Bava Batra 92a (צב.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who sells produce

that is suitable either for sowing or for eating

to his fellow,

and the seller or buyer spoke without specifying whether the transaction was made for the purpose of sowing or for the purpose of eating,

and he sowed it

the buyer,

but it did not grow,

because the seeds were defective,

even

if he sold him

flaxseed,

although most flaxseed sold in the world is intended for sowing, nevertheless,

the seller is not liable

the seller

for it

if it did not grow, and this is not a case of a mistaken transaction, and the seller need not return the buyer’s money. Since there are people who purchase flaxseed for eating, the seller can claim to the buyer: I sold it to you for eating, and it is indeed fit for that purpose! In monetary law, one does not follow the majority.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

If he sold him without specification

garden seeds,

such as cabbage seeds,

which are not eaten

at all, and the buyer sowed them but they did not grow, then the seller

is liable for them,

because this is certainly a mistaken transaction. These seeds were intended for sowing, and since they did not grow, this is like one who purchased wine and found vinegar, which is a mistaken transaction; therefore, the seller must return his money to him.

Gemara:

It was stated: One who sells an ox to his fellow, and it is found

that the ox is

goring,

so that it is unfit to plow with.

Rav said:

If the buyer claims that he purchased it for plowing,

this is a mistaken transaction.

And Shmuel said: He can

the seller

say to him

the buyer:

I sold it to you for slaughter,

and this is not a mistaken transaction.

The Gemara discusses why Rav and Shmuel disagreed on this matter:

Let us see,

let us examine and determine who the buyer is:

If

he is a man who purchases for slaughter,

if he is a person accustomed to buying oxen for slaughter, such as a butcher, and is not a farmer who needs the ox in order to plow with it, then he certainly purchased the animal

for slaughter,

and here too Rav agrees that this is not a mistaken transaction.

And

if it is for plowing,

if he is a person accustomed to buying oxen for plowing, such as a farmer and not a butcher, then he certainly purchased the ox

for plowing,

and Shmuel too agrees that if the seller gave him a goring ox, this is a mistaken transaction, since it is as though the buyer explicitly said to him that he should sell him an ox fit for plowing!?

The Gemara establishes that Rav and Shmuel disagreed

in the case of a man who purchases for both this purpose and that purpose,

where the buyer is both a butcher and a farmer. It is not known for what purpose he purchased this ox.

But the matter still requires examination:

Let us see what the money was like!?

Let us examine how much money he paid for the ox, since an ox fit for plowing is worth more than an ox that is unfit for plowing and suitable only for slaughter. Therefore, if we find that he paid the high price of an ox fit for plowing, this is an indication that he purchased the ox for plowing, and it is a mistaken transaction. And if he paid the low price of an ox suitable only for slaughter, this is an indication that he purchased it for slaughter, and this is not a mistaken transaction. Why, then, did Rav and Shmuel disagree?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to establish their dispute in a case

where the price of meat rose and reached the price of an ox for plowing.

The price of oxen intended for slaughter increased until it reached the price of oxen for plowing. Therefore, the price provides no indication of the buyer’s purpose.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

if their dispute is in a case where the price of an ox for slaughter is equal to the price of an ox for plowing,

what practical difference

is there in the dispute between Rav and Shmuel!? The buyer did not lose anything as a result of the ox’s being unfit for plowing, so why does it matter to him whether the transaction remains in force!?

And we answer:

The practical difference is the trouble.

Although the buyer does not lose money in this purchase, he does not wish to take the trouble of slaughtering the ox and selling the meat. Therefore, he demands that the transaction be voided, that he return the ox to the seller, and that he receive his money back. Rav and Shmuel disagree over whether the transaction is indeed void or not.

But the matter still requires examination:

What are the circumstances,

in what case did Rav and Shmuel disagree?