Study Bava Batra folio 86A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
פירקן והכניסן לתוך ביתו; פסק עד שלא מדד – אין שניהן יכולין לחזור בהן, מדד עד שלא פסק – שניהן יכולין לחזור בהן. ומדכליו דמוכר ברשות לוקח – לא קנה, כליו דלוקח נמי – ברשות מוכר לא קנה!
But in a case where he unloaded the merchandise from them and brought it into his house, if he fixed a price before he measured the merchandise, both parties are no longer able to renege on the sale. If he measured the merchandise before fixing a price, both of them are able to renege on the sale. The Talmud comments: And from the fact that the vessels of the seller when in the domain of the buyer do not effect acquisition of the merchandise for the seller, i.e., they do not prevent the buyer from acquiring the merchandise, one can derive that the vessels of the buyer in the domain of the seller do not effect acquisition of the merchandise on his behalf as well.
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: בששפכן. איקפד רבא – מידי ״שפכן״ קתני?! ״פירקן״ קתני! אלא אמר מר בר רב אשי: במתאכלי דתומי.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The merchandise was not placed in the domain of the buyer in vessels belonging to the seller. Rather, the baraita is referring to a case where he emptied the vessels onto the ground. Conversely, if the merchandise remains in the seller’s vessels, the buyer does not acquire it. Rava became angry with Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak at his rejection of Rava’s proof, and retorted: Does the baraita teach: He emptied them? No; it teaches: He unloaded them, i.e., he kept the goods in vessels belonging to the seller. Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi says: This proof can be rejected by means of a different interpretation, as the halakha of the baraita does not refer to vessels full of goods but is stated with regard to bundles of garlic that were tied together. Therefore, they are unloaded straight onto the floor in the buyer’s domain.