Bava Batra 78

וכי תימא ביטול מקח לרבנן לית להו ולא והתנן רבי יהודה אומר המוכר ספר תורה בהמה ומרגלית אין להן אונאה אמרו לו לא אמרו אלא את אלו

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’t 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.

מאי אין דמים ראיה נמי דקתני דהוי ביטול מקח ואיבעית אימא כי אמור רבנן אונאה וביטול מקח בכדי שהדעת טועה אבל בכדי שאין הדעת טועה לא אימור מתנה יהב ליה:

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.

מתני׳ המוכר את החמור לא מכר כליו נחום המדי אומר מכר כליו רבי יהודה אומר פעמים מכורין פעמים אינן מכורין כיצד היה חמור לפניו וכליו עליו ואמר לו מכור לי חמורך זה הרי כליו מכורין חמורך הוא אין כליו מכורין:

MISHNA: One who sells a donkey has not sold its vessels, i.e., its equipment, with it. Naḥum 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.

גמ׳ אמר עולא מחלוקת בשק ודיסקיא וכומני דתנא קמא סבר סתם חמור לרכוב קאי ונחום המדי סבר סתם חמור למשאוי קאי אבל אוכף ומרדעת קילקלי וחבק דברי הכל מכורין

GEMARA: Ulla says: The dispute in the mishna is referring to the donkey’s 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 Naḥum 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.

מיתיבי חמור וכליו אני מוכר לך הרי זה מכר את האוכף ואת המרדעת ואת הקילקלי ואת החבק אבל לא מכר שק ודיסקיא וכומני ובזמן שאמר לו היא וכל מה שעליה הרי כולן מכורין טעמא דאמר ליה חמור וכליו הוא דקני אוכף ומרדעת הא לא אמר ליה הכי לא

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.

הוא הדין דאף על גב דלא אמר ליה חמור וכליו נמי אוכף ומרדעת מכורין והא קא משמע לן דאף על גב דאמר ליה חמור וכליו שק ודיסקיא וכומני לא קני

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.

מאי וכומני אמר רב פפא בר שמואל מרכבתא דנשי

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

איבעיא להו בעודן עליו מחלוקת אבל בשאינן עליו מודה להו נחום המדי או דלמא בשאינן עליו מחלוקת אבל בעודן עליו מודו ליה רבנן לנחום תא שמע ובזמן שאמר לו הוא וכל מה שעליו הרי כולן מכורין

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, Naḥum 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 Naḥum 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.

אי אמרת בשלמא בעודן עליו מחלוקת הא מני רבנן היא אלא אי אמרת בשאין עודן עליו מחלוקת אבל בעודן עליו דברי הכל מכורין הא מני

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.

לעולם בשאין עודן עליו מחלוקת ורבנן היא ואימא ובזמן שאמר לו הוא וכל מה שראוי להיות עליו

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.

תא שמע רבי יהודה אומר פעמים מכורין פעמים שאינן מכורין מאי לאו אמאי דקאמר תנא קמא קאי רבי יהודה לא רבי יהודה

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 Naḥum 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

מלתא אחריתי קאמר

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

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי תא שמע מכר את הקרון לא מכר את הפרדות ותני רב תחליפא בר מערבא קמיה דרבי אבהו מכר את הקרון מכר את הפרדות ואמר ליה והא אנן לא מכר תנן ואמר ליה איסמייה ואמר ליה לא תתרגם מתניתך באדוקים בו

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 Taḥlifa, 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’t we learn in the mishna that he has not sold the mules? And Rav Taḥlifa 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.

מכלל דמתניתין בשאין אדוקים בו ומדרישא בשאין עודן עליו סיפא נמי בשאין עודן עליו

One can learn by inference from Rabbi Abbahu’s 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.

אדרבה אימא רישא אבל לא מכר לא את העבדים ולא את האנתיקי ואמרינן מאי אנתיקי אמר רב פפא עיסקא דבגוה ומדרישא בעודן עליו סיפא נמי בעודן עליו אלא תנא מילי מילי קתני

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.

[סימן זגם נסן] אמר אביי רבי אליעזר ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבי מאיר ורבי נתן וסומכוס ונחום המדי כולהו סבירא להו כי מזבין איניש מידי איהו וכל תשמישתיה מזבין

The Gemara provides a mnemonic based on the letters of the names of the tanna’im 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 Naḥum the Mede all hold that when a person sells an item, he sells it and all of its accoutrements.

רבי אליעזר דתנן רבי אליעזר אומר המוכר את בית הבד מכר את הקורה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל דתנן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר המוכר את העיר מכר את הסנטר רבי מאיר דתניא רבי מאיר אומר מכר את הכרם מכר תשמישי הכרם רבי נתן וסומכוס ביצית ודוגית נחום המדי הא דאמרן:

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’s 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). Naḥum the Mede holds this, as is evident from that which we said in the mishna here.

רבי יהודה אומר פעמים מכורין וכו׳: מאי שנא חמורך זו ומאי שנא חמורך הוא

§ 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?

אמר רבא חמורך זו ידע דחמרא דידיה הוא והאי דקא אמר ליה זו משום כליו קאמר ליה חמורך הוא דלא ידע דחמרא דידיה הוא והכי קאמר ליה חמורך הוא שתמכרנה לי:

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.

מתני׳ המוכר את החמור מכר את הסיח מכר את הפרה לא מכר את בנה מכר אשפה מכר זבלה מכר בור מכר מימיה מכר כוורת מכר דבורים מכר שובך מכר יונים:

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.

גמ׳ היכי דמי אי דאמר ליה היא ובנה אפילו פרה ובנה נמי אי דלא אמר ליה היא ובנה אפילו חמור נמי לא

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.

אמר רב פפא דאמר ליה חמור מניקה ופרה מניקה אני מוכר לך בשלמא פרה איכא למימר לחלבה בעי לה אלא חמור מאי קאמר ליה שמע מינה היא ובנה קאמר ליה ואמאי קרי ליה סיח שמהלך אחר סיחה נאה

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 seyaḥ? It is because it follows after and obeys pleasant talk [siḥa], whereas an old donkey must be led forcibly.

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמן אמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב על כן יאמרו המשלים וגו׳

The Gemara cites a related discussion. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Therefore 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” (Numbers 21:27–28)?

המשלים אלו המושלים ביצרם בואו חשבון בואו ונחשב חשבונו של עולם הפסד מצוה כנגד שכרה ושכר עבירה כנגד הפסדה

The Gemara interprets these verses homiletically. “Hamoshlim”; these are the people who rule over [hamoshlim] their evil inclination. They will say: “Come to Heshbon,” meaning: Come and let us calculate the account of [ḥeshbono] 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.

תבנה ותכונן אם אתה עושה כן תבנה בעולם הזה ותכונן לעולם הבא עיר סיחון אם משים אדם עצמו כעיר זה שמהלך אחר סיחה נאה מה כתיב אחריו כי אש יצאה מחשבון וגו׳ תצא אש ממחשבין ותאכל את שאינן מחשבין

“Let it be built and established” 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 “city [ir] of Sihon” means that if a person fashions himself like this young donkey [ayir] that follows after pleasant talk [siḥa], i.e., if one is easily tempted to listen to his inclination, what is written after it? “For a fire is gone out of Heshbon…it has devoured,” 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.

ולהבה מקרית סיחן מקרית צדיקים שנקראו שיחין אכלה ער מואב זה המהלך אחר יצרו כעיר זה שמהלך אחר סיחה נאה בעלי במות ארנן אלו גסי הרוח דאמר מר כל אדם שיש בו גסות הרוח נופל בגיהנם

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

ונירם אמר רשע אין רם אבד חשבון אבד חשבונו של עולם עד דיבן אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא המתן עד שיבא דין ונשים

The Gemara interprets a subsequent verse: “We have shot at them [vanniram], Heshbon is perished, even until Dibon, and we have laid waste even until Nophah, which reaches until Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). “Vanniram”; this indicates that the wicked person says: There is no higher [ein ram] power governing the world. “Heshbon is perished” means: The account [ḥeshbon] of the world has perished, i.e., they claim there is no accountability for one’s actions. “Even until Dibon [divon]”; the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Wait until judgment comes [yavo din]. “And we have laid waste