Bava Batra 171

פירקן והכניסן לתוך ביתו פסק עד שלא מדד אין שניהן יכולין לחזור בהן מדד עד שלא פסק שניהן יכולין לחזור בהן ומדכליו דמוכר ברשות לוקח לא קנה כליו דלוקח נמי ברשות מוכר לא קנה

If he has unloaded them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The goods bought. ');">¹</span> and brought them into his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer's. ');">²</span> house [and] fixed [the price] before measuring, neither of them may withdraw.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the goods are presumably still in the seller's sacks; because the buyer's premises acquired possession for him. ');">³</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק בששפכן איקפד רבא מידי שפכן קתני פירקן קתני אלא אמר מר בר רב אשי במתאכלי דתומי

[If] measuring took place before the price has been fixed, both may withdraw.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the price is agreed upon. the sale cannot be regarded as completed; because neither buyer nor seller makes up his mind to sell or to buy before knowing whether the other party will accept his price or offer. Cf. n. 7. ');">⁴</span> Now, since the vessel of the seller, [if it is] on the premises of the buyer, does not serve as a means of retaining possession for him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it has been said that, if the price had been fixed, none may withdraw, though the goods are presumably still in the buyer's sacks. This shows that the buyer's premises acquire possession for him despite the fact that the goods remain in the seller's vessels. ');">⁵</span> the vessel of the buyer also [if it is] on the premises of the seller does not serve as a means of acquiring possession for him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If premises (the buyer's) can serve as a means of depriving the seller from ownership of his goods though still in his vessels, how much more, in the case of goods in the buyer's vessels, should premises (the seller's) be capable of serving as a means of retaining ownership. ');">⁶</span>

א"ל הונא בריה דמר זוטרא לרבינא מכדי פירקן קתני מה לי פסק ומה לי לא פסק א"ל פסק סמכא דעתיה לא פסק לא סמכא דעתיה

R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: [The law quoted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That goods unloaded on the premises of the buyer are acquired by him. ');">⁷</span> refers to the case] when [the goods] were emptied out [from the seller's sacks into the territory of the buyer]. Raba [remarked] indignantly: Does it state 'he emptied them'? The statement reads, 'he unloaded them'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., As delivered in their sacks. ');">⁸</span> But, said Mar son of R. Ashi: [The law here refers] to bundles of garlic.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are not delivered in sacks. When unloaded they come in direct contact with the buyer's territory. ');">⁹</span>

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ת"ש דרב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו כליו של אדם קונה לו בכל מקום לאתויי מאי לאו לאתויי רשות מוכר התם דא"ל זיל קני

Huna the son of Mar Zutra said to Rabina: Observe that it has been said, 'he unloaded them';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the territory of the buyer, which legally acquires ownership for him. ');">¹⁰</span> what matters it, then, [whether the price had been] fixed or not? — He [Rabina] replied: [When the price] has been fixed, each [of the parties] acquiesces [in the sale, but when a price] has not been fixed, none [of them] acquiesces.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 349. n. II. ');">¹¹</span> Rabina said to R. Ashi: come and hear! [It has been stated:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 84b f. ');">¹²</span>

תנן התם נכסים שיש להן אחריות נקנין בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה ושאין להן אחריות אין נקנין אלא במשיכה בסורא מתנו לה להא שמעתא משמיה דרב חסדא בפומבדיתא מתנו לה משמיה דרב כהנא ואמרי לה משמיה דרבא לא שנו אלא דברים שאין דרכן להגביה אבל דברים שדרכן להגביה בהגבהה אין במשיכה לא

Both Rab and Samuel hold that a man's vessel acquires for him ownership everywhere. Does not this ['everywhere'] include the premises of the seller? — [In the case spoken of] there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the statement of Rab and Samuel. ');">¹³</span> [the other replied, the seller] said to him 'go and acquire ownership'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The seller thereby implied that he lent the buyer the spot on which his vessel stood. ');">¹⁴</span> We have learnt elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 26a supra 51a, infra 150b. ');">¹⁵</span>

יתיב אביי וקאמר להא שמעתא איתיביה רב אדא בר מתנה לאביי הגונב כיס בשבת חייב שכבר נתחייב בגניבה קודם שיבא לידי איסור שבת

Ownership of landed property<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 310, n. 7. ');">¹⁶</span> is acquired by means of money. deed and possession;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. l.c., n. 10. ');">¹⁷</span> and movable property<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. l.c. n. 6. ');">¹⁸</span>

היה מגרר ויוצא מגרר ויוצא פטור שהרי איסור שבת וגניבה באין כאחד

is acquired only by <i>meshikah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁹</span> The following reported statement has been attributed in Sura to R. Hisda; at Pumbeditha, to R. Kahana or — according to others — to Raba: [The law of <i>meshikah</i>] has been taught, with reference only to [heavy] objects which are not usually lifted, but objects which are usually lifted can be acquired by hagbahahl<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁰</span> only; not by <i>meshikah</i>. Abaye sat lecturing on this law, [when] R. Adda b. Mattenah raised the following objection. [It has been taught]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.K. IX. ');">²¹</span>

והרי כיס דבר הגבהה הוא ואפילו הכי קני במשיכה א"ל במיתנא אנא נמי במיתנא קא אמינא א"ל במידי דבעי מיתנא

He who steals a purse on the Sabbath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And carried it out into reshuth harabbim. It is forbidden to carry from private domain into public domain and vice versa on the Sabbath. ');">²²</span> is liable [to make restitution], because the obligation [to pay restitution], for the theft 'has preceded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thief becomes liable to pay restitution as soon as he lifted the object. ');">²³</span> the offence against the prohibition of the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His liability to the penalty for desecrating the Sabbath does not commence simultaneously with his liability to make restitution. While the latter follows immediately upon his lifting of the stolen object (cf. previous note), the former is effected subsequently. when he takes the object out into reshuth harabbim. Since the two offences have not been committed simultaneously, the law that the lighter penalty (that for theft) is superseded by the heavier (that for desecration of the Sabbath) does not apply. ');">²⁴</span>

תא שמע ברשות מוכר לא קנה עד שיגביהנה או עד שיוציאנה מרשותו אלמא מידי דבר הגבהה אי בעי בהגבהה קני ליה ואי בעי במשיכה קני ליה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לצדדין קתני מידי דבר הגבהה בהגבהה מידי דבר משיכה במשיכה

If he was dragging [it]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there was no 'lifting' whereby to acquire possession of the theft. ');">²⁵</span> as he was moving out, he is exempt [from the payment of restitution]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The heavier penalty for the desecration of the Sabbath supersedes the lighter penalty for theft. ');">²⁶</span> because here the offences relating to the desecration of the Sabbath and to theft have been committed simultaneously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the object has not been lifted while on the premises of the owner, the thief acquires possession by meshikah, only when the stolen object has been taken out, but at that moment he also commits the offence against the laws of Sabbath, which prohibit the removal of things from one domain into another. (V. n. 2.) ');">²⁷</span> Now, surely. a purse is an object which is usually lifted, and yet it is acquired by <i>meshikah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it has been said that the offence relating to theft had been committed simultaneously with that of the desecration of the Sabbath, though at the time of the dragging out there was only meshikah and no lifting at all. ');">²⁸</span> He replied unto him: When [the purse has] a cord. 'I also', said R. Adda, 'speak of one with a cord' [and yet it is small enough to be lifted]! — [Abaye] replied: [I say that the law refers to] a thing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A big purse. ');">²⁹</span> [so heavy] that it requires a cord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby to drag it out; and since it is a heavy object it can justly be acquired by meshikah. ');">³⁰</span> Come and hear: [It has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 85a. ');">³¹</span> If the purchase was] on the premises of the seller, [the buyer] does not acquire possession until he lifts it or removes it from the seller's premises. This proves clearly that an object which can be lifted may be acquired in accordance with one's desire, either by 'lifting' or by <i>meshikah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Removing from the seller's premises', without lifting is obviously meshikah. ');">³²</span> R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: What has been taught is to be taken — disjunctively; that which can be lifted [is acquired] by lifting, and that which has to be pulled [is acquired] by <i>meshikah</i>.