Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
by: Reb Yechezkel Khayyat
A Donkey’s Use
Ulla says that Nachum Hamadi and the Sages only dispute whether cargo utensils are included in the sale of a donkey. The Sages say that a donkey is used for riding, and cargo utensils are not included, while Nachum Hamadi says that a donkey is used for cargo, so these utensils are included. The Rashbam implies that Nachum Hamadi holds that donkeys are used only for cargo, while the Rashba and Ritva say that Nachum Hamadi holds that donkeys are used for both cargo and riding.
Utensils on or off?
Ulla limits the dispute of Nachum Hamadi and the Sages to cargo utensils. The Gemora then raised the question of whether the dispute is only when the utensils are on or off the donkey. The question was unresolved. The Rambam (Mechira 27:4) rules that riding utensils are included, even when not on the donkey, while cargo utensils are not included, even when on the donkey. The Rashba and Rema, however, rules that only riding utensils are included, and only when they are on the donkey. The Rashba and Rema understand that the Gemora’s question is on both elements of the Mishna – the case of riding utensils and cargo utensils. The Rambam and Rif, however, understand that Ula was makinga categorical statement that riding utensils are included, whether on or off the donkey. The Gemora’s question was only on the disputed items. Since the Gemora’s question is unresolved, we cannot transfer the cargo utensils from their original ownership, since the buyer needs a bona fide proof to remove it from the current possession. See Taz HM 220:7, and Gra HM 220:9 for further discussion of the differing opinions.
Empty Beehive and Dovecote
The Mishna lists items that are included in a sale – a pit includes its water, a waste pit includes its manure, a beehive includes its bees, and a dovecote includes its doves. The Rashbam says that these are all cases of ancillary items being included in the sale of the main item. Therefore, if one sells only the ancillary items, the main item is not included. The Rosh, however, quotes a Tosefta that says that if one sells all the bees or doves, the beehive or dovecote is included, since one has no need for an empty beehive or dovecote.
A Pit’s Water
The Mishna says that when one sells a pit, its water is included. The Rambam (Mechira 27:10), Rif, and Shulchan Aruch (HM 220:16) rule that the water is not included, while the Rama (ibid), based on the Rashbam and Rosh, rules that the water is included. Although the Mishna says the water is included, Rava (BB 79b) says that Rabbi Nasan, a minority opinion, is the author of the Mishna, while the Sages say the water is not included. The Rashbam explains that when the Gemora identifies a statement of an amora as following a minority opinion, the statement is being rejected. However, all Rava said is that the Mishna is following the minority opinion of Rabbi Nasan, but we still rule like the Mishna. The Rambam and Rif, however, infer from the language of Rava that he doesn’t rule like the Mishna. If Rava simply wanted to identify the author of the Mishna, Rava could have simply said that the Mishna’s author is Rabbi Nasan. Since Rava mentioned the fact that it’s a minority opinion, he was ruling against it.
A Donkey’s Use
Ulla says that Nachum Hamadi and the Sages only dispute whether cargo utensils are included in the sale of a donkey. The Sages say that a donkey is used for riding, and cargo utensils are not included, while Nachum Hamadi says that a donkey is used for cargo, so these utensils are included. The Rashbam implies that Nachum Hamadi holds that donkeys are used only for cargo, while the Rashba and Ritva say that Nachum Hamadi holds that donkeys are used for both cargo and riding.
Utensils on or off?
Ulla limits the dispute of Nachum Hamadi and the Sages to cargo utensils. The Gemora then raised the question of whether the dispute is only when the utensils are on or off the donkey. The question was unresolved. The Rambam (Mechira 27:4) rules that riding utensils are included, even when not on the donkey, while cargo utensils are not included, even when on the donkey. The Rashba and Rema, however, rules that only riding utensils are included, and only when they are on the donkey. The Rashba and Rema understand that the Gemora’s question is on both elements of the Mishna – the case of riding utensils and cargo utensils. The Rambam and Rif, however, understand that Ula was makinga categorical statement that riding utensils are included, whether on or off the donkey. The Gemora’s question was only on the disputed items. Since the Gemora’s question is unresolved, we cannot transfer the cargo utensils from their original ownership, since the buyer needs a bona fide proof to remove it from the current possession. See Taz HM 220:7, and Gra HM 220:9 for further discussion of the differing opinions.
Empty Beehive and Dovecote
The Mishna lists items that are included in a sale – a pit includes its water, a waste pit includes its manure, a beehive includes its bees, and a dovecote includes its doves. The Rashbam says that these are all cases of ancillary items being included in the sale of the main item. Therefore, if one sells only the ancillary items, the main item is not included. The Rosh, however, quotes a Tosefta that says that if one sells all the bees or doves, the beehive or dovecote is included, since one has no need for an empty beehive or dovecote.
A Pit’s Water
The Mishna says that when one sells a pit, its water is included. The Rambam (Mechira 27:10), Rif, and Shulchan Aruch (HM 220:16) rule that the water is not included, while the Rama (ibid), based on the Rashbam and Rosh, rules that the water is included. Although the Mishna says the water is included, Rava (BB 79b) says that Rabbi Nasan, a minority opinion, is the author of the Mishna, while the Sages say the water is not included. The Rashbam explains that when the Gemora identifies a statement of an amora as following a minority opinion, the statement is being rejected. However, all Rava said is that the Mishna is following the minority opinion of Rabbi Nasan, but we still rule like the Mishna. The Rambam and Rif, however, infer from the language of Rava that he doesn’t rule like the Mishna. If Rava simply wanted to identify the author of the Mishna, Rava could have simply said that the Mishna’s author is Rabbi Nasan. Since Rava mentioned the fact that it’s a minority opinion, he was ruling against it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment