Bava Batra 92aבבא בתרא צ״ב א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bava Batra 92a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
92aצ״ב א

מתני׳ המוכר פירות לחברו וזרען ולא צמחו ואפילו זרע פשתן אינו חייב באחריותן ר"ש בן גמליאל אומר זרעוני גינה שאינן נאכלין חייב באחריותן:

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.

גמ׳ איתמר המוכר שור לחבירו ונמצא נגחן רב אמר הרי זה מקח טעות ושמואל אמר יכול לומר לו לשחיטה מכרתיו לך

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.

וליחזי אי גברא דזבין לנכסתא לנכסתא אי לרדיא לרדיא בגברא דזבין להכי ולהכי

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.

וליחזי דמי היכי נינהו

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.

לא צריכא דאייקר בישרא וקם בדמי רדיא אי הכי למאי נפקא מינה נפקא מינה לטרחא

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’s 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?

היכי דמי

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