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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 24, 2017 | 讻状讞 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 92

One who buys an item that can be sold for 2 different uses (fruits for planting and fruits for eating/an ox for slaughtering or an ox for plowing) and doesn’t specify for which purpose he/she is buying it for – can one claim that it is not usable for the purposes聽it was purchased for and get one’s money back or not? 聽Does it depend on if the majority of people purchase this item for one particular use? 聽Or do we say this is a classic case of “the burden of proof relies on the one trying to get the money out of the other” in which case, the buyer is stuck with the item unless he/she can provide proof.


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

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘专讜 讜讝专注谉 讜诇讗 爪诪讞讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讝专注 驻砖转谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讝专注讜谞讬 讙讬谞讛 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉

MISHNA: With regard to one who sells produce to another that is sometimes purchased for consumption and sometimes for planting, and the buyer planted it and it did not sprout, and even if he had sold flaxseeds, which are only occasionally eaten, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for them, i.e., he is not required to compensate the buyer. Since the buyer did not specify that he purchased the produce in order to plant it, the seller can claim that he assumed the buyer intended to eat it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he had sold seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, then the seller bears financial responsibility for them, as they were certainly purchased for planting.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 砖讜专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜谞诪爪讗 谞讙讞谉 专讘 讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻专转讬讜 诇讱

GEMARA: An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who sells an ox to another and the ox is found to be one that habitually gores. Rav says: This is a mistaken transaction, since the buyer can claim that he bought the ox specifically for labor, and an ox that gores is not suitable for this function. Therefore, the seller must take back the ox and reimburse the buyer. And Shmuel says: The sale is not voided, as the seller can say to him: I sold it to you for slaughter, and the fact that it gores is immaterial.

讜诇讬讞讝讬 讗讬 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇谞讻住转讗 诇谞讻住转讗 讗讬 诇专讚讬讗 诇专讚讬讗 讘讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讛讻讬 讜诇讛讻讬

The Gemara suggests: But let us see if the buyer is a man who generally purchases oxen for slaughter, in which case it can be presumed that he also purchased this ox for slaughter, or if he is a man who generally purchases oxen for plowing, in which case it can be presumed that he also purchased this ox for plowing. The Gemara answers: The dispute concerns a man who sometimes purchases oxen for this purpose and sometimes for that purpose, and so it is uncertain for which purpose he purchased this ox.

讜诇讬讞讝讬 讚诪讬 讛讬讻讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara persists: But let us see the payment he made; how much was it? Since an ox fit for plowing costs more than one fit only for slaughter, the purpose for which the ox was purchased will be apparent from the price paid.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讬拽专 讘讬砖专讗 讜拽诐 讘讚诪讬 专讚讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讟专讞讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to discuss the case where the price of an ox to be slaughtered for its meat appreciated and reached the value of an ox for plowing. But if the price disparity is significant, there is no dispute. The Gemara asks: If so, for the sake of what practical difference did they discuss the case? Even if the ox was not suitable for the buyer鈥檚 purposes, he could sell it for the same price of the ox he needs. The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to the effort of selling the ox in order to recover its value; who must go to the effort of doing so?

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion?

讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 诇讗讬砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讬注讻讘 转讜专讗 讘讝讜讝讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪谉 诪专讬 专砖讜转讬讱 驻讗专讬 讗驻专注

If this is a case where the seller does not have sufficient funds for the buyer to be reimbursed by him, then let the buyer retain the ox itself in lieu of his money, as people say: If you wish to ensure that you will get paid, collect even bran, an inferior commodity, from one who is in your debt. Consequently, even according to the opinion of Rav, the buyer will be likely to retain the ox. What, then, is the practical difference between the opinions of Rav and Shmuel?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇讗讬砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to discuss the case where the seller does have sufficient funds for the buyer to be reimbursed by him.

专讘 讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜专讜讘讗 诇专讚讬讗 讝讘谞讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讘诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara explains the logic of each opinion: Rav says: This is a mistaken transaction, as in cases of uncertainty we follow the majority, and since the majority of people purchase oxen for plowing, it is presumed that this buyer also purchased the ox for plowing. Accordingly, since the ox he received was not suitable for plowing, the sale is void. And Shmuel could have said to you: When we follow the majority, that is only with regard to ritual matters, but with regard to monetary matters, such as this, we do not follow the majority. Accordingly, there is no basis for voiding the sale.

(住讬诪谉 讗砖讛 讜注讘讚 砖讜专 砖讜专讬谉 讜驻讬专讜转)

The Gemara cites a mnemonic that indicates the topics of the cases it will reference to challenge either Rav鈥檚 or Shmuel鈥檚 opinion: Woman, and slave, ox, oxen, and produce.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讗砖讛 砖谞转讗诇诪谞讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讘转讜诇讛 谞讬砖讗转讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 讗诇诪谞讛 谞砖讗转讬讱 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讬爪讗讛 讘讛讬谞讜诪讗 讜专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Ketubot 15b): With regard to a woman who was widowed or divorced, and is in dispute with her husband or his heirs over the value of the payment she should receive for her marriage contract, and she says: When you married me I was a virgin, and so I am entitled to two hundred dinars, and he says: That is not the case; rather, when I married you, you were a widow, and so you are entitled to only one hundred dinars, then if there are witnesses that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to her wedding with a veil [hinnuma] or with the hair of her head loose, in the typical manner of virgin brides, that is considered sufficient evidence in support of her claim, and so the payment of her marriage contract is two hundred dinars.

讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 讛谞砖讬诐 讜专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讘转讜诇讜转 谞讬砖讗讜转

The Gemara infers: The reason that she receives two hundred dinars is that there are witnesses to her claim. Therefore, if there were no witnesses, her claim would not be successful. The Gemara asks: But why? Let us say that since there is an uncertainty, one should follow the majority of women, and since the majority of women marry as virgins, it should be presumed that this woman also married as a virgin. Accordingly she should be entitled to two hundred dinars. Since this is not the case, it is apparent that the majority is not followed in monetary matters.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讘转讜诇讜转 谞讬砖讗讜转 讜诪讬注讜讟 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讻诇 讛谞讬砖讗转 讘转讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 拽讜诇 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讜诇 讗讬转专注 诇讛 专讜讘讗

Ravina said: In this case, one cannot decide the case based on the majority of women because there is room to say that it is so that the majority of women marry as virgins and only a minority marry as widows or non-virgins. But it is also so that there is an additional presumption: The marriage of anyone who marries as a virgin generates publicity of that fact. And with regard to this woman, who is in a dispute over the value of her marriage contract, because her marriage did not generate publicity of her marrying as a virgin, the ability to apply what is true of the majority of women to her case is undermined. Accordingly, there is no proof that the majority is not followed in monetary matters.

讗讬 讻诇 讛谞讬砖讗讜转 讘转讜诇讜转 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽讜诇 讻讬 讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 诪讚诇讬转 诇讛 拽讜诇 住讛讚讬 砖拽专讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara questions this: If it is really true that the marriage of anyone who marries as a virgin generates publicity of that fact, then even when there are witnesses that she was a virgin bride, what of it? From the fact that her marriage did not generate publicity of her marrying as a virgin, perforce they are false witnesses.

讗诇讗 专讜讘 讛谞讬砖讗讜转 讘转讜诇讜转 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽讜诇 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讜诇 讗讬转专注 诇讛 专讜讘讗

Rather, one must modify the above argument to say that the majority of marriages of women who marry as virgins generate publicity of that fact, and with regard to this woman, since her marriage did not generate publicity of her having been married as a virgin, the ability to apply what is true of the majority of women to her case is undermined.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚 诇讞讘专讜 讜谞诪爪讗 讙谞讘 讗讜 拽讜讘讬讜住讟讜住 讛讙讬注讜 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讗讜 诪讜讻转讘 诇诪诇讻讜转 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱

Come and hear a challenge to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: In the case of one who sells a slave to another, and the slave is found to be a thief or a gambler [kuvyustus], and the buyer does not wish to have such a slave, nevertheless it has come to him, i.e., the slave is acquired by the one who purchased him and the transaction is nonrefundable. By contrast, if the slave is found to be an armed bandit [listim] or has been judged and written to be executed by the govenment, then the buyer can return the slave to the seller and say to him: That which is yours is before you; return the money I paid for him, as the sale is void.

专讬砖讗

The Gemara explains the proof from the baraita: In the first clause of the baraita,

  • 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 92

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 92

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘专讜 讜讝专注谉 讜诇讗 爪诪讞讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讝专注 驻砖转谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讝专注讜谞讬 讙讬谞讛 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉

MISHNA: With regard to one who sells produce to another that is sometimes purchased for consumption and sometimes for planting, and the buyer planted it and it did not sprout, and even if he had sold flaxseeds, which are only occasionally eaten, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for them, i.e., he is not required to compensate the buyer. Since the buyer did not specify that he purchased the produce in order to plant it, the seller can claim that he assumed the buyer intended to eat it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he had sold seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, then the seller bears financial responsibility for them, as they were certainly purchased for planting.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 砖讜专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜谞诪爪讗 谞讙讞谉 专讘 讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻专转讬讜 诇讱

GEMARA: An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who sells an ox to another and the ox is found to be one that habitually gores. Rav says: This is a mistaken transaction, since the buyer can claim that he bought the ox specifically for labor, and an ox that gores is not suitable for this function. Therefore, the seller must take back the ox and reimburse the buyer. And Shmuel says: The sale is not voided, as the seller can say to him: I sold it to you for slaughter, and the fact that it gores is immaterial.

讜诇讬讞讝讬 讗讬 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇谞讻住转讗 诇谞讻住转讗 讗讬 诇专讚讬讗 诇专讚讬讗 讘讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讛讻讬 讜诇讛讻讬

The Gemara suggests: But let us see if the buyer is a man who generally purchases oxen for slaughter, in which case it can be presumed that he also purchased this ox for slaughter, or if he is a man who generally purchases oxen for plowing, in which case it can be presumed that he also purchased this ox for plowing. The Gemara answers: The dispute concerns a man who sometimes purchases oxen for this purpose and sometimes for that purpose, and so it is uncertain for which purpose he purchased this ox.

讜诇讬讞讝讬 讚诪讬 讛讬讻讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara persists: But let us see the payment he made; how much was it? Since an ox fit for plowing costs more than one fit only for slaughter, the purpose for which the ox was purchased will be apparent from the price paid.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讬拽专 讘讬砖专讗 讜拽诐 讘讚诪讬 专讚讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讟专讞讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to discuss the case where the price of an ox to be slaughtered for its meat appreciated and reached the value of an ox for plowing. But if the price disparity is significant, there is no dispute. The Gemara asks: If so, for the sake of what practical difference did they discuss the case? Even if the ox was not suitable for the buyer鈥檚 purposes, he could sell it for the same price of the ox he needs. The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to the effort of selling the ox in order to recover its value; who must go to the effort of doing so?

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion?

讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 诇讗讬砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讬注讻讘 转讜专讗 讘讝讜讝讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪谉 诪专讬 专砖讜转讬讱 驻讗专讬 讗驻专注

If this is a case where the seller does not have sufficient funds for the buyer to be reimbursed by him, then let the buyer retain the ox itself in lieu of his money, as people say: If you wish to ensure that you will get paid, collect even bran, an inferior commodity, from one who is in your debt. Consequently, even according to the opinion of Rav, the buyer will be likely to retain the ox. What, then, is the practical difference between the opinions of Rav and Shmuel?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇讗讬砖转诇讜诪讬 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to discuss the case where the seller does have sufficient funds for the buyer to be reimbursed by him.

专讘 讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜专讜讘讗 诇专讚讬讗 讝讘谞讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讘诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara explains the logic of each opinion: Rav says: This is a mistaken transaction, as in cases of uncertainty we follow the majority, and since the majority of people purchase oxen for plowing, it is presumed that this buyer also purchased the ox for plowing. Accordingly, since the ox he received was not suitable for plowing, the sale is void. And Shmuel could have said to you: When we follow the majority, that is only with regard to ritual matters, but with regard to monetary matters, such as this, we do not follow the majority. Accordingly, there is no basis for voiding the sale.

(住讬诪谉 讗砖讛 讜注讘讚 砖讜专 砖讜专讬谉 讜驻讬专讜转)

The Gemara cites a mnemonic that indicates the topics of the cases it will reference to challenge either Rav鈥檚 or Shmuel鈥檚 opinion: Woman, and slave, ox, oxen, and produce.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讗砖讛 砖谞转讗诇诪谞讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讘转讜诇讛 谞讬砖讗转讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 讗诇诪谞讛 谞砖讗转讬讱 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讬爪讗讛 讘讛讬谞讜诪讗 讜专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Ketubot 15b): With regard to a woman who was widowed or divorced, and is in dispute with her husband or his heirs over the value of the payment she should receive for her marriage contract, and she says: When you married me I was a virgin, and so I am entitled to two hundred dinars, and he says: That is not the case; rather, when I married you, you were a widow, and so you are entitled to only one hundred dinars, then if there are witnesses that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to her wedding with a veil [hinnuma] or with the hair of her head loose, in the typical manner of virgin brides, that is considered sufficient evidence in support of her claim, and so the payment of her marriage contract is two hundred dinars.

讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 讛谞砖讬诐 讜专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讘转讜诇讜转 谞讬砖讗讜转

The Gemara infers: The reason that she receives two hundred dinars is that there are witnesses to her claim. Therefore, if there were no witnesses, her claim would not be successful. The Gemara asks: But why? Let us say that since there is an uncertainty, one should follow the majority of women, and since the majority of women marry as virgins, it should be presumed that this woman also married as a virgin. Accordingly she should be entitled to two hundred dinars. Since this is not the case, it is apparent that the majority is not followed in monetary matters.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讘转讜诇讜转 谞讬砖讗讜转 讜诪讬注讜讟 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讻诇 讛谞讬砖讗转 讘转讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 拽讜诇 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讜诇 讗讬转专注 诇讛 专讜讘讗

Ravina said: In this case, one cannot decide the case based on the majority of women because there is room to say that it is so that the majority of women marry as virgins and only a minority marry as widows or non-virgins. But it is also so that there is an additional presumption: The marriage of anyone who marries as a virgin generates publicity of that fact. And with regard to this woman, who is in a dispute over the value of her marriage contract, because her marriage did not generate publicity of her marrying as a virgin, the ability to apply what is true of the majority of women to her case is undermined. Accordingly, there is no proof that the majority is not followed in monetary matters.

讗讬 讻诇 讛谞讬砖讗讜转 讘转讜诇讜转 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽讜诇 讻讬 讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 诪讚诇讬转 诇讛 拽讜诇 住讛讚讬 砖拽专讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara questions this: If it is really true that the marriage of anyone who marries as a virgin generates publicity of that fact, then even when there are witnesses that she was a virgin bride, what of it? From the fact that her marriage did not generate publicity of her marrying as a virgin, perforce they are false witnesses.

讗诇讗 专讜讘 讛谞讬砖讗讜转 讘转讜诇讜转 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽讜诇 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讜诇 讗讬转专注 诇讛 专讜讘讗

Rather, one must modify the above argument to say that the majority of marriages of women who marry as virgins generate publicity of that fact, and with regard to this woman, since her marriage did not generate publicity of her having been married as a virgin, the ability to apply what is true of the majority of women to her case is undermined.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚 诇讞讘专讜 讜谞诪爪讗 讙谞讘 讗讜 拽讜讘讬讜住讟讜住 讛讙讬注讜 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讗讜 诪讜讻转讘 诇诪诇讻讜转 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱

Come and hear a challenge to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: In the case of one who sells a slave to another, and the slave is found to be a thief or a gambler [kuvyustus], and the buyer does not wish to have such a slave, nevertheless it has come to him, i.e., the slave is acquired by the one who purchased him and the transaction is nonrefundable. By contrast, if the slave is found to be an armed bandit [listim] or has been judged and written to be executed by the govenment, then the buyer can return the slave to the seller and say to him: That which is yours is before you; return the money I paid for him, as the sale is void.

专讬砖讗

The Gemara explains the proof from the baraita: In the first clause of the baraita,

Scroll To Top