Bava Batra 78b (עח:) — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

No

it is not as you say; rather,

Rabbi Yehuda

precise page location

was stating a different matter.

That is, the Rabbis and Naḥum the Mede disagreed when the utensils were no longer upon the donkey. It follows that when they were still upon it, everyone agrees that he sold them all. Rabbi Yehuda came to dispute the implication of their words and say: Sometimes they are not sold even when they are still upon it.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear

from the Mishna concerning the wagon and the mules, in which the Rabbis and Naḥum the Mede disagreed when they were no longer upon it:

For we learned [67b]:

If he sold the wagon—

he did not sell the mules.

And Rav Taḥlifa bar Ma'arava taught

a beraita

before Rabbi Abbahu: If he sold the wagon—

he sold the mules.

And he said to him,

Rabbi Abbahu:

But we

learned: If he sold the wagon,

he did not sell

the mules;

we learned

this in the Mishna. How, then, did you teach us a beraita maintaining that one who sells the wagon sells the mules as well!?

And he said,

he asked,

to him,

Rav Taḥlifa asked Rabbi Abbahu: Should I

remove it,

that is, should I discard and eliminate this beraita because it is corrupted, since its words contradict those of the Mishna?

And he said to him,

Rabbi Abbahu:

No,

do not remove and discard the beraita, but

interpret

and establish

your Mishna,

your beraita,

with

mules that

are fastened to it,

to the wagon.

By inference,

it follows that

the Mishna

that states, “If he sold the wagon, he did not sell the mules,” speaks

of when they are not fastened to it.

And since the first clause,

if the first clause speaks

of when they were no longer upon it,

presumably

the latter clause as well

speaks

of when they were no longer upon it.

And we reject this:

On the contrary,

if, as you say, one may prove the meaning of one clause of the Mishna from another clause, then

say from the first clause

that the Mishna speaks of when they were still upon it:

For we learned [73a]: One who sells a ship sells the mast, the sail, the anchors, and all that guides it,

but he does not sell the slaves,

nor the sacks,

nor the cargo.

And we said

above [77b]:

What is the cargo?

And

he said,

he explained,

Rav Pappa: The merchandise inside it,

the merchandise inside the ship is called “cargo,” but merchandise that is still outside the ship is not called “cargo.”

And since the first clause,

if the first clause speaks

of when they were still upon it,

then according to your words,

the latter clause also speaks of when they were still upon it.

But it is certainly impossible to say this, since the clause concerning the wagon and mules speaks of when they were no longer upon it.

Rather,

it must be that one cannot derive the meaning of one clause of the Mishna from another, because

the tanna

of the Mishna

states separate matters,

each halakha standing on its own: one refers to when they were still upon it, and one to when they were no longer upon it.

There is no reason to wonder at this, because everything follows ordinary practice. One thing is included in another when it is upon it, while another thing is not included in it even when it is upon it. And there are things that belong to one another specifically when one is upon the other.

Mnemonic: ZGM NNSN

Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer

and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Natan, Sumkhus, and Naḥum the Mede all hold

that when a person sells

an object, he sells it together with all its accessories.

[Note: source segment is rendered above together with its continuation.]

The six tannaim whom Abaye mentioned disagreed with the Rabbis, and all of them add to the words of the Rabbis. They maintain that when a person sells an object, his intention is to sell the object together with all its accessories.

Indeed, each of the tannaim does not necessarily hold that every accessory of the object is included in the sale ; some of them may not be included. Nevertheless, they all add to the words of the Rabbis and broaden the acquisition to include more of the accessories of the objects sold.

These are the statements of the tannaim:

A.

Rabbi Eliezer: As we learned

above, 67b: One who sells an olive press sells the vat, the press beam, and the upright posts, but he does not sell the millstones, the wheel, or the beam.

Rabbi Eliezer says: One who sells an olive press sells the beam.

The Rabbis hold that he sells only those objects fixed in the olive press, but not the movable objects among them.

Rabbi Eliezer holds that the beam is also included in the sale, since it is the principal component of the olive press.

B.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: As we learned

above, 68a: One who sells a city sells houses, cisterns, ditches, caves, bathhouses, dovecotes, olive presses, and irrigated fields, but not the movable property.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who sells the city—

he sells the administrator.

C.

Rabbi Meir: As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Meir says: One who sells a vineyard—

he sells

the

accessories of the vineyard.

The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that some of the vineyard’s accessories are not sold with it.

D.

Rabbi Natan and Sumkhus:

As it is taught in a beraita [above, 73a]: One who sells a ship sells the ladder and the water cistern inside it.

Rabbi Natan says: One who sells the ship sells the

small boat.

And

Sumkhus says: One who sells the ship sells the

boat.

Rava said: “Small boat” means “boat”; each called it by the term customary in his place.

According to the Rabbis, one who sells the ship does not sell the small boat or the boat.

F.

Naḥum the Mede: This is what we said,

that which we learned in our Mishna, that the Rabbis and Naḥum the Mede disagree whether one who sells a donkey sells its utensils.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Sometimes they are sold,

sometimes they are not sold. How so? If a donkey was before him with its utensils upon it, and he said to him, “Sell me this donkey,” its utensils are sold. “Is it your donkey?”—its utensils are not sold.

The Gemara asks:

What is the difference between “your donkey, this one,” and “it is your donkey”?

He said,

he explained,

Rava:

When he said to him

“your donkey, this one,”

the buyer certainly

knew

that

it was his donkey,

the seller’s,

that

it was the one being discussed.

And he could have said, “Sell me your donkey,” when there was no second donkey before him.

And

if so,

when he said to him “your donkey,”

this one,

certainly

he said this because of its utensils—that is, “this donkey as it is.”

But when he said to him, “

Is it your donkey!?”

that is an interrogative expression;

the buyer

did not know

that

it was his donkey,

the seller’s,

that it was.

And when he said to him, “Is it your donkey?” he did not intend to say, “This donkey as it is”; rather,

this is what he said to him:

Is this donkey

your donkey, so that you will sell it to me?

Therefore he did not sell the donkey together with its utensils, because Rabbi Yehuda holds that one who sells a donkey without qualification does not sell its utensils, even when they are still upon it.

Mishna:

A person

who sells a donkey sells

with it

the

foal,

the colt,

but if he

sells a cow, he does not sell

with it

its calf

, and the Gemara explains why a cow differs from a donkey.

A person who

sells

to another

a

manure pit,

a place where he habitually puts the dung of his animals, even if he sold him the pit without qualification and did not say, “I am selling you the pit together with the dung in it”—he

sells

with it

its dung,

the dung found in it at the time of the sale.

Similarly, a person who

sells

to another

a

cistern of collected water, presumably—he

sells with the cistern

its

water.

Similarly, a person who

sells

to another

a

beehive,

presumably—he

sells with it

the

bees

inside it.

Similarly, a person who

sells

to another

a

dovecote,

presumably—he

sells with it

the

doves

inside it. Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who sells a donkey sells the foal; one who sells a cow does not sell its calf.

And we question this: What is different about a donkey and its foal, and what is different about a cow and its calf!?

What are the circumstances? In either event there is a difficulty:

If

it is speaking of a case in which

the seller explicitly

said to him

the buyer:

“I am selling you her and her offspring,” then it is obvious that

even a cow and its calf as well

are sold.

And

if

it is speaking of a case in which

he

did not say to him, “I am selling you her and her offspring,” and the tanna of the Mishna holds that the offspring is not sold as part of the mother, since they are separate entities and the offspring can exist without its mother, then

even

a

donkey as well would not

be sold with its mother’s offspring [all the more so, its foal would not be sold with its father]!?

He said,

he explained,

Rav Pappa: Whether one sells a cow or one sells a donkey, presumably he does not sell its offspring with it.

What, then, are the circumstances? It is a case in which the seller

said to him,

the buyer:

“I am selling you a nursing donkey,”

and “I am selling you

a nursing cow.”

Consequently, one who sells a cow does not sell its offspring with it, whereas one who sells a donkey sells its offspring with it.

For

granted that when he sold the

cow

and said to him, “I am selling you a nursing cow,”

it is possible to say

that he did not intend to sell its offspring, but

he wants it for its milk

—

the seller wants a milk-producing cow,

and therefore said to him, “a nursing cow,” so that he would not give him a cow that does not produce milk. If he gave him a cow that does not produce milk, it would be a mistaken transaction.

Rather, when he sold the donkey

and said to him, “I am selling you a nursing donkey,” he certainly did not intend its milk, since donkey’s milk is forbidden to drink. If so,

what did he mean by saying to him

“a nursing donkey”?

Infer from this: “Her”—

the donkey—

and her offspring

I am selling you,”

he said to him.

Therefore we learned: In the case of one who sells a donkey, if it is a nursing donkey, he has sold the suckling foal that nurses from it and follows after it, but if he sells a cow, if it is a nursing cow, he has not sold its calf.

Therefore, the two of us stated: “If one sells a donkey, a nursing donkey, he has sold the nursing foal that suckles from it and follows after it,”

but if one sells a cow, a nursing cow, he has not sold its calf.

And

the Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, asks:

Why did it call

the donkey’s offspring

a foal?

Because this is the nature of a donkey’s foal,

that

it

walks

and comes

after a pleasant song [

conversation ],

pleasant, meaning that when it is called gently and merely hinted to, it goes to the place that the person desires,

whereas an old donkey must be struck in order to direct it onto the proper path. And since the nature of the foal—to follow after a pleasant song—had been mentioned, the Gemara cited Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani’s exposition concerning a person who is easily enticed to follow his inclination.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said

What is the meaning of that which is written [

Numbers 21:27, 28, 30 ]: “

Therefore the rulers will say,

Come to Heshbon; let the city of Sihon be built and established. For fire went forth from Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon; it consumed Ar of Moab, the masters of the high places of Arnon. And we have destroyed Heshbon as far as Dibon, and we have laid waste as far as Nophah, which reaches to Medeba.”

Indeed, the plain meaning of the verse speaks of Sihon’s war against the first king of Moab, from whom Sihon took all his land through Balaam’s curse .

And the practical halakhic implication is this: Although the Jewish people were forbidden to wage war against Moab, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 2:9]: “And the Lord said to me: Do not distress Moab, and do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of his land as an inheritance,” nevertheless, through Sihon’s conquest, this land became permitted to the Jewish people. [Ḥullin 60b]

But the entire extended account in the verse is still not explained: How did Sihon conquer the land of Moab, and what does this verse come to teach us!?

Rather, you are forced to say: Moses our teacher wrote it for purposes of exposition, as follows.

And this is how Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman expounded in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

“The rulers”

of whom the verse spoke are

those

righteous people who

rule over their inclination

and subdue it.

And so said the rulers—the righteous:

“Come to Heshbon,”

meaning:

Let us calculate

the account of the world.

And what is “the account of the world”?

The calculation of

the loss incurred by a mitzva,

that one refrains from work and forfeits income because he is occupied with a mitzva, or that he gives charity and his assets are diminished,

against its reward,

the great reward of the mitzva that a person will receive in the World to Come.

And

so too, the calculation of

the reward of a transgression,

the pleasure one derived from it in this world,

against its loss,

for he will lose more in the future.

“Let it be built and established”—

know that

if you do so,

as we said, calculating in every matter the loss against the reward, you will certainly

be built in this world

and established in the World to Come.

All this was said concerning one who calculates his ways.

But: “

The city of Sihon: If a person regards himself

as

this city

that follows after a pleasant song,

just as the city follows after a gentle call and a slight hint, so he is enticed by his inclination and follows after the words of the heretics, and does not rule over his inclination.

What is written

in the verse that comes

after it?

“For fire went forth from Heshbon,” and so on —

A fire will go forth

from the righteous who

calculate

the account of the world,

and consume those who do not calculate.

And even if they are righteous, nevertheless they cannot attain the level reached by those who calculate the account of the world, for we already learned [above 75a]: Each person is burned by the canopy of his fellow, and the lesser person is burned by the canopy of the one greater than he.

It is further stated:

“And a flame

[

went forth ]

from the city

of

righteous people who were called trees [

wooden trees ].

And this fire and flame

“consumed Ar of Moab.” “Ar” is an expression of city, and “Moab” is an expression of desire —

“Ar” is related to the word “city,” while “Moab” is related to desire —

this refers to one who follows after his inclination

and his desire

, like this city that follows after a pleasant song.

It is further said of that fire that it consumes

“the masters of the high places of Arnon”—

these are the arrogant,

the haughty, who raise their opinion of themselves like those high places of Arnon.

For the Master said: Anyone in whom there is arrogance falls into Gehinnom,

as it is stated [Proverbs 21:24]: “The proud and arrogant man, scorner is his name, acts with arrogant wrath,” and “wrath” means nothing other than Gehinnom, as it is stated [Zephaniah 1:15]: “That day is a day of wrath.” And what the verse says

“And we have destroyed”

is a hint to what

the wicked man said: There is no exalted one;

and this is said in opposition to the Divine Presence, for the blessed Name is exalted above all and dwells in the heights,

And the wicked person further says:

“Heshbon has been destroyed”—destroyed

is the account of the world;

there is no judgment and no Judge, and I will not be held accountable for my sins.

And our response to the wicked person is:

“As far as Dibon”—

the Holy One, blessed be He, said

to the wicked person:

Wait until

the day of

judgment

arrives.