Bava Batra 76a (עו.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara analyzes the words of the beraita:

“documents”

mentioned by Rabbi Natan:

Who mentioned them?

Who mentioned these documents initially!? After all, the first tanna spoke only about a ship and did not mention the law of the “documents” at all. If so, why did Rabbi Natan, who came to disagree with the first tanna, also mention their law

!? Rather, it is necessarily the case that

something is missing

from the wording of the beraita,

and this is what it teaches:

A ship is acquired through pulling, and “documents”

are acquired

through delivery.

Rabbi Natan says: A ship and “documents” are acquired through pulling and a document.

!?

The Gemara assumed that this is what Rabbi Natan said: Both a ship and “documents” can be acquired only through two acts of acquisition—both pulling and a document.

And concerning this, the Gemara wondered:

Why do I need a document for a ship!?

After all, a ship

is movable property

, and as soon as he pulls it, he acquires it, like all movable property that is acquired through pulling alone. Why, then, did Rabbi Natan require a document as well in order to acquire the ship !?

From this difficulty, the Gemara proves:

Rather, is it not

, necessarily,

this is what it teaches: A ship is acquired through pulling, and “documents”

are acquired

through delivery

, according to the first tanna.

Rabbi Natan says: A ship

is

acquired through pulling, and “documents”

are not acquired through delivery alone, as the first tanna says, but through delivery and

a document

, meaning that he delivers to him the loan document and also gives him a “deed of sale” for the promissory note.

Now, after the Gemara has explained the words of the first tanna and Rabbi Natan, it returns to its earlier statement and question: “Should we say that it is like the opinions of these tannaim?”:

There is a difficulty concerning the wording of the beraita: Rabbi Natan came to disagree with the first tanna, so how could Rabbi Natan say that a

ship

is acquired

through pulling

, when

that is precisely the opinion of the first tanna!?

The first tanna also said that a ship is acquired through pulling. In what, then, do the tannaim disagree

!? Rather

, necessarily,

Rav and Shmuel are the point of difference between them

. That is, everyone agrees that a ship is acquired through pulling, and the disagreement between the tannaim concerns how far the ship must be pulled in order to acquire it.

The first tanna holds like Shmuel: In order to acquire a ship through pulling, one must pull the entire ship—completely uprooting it from its original place.

Rabbi Natan holds like Rav: It is sufficient to pull the ship any amount.

And we reject this:

No

, Rabbi Natan and the Sages do not disagree in the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. Rather,

everyone

—both Rabbi Natan and the Sages—agrees on this matter, but we have no clarification as to

whether

everyone holds

like Rav, or whether

everyone holds

like Shmuel

.

And with regard to the ship

mentioned in the beraita,

everyone agrees

on every point.

Rather,

when they disagree

is with regard to the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Natan;

it is with regard to the documents

that they disagree.

And this is what Rabbi Natan said to the first tanna: With regard to a ship, I certainly agree with you

that a ship is acquired through pulling.

But

with regard to “documents”

, I do not agree with you in your view, first tanna, that “documents” are acquired through delivery without a document. For in my opinion, only

if there is a document

in addition to the delivery

does

he acquire the “documents.” But

if not

, if he did not write him a document to that effect,

he did not

acquire the “documents

”. And the Gemara says:

And it is in the dispute of these tannaim

—the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Natan concerning the sale of promissory notes—is identical to the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages in the following beraita.

As it is taught

in a beraita:

“Documents are acquired through delivery”

, and it is unnecessary to add and write for him a “deed of sale” to that effect,

the words of Rabbi.

And the Sages say

: “Documents” are acquired only through delivery and a document.

But even apart from this,

whether

he

wrote

for him a “deed of sale”

but did not deliver

the promissory note itself into his hand,

or

whether he

delivered

the promissory note into his hand

but did not write

for him a “deed of sale” to that effect,

he did not acquire it until he writes

for him a deed of sale to that effect

and delivers

the promissory note itself into his hand.

It follows that Rabbi Natan’s words in the earlier beraita are the words of the Sages in the beraita here, who said that “documents” are acquired only through delivery and a document.

And Rabbi’s words in the beraita here are the words of the Sages in the earlier beraita, who said that “documents” are acquired through delivery, and there is no need to write a deed of sale as well.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty:

On what basis did you establish it,

how did you establish the words of the Sages in the first baraita?

as

the words of

Rabbi

you established them, who says that “debt documents” are acquired through delivery without a deed; and if so, why did we learn in this baraita that a ship is acquired through pulling and debt documents through delivery, implying that a ship is not acquired through delivery? But according to Rabbi,

a ship too should be acquired through delivery,

and not only debt documents. And why is pulling needed to acquire the ship!?

For it was taught,

for we learned in a baraita:

A ship is acquired through delivery; these are the words of Rabbi.