בבא בתרא דף עז

אמר אמימר, הלכתא: אותיות נקנות במסירה, כרבי. אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר: גמרא, או סברא? אמר ליה: גמרא. אמר רב אשי: סברא נמי הוא – דאותיות מילי נינהו,

Ameimar says: The halakha is that letters are acquired by merely transferring the document to the buyer, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Is your ruling based on a tradition or on your own logical reasoning? Ameimar said to him: It is based on a tradition. Rav Ashi said: It also stands to reason that the contents of a promissory note are acquired through transferring, as letters, i.e., the contents of a promissory note, are words, i.e., the buyer is acquiring the right to a monetary obligation, not a physical item, and words cannot be acquired through other words.

ומילי במילי לא מיקנין.

ולא?! והאמר רבה בר יצחק אמר רב: שני שטרות הם – ״זכו בשדה לפלוני וכתבו לו את השטר״ – חוזר בשטר, ואינו חוזר בשדה.

The Gemara asks: And is it true that documents cannot be acquired through words? But doesn’t Rabba bar Yitzḥak say that Rav says: There are two types of documents. The first type is where one says to others: Take possession of this field for so-and-so and write the document for him as proof of the sale of the field. In this case, he may renege with regard to the document, i.e., he may change his mind and tell them not to write it. But he may not renege with regard to the field, as the buyer has already acquired it.

״על מנת שתכתבו לו את השטר״ – חוזר בין בשטר בין בשדה.

The second type of document is where he said: Take possession of this field for so-and-so on the condition that you write him a document. If the document has not yet been delivered he can retract his instruction both with regard to the document and with regard to the field, as the transfer of the field is dependent on the writing of the document.

ורב חייא בר אבין אמר רב הונא: שלשה שטרות הן; תרי – הא דאמרן, אידך – אם קדם מוכר וכתב את השטר.

And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Rav Huna says: There are actually three types of documents. Two are those that we stated above, and the other is if the seller wrote the document in advance.

כאותה ששנינו: כותבין שטר למוכר אף על פי שאין לוקח עמו. כיון שהחזיק זה בקרקע – נקנה שטר בכל מקום שהוא; וזו היא ששנינו:

This is like that which we learned in a mishna (167b): A scribe may write a bill of sale for the seller even if the buyer is not with him when the seller presents his request. In a case of this kind, once this buyer takes possession of the land the deed is acquired wherever it is. And this is that which we learned in another mishna (Kiddushin 26a): Property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired together with property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, when the land is acquired by means of giving money, or by means of giving a document, or by means of taking possession. This shows that a bill of sale can be transferred without any act of acquisition performed for the document, and certainly through words, which presents a difficulty to Rav Ashi’s opinion.

נכסים שאין להן אחריות נקנין עם נכסים שיש להן אחריות, בכסף ושטר וחזקה!

אגב שאני; דהא מטבע – דלא ניקני בחליפין, ואגב ארעא ניקני.

The Gemara answers: Acquiring a bill of sale by means of acquisition of land is different, as it is similar to acquisition through an item, not by means of words. The reason is that money, which cannot be acquired through symbolic exchange, a pro forma act of acquisition effecting the transfer of ownership of an item, nevertheless can be acquired by means of land.

כי הא דרב פפא הוו ליה תריסר אלפי זוזי בי חוזאי, אקנינהו ניהליה לרב שמואל בר אחא אגב אסיפא דביתיה. כי אתא, נפק לאפיה עד תווך.

This is like that incident where Rav Pappa had deposited twelve thousand dinars with bailees in Bei Ḥozai. He transferred ownership of the money in Bei Ḥozai to his agent Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa by means of the threshold of his house. The Gemara adds: When Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa came from Bei Ḥozai with the money, Rav Pappa was so happy that he was bringing him his money that he went out all the way until Tavakh to greet him.

אבל לא מכר לא את העבדים ולא את המרצופין ולא את האנתיקי וכו׳. מאי ״אנתיקי״? אמר רב פפא: עיסקא דבגווה.

§ The mishna teaches that when one sells a ship he has sold various other items; but he has not sold the slaves, nor the packing bags, nor the antikei. But when one said to the buyer: You are purchasing the ship and all that it contains, all of these are sold as well. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of antikei? Rav Pappa said: It means the merchandise that is on the ship. This merchandise is not sold together with the ship.

מתני׳ מכר את הקרון – לא מכר את הפרדות, מכר את הפרדות – לא מכר את הקרון. מכר את הצמד – לא מכר את הבקר,

MISHNA: One who sold a wagon [hakkaron] has not sold the mules that pull the wagon. Similarly, if one sold the mules, he has not sold the wagon. One who sold a yoke [hatzemed] has not sold the oxen, and one who sold the oxen has not sold the yoke. Rabbi Yehuda says: The sum of money indicates what one has sold. How so? If the buyer said to the seller: Sell me your yoke for two hundred dinars, since it is a known matter that a yoke is not sold for two hundred dinars he clearly intended to purchase the oxen as well. And the Rabbis say: The sum of money is not proof.

מכר את הבקר – לא מכר את הצמד. רבי יהודה אומר: הדמים מודיעין. כיצד? אמר לו: ״מכור לי צימדך במאתים זוז״ – הדבר

ידוע שאין הצמד במאתים זוז. וחכמים אומרים: אין הדמים ראיה.

גמ׳ תני רב תחליפא בר מערבא קמיה דרבי אבהו: מכר את הקרון – מכר את הפרדות. והא אנן ״לא מכר״ תנן! אמר ליה: איסמייה? אמר ליה: לא,

GEMARA: Rav Taḥlifa, from the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, taught a baraita before Rabbi Abbahu. If one sold a wagon, he has sold the mules together with it. Rabbi Abbahu asked: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that he has not sold the mules? Rav Taḥlifa said to him: Should I erase this baraita, as it is incorrect? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: No, do not erase it; you should explain that your baraita is referring to a case where the mules are fastened to the wagon. In that situation, one who purchases the wagon receives the mules as well.

תיתרגם מתניתיך באדוקין בו.

מכר את הצמד – לא מכר את הבקר וכו׳. היכי דמי? אילימא דקרו לצימדא ״צימדא״ ולבקר ״בקר״ – פשיטא; צימדא זבין ליה, בקר לא זבין ליה!

The mishna teaches: One who sold a yoke has not sold the oxen; and the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree over whether the sum of money proves exactly what was sold. The Gemara analyzes their disagreement: What are the circumstances? If we say that the mishna is referring to a place where they call a yoke: Tzimda, and they call oxen: Bakar, it is obvious that he sold him a yoke and did not sell him the oxen. But if the mishna is referring to a place where they also call oxen: Tzimda, then the seller sold him everything.

ואלא דקרו ליה נמי לבקר ״צימדא״? כוליה זבין ליה!

לא צריכא, באתרא דקרו ליה לצימדא ״צימדא״ ולבקר ״בקר״, ואיכא נמי דקרו לבקר ״צימדא״; רבי יהודה סבר: הדמים מודיעין, ורבנן סברי: אין הדמים ראיה. ואי אין הדמים ראיה,

The Gemara explains: No, their dispute is necessary in a place where they call a yoke: Tzimda, and call oxen: Bakar, but there are also those who call oxen: Tzimda. Since it is unclear what is meant by the term: Tzimda, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the sum of money indicates whether he purchased a yoke or oxen, and the Rabbis hold that the amount of money does not serve as proof. The Gemara asks: But if the amount of money does not serve as proof, then in a case where the buyer paid two hundred dinars and received only a yoke, let the transaction be nullified.

ליהוי ביטול מקח!