MISHNAH. [IF] ANYONE HAS SOLD FRUIT TO ANOTHER [NOT SPECIFYING WHETHER AS FOOD OR SEED], AND [THE BUYER] SOWED THEM AND THEY DID NOT GROW, EVEN [IF THEY WERE] LINSEED,1 HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.2 R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: FOR GARDEN SEEDS WHICH ARE NOT EATEN, HE3 IS RESPONSIBLE.4
GEMARA. It has been stated:5 [If] one has sold an ox to another, and it was found to have been wont to gore.6 Rab said, the [sale] is under false pretences.7 But Samuel said: [The seller] can say to him, 'I have sold it to you for [the purpose of] slaughtering'.8 But [cannot the object of the sale] be seen [from the following]? If [he is] a man that buys for slaughtering [then this sale also must have been] for [the purpose of] slaughtering; [and] if for ploughing, [it must have been] for [the purpose of] ploughing. [why then, should there be a dispute between Rab and Samuel]? — [This dispute relates to the case] of a man who buys for both.9 But why not see what price10 was paid?11 — The dispute is applicable [to the case] when the price of meat has risen and stands at [the same level as] the price of [an animal for] ploughing. If so, what difference is there [whether the animal was bought for ploughing or slaughtering]?12 — [There is] a difference [in respect] of the trouble.13 How is this14 to be understood?
Baba Bathra 92b
If there is no [capital] from which [the buyer] may be reimbursed, let the ox be retained for the money;1 as people say.2 'from your debtor accept [even] bran in payment'! — [The dispute between Rab and Samuel] is required only [in the case] where there is [capital] from which [the buyer] may be reimbursed. [In such a case] Rab said: The deal was made under false pretences [because] one must be guided by the general practice3 and most people buy [oxen] for ploughing. But Samuel said [in reply]: One is guided by the general practice in ritual, but not in monetary matters.
(Mnemonic:4 A woman and a slave, an ox, oxen and fruit.)
An objection was raised: [If] a woman has become a widow or has been divorced, and she claims, 'I was married [as] a virgin',5 and he6 says [to her]. '[It was] not so, but I married you [as] a widow',7 if there are witnesses that she left [her father's house for the wedding ceremony] in a curtained litter,8 or with uncovered head,9 she [is entitled to] a kethubah10 of two hundred [zuz].11 Now, the reason [why she receives two hundred zuz is] that there were witnesses but, [it may be inferred], had there been no witnesses, [she would] not [have been entitled to the higher settlement];12 why should it not be said,13 'Be guided by [what] most women [do]', and most women marry [as] virgins? Rabina said: Because It may be assumed [on the one hand], that the majority of women marry [as] virgins and a minority [as] widows, and, [on the other hand, that] whenever [a woman] marries [as] a virgin [the fact] is known; [consequently] since in her case [the fact] is not known,14 the majority principle, as applied to her, is impaired.15 [But] if, [as you have said], all who marry [as] virgins are known [to have so married], what use are witnesses? [Surely], since [the fact that] she [married as a virgin] is not known, they [must] be [regarded as] false witnesses.16 But, [this is the answer], the majority of those who marry [as] virgins are known [to have so married] and since this one is not known, the majority principle in her case is impaired.
Come and hear! [It has been taught:]17 [If] one sold to another a slave who was found to have been a thief or a gambler,18 the sale is valid.19 [If the slave was found to have been] an armed robber or one prescribed by the government '20 [the buyer may] say to him; 'This is yours; take him'.21 Now in the case of] the first clause,
- To Next Folio -