Bava Batra 92a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who sells produce

that is fit for sowing or eating

to his fellow,

and they spoke without specification, and the seller or the buyer did not clarify in their words whether the acquisition was made for the purpose of sowing or for the purpose of eating,

and he sowed it

the buyer,

and it did not grow,

because the seeds were spoiled,

even

if he sold him

flaxseed,

and most of the flaxseeds sold in the world are intended for sowing, nevertheless,

the seller is not liable

the seller

for them

if they did not grow, and this is not a mistaken sale, and the seller does not have to return the buyer’s money to him. For since there are people who buy flaxseed for the purpose of eating, the seller can claim to the buyer: I sold them to you for eating, and behold, they are fit for this! And 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 and they did not grow, then the seller

is liable for them,

because this is certainly a mistaken sale, for these seeds were intended for sowing, and since they did not grow, this is like one who bought wine and it was found to be vinegar, which is a mistaken sale, and therefore the seller must return his money to him.

Gemara:

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

that the ox was

goring,

so that it is not fit to plow with.

Rav said:

If the buyer claims that he bought it for plowing,

this is a mistaken sale.

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 sale.

And the Gemara asks: Why did Rav and Shmuel disagree about this matter?

Let us see,

let us examine and ascertain who the buyer is:

if

he is a man who buys for slaughter,

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

for slaughter,

and here too Rav concedes that this is not a mistaken sale.

And

if for plowing,

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

for plowing,

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

And the Gemara establishes: Rav and Shmuel disagree

in the case of a man who buys for this and for that,

where the buyer is both a butcher and a farmer. And it is not known for what purpose he bought this ox.

But it must still be discussed:

Then let us see what the money is like!?

Let us examine how much money he paid for the ox, because an ox fit for plowing is worth more than an ox that is not fit for plowing but only for slaughter. Therefore, if it is found that he paid the high price of an ox fit for plowing, it is a sign that he bought the ox for plowing, and it is a mistaken sale. And if he paid the low price of an ox fit only for slaughter, it is a sign that he bought it for slaughter, and this is not a mistaken sale. And why did Rav and Shmuel disagree?

And we answer:

It is necessary;

their dispute is in a case

where the price of meat rose, and reached the price of plowing.

The price of oxen intended for slaughter increased and reached the level of the price of oxen for plowing. Therefore, there is no proof from the price concerning the buyer’s purpose.

And we challenge:

If so,

that 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 of Rav and Shmuel!? After all, the buyer has lost nothing as a result of the ox’s not being fit for plowing, and what difference does it make to him whether the sale stands!?

And we answer:

A practical difference concerning the trouble.

For although the buyer does not lose money in this purchase, he does not wish to trouble himself with slaughtering the ox and selling the meat. Therefore, he claims that the sale should be annulled, that he should return the ox to the seller, and receive his money back. And Rav and Shmuel disagree whether the sale is indeed annulled or not.

But it must still be discussed:

What are the circumstances,

in what manner did Rav and Shmuel disagree?