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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 25, 2017 | ื›ืดื˜ ื‘ื ื™ืกืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Batra 93

Rav and Shmuel’s debate is further analyzed. ย Are there tannaitic sources that prove Shmuel is correct? ย Is their argument based on a tannatic debate? ย In a case where the seller needs to compensate the buyer for seeds that were bad, does the seller need to reimburse the buyer for his expenses relating to planting the seeds?


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

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื•ื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื ื”ื•

what is the reason that the sale is not considered to be a mistaken transaction? Is it not because a majority of slaves are like this, i.e., either thieves or gamblers? Apparently, the majority is followed in monetary matters.

ืœื ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื ื”ื•

The Gemara rejects the proof: No, it is because all slaves are like this. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn as to whether we follow the majority in monetary matters.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื ื’ื— ืืช ื”ืคืจื” ื•ื ืžืฆื ืขื•ื‘ืจื” ื‘ืฆื“ื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื“ื•ืข ืื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ื’ื—ื” ื™ืœื“ื” ืื• ืื ืžืฉื ื’ื—ื” ื™ืœื“ื” ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืœืคืจื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ืข ืœื•ืœื“

Come and hear another challenge to Ravโ€™s opinion from a mishna (Bava Kamma 46a): In the case of an innocuous ox that gored and killed a cow, and the cowโ€™s fetus was found dead at its side, and it is not known whether the cow calved before the ox gored it and the fetusโ€™ death was unrelated to the goring, or whether it calved after the ox gored it and the fetus died on account of the goring, the oxโ€™s owner pays half the cost of the damage for the cow, as is the halakha for an innocuous ox (see Exodus 21:35), and one-quarter of the cost of the damage for the offspring. Since it is uncertain whether the ox caused the death of the fetus, its owner pays for half of the standard liability of half the cost of the damage.

ื•ืืžืื™ ืœื™ืžื ื”ืœืš ืื—ืจ ืจื•ื‘ ืคืจื•ืช ื•ืจื•ื‘ ืคืจื•ืช ืžืชืขื‘ืจื•ืช ื•ื™ื•ืœื“ื•ืช ื•ื”ื ื•ื“ืื™ ืžื—ืžืช ื ื’ื™ื—ื” ื”ืคื™ืœื”

The Gemara explains the proof from the baraita: But why, according to Rav, should he only pay for one-quarter of the damage to the fetus? Since there is an uncertainty, let us say: Follow the majority of cows, and since the majority of cows become pregnant and calve live offspring, one should conclude that this cow, which did not, certainly miscarried due to the ox goring it, and the oxโ€™s owner should be liable for half the cost of the fetus. Since that line of reasoning is not applied here, it is apparent that the majority is not followed in monetary matters.

ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžืกืคืงื ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžืงืžื” ืืชื ื•ืžื‘ื™ืขืชื•ืชื ื”ืคื™ืœื” ื•ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžืื—ื•ืจื” ืืชื ื•ืžื™ื ื’ื— ื ื’ื—ื” ื•ื”ืคื™ืœื” ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื˜ืœ ื‘ืกืคืง ื•ื›ืœ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื˜ืœ ื‘ืกืคืง ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ

The Gemara rejects the proof: There, the reason that the oxโ€™s owner pays for only one-quarter of the damage for the fetus is due to the fact that we are uncertain about how it died, as it is possible to say that the ox approached the cow from its front and it was due to the cowโ€™s fright, not due to the goring, that it miscarried, meaning that the oxโ€™s owner would not be liable; and it is also possible to say that the ox approached the cow from behind it and gored it, and that is why the cow miscarried. Accordingly, the payment for such damage constitutes property of uncertain ownership, and the halakha is that all property of uncertain ownership is divided equally between the two parties.

ืœื™ืžื ื›ืชื ืื™ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืจื•ืขื” ื•ื ืžืฆื ืฉื•ืจ ื”ืจื•ื’ ื‘ืฆื“ื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื–ื” ืžื ื•ื’ื— ื•ื–ื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื™ื’ื— ื–ื” ืžื ื•ืฉืš ื•ื–ื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื™ืฉื•ืš ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื–ื” ื ื’ื—ื• ื•ื–ื” ื ืฉื›ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ืื•ืžืจ ื’ืžืœ ื”ืื•ื—ืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ืžืœื™ื ื•ื ืžืฆื ื’ืžืœ ื”ืจื•ื’ ื‘ืฆื“ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื–ื” ื”ืจื’ื•

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute between Rav and Shmuel is parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of an ox that was grazing and another ox that was found killed at its side, even though this dead ox has been gored and that grazing ox is forewarned with regard to goring, or this dead ox has been bitten and that grazing ox is forewarned with regard to biting, nevertheless one does not say that it is evident that this grazing ox gored the dead ox or that grazing ox bit it, despite the fact such behavior is typical for the ox; rather, one cannot draw any definite conclusions. Rabbi Aแธฅa says that in the case of a rutting male camel that is rampaging among other camels and another camel that was found killed at its side, it is evident that this rampaging camel killed it, as such behavior is typical for a rutting camel. Therefore, the owner of that camel is liable.

ืกื‘ืจื•ื” ื“ืจื•ื‘ื ื•ื—ื–ืงื” ื›ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืชื ื ืงืžื

Those who suggested the parallel between the tannaitic dispute and the dispute between Rav and Shmuel assumed that a majority and a logical presumption about whether an event will happen are equivalent in their capacity to determine the facts of a case. Consequently, let us say that Rav, who says that one follows the majority in monetary matters, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Aแธฅa, who follows a presumption to determine the facts of a case, and that Shmuel, who says that one does not follow the majority in monetary matters, holds in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who does not follow a presumption.

ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ืื ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืชื ื ืงืžื ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืชื ื ืงืžื ื”ืชื ืืœื ื“ืœื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจ ื—ื–ืงื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara rejects this: Rav could have said to you: I am stating my ruling even in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, as the first tanna says that one cannot draw a definite conclusion only there, in the case of the grazing ox, as we do not follow a presumption in monetary matters, but he concedes that we follow the majority in monetary matters.

ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืœืš ืื ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ื”ืชื ืืœื ื“ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจ ื—ื–ืงื” ื“ื”ื•ื ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืžื•ื—ื–ืง ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ื ืœื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ

And Shmuel could have said to you: I am stating my ruling even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Aแธฅa, as Rabbi Aแธฅa says that one can draw a definite conclusion only there, in the case of the camels, since we follow a presumption in monetary matters, as this camel itself is presumed, based on its behavior, to be the killer. But he concedes that we do not follow the majority in deciding monetary matters.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื—ื‘ืจื• ื•ื–ืจืขืŸ ื•ืœื ืฆืžื—ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another challenge to Ravโ€™s opinion from the 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 rarely sold as food, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for them.

ืžืื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ื“ืจื•ื‘ื ืœื–ืจื™ืขื” ื–ื‘ื ื™ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ื

The Gemara explains the proof: What novelty is indicated by saying: Even if he had sold flaxseeds? Is it not that even where he sold flaxseeds, of which the majority is purchased for planting, and they were not suitable for that purpose, nevertheless the sale stands because we do not follow the majority in monetary matters?

ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื—ื‘ืจื• ื•ื–ืจืขืŸ ื•ืœื ืฆืžื—ื• ื–ืจืขื•ื ื™ ื’ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ

The Gemara concedes that the mishna cannot be reconciled with Ravโ€™s opinion, but suggests that there are other tannaโ€™im who hold in accordance with his opinion. It is a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who sells produce to another, and the buyer planted it and it did not sprout, if the produce was seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, then the seller bears financial responsibility for them. If the produce was flaxseeds, which are only occasionally eaten, then the seller does not bear financial responsibility for them. Rabbi Yosei says:

ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื–ืจืข ืืžืจื• ืœื• ื”ืจื‘ื” ืœื•ืงื—ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื

The seller gives back to the buyer the value of the seeds. Since the majority of flaxseeds are sold are for planting, it is a mistaken transaction. They said to him, i.e., to Rabbi Yosei: Many, i.e., a majority of people, purchase flaxseeds for purposes other than planting. Consequently, the sale stands.

ืžืืŸ ืชื ืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ื ืื–ืœื™ ืžืจ ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ื ื“ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื•ืžืจ ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ื ื“ื–ืจื™ืขื”

The Gemara asks: Who are the tannaโ€™im in this baraita who have a dispute that parallels the dispute between Rav and Shmuel? If we say that they are Rabbi Yosei and the opinion cited as: They said to him, that is incorrect, as both of them hold that one follows the majority in monetary matters. Their dispute concerns only which majority to follow: One Sage, i.e., the opinion cited as: They said to him, follows the majority of people making purchases, and one Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, follows the majority of the volume of seeds that are sold overall. The disparity arises because the majority of sales are each made with a relatively small quantity of seeds that are purchased for purposes other than planting. The minority of sales involve large quantities of seeds that are purchased for planting. This means that the majority of the seeds sold overall are purchased for planting, but the majority of people purchasing seeds do so for purposes other than planting.

ืืœื ืื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื•

Rather, the dispute that parallels the dispute between Rav and Shmuel is either the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei, or the dispute between the first tanna and the opinion cited as: They said to him.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื–ืจืข ื•ืœื ื”ื•ืฆืื” ื•ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืฃ ื”ื•ืฆืื”

ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: When the seller bears financial responsibility for selling seeds that did not sprout, what is he liable to give to the buyer? He is liable to give him only the value of the seeds themselves, but not the expenses that the buyer incurred in planting them, e.g., the hire of laborers. And some say: He is liable to give him even the expenses that the buyer incurred.

ืžืืŸ ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื™ื

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is cited as: Some say? Rav แธคisda said that it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

ื”ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื“ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื–ืจืขืŸ ื•ืœื ืฆืžื—ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื ื–ืจืขื•ื ื™ ื’ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ

The Gemara clarifies: From which statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is it apparent that he holds the seller is liable for the buyerโ€™s expenses? One possibility is if we say that the statement in question is that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the mishna, as we learned in the mishna: One who sells to another produce 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. The Gemara extrapolates: By inference, if this tanna holds that he had sold seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, then the seller bears financial responsibility to compensate the buyer for them.

ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ืจืขื•ื ื™ ื’ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ืชื ื ืงืžื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื ื–ืจืขื•ื ื™ ื’ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ

The Gemara continues: But accordingly, say the latter clause: 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. The Gemara asks: But according to the inference made from the first clause, the first tanna is also saying this, as he holds that it is only for the sale of flaxseeds that the seller does not bear financial responsibility to compensate the buyer for them, but with regard to the sale of seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, the seller bears financial responsibility for them. What, then, is the dispute between the first tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

ืืœื ืœืื• ื”ื•ืฆืื” ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ืžื™ ื–ืจืข ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืืฃ ื”ื•ืฆืื”

The Gemara therefore suggests: Rather, is it not that the differ-ence between them is whether the seller is liable for the buyerโ€™s expenses? One Sage, i.e., the first tanna, holds that the seller is liable only for the value of the seeds, and the other Sage, i.e., Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the seller is liable even for the buyerโ€™s expenses.

ืžืžืื™ ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืคื›ื ื”ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืœ ืชื ื ื‘ืชืจื ืœื˜ืคื•ื™ื™ ืžื™ืœืชื ืงื ืืชื™

The Gemara asks: From where is it apparent that it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who holds that the seller is liable for the expenses? Perhaps it is the opposite, i.e., it is the first tanna who holds that the seller is liable for the expenses, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that he is liable only for the value of the seeds. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is not difficult, because the last tanna cited always comes to add something to the ruling of the first tanna, not to detract from it.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ื›ื•ืœื” ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื™ื ื•ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื–ืจืขืŸ ื•ืœื ืฆืžื—ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื ื–ืจืขื•ื ื™ ื’ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืฉืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื ื–ืจืขื•ื ื™ ื’ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps all of the mishna is stating the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: With regard to one who sells produce to another that is sometimes purchased for eating 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. But if he sold seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, the seller bears financial responsibility for them. This is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that it is only for the sale of flaxseeds that the seller does not bear financial responsibility to compensate the buyer for them, but by inference, for the sale of seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, the seller bears financial responsibility for them. Interpreted in this way, there is no evidence from the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the seller is liable for the expenses.

ืืœื ื”ื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžื•ืœื™ืš ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื˜ื—ื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืœืชืชืŸ ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ืกื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื• ืžื•ืจืกืŸ ืงืžื— ืœื ื—ืชื•ื ื•ืืคืื• ืคืช ื ื™ืคื•ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื˜ื‘ื— ื•ื ื™ื‘ืœื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื›ืจ

Rather, the statement in question is this statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:9) In a case of one who brought wheat to a miller to grind, and the miller did not wet the grains sufficiently for the grinding to be performed effectively, and as a result he converted the grain into bran or coarse bran [mursan], or in a case of one who gave flour to the baker and the baker made it into bread that is underbaked and tends to crumble, or if one gave an animal to a butcher and the butcher killed it in a way that rendered it an unslaughtered animal carcass, in all these cases the worker is liable, because he is like a paid bailee.

ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื‘ื•ืฉืชื• ื•ื“ืžื™ ื‘ื•ืฉืช ืื•ืจื—ื™ื• ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื”ื’ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื”ืžื•ืกืจ ืกืขื•ื“ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื• ื•ืงืœืงืœื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื‘ืฉืชื• ื•ื“ืžื™ ื‘ื•ืฉืช ืื•ืจื—ื™ื•

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the owner had invited guests to eat the food and due to the workerโ€™s actions he was unable to serve them, then the worker must give him compensation for his humiliation and compensation for the humiliation of his guests. And similarly, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say: There was a great custom in Jerusalem that if one gives raw materials for a meal to another to prepare the meal for him, and that person spoils it, that person gives the former compensation for his humiliation and compensation for the humiliation of his guests.

ืขื•ื“ ืžื ื”ื’ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžืคื” ืคืจื•ืกื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืคืชื— ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืžืคื” ืคืจื•ืกื” ืื•ืจื—ื™ืŸ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื ืกืชืœืงื” ื”ืžืคื” ืื™ืŸ ื”ืื•ืจื—ื™ืŸ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ

The baraita continues: Another great custom that was followed in Jerusalem was that when one made a feast, there would be a cloth [mappa] spread over the entrance to the hall. As long as the cloth was spread, the guests would enter, as the presence of the cloth indicated that there was food for more guests. When the cloth was removed, the guests would not enter any more.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืจื•ื‘ืข ื˜ื ื•ืคืช ืœืกืื” ืชืื ื™ื ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืขืฉืจ ืžืชื•ืœืขื•ืช ืœืžืื” ืžืจืชืฃ ืฉืœ ื™ื™ืŸ ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืขืฉืจ ืงื•ืกืกื•ืช ืœืžืื” ืงื ืงื ื™ื ื‘ืฉืจื•ืŸ ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืขืฉืจ ืคื™ื˜ืกื•ืช ืœืžืื”

MISHNA: When selling a significant quantity of produce or a number of items, there is a possibility that there will be a certain proportion of impurities in it or that some of the product will be of substandard quality. The mishna delineates what proportion is considered acceptable, for which a buyer may not demand compensation. With regard to one who sells produce, i.e., grain, to another, this buyer accepts upon himself that up to a quarter-kav of impurities may be present in each seโ€™a of produce purchased. When purchasing figs, he accepts upon himself that up to ten infested figs may be present in each hundred figs purchased. When purchasing a cellar containing barrels of wine, he accepts upon himself that up to ten barrels of souring wine may be present in each hundred barrels purchased. When purchasing jugs of wine in the Sharon region, he accepts upon himself that up to ten inferior-quality jugs [pitasot] of wine may be present in each hundred jugs purchased.

ื’ืžืณ ืชืื ื™ ืจื‘ ืงื˜ื™ื ื ืจื•ื‘ืข ืงื˜ื ื™ืช ืœืกืื” ื•ืขืคืจื•ืจื™ืช ืœื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืงื˜ื•ืกืคืื” ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ื•ืจืจ ืฆืจื•ืจ ืžื’ืจื ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ืจื•

GEMARA: Rav Ketina taught: When the mishna states that a buyer accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of impurities per seโ€™a may be present, that means only that he accepts upon himself the presence of a quarter-kav of legumes, but he does not accept upon himself the presence of a quarter-kav of dirt. The Gemara asks: And is it so that the buyer does not also accept upon himself that some quantity of dirt might be present in the produce? But doesnโ€™t Rabba bar แธคiyya Ketosfaโ€™a say in the name of Rabba: One who picks out a pebble from the wheat on anotherโ€™s threshing floor

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 93

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 93

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื•ื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื ื”ื•

what is the reason that the sale is not considered to be a mistaken transaction? Is it not because a majority of slaves are like this, i.e., either thieves or gamblers? Apparently, the majority is followed in monetary matters.

ืœื ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื ื”ื•

The Gemara rejects the proof: No, it is because all slaves are like this. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn as to whether we follow the majority in monetary matters.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื ื’ื— ืืช ื”ืคืจื” ื•ื ืžืฆื ืขื•ื‘ืจื” ื‘ืฆื“ื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื“ื•ืข ืื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ื’ื—ื” ื™ืœื“ื” ืื• ืื ืžืฉื ื’ื—ื” ื™ืœื“ื” ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืœืคืจื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ืข ืœื•ืœื“

Come and hear another challenge to Ravโ€™s opinion from a mishna (Bava Kamma 46a): In the case of an innocuous ox that gored and killed a cow, and the cowโ€™s fetus was found dead at its side, and it is not known whether the cow calved before the ox gored it and the fetusโ€™ death was unrelated to the goring, or whether it calved after the ox gored it and the fetus died on account of the goring, the oxโ€™s owner pays half the cost of the damage for the cow, as is the halakha for an innocuous ox (see Exodus 21:35), and one-quarter of the cost of the damage for the offspring. Since it is uncertain whether the ox caused the death of the fetus, its owner pays for half of the standard liability of half the cost of the damage.

ื•ืืžืื™ ืœื™ืžื ื”ืœืš ืื—ืจ ืจื•ื‘ ืคืจื•ืช ื•ืจื•ื‘ ืคืจื•ืช ืžืชืขื‘ืจื•ืช ื•ื™ื•ืœื“ื•ืช ื•ื”ื ื•ื“ืื™ ืžื—ืžืช ื ื’ื™ื—ื” ื”ืคื™ืœื”

The Gemara explains the proof from the baraita: But why, according to Rav, should he only pay for one-quarter of the damage to the fetus? Since there is an uncertainty, let us say: Follow the majority of cows, and since the majority of cows become pregnant and calve live offspring, one should conclude that this cow, which did not, certainly miscarried due to the ox goring it, and the oxโ€™s owner should be liable for half the cost of the fetus. Since that line of reasoning is not applied here, it is apparent that the majority is not followed in monetary matters.

ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžืกืคืงื ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžืงืžื” ืืชื ื•ืžื‘ื™ืขืชื•ืชื ื”ืคื™ืœื” ื•ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžืื—ื•ืจื” ืืชื ื•ืžื™ื ื’ื— ื ื’ื—ื” ื•ื”ืคื™ืœื” ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื˜ืœ ื‘ืกืคืง ื•ื›ืœ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื˜ืœ ื‘ืกืคืง ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ

The Gemara rejects the proof: There, the reason that the oxโ€™s owner pays for only one-quarter of the damage for the fetus is due to the fact that we are uncertain about how it died, as it is possible to say that the ox approached the cow from its front and it was due to the cowโ€™s fright, not due to the goring, that it miscarried, meaning that the oxโ€™s owner would not be liable; and it is also possible to say that the ox approached the cow from behind it and gored it, and that is why the cow miscarried. Accordingly, the payment for such damage constitutes property of uncertain ownership, and the halakha is that all property of uncertain ownership is divided equally between the two parties.

ืœื™ืžื ื›ืชื ืื™ ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืจื•ืขื” ื•ื ืžืฆื ืฉื•ืจ ื”ืจื•ื’ ื‘ืฆื“ื• ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื–ื” ืžื ื•ื’ื— ื•ื–ื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื™ื’ื— ื–ื” ืžื ื•ืฉืš ื•ื–ื” ืžื•ืขื“ ืœื™ืฉื•ืš ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื–ื” ื ื’ื—ื• ื•ื–ื” ื ืฉื›ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ืื•ืžืจ ื’ืžืœ ื”ืื•ื—ืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ืžืœื™ื ื•ื ืžืฆื ื’ืžืœ ื”ืจื•ื’ ื‘ืฆื“ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื–ื” ื”ืจื’ื•

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute between Rav and Shmuel is parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of an ox that was grazing and another ox that was found killed at its side, even though this dead ox has been gored and that grazing ox is forewarned with regard to goring, or this dead ox has been bitten and that grazing ox is forewarned with regard to biting, nevertheless one does not say that it is evident that this grazing ox gored the dead ox or that grazing ox bit it, despite the fact such behavior is typical for the ox; rather, one cannot draw any definite conclusions. Rabbi Aแธฅa says that in the case of a rutting male camel that is rampaging among other camels and another camel that was found killed at its side, it is evident that this rampaging camel killed it, as such behavior is typical for a rutting camel. Therefore, the owner of that camel is liable.

ืกื‘ืจื•ื” ื“ืจื•ื‘ื ื•ื—ื–ืงื” ื›ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืชื ื ืงืžื

Those who suggested the parallel between the tannaitic dispute and the dispute between Rav and Shmuel assumed that a majority and a logical presumption about whether an event will happen are equivalent in their capacity to determine the facts of a case. Consequently, let us say that Rav, who says that one follows the majority in monetary matters, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Aแธฅa, who follows a presumption to determine the facts of a case, and that Shmuel, who says that one does not follow the majority in monetary matters, holds in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who does not follow a presumption.

ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ ืื ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืชื ื ืงืžื ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืชื ื ืงืžื ื”ืชื ืืœื ื“ืœื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจ ื—ื–ืงื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara rejects this: Rav could have said to you: I am stating my ruling even in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, as the first tanna says that one cannot draw a definite conclusion only there, in the case of the grazing ox, as we do not follow a presumption in monetary matters, but he concedes that we follow the majority in monetary matters.

ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืœืš ืื ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ื”ืชื ืืœื ื“ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจ ื—ื–ืงื” ื“ื”ื•ื ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืžื•ื—ื–ืง ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ื ืœื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ

And Shmuel could have said to you: I am stating my ruling even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Aแธฅa, as Rabbi Aแธฅa says that one can draw a definite conclusion only there, in the case of the camels, since we follow a presumption in monetary matters, as this camel itself is presumed, based on its behavior, to be the killer. But he concedes that we do not follow the majority in deciding monetary matters.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื—ื‘ืจื• ื•ื–ืจืขืŸ ื•ืœื ืฆืžื—ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another challenge to Ravโ€™s opinion from the 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 rarely sold as food, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for them.

ืžืื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ื“ืจื•ื‘ื ืœื–ืจื™ืขื” ื–ื‘ื ื™ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ื

The Gemara explains the proof: What novelty is indicated by saying: Even if he had sold flaxseeds? Is it not that even where he sold flaxseeds, of which the majority is purchased for planting, and they were not suitable for that purpose, nevertheless the sale stands because we do not follow the majority in monetary matters?

ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื—ื‘ืจื• ื•ื–ืจืขืŸ ื•ืœื ืฆืžื—ื• ื–ืจืขื•ื ื™ ื’ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ

The Gemara concedes that the mishna cannot be reconciled with Ravโ€™s opinion, but suggests that there are other tannaโ€™im who hold in accordance with his opinion. It is a dispute between tannaโ€™im, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who sells produce to another, and the buyer planted it and it did not sprout, if the produce was seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, then the seller bears financial responsibility for them. If the produce was flaxseeds, which are only occasionally eaten, then the seller does not bear financial responsibility for them. Rabbi Yosei says:

ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื–ืจืข ืืžืจื• ืœื• ื”ืจื‘ื” ืœื•ืงื—ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื

The seller gives back to the buyer the value of the seeds. Since the majority of flaxseeds are sold are for planting, it is a mistaken transaction. They said to him, i.e., to Rabbi Yosei: Many, i.e., a majority of people, purchase flaxseeds for purposes other than planting. Consequently, the sale stands.

ืžืืŸ ืชื ืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ื ืื–ืœื™ ืžืจ ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ื ื“ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื•ืžืจ ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืชืจ ืจื•ื‘ื ื“ื–ืจื™ืขื”

The Gemara asks: Who are the tannaโ€™im in this baraita who have a dispute that parallels the dispute between Rav and Shmuel? If we say that they are Rabbi Yosei and the opinion cited as: They said to him, that is incorrect, as both of them hold that one follows the majority in monetary matters. Their dispute concerns only which majority to follow: One Sage, i.e., the opinion cited as: They said to him, follows the majority of people making purchases, and one Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, follows the majority of the volume of seeds that are sold overall. The disparity arises because the majority of sales are each made with a relatively small quantity of seeds that are purchased for purposes other than planting. The minority of sales involve large quantities of seeds that are purchased for planting. This means that the majority of the seeds sold overall are purchased for planting, but the majority of people purchasing seeds do so for purposes other than planting.

ืืœื ืื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื•

Rather, the dispute that parallels the dispute between Rav and Shmuel is either the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei, or the dispute between the first tanna and the opinion cited as: They said to him.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื–ืจืข ื•ืœื ื”ื•ืฆืื” ื•ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืฃ ื”ื•ืฆืื”

ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: When the seller bears financial responsibility for selling seeds that did not sprout, what is he liable to give to the buyer? He is liable to give him only the value of the seeds themselves, but not the expenses that the buyer incurred in planting them, e.g., the hire of laborers. And some say: He is liable to give him even the expenses that the buyer incurred.

ืžืืŸ ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื™ื

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is cited as: Some say? Rav แธคisda said that it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

ื”ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื“ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื–ืจืขืŸ ื•ืœื ืฆืžื—ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื ื–ืจืขื•ื ื™ ื’ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ

The Gemara clarifies: From which statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is it apparent that he holds the seller is liable for the buyerโ€™s expenses? One possibility is if we say that the statement in question is that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the mishna, as we learned in the mishna: One who sells to another produce 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. The Gemara extrapolates: By inference, if this tanna holds that he had sold seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, then the seller bears financial responsibility to compensate the buyer for them.

ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ืจืขื•ื ื™ ื’ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ืชื ื ืงืžื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื ื–ืจืขื•ื ื™ ื’ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ

The Gemara continues: But accordingly, say the latter clause: 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. The Gemara asks: But according to the inference made from the first clause, the first tanna is also saying this, as he holds that it is only for the sale of flaxseeds that the seller does not bear financial responsibility to compensate the buyer for them, but with regard to the sale of seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, the seller bears financial responsibility for them. What, then, is the dispute between the first tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

ืืœื ืœืื• ื”ื•ืฆืื” ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ืžื™ ื–ืจืข ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืืฃ ื”ื•ืฆืื”

The Gemara therefore suggests: Rather, is it not that the differ-ence between them is whether the seller is liable for the buyerโ€™s expenses? One Sage, i.e., the first tanna, holds that the seller is liable only for the value of the seeds, and the other Sage, i.e., Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the seller is liable even for the buyerโ€™s expenses.

ืžืžืื™ ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืคื›ื ื”ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืœ ืชื ื ื‘ืชืจื ืœื˜ืคื•ื™ื™ ืžื™ืœืชื ืงื ืืชื™

The Gemara asks: From where is it apparent that it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who holds that the seller is liable for the expenses? Perhaps it is the opposite, i.e., it is the first tanna who holds that the seller is liable for the expenses, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that he is liable only for the value of the seeds. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is not difficult, because the last tanna cited always comes to add something to the ruling of the first tanna, not to detract from it.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ื›ื•ืœื” ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื™ื ื•ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื–ืจืขืŸ ื•ืœื ืฆืžื—ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื ื–ืจืขื•ื ื™ ื’ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืฉืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ืจืข ืคืฉืชืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื ื–ืจืขื•ื ื™ ื’ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps all of the mishna is stating the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: With regard to one who sells produce to another that is sometimes purchased for eating 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. But if he sold seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, the seller bears financial responsibility for them. This is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that it is only for the sale of flaxseeds that the seller does not bear financial responsibility to compensate the buyer for them, but by inference, for the sale of seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, the seller bears financial responsibility for them. Interpreted in this way, there is no evidence from the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the seller is liable for the expenses.

ืืœื ื”ื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžื•ืœื™ืš ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื˜ื—ื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ืœืชืชืŸ ื•ืขืฉืืŸ ืกื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื• ืžื•ืจืกืŸ ืงืžื— ืœื ื—ืชื•ื ื•ืืคืื• ืคืช ื ื™ืคื•ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื˜ื‘ื— ื•ื ื™ื‘ืœื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื›ืจ

Rather, the statement in question is this statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:9) In a case of one who brought wheat to a miller to grind, and the miller did not wet the grains sufficiently for the grinding to be performed effectively, and as a result he converted the grain into bran or coarse bran [mursan], or in a case of one who gave flour to the baker and the baker made it into bread that is underbaked and tends to crumble, or if one gave an animal to a butcher and the butcher killed it in a way that rendered it an unslaughtered animal carcass, in all these cases the worker is liable, because he is like a paid bailee.

ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื‘ื•ืฉืชื• ื•ื“ืžื™ ื‘ื•ืฉืช ืื•ืจื—ื™ื• ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื”ื’ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื”ืžื•ืกืจ ืกืขื•ื“ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื• ื•ืงืœืงืœื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื‘ืฉืชื• ื•ื“ืžื™ ื‘ื•ืฉืช ืื•ืจื—ื™ื•

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the owner had invited guests to eat the food and due to the workerโ€™s actions he was unable to serve them, then the worker must give him compensation for his humiliation and compensation for the humiliation of his guests. And similarly, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say: There was a great custom in Jerusalem that if one gives raw materials for a meal to another to prepare the meal for him, and that person spoils it, that person gives the former compensation for his humiliation and compensation for the humiliation of his guests.

ืขื•ื“ ืžื ื”ื’ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžืคื” ืคืจื•ืกื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืคืชื— ื›ืœ ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืžืคื” ืคืจื•ืกื” ืื•ืจื—ื™ืŸ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื ืกืชืœืงื” ื”ืžืคื” ืื™ืŸ ื”ืื•ืจื—ื™ืŸ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ

The baraita continues: Another great custom that was followed in Jerusalem was that when one made a feast, there would be a cloth [mappa] spread over the entrance to the hall. As long as the cloth was spread, the guests would enter, as the presence of the cloth indicated that there was food for more guests. When the cloth was removed, the guests would not enter any more.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืจื•ื‘ืข ื˜ื ื•ืคืช ืœืกืื” ืชืื ื™ื ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืขืฉืจ ืžืชื•ืœืขื•ืช ืœืžืื” ืžืจืชืฃ ืฉืœ ื™ื™ืŸ ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืขืฉืจ ืงื•ืกืกื•ืช ืœืžืื” ืงื ืงื ื™ื ื‘ืฉืจื•ืŸ ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืขืฉืจ ืคื™ื˜ืกื•ืช ืœืžืื”

MISHNA: When selling a significant quantity of produce or a number of items, there is a possibility that there will be a certain proportion of impurities in it or that some of the product will be of substandard quality. The mishna delineates what proportion is considered acceptable, for which a buyer may not demand compensation. With regard to one who sells produce, i.e., grain, to another, this buyer accepts upon himself that up to a quarter-kav of impurities may be present in each seโ€™a of produce purchased. When purchasing figs, he accepts upon himself that up to ten infested figs may be present in each hundred figs purchased. When purchasing a cellar containing barrels of wine, he accepts upon himself that up to ten barrels of souring wine may be present in each hundred barrels purchased. When purchasing jugs of wine in the Sharon region, he accepts upon himself that up to ten inferior-quality jugs [pitasot] of wine may be present in each hundred jugs purchased.

ื’ืžืณ ืชืื ื™ ืจื‘ ืงื˜ื™ื ื ืจื•ื‘ืข ืงื˜ื ื™ืช ืœืกืื” ื•ืขืคืจื•ืจื™ืช ืœื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืงื˜ื•ืกืคืื” ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ื•ืจืจ ืฆืจื•ืจ ืžื’ืจื ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ืจื•

GEMARA: Rav Ketina taught: When the mishna states that a buyer accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of impurities per seโ€™a may be present, that means only that he accepts upon himself the presence of a quarter-kav of legumes, but he does not accept upon himself the presence of a quarter-kav of dirt. The Gemara asks: And is it so that the buyer does not also accept upon himself that some quantity of dirt might be present in the produce? But doesnโ€™t Rabba bar แธคiyya Ketosfaโ€™a say in the name of Rabba: One who picks out a pebble from the wheat on anotherโ€™s threshing floor

Scroll To Top