## Bava Batra Daf 92b

###### Bava Batra 92b:1
[Bava Batra 92b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/92b:1)

אִי דְּלֵיכָּא לְאִישְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מִינֵּיהּ, לִיעַכַּב תּוֹרָא בְּזוּזֵיהּ! דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: מִן מָרֵי רְשׁוּתָיךְ – פָּארֵי אִפְּרַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** this is a case **where** the seller **does not** have sufficient funds for the buyer **to be reimbursed by him,** then **let** the buyer **retain the ox** itself **in lieu of his money, as people say:** If you wish to ensure that you will get paid, **collect** even **bran,** an inferior commodity, **from one who is in your debt.** Consequently, even according to the opinion of Rav, the buyer will be likely to retain the ox. What, then, is the practical difference between the opinions of Rav and Shmuel?


###### Bava Batra 92b:2
[Bava Batra 92b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/92b:2)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא לְאִישְׁתַּלּוֹמֵי מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to discuss the case **where** the seller **does have** sufficient funds for the buyer **to be reimbursed by him.**


###### Bava Batra 92b:3
[Bava Batra 92b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/92b:3)

רַב אָמַר: הֲרֵי זֶה מִקָּח טָעוּת – בָּתַר רוּבָּא אָזְלִינַן, וְרוּבָּא לְרִדְיָא זָבְנִי. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר לָךְ: כִּי אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא – בְּאִיסּוּרָא, בְּמָמוֹנָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the logic of each opinion: **Rav says: This is a mistaken transaction,** as in cases of uncertainty **we follow the majority, and** since **the majority** of people **purchase** oxen **for plowing,** it is presumed that this buyer also purchased the ox for plowing. Accordingly, since the ox he received was not suitable for plowing, the sale is void. **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,** such as this, we do **not** follow the majority. Accordingly, there is no basis for voiding the sale.


###### Bava Batra 92b:4
[Bava Batra 92b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/92b:4)

(סִימָן: אִשָּׁה, וְעֶבֶד, שׁוֹר, שְׁוָרִין, וּפֵירוֹת.)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites **a mnemonic** that indicates the topics of the cases it will reference to challenge either Rav’s or Shmuel’s opinion: **Woman, and slave, ox, oxen, and produce.**


###### Bava Batra 92b:5
[Bava Batra 92b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/92b:5)

מֵיתִיבִי: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְאַלְמְנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה; וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת: בְּתוּלָה נִישֵּׂאתִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא אַלְמָנָה נְשָׂאתִיךְ – אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁיָּצְאָה בְּהִינוּמָא, וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ – כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rav’s opinion from a mishna (*Ketubot* 15b): With regard to **a woman who was widowed or divorced,** and is in dispute with her husband or his heirs over the value of the payment she should receive for her marriage contract, **and she says:** When **you married me** I was **a virgin,** and so I am entitled to two hundred dinars, **and he says: That is not** the case; **rather,** when **I married you,** you were **a widow,** and so you are entitled to only one hundred dinars, then **if there are witnesses that she went out** of her father’s house to her wedding **with a veil [*hinnuma*] or** with the hair of **her head loose,** in the typical manner of virgin brides, that is considered sufficient evidence in support of her claim, and so the payment of **her marriage contract is two hundred** dinars.


###### Bava Batra 92b:6
[Bava Batra 92b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/92b:6)

טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים, הָא לֵיכָּא עֵדִים – לָא; וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא: הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב הַנָּשִׁים, וְרוֹב נָשִׁים – בְּתוּלוֹת נִישָּׂאוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **The reason** that she receives two hundred dinars is **that there are witnesses** to her claim. Therefore, if **there were no witnesses,** her claim would **not** be successful. The Gemara asks: **But why? Let us say** that since there is an uncertainty, one should **follow** the **majority of women, and** since the **majority of women marry as virgins,** it should be presumed that this woman also married as a virgin. Accordingly she should be entitled to two hundred dinars. Since this is not the case, it is apparent that the majority is not followed in monetary matters.


###### Bava Batra 92b:7
[Bava Batra 92b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/92b:7)

אָמַר רָבִינָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: רוֹב נָשִׁים בְּתוּלוֹת נִישָּׂאוֹת, וּמִיעוּט אַלְמָנוֹת; וְכׇל הַנִּישֵּׂאת בְּתוּלָה – יֵשׁ לָהּ קוֹל; וְזוֹ, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לָהּ קוֹל – אִיתְּרַע לֵהּ רוּבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** In this case, one cannot decide the case based on the majority of women **because there is** room **to say** that it is so that the **majority of women marry as virgins and** only **a minority** marry **as widows** or non-virgins. **But** it is also so that there is an additional presumption: The marriage of **anyone who marries** as **a virgin generates publicity** of that fact. **And** with regard to **this** woman, who is in a dispute over the value of her marriage contract, **because her** marriage **did not generate publicity** of her marrying as a virgin, the ability to apply what is true of **the majority** of women to her case **is undermined.** Accordingly, there is no proof that the majority is not followed in monetary matters.


###### Bava Batra 92b:8
[Bava Batra 92b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/92b:8)

אִי כׇּל הַנִּישָּׂאוֹת בְּתוּלוֹת יֵשׁ לָהֶן קוֹל, כִּי אִיכָּא עֵדִים מַאי הָוֵי? מִדְּלֵית לַהּ קוֹל – סָהֲדִי שַׁקָּרֵי נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this: **If** it is really true that the marriage of **anyone who marries** as **a virgin generates publicity** of that fact, then even **when there are witnesses** that she was a virgin bride, **what of it? From** the fact that **her** marriage **did not generate publicity** of her marrying as a virgin, perforce **they are false witnesses.**


###### Bava Batra 92b:9
[Bava Batra 92b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/92b:9)

אֶלָּא רוֹב הַנִּישָּׂאוֹת בְּתוּלוֹת יֵשׁ לָהֶן קוֹל, וְזוֹ, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לָהּ קוֹל – אִיתְּרַע לֵהּ רוּבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one must modify the above argument to say that **the majority** of marriages **of women who marry** as **virgins generate publicity** of that fact, **and** with regard to **this** woman, **since her** marriage **did not generate publicity** of her having been married as a virgin, the ability to apply what is true of **the majority** of women to her case **is undermined.**


###### Bava Batra 92b:10
[Bava Batra 92b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/92b:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמּוֹכֵר עֶבֶד לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְנִמְצָא גַּנָּב אוֹ קוּבְיוּסְטוּס, הִגִּיעוֹ. לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין אוֹ מוּכְתָּב לַמַּלְכוּת – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a challenge to Shmuel’s opinion from a *baraita*: In the case of **one who sells a slave to another, and** the slave **is found to be a thief or a gambler [*kuvyustus*],** and the buyer does not wish to have such a slave, nevertheless **it has come to him,** i.e., the slave is acquired by the one who purchased him and the transaction is nonrefundable. By contrast, if the slave is found to be **an armed bandit [*listim*] or** has been judged and **written** to be executed **by the government,** then the buyer can return the slave to the seller and **say to him: That which is yours is before you;** return the money I paid for him, as the sale is void.


###### Bava Batra 92b:11
[Bava Batra 92b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/92b:11)

רֵישָׁא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof from the *baraita*: In **the first clause** of the *baraita*,