Yesterday, we considered whether selling a cart automatically includes the animals that pull it. Today, we consider whether sale of a donkey includes its harness, saddle and other associated equipment:
One who sells a donkey has not sold its equipment with it.
Nahum the Mede says: “He has sold its equipment.”
Rabbi Yehuda says: “There are times when the equipment is sold, and there are times when it is not sold.” How so? If the donkey was before him and its equipment was on it and the buyer said: “Sell me this donkey of yours,” — its equipment is sold. If the buyer said: “Is the donkey yours? I wish to purchase it,” — its equipment is not sold.
The anonymous stance, meaning the opinion of most rabbis, is that equipment isn’t included in the sale of a donkey, though Nahum the Mede disagrees. Rabbi Yehuda says it depends. The Gemara wants to understand the context in which they disagree and begins by quoting a beraita:
When the seller said to the buyer: “I am selling it and everything that is on it,” — the donkey and all of these items are sold.
In this case, it is clear that the equipment is currently strapped to the donkey and the seller specifies that it is part of the sale. It is in this case, suggests the Gemara, that the rabbis disagree, with Nahum the Mede saying the equipment has indeed been sold but the rabbis saying it has not.
But this is counterintuitive and the Gemara is not satisfied with this resolution — even questioning the accuracy of the beraita:
Actually, the dispute applies when the equipment is not on the donkey, and the beraita is in accordance with the opinion of the rabbis, and the language of the beraita should be emended to say: “And when he said to him: ‘I am selling it and everything that is fit to be on it (i.e., those items usually found on a donkey),’ — everything is sold.”
The Gemara now suggests that the mishnah is dealing with a situation where the equipment is not on the donkey. This reading of the mishnah implies that if the equipment is on the donkey, it’s included in the sale, but that’s not explicitly stated. How then does this apply to Rabbi Yehuda’s medial position? The Gemara says he’s talking about another set of circumstances, one that assumes the equipment is on the donkey and that focuses on the difference in the potential buyer’s language:
Rava said that when the buyer says: “Sell me this donkey of yours,” he knows that the donkey belongs to the seller, and as for that which he said to him — “this” — he said that to him due to its equipment. By contrast, when the buyer says: “Is the donkey yours?” the buyer indicates that he does not know that the donkey belongs to the seller, and this is what he is saying to him: “Is the donkey yours that you can sell it to me?”
The word “this” indicates that the buyer has in mind the donkey as it stands in front of him with everything on it. Moreover, the buyer doesn’t ask if it belongs to the seller because he already knows. However, when the buyer has to inquire who the donkey belongs to and omits the word “this,” the result is a more limited sale.
In this way, the Gemara demonstrates that each of the three positions in the mishnah are correct under different circumstances. If the equipment isn’t on the donkey, it’s not sold (the anonymous position). If it is on the donkey, it’s sold (Nahum the Mede’s position). But if the buyer uses particular language when the equipment is on the donkey, it depends (Rabbi Yehuda’s position). Who knew buying a donkey could be so complicated?
Read all of Bava Batra 78 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 11, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
