Bava Batra 77b — the Talmud in English

And it is permitted for witnesses to write for the seller a document in which it is written, “My field is sold to you,” even before the purchaser has taken possession of the land.

As that which we learned:

They write a document for the seller, even though the purchaser is not with him,

And even though the matter appears to be false, for the field has not yet been sold, nevertheless it is permitted to write this document for the seller, since there is no loss here to any person except the seller himself—if the document is lost and the purchaser finds it and claims that he already purchased the field from the seller. And if he is not concerned about this, we do not need to be concerned on his behalf and prevent the writing of this document.

And in this manner, in which the seller preceded and wrote the document before the purchaser acquired the field through taking possession,

once this one took possession—

the purchaser—

of the land,

even though he did not take possession of the document,

the

document

is acquired

by the purchaser

wherever it is,

through the land.

And this is what we learned:

Movable property, which has no guarantee—

movable objects—

is acquired together with

land,

which has a guarantee—

land—

through money, a document, or possession;

through the acquisition of the land, by money, by a document, or by possession, the movable objects are also acquired by the purchaser.

And likewise in our case—when the purchaser took possession of the land, the document was acquired through attachment to the land.

These are the words of Rav Hiyya bar Avin in the name of Rav Huna, and from here the Gemara raises a difficulty against the words of Rav Ashi, who said: Words through words are not acquired.

It enters our mind: The document is acquired by the purchaser through mere words, since the seller consented to transfer it to the purchaser, even though the document did not come into his possession.

And if the document is acquired through “mere words,” all the more so it should be said: A document is acquired through the “words” written in the document. And this is a difficulty against Rav Ashi, who says that a document is not acquired through the “words” written in the document, from the words of Rav Huna, who says that a document is acquired through “mere words”!

In Kiddushin 26a they derived that movable objects are acquired through attachment to land from what is stated [II Chronicles 21:3]: “And their father gave them many gifts of silver, gold, delicacies, together with fortified cities in Judah.”

And we answer:

Attachment is different.

“Acquisition through attachment” is not mere consent, in which the seller consented to transfer the document, but is a significant act, like the other acts of acquisition, for the matter of this acquisition is derived from verses, and is not merely an inference and assessment that the seller intended to transfer the document to him without an act of acquisition.

And the Gemara proves that “acquisition through attachment” is an act of acquisition whose force is great,

for

with regard to

coin,

we hold as law in Bava Metzia [46a]

that it is not acquired through

an acquisition of

exchange,

for it is impossible to acquire coin through an object given in exchange for it.

But

on the other hand, through acquisition

through attachment to land, coin is acquired.

coin.

A watchman who delivered the deposit entrusted to him to a messenger, and the deposit was lost on the way, is liable for the deposit. Therefore, the watchman is not obligated to deliver the deposit to the depositor’s messenger, lest the deposit be lost and the watchman suffer a loss.

If the depositor transferred the deposit to the messenger and gave him “authorization” to claim the deposit on his behalf, the watchman may deliver the deposit into the messenger’s hand, and if the deposit is lost, the watchman bears no liability for it.

As in this case,

as in the incident that occurred,

for Rav Pappa had twelve thousand zuz

that were deposited in

Bei Hozai

[a place-name].

He transferred them to him,

Rav Pappa transferred his deposit

to Rav Shmuel bar Aha,

through acquisition

through attachment to the threshold of his house,

the threshold of his house, so that he would go and collect the debt from Bei Hozai.

Rav Shmuel bar Abba went and took the deposit that was in Bei Hozai, and

when he came,

when Rav Shmuel bar Abba returned, Rav Pappa rejoiced over the money and

went out

Rav Pappa

toward him,

to meet him,

as far as

the place called

ToVekh.

We learned in the Mishna: “One who sells a ship sells the mast, and so on,”

but he does not sell either the slaves, the sacks, or the merchandise,

and when he says to him, “It and everything within it,” they are all sold.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is merchandise

that we learned?

He said,

he explained,

Rav Pappa: “Merchandise” means

that “cargo” means

the merchandise within it,

merchandise located inside the ship, which is not included in the sale of the ship unless he said to him: “My ship is sold to you, it and everything within it.”

Mishna:

a. One does not transfer a wagon from place to place except by means of animals that pull it: the usual manner is to pull a wagon with mules. b. When one wishes to plow with two oxen together, one joins them by means of a single yoke; this yoke is called a “team.”

c. Rambam wrote [Sale 26:8]: This is a major principle: in every commercial transaction one follows the language of the people in that place and the custom. But in a place where no custom and no distinctive names are known, rather some call it by this name and some call it by that name, one acts as the Sages explained.

a. A person who

sold

to his fellow

the wagon

[a cart],

does not sell

with it

the mules

that pull the wagon.

And even though it is customary for mules to pull a wagon, nevertheless, since the mules are not attached and tied to the wagon at the time of the sale, as the Gemara explains, the mules are not sold together with the wagon.

b. And likewise, when he

sold

to his fellow

the mules,

and said to him: “I am selling you mules,”

he did not sell

him

the wagon

with them.

c. A person who

sold

to his fellow

the team,

and said to him: “I am selling you a team,”

did not sell

with it

the oxen.

d. And likewise, if he

sold

to his fellow

the oxen,

and said to him: “I am selling you oxen,”

he did not sell

him

the team,

and even though one who plows with oxen needs a “team” in order to join the oxen together, the team is not included in the sale of the oxen.

Rabbi Judah says:

The oxen are not included in the sale of the team in every case; sometimes, when he sold him a “team,” the oxen are sold with it, and

the money

[the money] that the purchaser gave

indicates

what their intention was.

How so?

If

he said to him

the purchaser:

“Sell me your team for two hundred zuz,”

and

it is known that the team

is not sold

for two hundred zuz,

then certainly, when the purchaser said “team,” his intention was oxen joined by a team.

And the seller too agreed to sell him oxen with the team, for if his intention had been only the team, it would have been incumbent upon him to say to the purchaser: “I am not selling you oxen with a team; I am selling you only a team.” And since the seller remained silent and did not specify, we say: Certainly the seller agreed to sell everything. In this case, the money indicates that although he said only “team,” nevertheless the oxen are included in the sale.

And if they did not agree between themselves on the price, or if the price that the purchaser said he would give was close to the value of a team, then this is only a sale of the team and not a sale of the oxen.

And the Sages

dispute and

say:

The oxen are not included in the sale, even though he paid him a large amount of money, for

the money

that he paid him is not

proof

concerning the transaction, and the Gemara explains their dispute.

Gemara:

Rav Taḥlifa of the West taught

a beraita

before Rabbi Abbahu: One who sells the wagon sells the mules.

Rabbi Abbahu said to him:

But we

“one who sells the wagon”

does not sell

the mules

learned!?

And this raises a difficulty against the beraita, which says: One who sells the mules—

He said,

he asked

him,

Rav Taḥlifa:

“Shall I remove it?”

Should I remove this beraita from among the beraitot taught to me, since it is corrupted, as it contradicts the Mishna?

He said to him,

Rabbi Abbahu:

No,

do not remove this beraita, but

interpret your Mishna:

you must interpret the beraita in your possession

as concerning

mules that

are attached to it,

to the wagon, so that at the time of the sale the mules were tied to the wagon; therefore, everything was sold. And the Mishna speaks of a case in which they are not attached to it; therefore, the mules are not included in the sale.

We learned in the Mishna:

“He sold the team”—

“he did not sell the cattle”,

he sold the cattle—he did not sell the team. Rabbi Yehuda says: The money provides clarification, etc., and the Sages say: The money is no proof.

And the Gemara discusses:

What are the circumstances—

in what manner did Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disagree?

If you say [A0009]if it is said: This is referring to a place

where they call

where they call the team—

“team” [A0012]alone, and they do not call the team “cattle.”

alone, and they do not call the cattle “yoke.”

And

they likewise call

the cattle, “cattle” [A0016]alone, and they do not call the cattle “team.”

alone, and they do not call the cattle “yoke.”

What room for doubt is there here, and over what did Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disagree!?

Is it not

obvious

that if he said to him: “I am selling you a team”—

he bought a team from him,

as he said, but

he did not buy cattle from him,

for people do not call cattle by the name “team”?

And if so, why did Rabbi Yehuda say that if he gave him a large sum of money, the price of cattle, the cattle too are included in the sale? After all, he sold a “team,” and cattle are not called “team”!?

But rather,

if you say that the Mishna is referring to a place

where they also call the cattle “team”,

all the people of the place call cattle by the name “team.”

If so, it is obvious that

all of it,

both the team and the cattle,

he bought from him,

and why did the Sages say: The money is no proof!? For when all the people of the place also call cattle “team,” and the money too provides clarification, it is incumbent upon the seller to reveal his intention, whether indeed his intention is to sell only the yoke; and since he remained silent and did not explain, infer from this: His intention was to sell everything.

And we explain:

It is necessary

to teach us the law of the Mishna; rather,

in a place where they call the team “team,” and the cattle

they call

“cattle,” and there are also those who call

it

the cattle “team.”

And now we are uncertain about this person: Is he among those who call the cattle “yoke,” or not?

And now we are uncertain about this person, whether he is among those who call cattle “team,” or not.

Rabbi Yehuda holds: The money provides clarification—

if he gave him the price of cattle, the money clarifies that he is among those who call cattle “team,” and he sold him cattle together with the team.

And the Rabbis hold: The money is no proof—

since there are those who call cattle “cattle” and do not call it “team,” and because of the uncertainty, perhaps he is among those who do not call cattle “team,” the purchaser loses, for we leave money in its presumptive status and the purchaser has the lower hand.

But when all the people of the city call cattle “team,” it is obvious to us that this person is accustomed to calling cattle also by the name “team,” and if he gave a large sum of money, he sold him everything.

a. It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 25:14]: “And when you sell a sale to your fellow, or acquire from the hand of your fellow, do not wrong one another.” And we hold [Bava Metzia 50b]: If the measure of the overcharge is less than one-sixth [one-sixth]—the sale is acquired and he need not return the overcharge; when the overcharge is greater than one-sixth—the sale is annulled, and the seller returns the money and the purchaser returns the object; when the overcharge is one-sixth, the sale remains in force, and the one who overcharged must return to the wronged party the amount of his overcharge.

b. A team is worth only a small amount. And if he sold him a team for two hundred zuz, this is “an overcharge greater than one-sixth.”

And

we raise an objection: According to the Sages,

if the money is no proof

that his intention was for cattle,

let it be an annulment of the sale [A0069]the sale should be annulled; the seller should return his money and take his team, in accordance with the law of every overcharge that is greater than one-sixth!?

the seller should return his money and take back his yoke, as is the law in every case of an overcharge greater than one-sixth!?