Bava Batra 84b (פד:) — the Talmud in English

after the fact,

[wine],

[vinegar],

Land is acquired through money, a document, or possession.

That which is attached to the land is considered like land.

5.

And if

the flax was

attached

still

to the land,

it is considered like land.

And

therefore, if he said to him: “Uproot a little of the flax and improve the land with it, and thereby acquire the flax through the acquisition of possession, like land,”

if he did so,

uprooted

flax

of any amount

and improved the land, he has

acquired

the remainder of the flax that remains attached, through the acquisition of possession.

Gemara:

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

A seller who

measured

using his own vessels

and placed

the produce being sold

on the simta,

the buyer acquires it

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

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Perhaps the Master did not hear from Rabbi Yohanan

that one who measures on a simta acquires the produce,

except when measuring into the buyer’s basket

?

For in a simta, the buyer’s vessels indeed acquire the produce for him, since he is permitted to place his vessels there, as in a jointly owned courtyard.

This applies specifically to the buyer’s basket. But if he measured into the seller’s basket, or even onto the ground of the simta, the buyer does not acquire it, since there is neither an acquisition through pulling nor a domain—whether a courtyard or vessels—designated for the buyer.

Likewise, if he measures into the buyer’s vessels that are lying in the public domain, the buyer does not acquire it, as explained below, on 85a, since he is not permitted to place his vessels there,

and Rabbi Yohanan said that one who measures onto a simta acquires the produce only when he measures into the buyer’s basket.

He said to him

Rabbi Asi to Rabbi Zeira:

You seem like one of the scholars,

you appear,

as though people do not master the teachings.

And is

measuring into the buyer’s basket

such a

statement

that requires discussion!?

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

Rather, certainly Rabbi Yohanan was speaking about the seller’s vessels, and nevertheless the buyer acquires the produce.

The Gemara considers: Did

Rabbi Zeira accept this from him

that even when the produce is in the seller’s vessels the buyer acquires it,

or did he not accept it from him,

and Rabbi Zeira still maintains that acquisition in a simta takes place only through the buyer’s vessels?

Ta shema,

that Rabbi Zeira accepted Rabbi Asi’s statement:

As Rabbi Yannai said,

the teacher of Rabbi Yohanan,

Rabbi said:

In

a jointly owned courtyard,

which belongs jointly to the seller and the buyer, they

acquire from one another.

Is it not

the meaning of his statement: The jointly owned “courtyard” acquires the object, even

when it is on the ground,

through the acquisition of a courtyard, even when the produce is not in the buyer’s vessels?

And just as a jointly owned “courtyard” acquires the object for the buyer, so a simta acquires it for him, even when the produce was not placed in the buyer’s vessels.

And just as when the seller placed the produce on the ground the simta acquired it for the buyer, so too the buyer acquires it when it is in the seller’s vessels, since the simta is considered the buyer’s domain; and in the buyer’s domain he acquires the produce whether it is on the ground or even in the seller’s vessels.

And if Rabbi Yannai, the teacher of Rabbi Yohanan, holds that the seller’s vessels acquire the object for the buyer in a simta, it is reasonable that when Rabbi Zeira heard Rabbi Yannai’s statement, he certainly accepted what Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, since Rabbi Yohanan’s teacher says the same as he does.

And we reject this:

No,

Rabbi Yannai did not say that in a jointly owned courtyard they acquire from one another even when the produce is on the ground. Rather, this applies specifically when he placed the produce

into the buyer’s basket

.

And this too is reasonable,

that Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan spoke only of a case in which the produce was placed into the buyer’s basket, and not of a case in which it was placed on the ground.

As Rabbi Yaakov said that Rabbi Yohanan said: If he measured and placed the produce on a simta, the buyer did not acquire it

.

But

they contradict one another,

as Rabbi Yohanan’s statements contradict one another: Above we learned that if the produce was placed on a simta the buyer acquired it, whereas now we learn that if it was placed on a simta the buyer did not acquire it. How can these statements be reconciled!?

Rather, is it not

necessarily

infer from this:

Here, where he said that the buyer acquires it, it is

when measuring into the buyer’s basket

.

Here,

where he said that the buyer did not acquire it, it is

when measuring onto the ground,

in accordance with Rabbi Zeira’s statement.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from this

in accordance with Rabbi Zeira’s statement.

Nevertheless, Rabbi Asi, who said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that if one measured and placed the produce on a simta the buyer acquired it, was not mistaken regarding the substance of his teaching. Rather, he thought that Rabbi Yohanan had spoken of measuring into the seller’s basket or onto the ground, and this was his error, because Rabbi Yohanan spoke only of measuring into the buyer’s basket. For Rabbi Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that a simta does not acquire the produce for the buyer when he measures it onto the ground.

Ta shema

from the Mishna, in accordance with Rabbi Zeira’s statement:

If one who sells produce to another pulls it but does not measure it, the buyer acquires it;

if he measures it but does not pull it, he does not acquire it.

Is it not

that our Mishna is discussing

a simta,

and nevertheless the buyer did not acquire the produce?

This works out well according to Rabbi Zeira: The case is one in which the seller measured the produce onto the ground; therefore, the simta did not acquire it for the buyer, whereas if it was in the buyer’s vessels, he acquired it.

But according to Rabbi Asi, who says that the simta acquires the produce for the buyer even when it is on the ground and even when it is in the seller’s vessels, this is difficult: Why does the Mishna teach that if he measured but did not pull the produce the buyer did not acquire it, if our Mishna is discussing a simta!?

And we reject this:

No,

it is not discussing a simta, but rather

the public domain,

where even if the seller measured the produce into the buyer’s basket, the buyer did not acquire it, since he is not permitted to place his vessels in the public domain [as stated below, on 85a].

And we ask:

If so,

if, as you say, the Mishna is discussing produce located in the public domain,

say the first clause

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

For it teaches in the first clause:

If the buyer pulled

the produce

but did not measure it, he acquired it through “the acquisition of pulling.”

.

And if the case is

in the public domain, is pulling effective

? Does pulling acquire an object in the public domain!?

But Abaye and Rava both said: (28)

a.

“Delivery” acquires an object in the public domain and in a courtyard belonging to neither of them.

b.

“Pulling” acquires an object in a simta and in a courtyard belonging to both of them.

But in the public domain and in a courtyard belonging to neither of them, pulling does not acquire an object.

c.

And “lifting” acquires an object everywhere,

even in the seller’s domain.

And if the acquisition through pulling mentioned in the first clause refers to a simta, then the measuring mentioned later in the Mishna also refers to a simta, which presents a difficulty according to Rabbi Asi!?

And we answer:

What does “pulled” also mean, as it teaches

in the first clause? It does not mean that he pulled the produce within the public domain itself, as Abaye and Rava said, and it does not mean within the simta itself, for if so, the measuring in the latter clause would present a difficulty according to Rabbi Asi.

Rather, he pulled it

from the public domain into the simta,

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

And we ask:

If so,

if, as you say, the Mishna is discussing produce located in the public domain and not in a simta,

say the latter clause

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

For it teaches in the latter clause:

If

the buyer

was astute,

and wished to prevent the seller from retracting, he

rents their place

of the produce, and the produce immediately becomes his, even without his pulling it into his domain.

And if

the case is

in the public domain,

there is a difficulty:

From whom did he rent it,

from whom could he rent the place of the produce? Does the public domain have an owner from whom it can be rented!?

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

And as for the latter clause,

this is what it says: And if it is in the owners’ domain,

there is another possibility for acquisition, and

if he was astute,

he

rents the place

of the produce and acquires it immediately.

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

Rav and Shmuel both say: