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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 18, 2017 | 讻状讘 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 86

If one put merchandise in his own vessels in the seller’s domain, does he acquire those items? 聽Can an item that can be lifted, also be acquired by pulling or does pulling only work when lifting cannot be done?

驻讬专拽谉 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讜 驻住拽 注讚 砖诇讗 诪讚讚 讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛谉 诪讚讚 注讚 砖诇讗 驻住拽 砖谞讬讛谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛谉 讜诪讚讻诇讬讜 讚诪讜讻专 讘专砖讜转 诇讜拽讞 诇讗 拽谞讛 讻诇讬讜 讚诇讜拽讞 谞诪讬 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 诇讗 拽谞讛

But in a case where he unloaded the merchandise from them and brought it into his house, if he fixed a price before he measured the merchandise, both parties are no longer able to renege on the sale. If he measured the merchandise before fixing a price, both of them are able to renege on the sale. The Gemara comments: And from the fact that the vessels of the seller when in the domain of the buyer do not effect acquisition of the merchandise for the seller, i.e., they do not prevent the buyer from acquiring the merchandise, one can derive that the vessels of the buyer in the domain of the seller do not effect acquisition of the merchandise on his behalf as well.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘砖砖驻讻谉 讗讬拽驻讚 专讘讗 诪讬讚讬 砖驻讻谉 拽转谞讬 驻讬专拽谉 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘诪转讗讻诇讬 讚转讜诪讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The merchandise was not placed in the domain of the buyer in vessels belonging to the seller. Rather, the baraita is referring to a case where he emptied the vessels onto the ground. Conversely, if the merchandise remains in the seller鈥檚 vessels, the buyer does not acquire it. Rava became angry with Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k at his rejection of Rava鈥檚 proof, and retorted: Does the baraita teach: He emptied them? No; it teaches: He unloaded them, i.e., he kept the goods in vessels belonging to the seller. Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi says: This proof can be rejected by means of a different interpretation, as the halakha of the baraita does not refer to vessels full of goods but is stated with regard to bundles of garlic that were tied together. Therefore, they are unloaded straight onto the floor in the buyer鈥檚 domain.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讻讚讬 驻讬专拽谉 拽转谞讬 诪讛 诇讬 驻住拽 讜诪讛 诇讬 诇讗 驻住拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻住拽 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛 诇讗 驻住拽 诇讗 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛

With regard to the matter itself, Huna, son of Mar Zutra, said to Ravina: Since the baraita teaches: He unloaded them, which indicates that unloading the merchandise constitutes the act of acquisition, what difference is there to me if he fixed a price, and what difference is there to me if he did not fix a price? Ravina said to him: If he fixed a price he has made up his mind to sell, and therefore the transaction can take place. If he did not fix a price, he has not made up his mind to sell and the transaction does not occur. In any event, no convincing proof has been found with regard to the halakha in a case where the vessels of the buyer are in the domain of the seller.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 拽讜谞讛 诇讜 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽谞讬

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a resolution, as Rav and Shmuel both say: A person鈥檚 vessel effects acquisition for him of any item placed inside it, in any place that it is situated. What is added by the phrase: In any place? Does it not serve to add the domain of the seller? Rav Ashi answered: There, it is referring to a specific case, where the seller said to him: Go and acquire it. In that situation, the buyer does acquire the merchandise. This does not refer to a standard case where the buyer鈥檚 vessels are located in the domain of the seller.

转谞谉 讛转诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谉 谞拽谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讜 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讚讘专讬诐 砖讚专讻谉 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讘讛讙讘讛讛 讗讬谉 讘诪砖讬讻讛 诇讗

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Kiddushin 26a): Property that is guaranteed, i.e., land, is acquired by means of money, or by means of a bill, or by taking possession of it. And property that does not have a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired only by means of pulling. In Sura they taught this following halakha in the name of Rav 岣sda, while in Pumbedita they taught it in the name of Rav Kahana, and some say in the name of Rava: They taught that movable property is acquired by means of pulling only with regard to items that are not typically lifted due to their weight or for some other reason. But in the case of items that are typically lifted, then yes, they are acquired by means of lifting, but they are not acquired by means of pulling.

讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讙讜谞讘 讻讬住 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转

Abaye sat and related this halakha. Rav Adda bar Mattana raised an objection to Abaye from a baraita: One who steals a purse on Shabbat is liable for theft. Based on the principle that one who is liable to receive two punishments receives only the greater of the two, in this case one might think that he should be exempt from paying for the theft, as the performance of a prohibited labor on Shabbat is punishable by death. The reason he is liable in this case, in apparent contradiction to that principle, is that he already became liable for the theft as soon as he lifted the purse. This occurred before he came to violate the prohibition of performing prohibited labor on Shabbat by carrying the purse into the public domain.

讛讬讛 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讜讙谞讬讘讛 讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚

The baraita continues: If he did not lift the purse but was dragging it on the ground and exiting the private domain, continuously dragging and exiting, he is exempt, as the prohibition of performing labor on Shabbat and the prohibition of theft are violated simultaneously the moment he drags the purse out of the owner鈥檚 property into the public domain. Therefore, he receives only the greater punishment, death, for carrying on Shabbat.

讜讛专讬 讻讬住 讚讘专 讛讙讘讛讛 讛讜讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽谞讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诪讬转谞讗 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 讘诪讬转谞讗 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诪讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诪讬转谞讗

Rav Adda bar Mattana explains his objection: But a purse is an item that can be lifted, and even so it is apparent from the baraita that one acquires it by means of pulling. How then can it be stated that items that are typically lifted are not acquired by pulling? Abaye said to him: The baraita is referring to a case where the thief pulled the purse with a rope. Rav Adda bar Mattana thought that Abaye meant that the thief happened to drag it with a rope, and he responded: I also state my question even in a case where he pulled the purse with a rope, as it is still evident that one can acquire the purse by means of pulling instead of lifting. Abaye said to him: I meant that the baraita is referring to an item that requires a rope. It is a purse that is so large that it cannot be lifted and must be pulled, therefore it is acquired by means of pulling.

转讗 砖诪注 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讙讘讬讛谞讛 讗讜 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗谞讛 诪专砖讜转讜 讗诇诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讘专 讛讙讘讛讛 讗讬 讘注讬 讘讛讙讘讛讛 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讘专 讛讙讘讛讛 讘讛讙讘讛讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讘专 诪砖讬讻讛 讘诪砖讬讻讛

The Gemara raises another objection. Come and hear: If the merchandise is in the domain of the seller, the buyer does not acquire the merchandise until he lifts it or until he removes it from the domain of the seller. Apparently, with regard to an item that can be lifted, if he so desires he acquires it by lifting, and if he so desires he acquires it by pulling. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: This is not a proof, as it can be explained that the tanna teaches it disjunctively, i.e., the two options are referring to two different cases: In the case of an item that can be lifted, he acquires it by lifting, whereas with regard to regard to an item that can be pulled, he acquires it by pulling.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪砖讱 讜诇讗 诪讚讚 拽谞讬 讜讛讗 驻讬专讜转 讚讘谞讬 讛讙讘讛讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜拽转谞讬 讚拽谞讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna (84b) that even items that are usually lifted can be acquired by means of pulling: With regard to one who sells produce to another, if the buyer pulled the produce but did not measure it, he has acquired it. The Gemara explains the proof: But produce can be lifted, and yet the mishna teaches that it is acquired by means of pulling.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖诇讬驻讬 专讘专讘讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛诇讜拽讞 驻砖转谉 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讟诇讟诇谞讜 诪诪拽讜诐 讝讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讟讜 驻砖转谉 讘砖诇讬驻讬 专讘专讘讬 诪讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 砖讗谞讬 驻砖转谉 讚诪砖转诪讬讟

The Gemara rejects this proof: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with large bundles that are pulled from place to place and are not carried, due to their size. The Gemara asks: If that is so, say the latter clause of the mishna: One who buys flax from another has not acquired it until he carries it from this place to another place, i.e., it is acquired only though lifting and not through pulling. Is that to say that flax is not prepared in large bundles? The Gemara answers: Yes, flax is different. Unlike other produce, flax is not packed in large bundles, as it would slip from its place. Rather, it is packed in small bundles, and therefore flax is acquired specifically through lifting.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪住讬专讛 讜讛讚拽讛 讘讛讙讘讛讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讜讛讗 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讚讘专 讛讙讘讛讛 讛讬讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚拽谞讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛 砖讗谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讚住专讻讗

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Kiddushin 25b): Large domesticated animals are acquired through passing the animal鈥檚 leash to the buyer, and small domesticated animals are acquired through lifting; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. And the Rabbis say: Small domesticated animals are acquired through pulling. Ravina explains the proof: But small domesticated animals are creatures that can be lifted, and yet the mishna teaches that one acquires them through pulling. Rav Ashi rejected this proof: Domesticated animals are different, as they cling to the ground and it is difficult to lift them. Therefore, the usual manner of moving animals is to pull them.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讜专 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讗讛 讛讗讞专讜谞讛 讻讜专 讘砖诇砖讬诐 住讗讛 讘住诇注 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛

搂 The Gemara cites another case with regard to sales. Rav and Shmuel both say: If a seller said to a buyer: I am selling you one kor, a measure equivalent to thirty se鈥檃, of grain for the price of thirty sela, the seller can renege on the sale as long as the measuring vessel is not filled, even when only the last se鈥檃 has yet to be measured, because he had agreed to sell only a complete kor. By contrast, if the seller said: I am selling you one kor for thirty sela and each se鈥檃 is sold for one sela, he cannot completely renege on the sale in the middle of the transaction. This is because the buyer acquires each se鈥檃 one by one as it is measured, since the seller sold each se鈥檃 individually.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讚讛 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞转诪诇讗讛 讛诪讚讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the baraita cited on 85a. Come and hear: If the measuring vessel belonged to one of them, the buyer acquires the items of sale one by one. And since this halakha is stated in general terms, it indicates that the buyer acquires each item as it is placed in the measuring vessel, even though the measuring vessel was not filled.

讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬谉 讘砖谞讬诐 注砖专 住诇注讬诐 诇讜讙 讘住诇注 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讜讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 砖谞转讜转 讛讬讜 讘讛讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖谞转讜转 讛讬讜 讘诪讚讜转

The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the seller said to him: I am selling you one hin, a liquid measure equivalent to twelve log, for twelve sela, each log for one sela. And this is in accordance with an observation that Rav Kahana says: In the Temple there were markings on the vessel that measured hin, with which one could measure the different libations. Here too, there were markings on the measuring vessels, and since the measuring vessel indicates at which point each log had been filled, the buyer acquires it. This is comparable to the case of one who sells each se鈥檃 individually.

转讗 砖诪注 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 诇讙讜专谉 讛讬讜诐 讘讚讬谞专

The Gemara raises another difficulty. Come and hear: One who hires a laborer in the winter or the spring to work for him in the harvest, for one dinar a day,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 86

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 86

驻讬专拽谉 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讜 驻住拽 注讚 砖诇讗 诪讚讚 讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛谉 诪讚讚 注讚 砖诇讗 驻住拽 砖谞讬讛谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛谉 讜诪讚讻诇讬讜 讚诪讜讻专 讘专砖讜转 诇讜拽讞 诇讗 拽谞讛 讻诇讬讜 讚诇讜拽讞 谞诪讬 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 诇讗 拽谞讛

But in a case where he unloaded the merchandise from them and brought it into his house, if he fixed a price before he measured the merchandise, both parties are no longer able to renege on the sale. If he measured the merchandise before fixing a price, both of them are able to renege on the sale. The Gemara comments: And from the fact that the vessels of the seller when in the domain of the buyer do not effect acquisition of the merchandise for the seller, i.e., they do not prevent the buyer from acquiring the merchandise, one can derive that the vessels of the buyer in the domain of the seller do not effect acquisition of the merchandise on his behalf as well.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘砖砖驻讻谉 讗讬拽驻讚 专讘讗 诪讬讚讬 砖驻讻谉 拽转谞讬 驻讬专拽谉 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘诪转讗讻诇讬 讚转讜诪讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The merchandise was not placed in the domain of the buyer in vessels belonging to the seller. Rather, the baraita is referring to a case where he emptied the vessels onto the ground. Conversely, if the merchandise remains in the seller鈥檚 vessels, the buyer does not acquire it. Rava became angry with Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k at his rejection of Rava鈥檚 proof, and retorted: Does the baraita teach: He emptied them? No; it teaches: He unloaded them, i.e., he kept the goods in vessels belonging to the seller. Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi says: This proof can be rejected by means of a different interpretation, as the halakha of the baraita does not refer to vessels full of goods but is stated with regard to bundles of garlic that were tied together. Therefore, they are unloaded straight onto the floor in the buyer鈥檚 domain.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讻讚讬 驻讬专拽谉 拽转谞讬 诪讛 诇讬 驻住拽 讜诪讛 诇讬 诇讗 驻住拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻住拽 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛 诇讗 驻住拽 诇讗 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛

With regard to the matter itself, Huna, son of Mar Zutra, said to Ravina: Since the baraita teaches: He unloaded them, which indicates that unloading the merchandise constitutes the act of acquisition, what difference is there to me if he fixed a price, and what difference is there to me if he did not fix a price? Ravina said to him: If he fixed a price he has made up his mind to sell, and therefore the transaction can take place. If he did not fix a price, he has not made up his mind to sell and the transaction does not occur. In any event, no convincing proof has been found with regard to the halakha in a case where the vessels of the buyer are in the domain of the seller.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 拽讜谞讛 诇讜 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽谞讬

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a resolution, as Rav and Shmuel both say: A person鈥檚 vessel effects acquisition for him of any item placed inside it, in any place that it is situated. What is added by the phrase: In any place? Does it not serve to add the domain of the seller? Rav Ashi answered: There, it is referring to a specific case, where the seller said to him: Go and acquire it. In that situation, the buyer does acquire the merchandise. This does not refer to a standard case where the buyer鈥檚 vessels are located in the domain of the seller.

转谞谉 讛转诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谉 谞拽谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讜 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讚讘专讬诐 砖讚专讻谉 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讘讛讙讘讛讛 讗讬谉 讘诪砖讬讻讛 诇讗

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Kiddushin 26a): Property that is guaranteed, i.e., land, is acquired by means of money, or by means of a bill, or by taking possession of it. And property that does not have a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired only by means of pulling. In Sura they taught this following halakha in the name of Rav 岣sda, while in Pumbedita they taught it in the name of Rav Kahana, and some say in the name of Rava: They taught that movable property is acquired by means of pulling only with regard to items that are not typically lifted due to their weight or for some other reason. But in the case of items that are typically lifted, then yes, they are acquired by means of lifting, but they are not acquired by means of pulling.

讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讙讜谞讘 讻讬住 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转

Abaye sat and related this halakha. Rav Adda bar Mattana raised an objection to Abaye from a baraita: One who steals a purse on Shabbat is liable for theft. Based on the principle that one who is liable to receive two punishments receives only the greater of the two, in this case one might think that he should be exempt from paying for the theft, as the performance of a prohibited labor on Shabbat is punishable by death. The reason he is liable in this case, in apparent contradiction to that principle, is that he already became liable for the theft as soon as he lifted the purse. This occurred before he came to violate the prohibition of performing prohibited labor on Shabbat by carrying the purse into the public domain.

讛讬讛 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讜讙谞讬讘讛 讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚

The baraita continues: If he did not lift the purse but was dragging it on the ground and exiting the private domain, continuously dragging and exiting, he is exempt, as the prohibition of performing labor on Shabbat and the prohibition of theft are violated simultaneously the moment he drags the purse out of the owner鈥檚 property into the public domain. Therefore, he receives only the greater punishment, death, for carrying on Shabbat.

讜讛专讬 讻讬住 讚讘专 讛讙讘讛讛 讛讜讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽谞讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诪讬转谞讗 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 讘诪讬转谞讗 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诪讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诪讬转谞讗

Rav Adda bar Mattana explains his objection: But a purse is an item that can be lifted, and even so it is apparent from the baraita that one acquires it by means of pulling. How then can it be stated that items that are typically lifted are not acquired by pulling? Abaye said to him: The baraita is referring to a case where the thief pulled the purse with a rope. Rav Adda bar Mattana thought that Abaye meant that the thief happened to drag it with a rope, and he responded: I also state my question even in a case where he pulled the purse with a rope, as it is still evident that one can acquire the purse by means of pulling instead of lifting. Abaye said to him: I meant that the baraita is referring to an item that requires a rope. It is a purse that is so large that it cannot be lifted and must be pulled, therefore it is acquired by means of pulling.

转讗 砖诪注 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讙讘讬讛谞讛 讗讜 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗谞讛 诪专砖讜转讜 讗诇诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讘专 讛讙讘讛讛 讗讬 讘注讬 讘讛讙讘讛讛 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讘专 讛讙讘讛讛 讘讛讙讘讛讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讘专 诪砖讬讻讛 讘诪砖讬讻讛

The Gemara raises another objection. Come and hear: If the merchandise is in the domain of the seller, the buyer does not acquire the merchandise until he lifts it or until he removes it from the domain of the seller. Apparently, with regard to an item that can be lifted, if he so desires he acquires it by lifting, and if he so desires he acquires it by pulling. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: This is not a proof, as it can be explained that the tanna teaches it disjunctively, i.e., the two options are referring to two different cases: In the case of an item that can be lifted, he acquires it by lifting, whereas with regard to regard to an item that can be pulled, he acquires it by pulling.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪砖讱 讜诇讗 诪讚讚 拽谞讬 讜讛讗 驻讬专讜转 讚讘谞讬 讛讙讘讛讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜拽转谞讬 讚拽谞讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna (84b) that even items that are usually lifted can be acquired by means of pulling: With regard to one who sells produce to another, if the buyer pulled the produce but did not measure it, he has acquired it. The Gemara explains the proof: But produce can be lifted, and yet the mishna teaches that it is acquired by means of pulling.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖诇讬驻讬 专讘专讘讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛诇讜拽讞 驻砖转谉 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讟诇讟诇谞讜 诪诪拽讜诐 讝讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讟讜 驻砖转谉 讘砖诇讬驻讬 专讘专讘讬 诪讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 砖讗谞讬 驻砖转谉 讚诪砖转诪讬讟

The Gemara rejects this proof: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with large bundles that are pulled from place to place and are not carried, due to their size. The Gemara asks: If that is so, say the latter clause of the mishna: One who buys flax from another has not acquired it until he carries it from this place to another place, i.e., it is acquired only though lifting and not through pulling. Is that to say that flax is not prepared in large bundles? The Gemara answers: Yes, flax is different. Unlike other produce, flax is not packed in large bundles, as it would slip from its place. Rather, it is packed in small bundles, and therefore flax is acquired specifically through lifting.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 谞拽谞讬转 讘诪住讬专讛 讜讛讚拽讛 讘讛讙讘讛讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讜讛讗 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讚讘专 讛讙讘讛讛 讛讬讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚拽谞讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛 砖讗谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讚住专讻讗

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Kiddushin 25b): Large domesticated animals are acquired through passing the animal鈥檚 leash to the buyer, and small domesticated animals are acquired through lifting; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. And the Rabbis say: Small domesticated animals are acquired through pulling. Ravina explains the proof: But small domesticated animals are creatures that can be lifted, and yet the mishna teaches that one acquires them through pulling. Rav Ashi rejected this proof: Domesticated animals are different, as they cling to the ground and it is difficult to lift them. Therefore, the usual manner of moving animals is to pull them.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讜专 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讗讛 讛讗讞专讜谞讛 讻讜专 讘砖诇砖讬诐 住讗讛 讘住诇注 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛

搂 The Gemara cites another case with regard to sales. Rav and Shmuel both say: If a seller said to a buyer: I am selling you one kor, a measure equivalent to thirty se鈥檃, of grain for the price of thirty sela, the seller can renege on the sale as long as the measuring vessel is not filled, even when only the last se鈥檃 has yet to be measured, because he had agreed to sell only a complete kor. By contrast, if the seller said: I am selling you one kor for thirty sela and each se鈥檃 is sold for one sela, he cannot completely renege on the sale in the middle of the transaction. This is because the buyer acquires each se鈥檃 one by one as it is measured, since the seller sold each se鈥檃 individually.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讚讛 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞转诪诇讗讛 讛诪讚讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the baraita cited on 85a. Come and hear: If the measuring vessel belonged to one of them, the buyer acquires the items of sale one by one. And since this halakha is stated in general terms, it indicates that the buyer acquires each item as it is placed in the measuring vessel, even though the measuring vessel was not filled.

讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬谉 讘砖谞讬诐 注砖专 住诇注讬诐 诇讜讙 讘住诇注 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讜讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 砖谞转讜转 讛讬讜 讘讛讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖谞转讜转 讛讬讜 讘诪讚讜转

The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the seller said to him: I am selling you one hin, a liquid measure equivalent to twelve log, for twelve sela, each log for one sela. And this is in accordance with an observation that Rav Kahana says: In the Temple there were markings on the vessel that measured hin, with which one could measure the different libations. Here too, there were markings on the measuring vessels, and since the measuring vessel indicates at which point each log had been filled, the buyer acquires it. This is comparable to the case of one who sells each se鈥檃 individually.

转讗 砖诪注 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 诇讙讜专谉 讛讬讜诐 讘讚讬谞专

The Gemara raises another difficulty. Come and hear: One who hires a laborer in the winter or the spring to work for him in the harvest, for one dinar a day,

Scroll To Top