Bava Batra 84b — the Talmud in English

As it was taught in a beraita:

wine and vinegar—

they are one species, and if he separated teruma from wine for vinegar, or vinegar for wine—his teruma is teruma; these are the words of the Sages.

и если он отделил вино в качестве трумы за уксус или уксус за вино — его трума является трумой; таково мнение Мудрецов.

Rabbi says:

wine and vinegar—

two species

they are, and one who separates from one for the other—his teruma is not teruma.

It might have entered our minds: just as regarding terumot and tithes, wine and vinegar are considered one species according to the Sages, so regarding buying and selling they are considered one species.

Therefore we say: let us say that our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi and not in accordance with the Sages, for according to their words—the one who sells wine and it turns out to be vinegar is like one who sells superior ones and they turn out to be inferior ones; the buyer may retract, but the seller may not.

But our Mishna, which holds that both of them may retract, is taught in accordance with Rabbi, and according to his words, wine and vinegar are considered two species.

And we reject this:

Even if you say

you can say: our Mishna is taught in accordance with

the Sages,

and there is no necessity to establish it specifically in accordance with Rabbi.

For

the Sages disputed Rabbi only with regard to tithes and teruma,

for the Sages say: with regard to tithes and teruma, wine and vinegar are considered one species, and if he separated from one for the other, his teruma is teruma.

And although wine is superior to vinegar, and it is prohibited to separate from the inferior for the superior, nevertheless, if he transgressed and separated vinegar for wine, his teruma is teruma.

And according to the words

of

Rabbi Ela:

it is a mitzva to separate from the superior and the choicest, as it is stated [Numbers 18:29]: “From all your gifts you shall raise every gift of Hashem, from all its fat, its sacred portion from it”—that he should separate the “fat,” the superior and choicest, and not the inferior.

For Rabbi Ela said: From where is it derived that one who separates from the inferior for the superior, his teruma is teruma—

And we do not say: if he transgressed and separated from the inferior for the superior, his teruma should not be teruma, even after the fact?

As it is stated [there, verse 32]: “And you shall not bear sin because of it when you raise its fat from it” [the choicest].

The verse teaches that if you do not raise from the choicest, you will bear sin because of it.

But

if

you say: one who separates from the inferior for the superior

does not become sacred—

“Bearing sin”—for what purpose!?

What sin is there in his separating it? After all, he did nothing, and he should separate again from the superior!?

Rather,

from here

we learn

that one who separates from the inferior for the superior, after

the fact,

his teruma is teruma.

And therefore, if he separated from the inferior for the superior, he bears sin, because his teruma becomes sacred as it is, and there is no remedy to replace it or to separate again.

All this applies with regard to tithes and teruma,

but with regard to buying and selling, according to everyone,

even according to the Sages: wine and vinegar are like two species.

Because

there is one who prefers wine

[wine],

and does not prefer vinegar

[vinegar],

and there is one who prefers vinegar and does not prefer wine.

[Sometimes a person is pleased with the taste of wine and is not pleased with the taste of vinegar, and sometimes—the opposite.]

Therefore, although wine and vinegar are one species in their essence, nevertheless they are considered like two species with regard to buying and selling, and both of them may retract.

But superior and inferior wheat have one taste and one name, and he sold him what he asked for, except that he deceived him somewhat, and the hand of the deceived party is uppermost.

Mishna:

In our Mishna several methods of acquisition are detailed, concerning produce that a person sells to his fellow.

A. A person

who sells produce to his fellow,

and establishes with him how much the buyer will pay for each se’a of the produce, if

the buyer pulled

the produce

and

still

did not measure

it, in order to know how much produce the seller sold him, this person has

acquired

it, and the measuring does not prevent the acquisition.

B. And if

the seller measured

the produce inside his vessels,

and the buyer did not pull

the produce,

the buyer did not acquire

it. A person’s courtyard acquires for him, whether he is its complete owner or whether it is rented to him.

C.

If the

buyer was

clever,

knowing that as long as an act of acquisition has not been performed with the produce, the seller may retract, and the buyer wishes to acquire it immediately, without needing to pull it into his domain.

If the produce is standing in the owners’ domain,

the buyer rents

the

its place

and acquires it through acquisition by a courtyard.

Pulling acquires only objects that are not normally lifted, but with objects that are easy to lift, he acquires them only through lifting.

D.

One who buys flax from his fellow,

since it is not customary to make large loads from it,

has not acquired it until

he moves it from place to place,

that is, lifts it, and acquires it through “acquisition by lifting.”

Land is acquired with money, by a document, and by possession.

That which is attached to the land—behold, it is like land.

He.

And if

the flax

was attached

still

to the land,

behold, it is like land.

And

therefore, if he said to him: Uproot a little of the flax and improve the land through this, and acquire the flax for yourself by the possession-acquisition, like land.

If he did so,

uprooted

flax

of any amount

and improved the land, behold, he

acquired

the remainder of the attached flax by the possession-acquisition.

Gemara:

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

A seller who

measured

with his own vessels

and placed

the sold produce

on a simta

the buyer acquired

it, as though the seller had placed it in the buyer’s domain.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Perhaps Rabbi

did not hear from Rabbi Yohanan that one who measures on a simta acquires,

except when measuring into the buyer’s box

of the buyer?

For in a simta, indeed, the buyer’s vessels acquire the produce for him, since he has permission to place his vessels there, as in the courtyard of partners.

And specifically in the buyer’s box; but if he measured into the seller’s box, or even on the ground of the simta, the buyer did not acquire, since there is here neither “pulling-acquisition” nor a domain [courtyard or vessels] designated for the buyer.

And likewise, if he measured into the buyer’s vessels lying in the public domain, the buyer did not acquire, as explained below, 85a, since he has no permission to place his vessels there,

and Rabbi Yohanan said that one who measures to a simta acquires only when measuring into the buyer’s box.

He said to

Rabbi Asi, Rabbi Zeira:

You are like one of the sages,

you resemble,

one who has not mastered people’s teachings.

And

measured into the buyer’s box

of the buyer

a statement

is required!?

Why mention something so simple? We find that even in the seller’s domain the buyer’s vessels acquire for him, all the more so in a simta!?

Rather, certainly Rabbi Yohanan spoke of the seller’s vessels, and nevertheless, the buyer acquired.

And the Gemara discusses: Did

Rabbi Zeira accept it from him

from Rabbi Asi that even with the seller’s vessels the buyer acquired,

or did he not accept it from him,

and Rabbi Zeira still holds: acquisition in a simta is only with the buyer’s vessels?

Come and hear

that Rabbi Zeira accepted Rabbi Asi’s words:

For Rabbi Yannai said,

the teacher of Rabbi Yohanan,

said Rabbi:

In

the courtyard of partners,

which is jointly owned by the seller and the buyer, they

acquire from one another.

Is it not

so that he said as follows: The “courtyard” of partners acquires, even

on the ground,

by means of “courtyard-acquisition,” and even when the produce is not in the buyer’s vessels?

And just as the “courtyard of partners” acquires for the buyer, so the “simta” acquires for him, even when he did not place the produce in the buyer’s vessels.

And just as when he placed it on the ground, the simta acquired it for him, so he acquires even with the seller’s vessels, for the simta is considered the buyer’s domain, and in the buyer’s domain he acquires on the ground and even with the seller’s vessels.

And if Rabbi Yannai, the teacher of Rabbi Yohanan, holds that the seller’s vessels acquire for him in a simta, it is reasonable that when Rabbi Zeira heard Rabbi Yannai’s words, he certainly agreed with what Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, for Rabbi Yohanan’s teacher says as he does.

And we reject this:

No,

Rabbi Yannai did not say that in the courtyard of partners they acquire from one another, even on the ground, but specifically when he brought the produce

into the buyer’s box

of the buyer.

And here too it is reasonable that Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan spoke only of the case in which he put [the produce] into the buyer’s box, and not on the ground.

For Rabbi Jacob said that Rabbi Yohanan said: One who measured and placed [the produce] on a simta did not acquire

the buyer.

And behold,

the words of Rabbi Yohanan

contradict one another: Rabbi Yohanan’s statements contradict one another; above we learned: on a simta he acquired, and now we learn: on a simta the buyer did not acquire. How are these statements to be reconciled!?

Rather, is it not

necessarily

learn from it:

here, where he said that the buyer acquired,

is when measuring

into the buyer’s box

of the buyer.

Here,

where he said that the buyer did not acquire,

is when measuring on the ground,

according to Rabbi Zeira’s words.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it

according to Rabbi Zeira’s words.

Indeed, Rabbi Asi, who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, “He measured and placed [the produce] on a simta; the buyer acquired,” was not mistaken in the substance of his teaching. Rather, he thought that Rabbi Yohanan spoke of one measuring into the seller’s box, or on the ground, and this was his error, for Rabbi Yohanan spoke only of one measuring into the buyer’s box, since Rabbi Jacob said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that a simta does not acquire for the buyer when he measures on the ground.

Come and hear

from the Mishna, according to Rabbi Zeira’s words:

One who sells produce to another: [the buyer] pulled it but did not measure, he acquired;

he measured but did not pull, he did not acquire.

Is it not

that our Mishna is dealing

with a simta,

and nevertheless the buyer did not acquire?

And according to Rabbi Zeira it is well: it is speaking of measuring on the ground; therefore the simta did not acquire it for him, but with the buyer’s vessels he acquired.

But according to Rabbi Asi, who says that even on the ground, and even with the seller’s vessels, the simta acquired it for him, this is difficult: Why does it teach, “He measured but did not pull, he did not acquire,” if our Mishna is speaking of a simta!?

And we reject this:

No,

it is not speaking of a simta, but

of the public domain,

where even if he measured into the buyer’s box he did not acquire, since he has no permission to place his vessels in the public domain [as below, 85a].

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

if, as you say, the Mishna concerns produce situated in the public domain,

say the first clause,

for there is a difficulty in the first clause of the Mishna:

For it teaches in the first clause:

[The buyer] pulled

the buyer,

and did not measure, he acquired

by “pulling-acquisition.”

And if it is speaking

of the public domain, does it acquire

does pulling acquire in the public domain!?

But Abaye and Rava both said: (28)

a.

“Delivery” acquires in the public domain and in a courtyard that belongs to neither of them.

b.

“Pulling” acquires in a simta and in a courtyard that belongs to both of them.

But in the public domain and in a courtyard that belongs to neither of them, pulling does not acquire.

c.

And “lifting” acquires everywhere,

even in the seller’s domain.

And if the pulling-acquisition in the first clause concerns a simta, then the measuring that follows in the Mishna also concerns a simta, and this is difficult for Rabbi Asi!?

And we answer:

What is the meaning of “pulled,” which it also teaches

in the first clause? It is not in the public domain itself, as Abaye and Rava said, and it is not literally in a simta, for if so, the measuring in the latter clause would be difficult according to Rabbi Asi.

Rather, it is when pulling

from the public domain to a simta,

that is, the Mishna speaks of a case in which the seller and buyer are standing in the public domain; if the buyer pulled the produce from there to a simta, the buyer acquired, but if he measured in that place and did not pull it to a simta, he did not acquire.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

if, as you say, the Mishna concerns produce situated in the public domain and not in a simta,

say the latter clause,

for there is a difficulty in the latter clause of the Mishna:

For it teaches in the latter clause:

If

the buyer

was clever,

and wishes that the seller should not be able to retract, he

rents their place

of the produce, and the produce is acquired by him immediately, even without pulling it into his domain.

And if

it is speaking

of the public domain,

there is a difficulty:

From whom did he rent

from whom can he rent the place of the produce? Is there, then, an owner of the public domain from whom it is possible to rent!?

And we answer: In the first clause, indeed, it concerns produce standing in the public domain, therefore measuring does not acquire there, while pulling it from there to a simta acquires.

And the latter clause

means as follows: And if it is in the owners’ domain,

he has another possibility of acquisition, and

if he was clever,

he

rents their place

of the produce and acquires it immediately.

Since the sugya mentioned that the buyer’s vessels acquire for him, the Gemara explains where a person’s vessels acquire:

Rav and Shmuel both say: