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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 25, 2017 | 讻状讟 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Bava Batra 93

Rav and Shmuel’s debate is further analyzed. 聽Are there tannaitic sources that prove Shmuel is correct? 聽Is their argument based on a tannatic debate? 聽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"

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讜讘讗 讛讻讬 讗讬转谞讛讜

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.

诇讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗讬转谞讛讜

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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讜专 砖谞讙讞 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜谞诪爪讗 注讜讘专讛 讘爪讚讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讚讜注 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙讞讛 讬诇讚讛 讗讜 讗诐 诪砖谞讙讞讛 讬诇讚讛 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诇驻专讛 讜专讘讬注 诇讜诇讚

Come and hear another challenge to Rav鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Bava Kamma 46a): In the case of an innocuous ox that gored and killed a cow, and the cow鈥檚 fetus was found dead at its side, and it is not known whether the cow calved before the ox gored it and the fetus鈥 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 ox鈥檚 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.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 驻专讜转 讜专讜讘 驻专讜转 诪转注讘专讜转 讜讬讜诇讚讜转 讜讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诪讞诪转 谞讙讬讞讛 讛驻讬诇讛

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 ox鈥檚 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.

讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪拽诪讛 讗转讗 讜诪讘讬注转讜转讗 讛驻讬诇讛 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讗讞讜专讛 讗转讗 讜诪讬谞讙讞 谞讙讞讛 讜讛驻讬诇讛 讛讜讬 诪诪讜谉 讛诪讜讟诇 讘住驻拽 讜讻诇 诪诪讜谉 讛诪讜讟诇 讘住驻拽 讞讜诇拽讬谉

The Gemara rejects the proof: There, the reason that the ox鈥檚 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 cow鈥檚 fright, not due to the goring, that it miscarried, meaning that the ox鈥檚 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.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 砖讜专 砖讛讬讛 专讜注讛 讜谞诪爪讗 砖讜专 讛专讜讙 讘爪讚讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讝讛 诪谞讜讙讞 讜讝讛 诪讜注讚 诇讬讙讞 讝讛 诪谞讜砖讱 讜讝讛 诪讜注讚 诇讬砖讜讱 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬讚讜注 砖讝讛 谞讙讞讜 讜讝讛 谞砖讻讜 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗讜诪专 讙诪诇 讛讗讜讞专 讘讬谉 讛讙诪诇讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗 讙诪诇 讛专讜讙 讘爪讚讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖讝讛 讛专讙讜

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute between Rav and Shmuel is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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 A岣 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.

住讘专讜讛 讚专讜讘讗 讜讞讝拽讛 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗讞讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗

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 A岣, 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.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讞讝拽讛 讗讘诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗讞讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讞讝拽讛 讚讛讜讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讜讞讝拽 讗讘诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉

And Shmuel could have said to you: I am stating my ruling even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi A岣, as Rabbi A岣 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.

转讗 砖诪注 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

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another challenge to Rav鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讝专注 驻砖转谉 讚专讜讘讗 诇讝专讬注讛 讝讘谞讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗

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?

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 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 讝专注讜谞讬 讙讬谞讛 砖讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讝专注 驻砖转谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专

The Gemara concedes that the mishna cannot be reconciled with Rav鈥檚 opinion, but suggests that there are other tanna鈥檌m who hold in accordance with his opinion. It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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:

谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讝专注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讘讛 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讚讘专讬诐 讗讞专讬诐

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讗讝诇讬 诪专 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讜诪专 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚讝专讬注讛

The Gemara asks: Who are the tanna鈥檌m 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讛讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讝专注 讜诇讗 讛讜爪讗讛 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讛讜爪讗讛

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.

诪讗谉 讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗

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

讛讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘讬专讜 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 讛讗 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

The Gemara clarifies: From which statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is it apparent that he holds the seller is liable for the buyer鈥檚 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.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 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 转谞讗 拽诪讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讝专注 驻砖转谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讛讗 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

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?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讜爪讗讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 讚诪讬 讝专注 讜诪专 住讘专 讗祝 讛讜爪讗讛

The Gemara therefore suggests: Rather, is it not that the differ-ence between them is whether the seller is liable for the buyer鈥檚 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 buyer鈥檚 expenses.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讗讬驻讻讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻诇 转谞讗 讘转专讗 诇讟驻讜讬讬 诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 讗转讬

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.

讜讚诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讝专注谉 讜诇讗 爪诪讞讜 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 讛讗 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 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讝专注 驻砖转谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讛讗 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

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.

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜诇讬讱 讞讟讬谉 诇讟讞讜谉 讜诇讗 诇转转谉 讜注砖讗谉 住讜讘讬谉 讗讜 诪讜专住谉 拽诪讞 诇谞讞转讜诐 讜讗驻讗讜 驻转 谞讬驻讜诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇讟讘讞 讜谞讬讘诇讛 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讘讜砖转讜 讜讚诪讬 讘讜砖转 讗讜专讞讬讜 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪谞讛讙 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛诪讜住专 住注讜讚讛 诇讞讘专讜 讜拽诇拽诇讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讘砖转讜 讜讚诪讬 讘讜砖转 讗讜专讞讬讜

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the owner had invited guests to eat the food and due to the worker鈥檚 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.

注讜讚 诪谞讛讙 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪驻讛 驻专讜住讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讛驻转讞 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪驻讛 驻专讜住讛 讗讜专讞讬谉 谞讻谞住讬谉 谞住转诇拽讛 讛诪驻讛 讗讬谉 讛讗讜专讞讬谉 谞讻谞住讬谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 专讜讘注 讟谞讜驻转 诇住讗讛 转讗谞讬诐 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 诪转讜诇注讜转 诇诪讗讛 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 拽讜住住讜转 诇诪讗讛 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讘砖专讜谉 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 驻讬讟住讜转 诇诪讗讛

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 se鈥檃 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.

讙诪壮 转讗谞讬 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 专讜讘注 拽讟谞讬转 诇住讗讛 讜注驻专讜专讬转 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞讬讬讗 拽讟讜住驻讗讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘讜专专 爪专讜专 诪讙专谞讜 砖诇 讞讘专讜

GEMARA: Rav Ketina taught: When the mishna states that a buyer accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of impurities per se鈥檃 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 doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar 岣yya Ketosfa鈥檃 say in the name of Rabba: One who picks out a pebble from the wheat on another鈥檚 threshing floor

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讜讘讗 讛讻讬 讗讬转谞讛讜

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.

诇讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗讬转谞讛讜

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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讜专 砖谞讙讞 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜谞诪爪讗 注讜讘专讛 讘爪讚讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讚讜注 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙讞讛 讬诇讚讛 讗讜 讗诐 诪砖谞讙讞讛 讬诇讚讛 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诇驻专讛 讜专讘讬注 诇讜诇讚

Come and hear another challenge to Rav鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Bava Kamma 46a): In the case of an innocuous ox that gored and killed a cow, and the cow鈥檚 fetus was found dead at its side, and it is not known whether the cow calved before the ox gored it and the fetus鈥 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 ox鈥檚 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.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讜讘 驻专讜转 讜专讜讘 驻专讜转 诪转注讘专讜转 讜讬讜诇讚讜转 讜讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诪讞诪转 谞讙讬讞讛 讛驻讬诇讛

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 ox鈥檚 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.

讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪拽诪讛 讗转讗 讜诪讘讬注转讜转讗 讛驻讬诇讛 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讗讞讜专讛 讗转讗 讜诪讬谞讙讞 谞讙讞讛 讜讛驻讬诇讛 讛讜讬 诪诪讜谉 讛诪讜讟诇 讘住驻拽 讜讻诇 诪诪讜谉 讛诪讜讟诇 讘住驻拽 讞讜诇拽讬谉

The Gemara rejects the proof: There, the reason that the ox鈥檚 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 cow鈥檚 fright, not due to the goring, that it miscarried, meaning that the ox鈥檚 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.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 砖讜专 砖讛讬讛 专讜注讛 讜谞诪爪讗 砖讜专 讛专讜讙 讘爪讚讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讝讛 诪谞讜讙讞 讜讝讛 诪讜注讚 诇讬讙讞 讝讛 诪谞讜砖讱 讜讝讛 诪讜注讚 诇讬砖讜讱 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬讚讜注 砖讝讛 谞讙讞讜 讜讝讛 谞砖讻讜 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗讜诪专 讙诪诇 讛讗讜讞专 讘讬谉 讛讙诪诇讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗 讙诪诇 讛专讜讙 讘爪讚讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖讝讛 讛专讙讜

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute between Rav and Shmuel is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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 A岣 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.

住讘专讜讛 讚专讜讘讗 讜讞讝拽讛 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗讞讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗

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 A岣, 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.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讞讝拽讛 讗讘诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗讞讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讞讝拽讛 讚讛讜讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讜讞讝拽 讗讘诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉

And Shmuel could have said to you: I am stating my ruling even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi A岣, as Rabbi A岣 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.

转讗 砖诪注 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

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another challenge to Rav鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讝专注 驻砖转谉 讚专讜讘讗 诇讝专讬注讛 讝讘谞讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诇讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗

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?

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 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 讝专注讜谞讬 讙讬谞讛 砖讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讝专注 驻砖转谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专

The Gemara concedes that the mishna cannot be reconciled with Rav鈥檚 opinion, but suggests that there are other tanna鈥檌m who hold in accordance with his opinion. It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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:

谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讝专注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讘讛 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讚讘专讬诐 讗讞专讬诐

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讗讝诇讬 诪专 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讜诪专 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚讝专讬注讛

The Gemara asks: Who are the tanna鈥檌m 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讛讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讝专注 讜诇讗 讛讜爪讗讛 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讛讜爪讗讛

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.

诪讗谉 讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗

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

讛讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘讬专讜 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 讛讗 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

The Gemara clarifies: From which statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is it apparent that he holds the seller is liable for the buyer鈥檚 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.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 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 转谞讗 拽诪讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讝专注 驻砖转谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讛讗 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

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?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讜爪讗讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 讚诪讬 讝专注 讜诪专 住讘专 讗祝 讛讜爪讗讛

The Gemara therefore suggests: Rather, is it not that the differ-ence between them is whether the seller is liable for the buyer鈥檚 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 buyer鈥檚 expenses.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讗讬驻讻讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻诇 转谞讗 讘转专讗 诇讟驻讜讬讬 诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 讗转讬

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.

讜讚诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讝专注谉 讜诇讗 爪诪讞讜 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 讛讗 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 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讝专注 驻砖转谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讛讗 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

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.

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜诇讬讱 讞讟讬谉 诇讟讞讜谉 讜诇讗 诇转转谉 讜注砖讗谉 住讜讘讬谉 讗讜 诪讜专住谉 拽诪讞 诇谞讞转讜诐 讜讗驻讗讜 驻转 谞讬驻讜诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇讟讘讞 讜谞讬讘诇讛 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讘讜砖转讜 讜讚诪讬 讘讜砖转 讗讜专讞讬讜 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪谞讛讙 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛诪讜住专 住注讜讚讛 诇讞讘专讜 讜拽诇拽诇讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讘砖转讜 讜讚诪讬 讘讜砖转 讗讜专讞讬讜

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the owner had invited guests to eat the food and due to the worker鈥檚 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.

注讜讚 诪谞讛讙 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪驻讛 驻专讜住讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讛驻转讞 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪驻讛 驻专讜住讛 讗讜专讞讬谉 谞讻谞住讬谉 谞住转诇拽讛 讛诪驻讛 讗讬谉 讛讗讜专讞讬谉 谞讻谞住讬谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 专讜讘注 讟谞讜驻转 诇住讗讛 转讗谞讬诐 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 诪转讜诇注讜转 诇诪讗讛 诪专转祝 砖诇 讬讬谉 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 拽讜住住讜转 诇诪讗讛 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讘砖专讜谉 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 注砖专 驻讬讟住讜转 诇诪讗讛

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 se鈥檃 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.

讙诪壮 转讗谞讬 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 专讜讘注 拽讟谞讬转 诇住讗讛 讜注驻专讜专讬转 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞讬讬讗 拽讟讜住驻讗讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘讜专专 爪专讜专 诪讙专谞讜 砖诇 讞讘专讜

GEMARA: Rav Ketina taught: When the mishna states that a buyer accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of impurities per se鈥檃 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 doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar 岣yya Ketosfa鈥檃 say in the name of Rabba: One who picks out a pebble from the wheat on another鈥檚 threshing floor

Scroll To Top