## Bava Batra Daf 93b

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

נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי זֶרַע. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הַרְבֵּה לוֹקְחִין אוֹתוֹ לִדְבָרִים אֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The seller **gives** back **to** the buyer **the value of the seeds.** Since the majority of flaxseeds are sold are for planting, it is a mistaken transaction. **They said to him,** i.e., to Rabbi Yosei: **Many,** i.e., a majority of people, **purchase** flaxseeds **for purposes other** than planting. Consequently, the sale stands.


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

מַאן תַּנָּאֵי? אִילֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְ״אָמְרוּ לוֹ״; תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בָּתַר רוּבָּא אָזְלִי – מָר אָזֵיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְאִינָשֵׁי, וּמָר אָזֵיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דִזְרִיעָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Who** are the ***tanna’im*** in this *baraita* who have a dispute that parallels the dispute between Rav and Shmuel? **If we say** that they are **Rabbi Yosei and** the opinion cited as: **They said to him,** that is incorrect, as **both of them** hold that one **follows the majority** in monetary matters. Their dispute concerns only which majority to follow: One **Sage,** i.e., the opinion cited as: They said to him, **follows the majority of people** making purchases, **and** one **Sage,** i.e., Rabbi Yosei, **follows the majority** of the volume **of seeds** that are sold overall. The disparity arises because the majority of sales are each made with a relatively small quantity of seeds that are purchased for purposes other than planting. The minority of sales involve large quantities of seeds that are purchased for planting. This means that the majority of the seeds sold overall are purchased for planting, but the majority of people purchasing seeds do so for purposes other than planting.


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

אֶלָּא אִי תַּנָּא קַמָּא וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אִי תַּנָּא קַמָּא וְ״אָמְרוּ לוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the dispute that parallels the dispute between Rav and Shmuel is **either** the dispute between **the first *tanna* and Rabbi Yosei, or the** dispute between **the first *tanna* and** the opinion cited as: **They said to him.**


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַהוּ נוֹתֵן לוֹ? דְּמֵי זֶרַע, וְלֹא הוֹצָאָה. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף הוֹצָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: When the seller bears financial responsibility for selling seeds that did not sprout, **what is** he liable to **give to** the buyer? He is liable to give him only the **value of the seeds** themselves, **but not the expenses** that the buyer incurred in planting them, e.g., the hire of laborers. **And some say:** He is liable to give him **even the expenses** that the buyer incurred.


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

מַאן יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Who is** the *tanna* whose opinion is cited as: **Some say? Rav Ḥisda said** that **it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.**


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

הֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? אִילֵּימָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְּמַתְנִיתִין – דִּתְנַן: הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵירוֹ וּזְרָעָן וְלֹא צִמֵּחוּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן. הָא זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין – חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: From **which** statement of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** is it apparent that he holds the seller is liable for the buyer’s expenses? One possibility is **if we say** that the statement in question is that of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the mishna, as we learned** in the mishna: **One who sells to another produce** 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 only occasionally eaten, the seller **does not bear** financial **responsibility for them.** The Gemara extrapolates: By inference, if this *tanna* holds that he had sold **seeds** for **garden** plants, **which are not eaten** at all, then the seller **bears** financial **responsibility** to compensate the buyer **for them.**


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

אֵימָא סֵיפָא, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין – חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן. תַּנָּא קַמָּא נָמֵי הָכִי קָאָמַר – זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, הָא זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין – חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: But accordingly, **say the latter clause: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** If he had sold **seeds** for **garden** plants, **which are not eaten** at all, then the seller **bears** financial **responsibility for them.** The Gemara asks: But according to the inference made from the first clause, **the first *tanna* is also saying this,** as he holds that it is only for the sale of **flaxseeds that** the seller **does not bear** financial **responsibility** to compensate the buyer **for them,** but with regard to the sale of **seeds** for **garden** plants, **which are not eaten** at all, the seller **bears** financial **responsibility for them.** What, then, is the dispute between the first *tanna* and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?


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

אֶלָּא לָאו הוֹצָאָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – מָר סָבַר דְּמֵי זֶרַע, וּמָר סָבַר אַף הוֹצָאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara therefore suggests: **Rather, is it not** that the difference **between them** is whether the seller is liable for the buyer’s **expenses?** One **Sage,** i.e., the first *tanna*, **holds** that the seller is liable only for the **value of** the **seeds, and** the other **Sage,** i.e., Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that the seller is liable **even** for the buyer’s **expenses.**


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

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא אִיפְּכָא! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא; כׇּל תַּנָּא בָּתְרָא, לְטַפּוֹיֵי מִילְּתָא קָא אָתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where** is it apparent that it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who holds that the seller is liable for the expenses? **Perhaps** it is **the opposite,** i.e., it is the first *tanna* who holds that the seller is liable for the expenses, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that he is liable only for the value of the seeds. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **This** is **not difficult,** because **the last *tanna*** cited **always comes to add something** to the ruling of the first *tanna*, not to detract from it.


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

וְדִלְמָא כּוּלָּהּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא – וְחַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵירוֹ וּזְרָעָן וְלֹא צִמֵּחוּ, אֲפִילּוּ זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, הָא זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין – חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן; דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל; שֶׁרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, הָא זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין – חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **But perhaps all of** the mishna **is** stating the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and** the mishna **is incomplete, and this** is what **it is teaching:** With regard to **one who sells produce to another** that is sometimes purchased for eating and sometimes for planting, **and** the buyer **planted it and it did not sprout,** and **even** if he had sold **flaxseeds,** which are only occasionally eaten, the seller **does not bear** financial **responsibility for them.** But if he sold **seeds** for **garden** plants, **which are not eaten** at all, the seller **bears** financial **responsibility for them.** This is **the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says** that **it is** only for the sale of **flaxseeds that** the seller **does not bear** financial **responsibility** to compensate the buyer **for them,** but by inference, for the sale of **seeds** for **garden** plants, **which are not eaten** at all, the seller **bears** financial **responsibility for them.** Interpreted in this way, there is no evidence from the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the seller is liable for the expenses.


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

אֶלָּא הָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל – דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹלִיךְ חִטִּין לַטָּחוֹן, וְלֹא לְתָתָן – וַעֲשָׂאָן סוּבִּין אוֹ מוּרְסָן; קֶמַח לַנַּחְתּוֹם, וַאֲפָאוֹ פַּת נִיפּוּלִין; בְּהֵמָה לַטַּבָּח, וְנִיבְּלָהּ – חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the statement in question is **this** statement of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Bava Kamma* 10:9) In a case of **one who brought wheat** to a miller **to grind, and** the miller **did not wet** the grains sufficiently for the grinding to be performed effectively, **and** as a result **he converted** the grain **into bran or coarse bran [*mursan*],** or in a case of one who gave **flour to the baker and** the baker **made it** into **bread** that is **underbaked** and tends to crumble, or if one gave **an animal to a butcher and** the butcher killed it in a way that **rendered it** an unslaughtered **animal carcass,** in all these cases the worker is **liable, because he is like a paid bailee.**


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

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי בוֹשְׁתּוֹ, וּדְמֵי בּוֹשֶׁת אוֹרְחָיו. וְכֵן הָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מִנְהָג גָּדוֹל הָיָה בִּירוּשָׁלָיִם – הַמּוֹסֵר סְעוּדָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְקִלְקְלָהּ; נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי בׇשְׁתּוֹ וּדְמֵי בּוֹשֶׁת אוֹרְחָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** If the owner had invited guests to eat the food and due to the worker’s actions he was unable to serve them, then the worker must **give him compensation for his humiliation and compensation for the humiliation of his guests. And similarly, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say: There was a great custom in Jerusalem** that if **one gives** raw materials for **a meal to another** to prepare the meal for him, **and** that person **spoils it,** that person **gives** the former **compensation for his humiliation and compensation for the humiliation of his guests.**


###### Bava Batra 93b:13
[Bava Batra 93b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93b:13)

עוֹד מִנְהָג גָּדוֹל הָיָה בִּירוּשָׁלָיִם – מַפָּה פְּרוּסָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַפֶּתַח; כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁמַּפָּה פְּרוּסָה – אוֹרְחִין נִכְנָסִין. נִסְתַּלְּקָה הַמַּפָּה – אֵין הָאוֹרְחִין נִכְנָסִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Another great custom** that **was** followed **in Jerusalem** was that when one made a feast, there would be **a cloth [*mappa*] spread over the entrance** to the hall. **As long as the cloth was spread,** the **guests would enter,** as the presence of the cloth indicated that there was food for more guests. When **the cloth was removed, the guests would not enter** any more.


###### Bava Batra 93b:14
[Bava Batra 93b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93b:14)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵירוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו רוֹבַע טִנּוֹפֶת לִסְאָה. תְּאֵנִים – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר מְתוּלָּעוֹת לְמֵאָה. מַרְתֵּף שֶׁל יַיִן – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר קוֹסְסוֹת לְמֵאָה. קַנְקַנִּים בַּשָּׁרוֹן – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר פִּיטָסוֹת לְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** When selling a significant quantity of produce or a number of items, there is a possibility that there will be a certain proportion of impurities in it or that some of the product will be of substandard quality. The mishna delineates what proportion is considered acceptable, for which a buyer may not demand compensation. With regard to **one who sells produce,** i.e., grain, **to another, this** buyer **accepts upon himself** that up to **a quarter-***kav* of **impurities** may be present **in** each ***se’a*** of produce purchased. When purchasing **figs, he accepts upon himself** that up to **ten infested** figs may be present **in** each **hundred** figs purchased. When purchasing **a cellar** containing barrels **of wine, he accepts upon himself** that up to **ten** barrels of **souring** wine may be present **in** each **hundred** barrels purchased. When purchasing **jugs** of wine **in the Sharon** region, **he accepts upon himself** that up to **ten inferior-quality jugs [*pitasot*]** of wine may be present **in** each **hundred** jugs purchased.


###### Bava Batra 93b:15
[Bava Batra 93b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/93b:15)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּאנֵי רַב קַטִּינָא: רוֹבַע קִטְנִית לִסְאָה. וְעַפְרוּרִית לָא?! וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר חִיָּיא קְטוֹסְפָאָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה: בּוֹרֵר צְרוֹר מִגׇּרְנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Ketina taught:** When the mishna states that a buyer accepts upon himself that a quarter-*kav* of impurities per *se’a* may be present, that means only that he accepts upon himself the presence of **a quarter-***kav* **of legumes,** but he does not accept upon himself the presence of a quarter-*kav* of dirt. The Gemara asks: **And** is it so that the buyer does **not** also accept upon himself that some quantity of **dirt** might be present in the produce? **But doesn’t Rabba bar Ḥiyya Ketosfa’a say in the name of Rabba:** One who **picks out a pebble from** the wheat on **another’s threshing floor**