Bava Batra 86a (פו.) — the Talmud in English

If

he unloaded

—that is, if he unloaded the loads of his donkey drivers and laborers—

and brought them into his house,

then there is here placement in the buyer’s domain.

Accordingly, if

the buyer fixed

the price of the produce with the seller, even

before he measured

the produce that he was purchasing, he acquired it, and

neither of them can retract.

But if he

measured

the produce

before he fixed

its price, he did not acquire it; rather,

both of them can retract.

The Gemara below explains why this matter depends on fixing the price.

And from what we learned: “He unloaded them and brought them into his house, and he fixed the price before measuring; neither of them can retract,” it may be learned that the seller’s utensils do not prevent the buyer’s acquisition. For presumably the produce was in the seller’s utensils, and nevertheless the buyer acquired it when it entered and was placed in his domain.

And since the seller’s utensil in the buyer’s domain does not acquire for

the seller—that is, since the seller’s utensil is subordinate and nullified with respect to the buyer’s domain and does not prevent the buyer’s acquisition—therefore,

the buyer’s utensil as well,

when it is

in the seller’s domain, does not acquire

for the buyer, since the object is in the seller’s domain, and the buyer’s utensil is subordinate to the seller’s domain in which it is located and does not constitute an independent domain.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

There is no proof from this baraita! It can be interpreted as follows: If he fixed the price before measuring, neither of them can retract,

in

the

manner that

he unloaded them from the donkeys and

poured them

from the utensils onto the ground.

But if the produce remained inside the seller’s utensil, one can say that the buyer does not acquire it while the produce is in the seller’s utensil, since the utensil is not subordinate to the domain in which it is located.

Rava became angry.

Rava, who had brought this proof, was displeased that Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak had rejected his proof in this manner. For,

what is this?

Does the baraita

teach “he poured them,”

rather,

does it not teach “he unloaded them”?

And “he unloaded them” implies that he left them as they were, together with the utensils containing the produce.

Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

This is how Rava’s proof should be rejected, by saying: What are we dealing with here?

With bundles of garlic,

bundles of garlic that are not placed in sacks upon the donkeys, but are as they are, without sacks.

But in the case of produce found in a sack, if the sack belongs to the seller, the buyer does not acquire it, even if the sack is in his domain, since the seller’s utensil prevents his acquisition.

He said,

Huna, son of Mar Zutra,

asked Ravina: Since the baraita teaches, “he unloaded them,”

it is speaking of a case in which he unloaded the loads of the donkeys and the laborers and placed them in the buyer’s domain.

But we learned: With regard to an item in the buyer’s domain, once the seller has accepted responsibility for it, the buyer acquires it. If so,

what difference is it whether he fixed

the price of the produce with the buyer,

and what difference is it whether he did not fix it?

He said to him

Ravina said to him: If he

fixed

the price, the buyer acquires it, since

he relies on the transaction

being completed.

But if he

did not fix

the price,

he does not rely on it: perhaps the sale will not be completed, since, as long as they have not set the price between them, it is possible that the seller will demand a great deal of money, or that the buyer will wish to pay only a small amount, and they will not reach an agreement.

Accordingly, we learned: If they fixed the price between them, the buyer acquired it, even though they had not yet measured the merchandise. If they had not fixed the price between them, the buyer did not acquire it.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear

a proof from the words of Rav and Shmuel that the buyer’s utensils acquire even in the seller’s domain:

For Rav and Shmuel both said,

they both said:

A person’s utensil acquires for him wherever it is.

One must examine this: The expression “wherever it is” comes to introduce and include an additional case;

what does it come to include?

What does this expression come to add?

Is it not

that it comes

to include the seller’s domain?

If so, infer from this that a buyer’s utensil in the seller’s domain acquires for him.

And we reject this: Actually, a buyer’s utensil in the seller’s domain does not acquire for him, and the words of Rav and Shmuel cannot prove that it does, because

there

they are speaking of a case such as one in which

he said to him

the seller said to the buyer:

Go and acquire!

I want your utensil to acquire the item for you.

Indeed, if the seller explicitly said to the buyer, “I want your utensil to acquire it for you,” the buyer certainly acquires it, since it is as though the seller had lent the buyer the place where his utensil was set down.

But our uncertainty concerns an ordinary case, when the seller did not tell the buyer that his utensil should acquire the item for him. We then consider whether the utensil is subordinate to the domain in which it is located, in which case the buyer did not acquire the item, or whether the utensil is not subordinate to the seller’s domain, in which case the object being acquired is found to be placed in the buyer’s domain, and his utensil acquires it for him, just as his courtyard acquires for him. The two following passages were brought here, although they do not deal with acquisition through a person’s utensil, because the Gemara wished to prove the law discussed in them from the baraita of the Four Measures.

We learned there

in Kiddushin 26a:

Property that has security

land,

is acquired through

the act of

money,

through the giving of money,

and through

the act of

a deed,

and through

the act of

possession,

by the buyer taking possession of the land.

And

property

that has no security,

movable property,

is acquired only through

the act of

meshikha,

by drawing it into his domain, or into a domain in which he has a share, such as a simta or a courtyard belonging to partners. But movable property is not acquired through money, a deed, or possession. At the academy where

in Sura they taught it

—they taught

they would teach

this statement

below

in the name of Rav Ḥisda.

And at the academy where

in Pumbedita they taught it in the name of Rav Kahana.

And some say

that there are those who transmit this teaching

in the name of Rava

They taught

in the aforementioned Mishna in Kiddushin that meshikha acquires

only

with regard to

objects that are not ordinarily lifted,

since they are heavy.

But objects that are ordinarily lifted,

light objects—

through lifting, not

indeed, they are acquired through lifting,

but not through meshikha;

they are not acquired through it.