Bava Batra 93b (צג:) — the Talmud in English

b.

Rabbi Yosei says:

He gives him the value of the seed.

The seller must return to the buyer the money he paid for the flaxseed, because we follow the majority, and most flax in the world is purchased for sowing; therefore, this is a mistaken transaction.

c.

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Yosei: It is true that most flax in the world is purchased for sowing, but

many

people

purchase it for other purposes,

for food and medicine. For every person who purchases ten se’a for sowing, there are one hundred people who purchase one se’a [together] for food and medicine. And we follow the majority of people, rather than the majority of flax. Therefore, the fact that it was unfit for sowing does not make this a mistaken transaction.

The Gemara now analyzes and explains which tannaim disagree:

Which tannaim?

Who are the tannaim whom we just said disagree in the dispute between Rav and Shmuel as to whether, in monetary matters, we follow the majority?

If one says, Rabbi Yosei and

the Sages who

said to him,

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

For

both of them follow the majority.

They both hold that we follow the majority; they merely disagree as to which majority we follow:

one master,

the Sages who “said to him,”

follows the majority of people,

as they hold that we follow the majority of people who purchase flaxseed, who purchase it for eating. Therefore, they exempt the seller from paying the buyer for the flax that was 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 rather than eating. Therefore, he holds that this is a mistaken transaction.

Rather,

these must necessarily be the tannaim who disagree with one another:

Either

that is,

the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei.

Or

that is,

the first tanna and the ones who

said to him

, meaning that the first tanna certainly holds that, in monetary matters, we do not follow the majority at all. [And it is impossible to say that he exempts the seller from paying because we follow the majority of people rather than the majority of sowing, since if so, we would have “the ones who said to him.”]

Whereas Rabbi Yosei and “the ones who said to him” both hold that, in monetary matters, we follow the majority; they merely disagree as to which majority we follow.

The Sages taught:

If one sells his fellow garden seeds that are not eaten at all, and the buyer sows them but they do not sprout,

what does he give him?

What must the seller pay the buyer?

The value of the seed.

He returns only the money that the buyer paid for the seeds,

but not the expense.

He is not required to pay him for what he spent on plowing and the wages of the laborers, because this is merely an indirect cause of loss, and one is exempt for an indirect cause of damage.

And some say:

He pays him

even the expense.

He also pays for what the buyer lost through the expenses of plowing and the laborers’ wages.

We analyze this statement:

Who are the ones who say so?

Who is the tanna who holds that he must pay him the expense as well?

Rav Ḥisda said: It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

The Gemara asks:

Which Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

Which statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is meant—that is, where do we find that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds this way?

If you say

that it is

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of the Mishna,

as we learned: One who sells produce to his fellow, and he sows it but it does not sprout, even if it is flaxseed, is not responsible for it.

And

say the latter clause,

as it is written in the latter clause of the Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to garden seeds that are not eaten, he is responsible for them.

Apparently, one can raise the following difficulty:

The first tanna also says precisely this,

as he says

that it is only flaxseed for which he is not responsible,

because a minority of it is purchased for eating. This implies:

But with regard to garden seeds, which are not eaten

at all,

he is responsible for them.

And if so, in what do the first tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree?

Rather, is it not that

necessarily,

they disagree with regard to the expense?

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

One master,

the first tanna,

holds

that he pays only

the value of the seed;

that is what he pays.

And the other master,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

holds that he pays even the expense.

Thus, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is the tanna who holds that he also pays for the expense.

The Gemara rejects this:

From where

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

Perhaps it is the reverse:

Perhaps the first tanna holds that he is liable even for the expense, while Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that he is liable only for the value of the seed. If so, it is possible to say that in the above beraita, the first tanna is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, while “some say” is the first tanna.

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

Because

every later tanna comes to add something,

he comes to add to the words of his predecessor. Therefore, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to add to the words of the first tanna that he must also pay for the expense.

The Gemara continues to challenge this:

Perhaps

there is no dispute here at all between the first tanna 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 a passage is incomplete, and this is what it teaches:

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

For Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to garden seeds that are not eaten, he is responsible for them.

This implies that it is specifically garden seeds that are not eaten at all.

But flaxseed,

which is fit for eating,

he is not responsible for it.

We still 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 is taught: One who takes wheat

to a flour mill

to have it ground.

The usual practice is to soak the wheat in water before grinding and to pound it in a mortar to remove the outer husk, so that the flour will be fine and clean.

And

the miller

does not moisten

the wheat,

and makes it bran,

so that the flour comes out coarse and inferior,

or coarse bran,

which is coarse flour but less inferior than bran.

Or if he gives

flour to a baker

so that he will bake bread for him,

and he bakes him inferior bread,

which crumbles and falls apart.

Or if he gives

an animal to a slaughterer

to slaughter,

and he renders it an unslaughtered carcass—

in all these cases, he must pay him

because he is like a paid bailee

[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 embarrassed before his guests, having invited them without having anything to feed them,

and the value of his guests’ humiliation,

because they went away as they had come.

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

This, then, is the Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who requires payment for the expense.

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

to prepare the meal for his guests,

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

There was another great custom in Jerusalem: A cloth

was

spread over the entrance.

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

This was a sign that the homeowner wished guests to enter.

Once the cloth was removed, guests would not enter,

as this was a sign that the homeowner did not want guests to enter at that time. This was a beneficial arrangement for hospitality, so that guests would know where they could eat.

Mishna:

One who sells produce

grain

to his fellow, this

buyer

accepts upon himself a quarter

of a kav

of refuse

[waste]

for

every

se’a

of grain that he purchased. This is because ordinary grain contains waste in a ratio of one to twenty-four [a se’a is six kav].

And similarly, one who sells

figs

to his fellow

may have ten

figs

worm-eaten, for

every

one hundred

figs; that is, one tenth, as it is usual for this many to be worm-eaten.

And similarly, one who sells

a wine cellar

to his fellow

may have ten spoiled casks

of spoiled wine

for one hundred

casks.

And similarly, one who sells

jars

earthenware vessels

in Sharon,

may have

ten defective jars

weak vessels,

for one hundred.

Gemara:

Bar Ketina taught:

The statement in the Mishna that the buyer accepts a quarter of refuse does not refer to a quarter of dust, since people do not waive their rights regarding a mixture of dust; rather,

a quarter of legumes per se’a,

meaning that if legumes were mixed into the grain, the buyer accepts up to a quarter-kav per se’a of grain.

And we challenge this:

And

if so,

does he not accept dust

as well?

But Rabba bar Ḥiyya Katוספאה said in the name of Rabba:

One who

removes a pebble from his fellow’s granary,

having taken a pebble [of dust] out of his wheat and thereby caused him a loss, since he could have sold the wheat together with the pebble mixed into it,

gives him the value of wheat,

he must pay him as though the pebble were wheat.

Thus, dust too may be sold together with the wheat!