Bava Batra 155

וכי תימא ביטול מקח לרבנן לית להו ולא והתנן רבי יהודה אומר המוכר ס"ת בהמה ומרגלית אין להן אונאה אמרו לו לא אמרו אלא את אלו

And should you reply that the Rabbis do not accept [the law of the return of overcharge or that of] the cancellation of the purchase,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if it is assumed that the Rabbis do not require the return of the overcharge when it is a sixth of the value, and the cancellation of the entire transaction when the overcharge is more. ');">¹</span> surely.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and not? surely'. ');">²</span> have we not learnt: R. Judah says: 'In the case of the sale of a scroll of the Law, a beast or a pearl, [the law of] overcharging does not apply.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the buyer can claim no redress for being overcharged. ');">³</span> But they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis. ');">⁴</span>

מאי אין דמים ראיה נמי דקתני דהוי ביטול מקח ואיבעית אימא כי אמור רבנן אונאה וביטול מקח בכדי שהדעת טועה אבל בכדי שאין הדעת טועה לא אימור מתנה יהב ליה:

said unto him: Only [about] those [mentioned above]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those mentioned in the first part of the Mishnah in B.M. 56a. ');">⁵</span> has [this]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the law of exemption from overcharging. ');">⁶</span> been said.'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 56b. But in all other cases, according to the Rabbis, either the overcharge must be returned or the entire transaction cancelled. Why then do the Rabbis say here that the price is no proof implying that the sale is valid and that no overcharge is to be returned? ');">⁷</span> — What is the meaning of [the statement that] the price is no proof? That the [entire] sale is to be cancelled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the overcharging was higher than a sixth of the price; where it was less, only the overcharge would have to be returned. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המוכר את החמור לא מכר כליו נחום המדי אומר מכר כליו רבי יהודה אומר פעמים מכורין פעמים אינן מכורין כיצד היה חמור לפניו וכליו עליו ואמר לו מכור לי חמורך זה הרי כליו מכורין חמורך הוא אין כליו מכורין:

If you prefer, I would say: The Rabbis apply [the laws of] overcharging and cancellation of sale [only in cases] where one is likely<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the overcharge is only small. ');">⁹</span> to be deceived,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when the mind might err'. ');">¹⁰</span> but not when one is unlikely to be deceived,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in our Mishnah, no one could be deceived into giving two hundred zuz for a yoke worth only a fraction of such a large sum. ');">¹¹</span> [for in the latter case] it may be assumed that [the difference] was given as a gift. nbsp;

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר עולא מחלוקת בשק ודיסקיא וכומני דתנא קמא סבר סתם חמור לרכוב קאי ונחום המדי סבר סתם חמור למשאוי קאי אבל אוכף ומרדעת קילקלי וחבק ד"ה מכורין

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. HE WHO SELLS AN ASS HAS NOT SOLD ITS EQUIPMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara explains the reason. ');">¹²</span> NAHUM THE MEDE SAYS: HE HAS SOLD ITS EQUIPMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is, i.e., with its equipment. ');">¹³</span> R. JUDAH SAYS: SOMETIMES IT IS SOLD, SOMETIMES IT IS NOT SOLD. HOW SO? IF THE ASS WITH ITS EQUIPMENT UPON IT STOOD BEFORE HIM AND HE [THE BUYER] SAID UNTO HIM: 'SELL ME THIS ASS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is, i.e., with its equipment. ');">¹³</span> OF YOURS, THEN ITS EQUIPMENT IS SOLD. [IF, HOWEVER, HE SAID]: 'IS THE ASS YOURS? [SELL IT TO ME].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case he offered to buy the ass only. ');">¹⁴</span>

מיתיבי חמור וכליו אני מוכר לך ה"ז מכר את האוכף ואת המרדעת ואת הקילקלי ואת החבק אבל לא מכר שק ודיסקיא וכומני ובזמן שאמר לו היא וכל מה שעליה הרי כולן מכורין טעמא דא"ל חמור וכליו הוא דקני אוכף ומרדעת הא לא א"ל הכי לא

ITS EQUIPMENT IS NOT SOLD. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. 'Ulla said: The dispute [between the first Tanna and Nahum the Mede is only] about the sack, the saddle-bag,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] [G] doubled pouched bag. ');">¹⁵</span> and pallet.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] perhaps from [G] pallet-bed. V. the Talmudic explanation, infra. ');">¹⁶</span> For the first Tanna is of the opinion that an ass is, as a rule, used for riding,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by males; and since a sack, saddle-bag and pallet are not required by men-riders, these are not included in the sale of the ass. ');">¹⁷</span>

הוא הדין דאע"ג דלא אמר ליה חמור וכליו נמי אוכף ומרדעת מכורין והא קמ"ל דאע"ג דאמר ליה חמור וכליו שק ודיסקיא וכומני לא קני

and Nahum the Mede is of the opinion that an' ass is, as a rule, used for carrying burdens;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sack, etc., which are required for an ass carrying burdens, are, therefore, also included in the sale. ');">¹⁸</span> but [in the case of the] saddle, pack-saddle, cover<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] coarse cloth made of Cilician goats' hair, worn on the animal's back. ');">¹⁹</span> and saddle-belt both agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the words of all', i.e., the first Tanna and Nahum the Mede. ');">²⁰</span> that these are included in the sale.

מאי כומני אמר רב פפא בר שמואל מרכבתא דנשי

An objection was raised: [It has been taught: If one says to another] 'I sell you the ass and its equipment', he has sold him the saddle, the pack.saddle. the cover and the saddle-belt, but he has not sold the sack, the saddle-bag and the pallet; if, however, he said unto him, '[I sell you] it [the ass] and all that is upon it', then all these are included in the sale. [From this follows that] the reason why [the buyer] acquires possession of the saddle and the pack. saddle is that [the seller] said '[I sell] it and its equipment', but if he had not said so, [the buyer would] not [have acquired these]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, can 'Ulla say that both the first Tanna and Nahum the Mede agree that these parts of the equipment are always implicitly included in the sale of the ass? ');">²¹</span> No! The law that the saddle and the pack-saddle are included in the sale is applicable even though [the seller] did not say unto him '[I sell you the] ass and its equipment'; but [by the inclusion of the statement]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' '(I sell you) it and its equipment'. ');">²²</span> he teaches us that although [the seller] said unto him: '[I sell you] the ass and its equipment's he [the buyer] does not acquire the sack, the saddle-bag and the pallet.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the opinion of the first Tanna in our Mishnah. ');">²³</span> What is kumni?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 313. n. 5, ');">²⁴</span>

איבעיא להו בעודן עליו מחלוקת אבל בשאינן עליו מודה להו נחום המדי או דלמא בשאינן עליו מחלוקת אבל בעודן עליו מודו ליה רבנן לנחום תא שמע ובזמן שאמר לו הוא וכל מה שעליו הרי כולן מכורין

— R. Papa b. Samuel said: A [mattress] seat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] usually chariot. ');">²⁵</span> for travelling women. The students inquired: Is the dispute [between the first Tanna and Nahum the Mede] in the case when [the sack and saddle-bag] are upon it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., upon the ass at the time of the sale. ');">²⁶</span> but when these are not upon it, Nahum the Mede agrees with the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That these are not included in the sale. ');">²⁷</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא בעודן עליו מחלוקת הא מני רבנן היא אלא אי אמרת בשאין עודן עליו מחלוקת אבל בעודן עליו דברי הכל מכורין הא מני

or is the dispute in the case when these are not upon it, but when they are upon it, the Rabbis agree with Nahum?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That these are included in the sale. ');">²⁸</span> Come and hear: [It is stated in the above Baraitha:] But when he said unto him, '[I sell you] it and all that is upon it', then all these are sold. Now, this would be correct if it were assumed that the dispute [related to the case] when they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the saddle and the saddle-bag. ');">²⁹</span> are upon it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ass. ');">³⁰</span> [since] this [Baraitha] could be assigned to the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who stated that unless 'it and all upon it' was expressly mentioned, the equipment is not included in the sale. ');">³¹</span>

לעולם בשאין עודן עליו מחלוקת ורבנן היא ואימא ובזמן שאמר לו הוא וכל מה שראוי להיות עליו

If, however, it is assumed that the dispute [relates to the case] when they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 8. ');">³²</span> are not upon it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 9. ');">³³</span> but that [in case] they are upon it both agree that they are [implicitly] included in the sale, to whom [could] this [Baraitha be assigned]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neither to the Rabbis nor to Nahum the Mede, since both have been assumed to agree that in the case when the saddle etc. were upon the ass they are implicitly included in the sale, while according to the Baraitha these are not included unless 'it and all upon it', had been explicitly stated at the time of the sale. ');">³⁴</span> — It may still be said that the dispute relates to the case when they are not upon it, and the Baraitha may be assigned to the Rabbis, but read: If, however, he said unto him, 'it and all that ought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha accordingly relates to the case when the saddle etc. were not upon the ass. ');">³⁵</span>

תא שמע רבי יהודה אומר פעמים מכורין פעמים שאינן מכורין מאי לאו אמאי דקאמר תנא קמא קאי רבי יהודה לא רבי יהודה

to be on it'. Come and hear: R. JUDAH SAYS: SOMETIMES IT IS SOLD, SOMETIMES IT IS NOT SOLD. Now, does not R. Judah presumably base his statement on what the first Tanna has said? [And since R. Judah specifically<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the last clause of the Mishnah. ');">³⁶</span> deals with the case when the equipment is upon the ass, the first Tanna must also be speaking of a similar case!]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could it be said that the dispute in the Mishnah relates to the case when the equipment is not upon the ass? ');">³⁷</span> — No; R. Judah