## Bava Batra Daf 93a

###### Bava Batra 93a:1
[Bava Batra 93a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93a:1)

מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּרוּבָּא הָכִי אִיתַנְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**what is the reason** that the sale is not considered to be a mistaken transaction? Is it **not because a majority** of slaves **are like this,** i.e., either thieves or gamblers? Apparently, the majority is followed in monetary matters.


###### Bava Batra 93a:2
[Bava Batra 93a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93a:2)

לָא, כּוּלְּהוּ הָכִי אִיתַנְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the proof: **No,** it is because **all** slaves **are like this.** Accordingly, no proof can be drawn as to whether we follow the majority in monetary matters.


###### Bava Batra 93a:3
[Bava Batra 93a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שׁוֹר שֶׁנָּגַח אֶת הַפָּרָה, וְנִמְצָא עוּבָּרָהּ בְּצִדָּהּ, וְאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נְגָחָהּ יָלְדָה, אוֹ אִם מִשֶּׁנְּגָחָהּ יָלְדָה – מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק לַפָּרָה, וּרְבִיעַ לַוָּלָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** another challenge to Rav’s opinion from a mishna (*Bava Kamma* 46a): In the case of an innocuous **ox that gored** and killed **a cow, and** the cow’s **fetus was found** dead **at its side, and it is not known whether** the cow **calved before** the ox **gored it** and the fetus’ death was unrelated to the goring, **or whether it calved after** the ox **gored it** and the fetus died on account of the goring, the ox’s owner **pays half** the cost of **the damage for the cow,** as is the *halakha* for an innocuous ox (see Exodus 21:35), **and one-quarter** of the cost of the damage **for the offspring.** Since it is uncertain whether the ox caused the death of the fetus, its owner pays for half of the standard liability of half the cost of the damage.


###### Bava Batra 93a:4
[Bava Batra 93a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93a:4)

וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא: הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב פָּרוֹת, וְרוֹב פָּרוֹת מִתְעַבְּרוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת; וְהָא וַדַּאי מֵחֲמַת נְגִיחָה הִפִּילָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof from the *baraita*: **But why,** according to Rav, should he only pay for one-quarter of the damage to the fetus? Since there is an uncertainty, **let us say: Follow** the **majority of cows, and** since the **majority of cows become pregnant and calve** live offspring, one should conclude that **this** cow, which did not, **certainly miscarried due to** the ox **goring** it, and the ox’s owner should be liable for half the cost of the fetus. Since that line of reasoning is not applied here, it is apparent that the majority is not followed in monetary matters.


###### Bava Batra 93a:5
[Bava Batra 93a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93a:5)

הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם דִּמְסַפְּקָא לַן, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: מִקַּמַּהּ אֲתָא, וּמִבִּיעֲתוּתָא הִפִּילָה; וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: מֵאֲחוֹרַהּ אֲתָא, וּמִינְגָּח נַגְחַהּ וְהִפִּילָה; הָוֵי מָמוֹן הַמּוּטָּל בְּסָפֵק, וְכׇל מָמוֹן הַמּוּטָּל בְּסָפֵק – חוֹלְקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the proof: **There,** the reason that the ox’s owner pays for only one-quarter of the damage for the fetus is **due** to the fact **that we are uncertain** about how it died, **as it is** possible **to say** that the ox **approached** the cow **from its front and** it was **due to** the cow’s **fright,** not due to the goring, that **it miscarried,** meaning that the ox’s owner would not be liable; **and it is** also possible **to say that** the ox **approached** the cow **from behind it and gored it, and** that is why the cow **miscarried.** Accordingly, the payment for such damage constitutes **property of uncertain ownership, and** the *halakha* is that **all property of uncertain ownership is divided** equally between the two parties.


###### Bava Batra 93a:6
[Bava Batra 93a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93a:6)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה רוֹעֶה, וְנִמְצָא שׁוֹר הָרוּג בְּצִדּוֹ; אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזֶּה מְנוּגָּח וְזֶה מוּעָד לִיגַּח, זֶה מְנוּשָּׁךְ וְזֶה מוּעָד לִישּׁוֹךְ; אֵין אוֹמְרִים: בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁזֶּה נְגָחוֹ וְזֶה נְשָׁכוֹ. רַבִּי אַחָא אוֹמֵר: גָּמָל הָאוֹחֵר בֵּין הַגְּמַלִּים, וְנִמְצָא גָּמָל הָרוּג בְּצִדּוֹ – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁזֶּה הֲרָגוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this dispute between Rav and Shmuel **is parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as it is taught in a *baraita*: In the case of **an ox that was grazing and** another **ox** that **was found killed at its side, even though this** dead ox **has been gored and that** grazing ox **is forewarned with regard to goring,** or **this** dead ox **has been bitten and that** grazing ox **is forewarned with regard to biting,** nevertheless **one does not say** that **it is evident that this** grazing ox **gored** the dead ox **or that** grazing ox **bit it,** despite the fact such behavior is typical for the ox; rather, one cannot draw any definite conclusions. **Rabbi Aḥa says** that in the case of a rutting male **camel that is rampaging among** other **camels and** another **camel** that **was found killed at its side, it is evident that this** rampaging camel **killed it,** as such behavior is typical for a rutting camel. Therefore, the owner of that camel is liable.


###### Bava Batra 93a:7
[Bava Batra 93a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93a:7)

סַבְרוּהָ דְּרוּבָּא וַחֲזָקָה כִּי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ; לֵימָא רַב דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי אַחָא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Those who suggested the parallel between the tannaitic dispute and the dispute between Rav and Shmuel **assumed that a majority and** a logical **presumption** about whether an event will happen **are equivalent** in their capacity to determine the facts of a case. Consequently, **let us say** that **Rav, who says** that one follows the majority in monetary matters, holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Aḥa,** who follows a presumption to determine the facts of a case, **and** that **Shmuel, who says** that one does not follow the majority in monetary matters, holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **the first *tanna*,** who does not follow a presumption.


###### Bava Batra 93a:8
[Bava Batra 93a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93a:8)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְתַנָּא קַמָּא; עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא הָתָם – אֶלָּא דְּלָא אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר חֲזָקָה, אֲבָל בָּתַר רוּבָּא – אָזְלִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Rav** could have **said to you: I am stating** my ruling **even in accordance with** the opinion of **the first *tanna*,** as **the first *tanna* says** that one cannot draw a definite conclusion **only there,** in the case of the grazing ox, **as we do not follow a presumption** in monetary matters, **but** he concedes that **we follow the majority** in monetary matters.


###### Bava Batra 93a:9
[Bava Batra 93a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93a:9)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר לָךְ: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי אַחָא; עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא הָתָם – אֶלָּא דְּאָזְלִינַן בָּתַר חֲזָקָה, דְּהוּא גּוּפֵיהּ מוּחְזָק; אֲבָל בָּתַר רוּבָּא – לָא אָזְלִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel** could have **said to you: I am stating** my ruling **even in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Aḥa,** as **Rabbi Aḥa says** that one can draw a definite conclusion **only there,** in the case of the camels, **since we follow a presumption** in monetary matters, **as** this camel **itself is presumed,** based on its behavior, to be the killer. **But** he concedes that **we do not follow the majority** in deciding monetary matters.


###### Bava Batra 93a:10
[Bava Batra 93a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וּזְרָעָן וְלֹא צִמֵּחוּ; וַאֲפִילּוּ זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another challenge to Rav’s opinion from the mishna: With regard to **one who sells produce to another** that is sometimes purchased for consumption and sometimes for planting, **and** the buyer **planted it and it did not sprout, and even** if he had sold **flaxseeds,** which are rarely sold as food, the seller **does not bear** financial **responsibility for them.**


###### Bava Batra 93a:11
[Bava Batra 93a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93a:11)

מַאי ״אֲפִילּוּ״? לָאו אֲפִילּוּ זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן, דְּרוּבָּא לִזְרִיעָה זָבְנִי, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof: **What** novelty is indicated by saying: **Even** if he had sold flaxseeds? Is it **not** that **even** where he sold **flaxseeds, of which the majority is purchased for planting, and** they were not suitable for that purpose, **nevertheless** the sale stands because **we do not follow the majority** in monetary matters?


###### Bava Batra 93a:12
[Bava Batra 93a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93a:12)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ וּזְרָעָן וְלֹא צִמֵּחוּ; זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָלִין – חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concedes that the mishna cannot be reconciled with Rav’s opinion, but suggests that there are other *tanna’im* who hold in accordance with his opinion. It **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who sells produce to another, and** the buyer **planted it and it did not sprout,** if the produce was **seeds** for **garden** plants, **which are not eaten** at all, then the seller **bears** financial **responsibility for them.** If the produce was **flaxseeds,** which are only occasionally eaten, then the seller **does not bear** financial **responsibility for them. Rabbi Yosei says:**