On today’s daf, the rabbis discuss the case of someone who buys an ox only to discover that he has purchased an ox that gores. Owning an ox that habitually gores comes with heightened responsibility (and a possible death penalty if the ox gets out and gores again), so we can imagine they might be eager to return the ox and demand a refund. Do the rabbis require the seller to give him the refund?
Rav says: This is a mistaken transaction.
And Shmuel says: He can say to him: I sold it to you for slaughter.
In the case of a mistaken transaction — which is how Rav characterizes this sale — the seller is required to refund the money and take back the ox. But Shmuel insists that if the buyer didn’t say why he wanted the ox, we can’t classify this as the seller’s mistake. An ox’s history of goring is irrelevant if the ox is marked for slaughter, so unless the buyer specifies that he wants the ox for agricultural labor, Shmuel argues, the seller can legally assume he wants it for meat. No refunds required. But can the seller really always assume that the buyer wants the ox for meat?
But let us see if the buyer is a man who purchases oxen for slaughter, (then we can assume it’s) for slaughter. But if (he regularly purchases oxen) for plowing, (then we assume it’s) for plowing.
If the buyer owns a steakhouse, then sure, it seems likely he’s purchasing this ox for its meat. But if the buyer is a farmer with a history of buying oxen for agricultural labor, then the seller should assume that he’s buying this ox for agricultural labor too. The Talmud suggests that both Rav and Shmuel would agree that the seller should know their buyer, and know the buyer’s purchasing habits. But if we’re assuming that’s regularly the case, then what are they disagreeing about?
Concerning a man who purchases oxen for this and for that.
Let’s stick with the steakhouse theme. If the buyer owns a farm-to-table restaurant and uses oxen as both labor and meat, the seller may genuinely not know the specific purpose of each ox purchased. In that case, he is not required to assume the ox will be used for labor nor to offer a refund.
The Talmud goes on to insist that Rav and Shmuel also only disagree if the cost of an ox for slaughter and an ox for labor are currently equal. Otherwise, the seller should be able to determine the intended purpose of the ox based on what the buyer is offering. It is only if the seller isn’t missing some obvious signs and there is genuine uncertainty that Rav and Shmuel disagree. So then why do they disagree about whether the ox can be refunded? The Talmud explains that the disagreement is actually about a larger legal principle:
Rav says: This is a mistaken transaction, as in cases of uncertainty we follow the majority, and the majority purchase oxen for plowing.
And Shmuel could have said to you: When we follow the majority, that is only with regard to ritual matters, but with regard to monetary matters, no.
Rav thinks that when there is genuine uncertainty about what the ox will be used for, it’s expected that it will be used for what most people use oxen for: labor. But Shmuel says we cannot leap to that conclusion. What starts out as a dispute about a specific ox becomes a debate about what we can assume and then how we legislate. When should we assume that people act in predictable ways, and when should we reserve judgment? And what legal weight do those assumptions carry? A single specific case offers us an invitation to explore how actual human beings — with all our messiness, herd mentality and individuality — fit into the rabbinic legislative system.
Read all of Bava Batra 92 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 25, 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.
