usually found on a donkey, everything is sold.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 驻注诪讬诐 诪讻讜专讬谉 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗诪讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 拽讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear a solution from the mishna. Rabbi Yehuda says: There are times when the vessels are sold, and there are times when they are not sold. What, is it not the case that Rabbi Yehuda is referring to that which the first tanna said? If so, the dispute between the Rabbis and Na岣m the Mede must be referring to a case where the vessels are on the donkey, as Rabbi Yehuda addresses the same set of circumstances. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, Rabbi Yehuda

诪诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 拽讗诪专

was speaking of a different matter and was not necessarily addressing the same case discussed in the beginning of the mishna.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 诪讻专 讗转 讛拽专讜谉 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讛驻专讚讜转 讜转谞讬 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 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 诇讗 诪讻专 转谞谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬住诪讬讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转转专讙诐 诪转谞讬转讱 讘讗讚讜拽讬诐 讘讜

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma, as it was taught in the previous mishna: If one sold a wagon he has not sold the mules that pull the wagon. And 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 along with it. And Rabbi Abbahu said to him: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that he has not sold the mules? And Rav Ta岣ifa said to him: Should I erase this baraita? And Rabbi Abbahu said to him: No, you should explain that your baraita is referring to a case where the mules are fastened to the wagon.

诪讻诇诇 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讗讬谉 讗讚讜拽讬诐 讘讜 讜诪讚专讬砖讗 讘砖讗讬谉 注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖讗讬谉 注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜

One can learn by inference from Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 statement that the mishna is referring to a situation where the mules are not fastened to the wagon. And since the first clause, i.e., the previous mishna, is referring to a case corresponding to where the vessels are not on the donkey, i.e., the mules are not fastened to the wagon, the latter clause, the mishna here, must also be referring to a situation where the vessels are not on the donkey.

讗讚专讘讛 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讗 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讗谞转讬拽讬 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗谞转讬拽讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 注讬住拽讗 讚讘讙讜讛 讜诪讚专讬砖讗 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转谞讗 诪讬诇讬 诪讬诇讬 拽转谞讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: On the contrary, say the first clause, i.e., the preceding mishna: One who sells a ship sells the mast along with it, but he has not sold either the slaves or the antikei. And we said: What is the meaning of antikei? Rav Pappa said: It means the merchandise that is in the ship. But according to your logic, since the first clause, i.e., the mishna concerning the ship, is referring to a case where the merchandise is on the ship, the latter clause, the mishna here, must also be referring to a case where the vessels are on the donkey. Rather, the tanna teaches each statement individually, and the circumstances of one ruling do not prove that another ruling is referring to a parallel case.

[住讬诪谉 讝讙诐 谞住谉] 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 讜住讜诪讻讜住 讜谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讻讬 诪讝讘讬谉 讗讬谞讬砖 诪讬讚讬 讗讬讛讜 讜讻诇 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 诪讝讘讬谉

The Gemara provides a mnemonic based on the letters of the names of the tanna鈥檌m who appear here: Zayin, gimmel, mem; nun, samekh, nun. Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Natan, and Sumakhos, and Na岣m the Mede all hold that when a person sells an item, he sells it and all of its accoutrements.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讘讬转 讛讘讚 诪讻专 讗转 讛拽讜专讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讗转 讛住谞讟专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讻专 讗转 讛讻专诐 诪讻专 转砖诪讬砖讬 讛讻专诐 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜住讜诪讻讜住 讘讬爪讬转 讜讚讜讙讬转 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

Rabbi Eliezer holds this, as we learned in a mishna (67b) that Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells an olive press has sold the beam used for pressing the olives, despite the fact that the beam can be removed from the press. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds this, as we learned in a mishna (68b) that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who sells a city has sold the city鈥檚 guardsman. Rabbi Meir holds this, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: If one sold a vineyard, he has sold the accoutrements of the vineyard. Rabbi Natan and Sumakhos hold this, as they state with regard to the bitzit and the dugit, i.e., the light-going boats of the ship, which they claim are sold when the ship is sold (73a). Na岣m the Mede holds this, as is evident from that which we said in the mishna here.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 驻注诪讬诐 诪讻讜专讬谉 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞诪讜专讱 讝讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞诪讜专讱 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: There are times when the vessels are sold, and there are times when they are not sold. How so? If the donkey was before him and its vessels were on it, and the buyer said to him: Sell me this donkey of yours, its vessels are sold. If the buyer said: Is the donkey yours? I wish to purchase it, its vessels are not sold. The Gemara asks: What is different in a case where the buyer said: Sell me this donkey of yours, and what is different in a case where he said: Is the donkey yours?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪讜专讱 讝讜 讬讚注 讚讞诪专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讜 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬讜 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专讱 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讚讞诪专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专讱 讛讜讗 砖转诪讻专谞讛 诇讬

Rava said that when the buyer says: Sell me this donkey of yours, he knows that the donkey belongs to the seller, and as for that which he said to him: This, he said that to him due to its vessels. By contrast, when the buyer says: Is the donkey yours, this indicates that the buyer does not know that the donkey belongs to the seller, and this is what he is saying to him: Is the donkey yours that you can sell it to me? In this case, he is interested only in the donkey and not its vessels.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诪讻专 讗转 讛住讬讞 诪讻专 讗转 讛驻专讛 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讘谞讛 诪讻专 讗砖驻讛 诪讻专 讝讘诇讛 诪讻专 讘讜专 诪讻专 诪讬诪讬讛 诪讻专 讻讜讜专转 诪讻专 讚讘讜专讬诐 诪讻专 砖讜讘讱 诪讻专 讬讜谞讬诐

MISHNA: One who sells a female donkey has sold its foal along with it. But one who sold a cow has not sold its young. One who sold a dunghill has sold its manure. One who sold a cistern has sold its water. One who sold a beehive has sold the bees in it, and likewise one who sold a dovecote has sold the doves.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讘谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜讘谞讛 谞诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讘谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诪讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one sells a donkey he has sold its foal, but if one sells a cow he has not sold its calf. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is a case where the seller says to the buyer that he is selling it and its young, even the cow and its young should be sold as well. If this is a case where he does not say to him that he is selling it and its young, even the donkey should not be sold with its foal.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 诪谞讬拽讛 讜驻专讛 诪谞讬拽讛 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讘砖诇诪讗 驻专讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讞诇讘讛 讘注讬 诇讛 讗诇讗 讞诪讜专 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讜讘谞讛 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 住讬讞 砖诪讛诇讱 讗讞专 住讬讞讛 谞讗讛

Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you a nursing donkey, or: I am selling you a nursing cow. Granted, with regard to the cow, one could say that he needs it for its milk, and the suckling calf would not necessarily be included in the sale. But with regard to the donkey, for what reason is he saying to him that the donkey is nursing? Since he does not need the milk of a donkey, learn from here that he is saying to him that he is selling it and its young. The Gemara adds tangentially: And why does the mishna call a donkey foal a seya岣? It is because it follows after and obeys pleasant talk [si岣], whereas an old donkey must be led forcibly.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 讻谉 讬讗诪专讜 讛诪砖诇讬诐 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara cites a related discussion. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣an says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭herefore they that speak in parables [hamoshlim] say: Come to Heshbon! Let the city [ir] of Sihon be built and established! For a fire is gone out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon; it has devoured Ar of Moab, the lords of the high places of Arnon鈥 (Numbers 21:27鈥28)?

讛诪砖诇讬诐 讗诇讜 讛诪讜砖诇讬诐 讘讬爪专诐 讘讜讗讜 讞砖讘讜谉 讘讜讗讜 讜谞讞砖讘 讞砖讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讛驻住讚 诪爪讜讛 讻谞讙讚 砖讻专讛 讜砖讻专 注讘讬专讛 讻谞讙讚 讛驻住讚讛

The Gemara interprets these verses homiletically. Hamoshlim鈥; these are the people who rule over [hamoshlim] their evil inclination. They will say: 鈥淐ome to Heshbon,鈥 meaning: Come and let us calculate the account of [岣shbono] the world, i.e., the financial loss incurred by the fulfillment of a mitzva in contrast to its reward, and the reward for committing a transgression, i.e., the pleasure and gain received, in contrast to the loss it entails.

转讘谞讛 讜转讻讜谞谉 讗诐 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讻谉 转讘谞讛 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讜转讻讜谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 注讬专 住讬讞讜谉 讗诐 诪砖讬诐 讗讚诐 注爪诪讜 讻注讬专 讝讛 砖诪讛诇讱 讗讞专 住讬讞讛 谞讗讛 诪讛 讻转讬讘 讗讞专讬讜 讻讬 讗砖 讬爪讗讛 诪讞砖讘讜谉 讜讙讜壮 转爪讗 讗砖 诪诪讞砖讘讬谉 讜转讗讻诇 讗转 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉

鈥淟et it be built and established鈥 means that if you make this calculation, you will be built in this world and you will be established in the World-to-Come. The phrase 鈥渃ity [ir] of Sihon鈥 means that if a person fashions himself like this young donkey [ayir] that follows after pleasant talk [si岣], i.e., if one is easily tempted to listen to his inclination, what is written after it? 鈥淔or a fire is gone out of Heshbon鈥it has devoured,鈥 i.e., a fire will go out from those who calculate the effect of their deeds in the world, and will consume those who do not calculate and examine their ways but instead do as they please.

讜诇讛讘讛 诪拽专讬转 住讬讞谉 诪拽专讬转 爪讚讬拽讬诐 砖谞拽专讗讜 砖讬讞讬谉 讗讻诇讛 注专 诪讜讗讘 讝讛 讛诪讛诇讱 讗讞专 讬爪专讜 讻注讬专 讝讛 砖诪讛诇讱 讗讞专 住讬讞讛 谞讗讛 讘注诇讬 讘诪讜转 讗专谞谉 讗诇讜 讙住讬 讛专讜讞 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 讗讚诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 讙住讜转 讛专讜讞 谞讜驻诇 讘讙讬讛谞诐

A similar interpretation applies to the continuation of the verse: 鈥淎 flame from the city of Sihon鈥; this means that a flame will come from the city of righteous people, who are called trees [si岣n]. 鈥淚t has devoured Ar of Moab鈥; this is referring to one who follows after his inclination like this young donkey [ayir] that follows after pleasant talk. 鈥淭he lords of the high places of Arnon鈥; this is referring to the arrogant. As the Master says: Every person who has arrogance in him will fall into Gehenna.

讜谞讬专诐 讗诪专 专砖注 讗讬谉 专诐 讗讘讚 讞砖讘讜谉 讗讘讚 讞砖讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 注讚 讚讬讘谉 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讛诪转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讚讬谉 讜谞砖讬诐

The Gemara interprets a subsequent verse: 鈥淲e have shot at them [vanniram], Heshbon is perished, even until Dibon, and we have laid waste even until Nophah, which reaches until Medeba鈥 (Numbers 21:30). Vanniram鈥; this indicates that the wicked person says: There is no higher [ein ram] power governing the world. 鈥淗eshbon is perished鈥 means: The account [岣shbon] of the world has perished, i.e., they claim there is no accountability for one鈥檚 actions. 鈥淓ven until Dibon [divon]鈥; the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Wait until judgment comes [yavo din]. 鈥淎nd we have laid waste

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 78

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 78

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜讻专 住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讛诪讛 讜诪专讙诇讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讜谞讗讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗转 讗诇讜

And if you would say that the Rabbis do not hold that in a case of exploitation of less than one-sixth one must return the money and that if it was more than one-sixth there is nullification of the transaction, can it be maintained that they do not accept these halakhot? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bava Metzia 56b) that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in the case of one who sells a Torah scroll, an animal, or a pearl, these items are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as they have no fixed price. The Rabbis said to him: The early Sages stated that only these items listed earlier in the mishna, i.e., land, slaves, and documents, are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation. Therefore, the Rabbis should agree that the sale of the yoke is nullified.

诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讚诪讬诐 专讗讬讛 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讛讜讬 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讗讜谞讗讛 讜讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讘讻讚讬 砖讛讚注转 讟讜注讛 讗讘诇 讘讻讚讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讚注转 讟讜注讛 诇讗 讗讬诪讜专 诪转谞讛 讬讛讘 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the mishna that teaches that according to the opinion of the Rabbis the sum of money is not proof? This means that the transaction is nullified. And if you wish, say instead that the sale of the yoke is not nullified, because when the Sages spoke of exploitation and the nullification of a transaction, they meant that these halakhot apply only in a case where the difference in price is an amount about which one could be mistaken and believe that this is the correct price. But when the difference in price is so great a sum that one could not be mistaken, this sale is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation. In that case, one must say that the buyer gave the extra money to the seller as a gift; he could not have thought that this was the actual price of the object.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇讗 诪讻专 讻诇讬讜 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜诪专 诪讻专 讻诇讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 驻注诪讬诐 诪讻讜专讬谉 驻注诪讬诐 讗讬谞谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 讞诪讜专 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讻诇讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 诪讻讜专 诇讬 讞诪讜专讱 讝讛 讛专讬 讻诇讬讜 诪讻讜专讬谉 讞诪讜专讱 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讻诇讬讜 诪讻讜专讬谉

MISHNA: One who sells a donkey has not sold its vessels, i.e., its equipment, with it. Na岣m the Mede says: He has sold its vessels. Rabbi Yehuda says: There are times when the vessels are sold, and there are times when they are not sold. How so? If the donkey was before him and its vessels were on it, and the buyer said to him: Sell me this donkey of yours, its vessels are sold. If the buyer said to him: Is the donkey yours; I wish to purchase it, its vessels are not sold.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖拽 讜讚讬住拽讬讗 讜讻讜诪谞讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 住转诐 讞诪讜专 诇专讻讜讘 拽讗讬 讜谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 住讘专 住转诐 讞诪讜专 诇诪砖讗讜讬 拽讗讬 讗讘诇 讗讜讻祝 讜诪专讚注转 拽讬诇拽诇讬 讜讞讘拽 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讻讜专讬谉

GEMARA: Ulla says: The dispute in the mishna is referring to the donkey鈥檚 sack and the saddlebag [disakkaya] and the kumni, a term explained later in the Gemara. As the first tanna holds: An ordinary donkey is used primarily for riding, and therefore these articles, which are not used for riding but for carrying burdens, are not included in the sale. And Na岣m the Mede holds: An ordinary donkey is used for carrying burdens, and therefore the items that serve this purpose are sold along with the donkey. But with regard to the saddle and the saddlecloth, the harness and the saddle band, everyone agrees that they are sold, as they are used both for riding and for carrying burdens.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞诪讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讻专 讗转 讛讗讜讻祝 讜讗转 讛诪专讚注转 讜讗转 讛拽讬诇拽诇讬 讜讗转 讛讞讘拽 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讻专 砖拽 讜讚讬住拽讬讗 讜讻讜诪谞讬 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 讛讜讗 讚拽谞讬 讗讜讻祝 讜诪专讚注转 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. If a seller says: I am selling you a donkey and its vessels, this one has sold the saddle, and the saddlecloth, and the harness, and the saddle band. But he has not sold the sack, and the saddlebag, and the kumni. And when the seller said to the buyer: I am selling it and everything that is on it, to you; the donkey and all of these items are sold. It can be inferred from here that the reason that the buyer acquires the saddle and the saddlecloth is that the seller said to him: I am selling you a donkey and its vessels. By inference, if the seller did not say this, the buyer does not acquire them.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 谞诪讬 讗讜讻祝 讜诪专讚注转 诪讻讜专讬谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 讜讻诇讬讜 砖拽 讜讚讬住拽讬讗 讜讻讜诪谞讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

The Gemara answers: The same is true even if the seller did not say to him: I am selling you a donkey and its vessels. In that case as well, the saddle and the saddlecloth are sold. And this is what the baraita teaches us: That even though the seller said to him: I am selling you a donkey and its vessels, the buyer still does not acquire the sack and the saddlebag and the kumni.

诪讗讬 讜讻讜诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪专讻讘转讗 讚谞砖讬

The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of: And the kumni? Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said: This is the saddle used by women.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讘砖讗讬谞谉 注诇讬讜 诪讜讚讛 诇讛讜 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘砖讗讬谞谉 注诇讬讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇谞讞讜诐 转讗 砖诪注 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖注诇讬讜 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this dispute apply only to a case where the vessels are on the donkey, but when the vessels are not on the donkey, Na岣m the Mede concedes to the Rabbis that they are not sold? Or perhaps the dispute applies to a case where the vessels are not on the donkey, but when the vessels are on the donkey the Rabbis concede to Na岣m that the vessels are sold. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the aforementioned baraita: And when the seller said to the buyer: I am selling it and everything that is on it, the donkey and all of these items are sold. In this case, the vessels are on the donkey, and everything is sold.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖讗讬谉 注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讻讜专讬谉 讛讗 诪谞讬

Granted, if you say that the dispute applies when the vessels are on the donkey, in accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is the opinion of the Rabbis that although in general one does not acquire the vessels, if the seller explicitly says that he is selling the donkey and everything on it, the buyer acquires it all. But if you say that the dispute applies when the vessels are not on the donkey, but when the vessels are on the donkey everyone agrees that they are sold, in accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? Even according to the opinion of the Rabbis there is no need to say explicitly that he is selling everything.

诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讗讬谉 注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讗讬诪讗 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖专讗讜讬 诇讛讬讜转 注诇讬讜

The Gemara answers: Actually, the dispute applies when the vessels are not on the donkey, and the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the language of the baraita should be emended to say: And when he said to him: I am selling it and everything that is fit to be on it, i.e., those items usually found on a donkey, everything is sold.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 驻注诪讬诐 诪讻讜专讬谉 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗诪讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 拽讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear a solution from the mishna. Rabbi Yehuda says: There are times when the vessels are sold, and there are times when they are not sold. What, is it not the case that Rabbi Yehuda is referring to that which the first tanna said? If so, the dispute between the Rabbis and Na岣m the Mede must be referring to a case where the vessels are on the donkey, as Rabbi Yehuda addresses the same set of circumstances. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, Rabbi Yehuda

诪诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 拽讗诪专

was speaking of a different matter and was not necessarily addressing the same case discussed in the beginning of the mishna.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 诪讻专 讗转 讛拽专讜谉 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讛驻专讚讜转 讜转谞讬 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 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 诇讗 诪讻专 转谞谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬住诪讬讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转转专讙诐 诪转谞讬转讱 讘讗讚讜拽讬诐 讘讜

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma, as it was taught in the previous mishna: If one sold a wagon he has not sold the mules that pull the wagon. And 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 along with it. And Rabbi Abbahu said to him: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that he has not sold the mules? And Rav Ta岣ifa said to him: Should I erase this baraita? And Rabbi Abbahu said to him: No, you should explain that your baraita is referring to a case where the mules are fastened to the wagon.

诪讻诇诇 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讗讬谉 讗讚讜拽讬诐 讘讜 讜诪讚专讬砖讗 讘砖讗讬谉 注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖讗讬谉 注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜

One can learn by inference from Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 statement that the mishna is referring to a situation where the mules are not fastened to the wagon. And since the first clause, i.e., the previous mishna, is referring to a case corresponding to where the vessels are not on the donkey, i.e., the mules are not fastened to the wagon, the latter clause, the mishna here, must also be referring to a situation where the vessels are not on the donkey.

讗讚专讘讛 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讗 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讗谞转讬拽讬 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗谞转讬拽讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 注讬住拽讗 讚讘讙讜讛 讜诪讚专讬砖讗 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转谞讗 诪讬诇讬 诪讬诇讬 拽转谞讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: On the contrary, say the first clause, i.e., the preceding mishna: One who sells a ship sells the mast along with it, but he has not sold either the slaves or the antikei. And we said: What is the meaning of antikei? Rav Pappa said: It means the merchandise that is in the ship. But according to your logic, since the first clause, i.e., the mishna concerning the ship, is referring to a case where the merchandise is on the ship, the latter clause, the mishna here, must also be referring to a case where the vessels are on the donkey. Rather, the tanna teaches each statement individually, and the circumstances of one ruling do not prove that another ruling is referring to a parallel case.

[住讬诪谉 讝讙诐 谞住谉] 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 讜住讜诪讻讜住 讜谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讻讬 诪讝讘讬谉 讗讬谞讬砖 诪讬讚讬 讗讬讛讜 讜讻诇 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 诪讝讘讬谉

The Gemara provides a mnemonic based on the letters of the names of the tanna鈥檌m who appear here: Zayin, gimmel, mem; nun, samekh, nun. Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Natan, and Sumakhos, and Na岣m the Mede all hold that when a person sells an item, he sells it and all of its accoutrements.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讘讬转 讛讘讚 诪讻专 讗转 讛拽讜专讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讗转 讛住谞讟专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讻专 讗转 讛讻专诐 诪讻专 转砖诪讬砖讬 讛讻专诐 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜住讜诪讻讜住 讘讬爪讬转 讜讚讜讙讬转 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

Rabbi Eliezer holds this, as we learned in a mishna (67b) that Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells an olive press has sold the beam used for pressing the olives, despite the fact that the beam can be removed from the press. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds this, as we learned in a mishna (68b) that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who sells a city has sold the city鈥檚 guardsman. Rabbi Meir holds this, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: If one sold a vineyard, he has sold the accoutrements of the vineyard. Rabbi Natan and Sumakhos hold this, as they state with regard to the bitzit and the dugit, i.e., the light-going boats of the ship, which they claim are sold when the ship is sold (73a). Na岣m the Mede holds this, as is evident from that which we said in the mishna here.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 驻注诪讬诐 诪讻讜专讬谉 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞诪讜专讱 讝讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞诪讜专讱 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: There are times when the vessels are sold, and there are times when they are not sold. How so? If the donkey was before him and its vessels were on it, and the buyer said to him: Sell me this donkey of yours, its vessels are sold. If the buyer said: Is the donkey yours? I wish to purchase it, its vessels are not sold. The Gemara asks: What is different in a case where the buyer said: Sell me this donkey of yours, and what is different in a case where he said: Is the donkey yours?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪讜专讱 讝讜 讬讚注 讚讞诪专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讜 诪砖讜诐 讻诇讬讜 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专讱 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讚讞诪专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专讱 讛讜讗 砖转诪讻专谞讛 诇讬

Rava said that when the buyer says: Sell me this donkey of yours, he knows that the donkey belongs to the seller, and as for that which he said to him: This, he said that to him due to its vessels. By contrast, when the buyer says: Is the donkey yours, this indicates that the buyer does not know that the donkey belongs to the seller, and this is what he is saying to him: Is the donkey yours that you can sell it to me? In this case, he is interested only in the donkey and not its vessels.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诪讻专 讗转 讛住讬讞 诪讻专 讗转 讛驻专讛 诇讗 诪讻专 讗转 讘谞讛 诪讻专 讗砖驻讛 诪讻专 讝讘诇讛 诪讻专 讘讜专 诪讻专 诪讬诪讬讛 诪讻专 讻讜讜专转 诪讻专 讚讘讜专讬诐 诪讻专 砖讜讘讱 诪讻专 讬讜谞讬诐

MISHNA: One who sells a female donkey has sold its foal along with it. But one who sold a cow has not sold its young. One who sold a dunghill has sold its manure. One who sold a cistern has sold its water. One who sold a beehive has sold the bees in it, and likewise one who sold a dovecote has sold the doves.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讘谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜讘谞讛 谞诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讘谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诪讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one sells a donkey he has sold its foal, but if one sells a cow he has not sold its calf. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is a case where the seller says to the buyer that he is selling it and its young, even the cow and its young should be sold as well. If this is a case where he does not say to him that he is selling it and its young, even the donkey should not be sold with its foal.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 诪谞讬拽讛 讜驻专讛 诪谞讬拽讛 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讘砖诇诪讗 驻专讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讞诇讘讛 讘注讬 诇讛 讗诇讗 讞诪讜专 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讜讘谞讛 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 住讬讞 砖诪讛诇讱 讗讞专 住讬讞讛 谞讗讛

Rav Pappa said: This is referring to a case where the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you a nursing donkey, or: I am selling you a nursing cow. Granted, with regard to the cow, one could say that he needs it for its milk, and the suckling calf would not necessarily be included in the sale. But with regard to the donkey, for what reason is he saying to him that the donkey is nursing? Since he does not need the milk of a donkey, learn from here that he is saying to him that he is selling it and its young. The Gemara adds tangentially: And why does the mishna call a donkey foal a seya岣? It is because it follows after and obeys pleasant talk [si岣], whereas an old donkey must be led forcibly.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 讻谉 讬讗诪专讜 讛诪砖诇讬诐 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara cites a related discussion. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣an says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭herefore they that speak in parables [hamoshlim] say: Come to Heshbon! Let the city [ir] of Sihon be built and established! For a fire is gone out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon; it has devoured Ar of Moab, the lords of the high places of Arnon鈥 (Numbers 21:27鈥28)?

讛诪砖诇讬诐 讗诇讜 讛诪讜砖诇讬诐 讘讬爪专诐 讘讜讗讜 讞砖讘讜谉 讘讜讗讜 讜谞讞砖讘 讞砖讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讛驻住讚 诪爪讜讛 讻谞讙讚 砖讻专讛 讜砖讻专 注讘讬专讛 讻谞讙讚 讛驻住讚讛

The Gemara interprets these verses homiletically. Hamoshlim鈥; these are the people who rule over [hamoshlim] their evil inclination. They will say: 鈥淐ome to Heshbon,鈥 meaning: Come and let us calculate the account of [岣shbono] the world, i.e., the financial loss incurred by the fulfillment of a mitzva in contrast to its reward, and the reward for committing a transgression, i.e., the pleasure and gain received, in contrast to the loss it entails.

转讘谞讛 讜转讻讜谞谉 讗诐 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讻谉 转讘谞讛 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讜转讻讜谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 注讬专 住讬讞讜谉 讗诐 诪砖讬诐 讗讚诐 注爪诪讜 讻注讬专 讝讛 砖诪讛诇讱 讗讞专 住讬讞讛 谞讗讛 诪讛 讻转讬讘 讗讞专讬讜 讻讬 讗砖 讬爪讗讛 诪讞砖讘讜谉 讜讙讜壮 转爪讗 讗砖 诪诪讞砖讘讬谉 讜转讗讻诇 讗转 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉

鈥淟et it be built and established鈥 means that if you make this calculation, you will be built in this world and you will be established in the World-to-Come. The phrase 鈥渃ity [ir] of Sihon鈥 means that if a person fashions himself like this young donkey [ayir] that follows after pleasant talk [si岣], i.e., if one is easily tempted to listen to his inclination, what is written after it? 鈥淔or a fire is gone out of Heshbon鈥it has devoured,鈥 i.e., a fire will go out from those who calculate the effect of their deeds in the world, and will consume those who do not calculate and examine their ways but instead do as they please.

讜诇讛讘讛 诪拽专讬转 住讬讞谉 诪拽专讬转 爪讚讬拽讬诐 砖谞拽专讗讜 砖讬讞讬谉 讗讻诇讛 注专 诪讜讗讘 讝讛 讛诪讛诇讱 讗讞专 讬爪专讜 讻注讬专 讝讛 砖诪讛诇讱 讗讞专 住讬讞讛 谞讗讛 讘注诇讬 讘诪讜转 讗专谞谉 讗诇讜 讙住讬 讛专讜讞 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 讗讚诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 讙住讜转 讛专讜讞 谞讜驻诇 讘讙讬讛谞诐

A similar interpretation applies to the continuation of the verse: 鈥淎 flame from the city of Sihon鈥; this means that a flame will come from the city of righteous people, who are called trees [si岣n]. 鈥淚t has devoured Ar of Moab鈥; this is referring to one who follows after his inclination like this young donkey [ayir] that follows after pleasant talk. 鈥淭he lords of the high places of Arnon鈥; this is referring to the arrogant. As the Master says: Every person who has arrogance in him will fall into Gehenna.

讜谞讬专诐 讗诪专 专砖注 讗讬谉 专诐 讗讘讚 讞砖讘讜谉 讗讘讚 讞砖讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 注讚 讚讬讘谉 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讛诪转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讚讬谉 讜谞砖讬诐

The Gemara interprets a subsequent verse: 鈥淲e have shot at them [vanniram], Heshbon is perished, even until Dibon, and we have laid waste even until Nophah, which reaches until Medeba鈥 (Numbers 21:30). Vanniram鈥; this indicates that the wicked person says: There is no higher [ein ram] power governing the world. 鈥淗eshbon is perished鈥 means: The account [岣shbon] of the world has perished, i.e., they claim there is no accountability for one鈥檚 actions. 鈥淓ven until Dibon [divon]鈥; the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Wait until judgment comes [yavo din]. 鈥淎nd we have laid waste

Scroll To Top