Bava Batra 93b — the Talmud in English

b.

Rabbi Yosei says: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

He gives him the value of the seed.

The seller is obligated to return to the buyer the money that he paid for the flaxseed. Because we follow the majority, and the majority of flax in the world is purchased for sowing, and this is a mistaken transaction.

c.

They said to him

the Sages said to Rabbi Yosei: Indeed, the majority of flax in the world is purchased for sowing, but

many

people

purchase it for other matters,

for food and medicine. And corresponding to one person who purchases ten seahs for sowing, there are one hundred people who purchase one seah [together] for food and medicine. And we follow the majority of people and not the majority of flax. Therefore, it is not a mistaken transaction because it was unfit for sowing.

And now the Gemara discusses and explains who the tannaim are who disagree:

Who are the tannaim?

Who are the tannaim whom we just said disagree in the dispute of Rav and Shmuel, whether in monetary matters one follows the majority?

If you say Rabbi Yosei and

the Sages who

said to him, that Rabbi Yosei follows the majority, while the Sages who “said to him” do not follow the majority, this is not correct.

For behold,

both of them

follow the majority.

Both maintain that one follows the majority, but they disagree regarding which majority one follows:

one master,

the Sages who “said to him,”

follows the majority of people,

for they maintain that one follows the majority of people who purchase flaxseed, and they purchase it for eating. Therefore, they exempt the seller from paying the buyer for the flaxseed that is unfit for sowing.

And the other master,

Rabbi Yosei,

follows the majority of sowing.

He follows the majority of flax that is intended for sowing and not for eating. Therefore, he maintains that the transaction is mistaken.

Rather,

necessarily, these are the tannaim who disagree with one another:

Either

or

the first tannaitic authority and Rabbi Yosei.

Or

or

the first tannaitic authority and “

they said to him.”

That is, the first tannaitic authority certainly maintains that in monetary matters one does not follow the majority at all. [And it is impossible to say that he exempts the seller from paying because one follows the majority of people and not the majority of sowing, for if so, we would have the case of “

they said to him.”] Whereas Rabbi Yosei and “they said to him” both maintain that in monetary matters one follows the majority; they merely disagree among themselves regarding which majority one follows.

The Sages taught:

If one sells his fellow garden seeds that are not eaten at all, and he sowed them but they did not sprout,

what does he give him?

What does the seller pay the buyer?

The value of the seed.

He returns to him only the money that he paid for the seeds,

but not the expense.

He is not obligated to pay him for what he invested in plowing and in the wages of the workers. Because this is merely indirect causation: he caused him a loss, and one is exempt for indirect causation in damages.

And some say:

He pays him

even the expense.

Also for what he lost in plowing expenses and workers’ wages.

And we inquire concerning it:

Who are the “some say”?

Who is the tannaitic authority who maintains that he must pay him also the expense?

Rav Hisda said: It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

And the Gemara discusses:

Which Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

Which Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—that is, where do we find that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains this?

If you say

that he is

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of the Mishna,

as we learned: One who sells produce to his fellow, and he sowed it but it did not sprout, and even flaxseed, is not liable for it.

And

say the latter clause,

which is written in the latter clause of the Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Garden seeds that are not eaten are subject to liability for them.

And apparently one could object: Behold,

the first tannaitic authority also says this,

for he too maintains this, as he says

it is specifically flaxseed for which he is not liable,

because a minority of it is purchased for eating, and it implies:

but garden seeds that are not eaten

at all

are subject to liability for them.

And in what do the first tannaitic authority and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree?

Rather, is it not that

necessarily,

the expense is what distinguishes between them.

Their dispute is whether the seller must also pay the expense or not.

One master,

the first tannaitic authority,

maintains

that only

the value of the seed

he pays.

And the other master,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

maintains: even the expense.

Thus we have that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is the tannaitic authority who maintains that he also pays for the expense.

And the Gemara rejects:

From where

do you know that this is indeed Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s opinion?

Perhaps the opposite:

Perhaps the first tannaitic authority maintains that he is liable even for the expense, while Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel obligates him only for the value of the seed. And if so, it is possible to say that in the earlier beraita the first tannaitic authority is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and “some say” are the first tannaitic authority.

And we answer:

This is not difficult. Because

Because

every later tannaitic authority comes to add a matter,

he comes to add to the words of his predecessor. And if so, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to add to the words of the first tannaitic authority that he is obligated to pay even for the expense.

And we still object:

Perhaps

there is no dispute at all between the first tannaitic authority and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; rather,

the entire

Mishna

is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

and it is not discussing payment for the expense at all.

And it is incomplete, and this is what it teaches:

One who sells produce to his fellow, and he sowed it, and it did not sprout, even flaxseed, is not liable for it; these are the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

For Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Garden seeds that are not eaten are subject to liability for them.

And it implies that specifically garden seeds that are not eaten at all—

but flaxseed,

which is fit for eating,

is not subject to liability for it.

And still we do not know where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that one who sells garden seeds must also pay the expense.

And we answer:

Rather, this is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

As it was taught: One who transports wheat

to the flour mill

to grind it.

And the practice is to soak the wheat in water before grinding and to pound it in a mortar in order to remove the outer shell, so that there will be clean fine flour.

And

the miller

did not moisten them

the wheat

and made them bran

so that the flour came out coarse and inferior,

or coarse bran,

coarse flour, but less inferior than bran.

Or he gave

flour to a baker

in order that he bake bread for him,

and he baked poor-quality bread,

which crumbles and falls apart.

Or he gave

an animal to a slaughterer

to slaughter,

and he rendered it unslaughtered carcass—

in all these cases he is obligated to pay him

because he is like a wage-earner [see the note ].

[see the note ].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

In addition to payment for the damage caused to him,

he gives him

also

the value of his humiliation,

because he was humiliated before his guests by having invited them while having nothing with which to feed them,

and the value of the humiliation of his guests,

who went away as they had come.

And if so, all the more so Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel obligates him to pay for the expense through which the other lost money because of him.

And this, then, is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who obligates payment for the expense.

And so Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would also say: There was a great custom in Jerusalem: One who entrusts a meal to his fellow

so that he prepare the meal for him for the needs of his guests,

and he spoils it, gives him the value of his humiliation and the value of the humiliation of his guests.

There was another great custom in Jerusalem: A cloth

was

spread over the entrance.

As long as the cloth was spread, guests would enter,

for this was a sign that the householder desired that guests enter.

When the cloth was removed, the guests would not enter,

for this was a sign that the householder did not want guests to enter at that time. And it is a beneficial enactment for hospitality, so that guests would know where they could eat.

Mishna:

One who sells produce

grain

to his fellow, this one

the buyer

accepts upon himself a quarter

of a kav

of refuse

waste

for

every

seah

of grain that he purchased. For ordinary grain contains waste in a proportion of one in twenty-four [the seah is six kavs].

And similarly, one who sells

figs

to his fellow

accepts upon himself ten

figs

wormy, for

every

one hundred

figs—that is, one-tenth, which is the normal proportion.

And similarly, one who sells

a wine cellar

to his fellow

accepts upon himself ten spoiled barrels,

ten barrels of spoiled wine,

for one hundred

barrels.

And similarly, one who sells

jars

earthenware vessels

in the Sharon,

accepts

upon himself ten defective jars,

weak vessels,

for one hundred.

Gemara:

Bar Ketina taught:

What is said in the Mishna, that the buyer accepts upon himself a quarter of refuse, does not refer to a quarter of earth particles, for people do not waive their claim regarding a mixture of earth particles; rather,

a quarter of legumes per seah,

for if there was a mixture of legumes in the grain, the buyer accepts upon himself up to a quarter-kav per seah of grain.

And we object:

But

is it so that

earth particles are not

accepted by the buyer?

But didn’t Rabba bar Hiyya Katusfאה say in the name of Rabba:

The

one who removes a stone from his fellow’s granary,

who removed a stone [earth particle] from his wheat and thereby caused him damage, since he could have sold the wheat together with the stone mixed into it,

gives him the value of wheat,

he must pay him as though the stone had been wheat.

Thus, earth particles too are permitted to be sold together with the wheat!