Bava Batra 151

ובשטר

or by a bill of sale.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mere delivery of the bond (mesirah) does not confer upon the buyer any right to the debt, but only to the scrap of paper (Tosef. Kid. I). ');">¹</span> 'Letters'! Who mentioned them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna only dealt with a ship; why then does R. Nathan introduce letters? ');">²</span>

אותיות מאן דכר שמייהו חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני ספינה נקנית במשיכה ואותיות במסירה רבי נתן אומר ספינה ואותיות נקנות במשיכה ובשטר

— Something is missing [in the statement of the first Tanna], and the following is the correct reading: A ship is acquired by <i>meshikah</i>, and letters by <i>mesirah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because meshikah is effective only in the case of an object of intrinsic value. The intrinsic value of a bond is only that of the paper which may be acquired by meshikah. The right to the debt, however, cannot be acquired except by 'mesirah. ');">³</span> R. Nathan said: A ship and letters are acquired by <i>meshikah</i> and by a bill of sale. [But] why should a bill of sale be required in [the case of] a ship? [Surely] it is a movable object!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And movable objects, are acquired by meshikah alone. ');">⁴</span>

שטר לספינה למה לי מטלטלי היא אלא לאו הכי קתני ספינה נקנית במשיכה ואותיות במסירה רבי נתן אומר ספינה במשיכה ואותיות בשטר

But no,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reading just suggested cannot be the correct one. ');">⁵</span> the following is the correct reading: A ship is acquired by <i>meshikah</i> and letters by <i>mesirah</i>. R. Nathan said: A ship [is acquired] by <i>meshikah</i>, and letters by a bill of sale.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to the delivery of the bond. V. 307, n. 2. ');">⁶</span>

ספינה במשיכה היינו תנא קמא אלא דרב ושמואל איכא בינייהו לא דכולי עלמא אי כרב אי כשמואל ובספינה כולי עלמא לא פליגי

[Is not the statement of R. Nathan], 'a ship [is acquired] by <i>meshikah</i>', identical with that of the first Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should R. Nathan make his statement at all? ');">⁷</span> [May we not then conclude that] they differ on the same principles as Rab and Samuel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna, like Samuel, requires full meshikah, viz., pulling the entire ship into a new position. R. Nathan, on the other hand, who obviously disputes this requirement, maintains, like Rab, that a slight pull is sufficient. ');">⁸</span>

כי פליגי באותיות והכי קאמר ליה ר' נתן לתנא קמא בספינה ודאי מודינא לך באותיות אי איכא שטר אין אי לא לא

— No; [the views of] both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nathan and the first Tanna. ');">⁹</span> are either like [those of] Rab or like [those of] Samuel; and in [the case of] a ship there is no dispute whatsoever between them. They differ only in [the case of] letters. And this is what R. Nathan said to the first Tanna: in [the case of] a ship I certainly agree with you;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the right of ownership is acquired by meshikah either complete (according to Samuel) or slight (according to Rab). ');">¹⁰</span>

ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא אותיות נקנות במסירה דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים בין כתב ולא מסר בין מסר ולא כתב לא קנה עד שיכתוב וימסור

but, as regards letters, if there is [also] a bill of sale he does [acquire the right to the debt]; otherwise, [he does] not. And their dispute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of R. Nathan and the first Tanna. ');">¹¹</span>

במאי אוקימתא כרבי ספינה נמי תיקני במסירה דתניא ספינה נקנית במסירה דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים לא קנה

is analogous to that of the following Tannaim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nathan agrees with the Sages, and the first Tanna with Rabbi. ');">¹²</span> For it has been taught: Letters may be acquired by <i>mesirah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The buyer acquires the right to the debt as soon as the bond is delivered to him. ');">¹³</span> these are the words of Rabbi. But the Sages say: Whether [the seller] has written [a bill of sale] but has not delivered [the bond],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the bill of sale had been delivered. ');">¹⁴</span> or whether he has delivered [the bond] but has not written [a bill of sale], [the buyer] does not acquire possession until [the seller] has written [the bill of sale] and delivered [the bond].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The delivery also of the bill of sale is assumed (Kid. 47b). ');">¹⁵</span> How has the matter been established? [That the first Tanna is] in agreement with Rabbi! Should not [then] a ship also be acquired by <i>mesirah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then does the first Tanna require meshikah? ');">¹⁶</span> For it was taught: A ship is acquired by <i>mesirah</i>, these are the words of Rabbi. And the Sages say: It is not acquired