Study Bava Batra folio 92B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אי דליכא לאישתלומי מיניה, ליעכב תורא בזוזיה! דאמרי אינשי: מן מרי רשותיך – פארי אפרע!
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?
לא צריכא, דאיכא לאישתלומי מיניה.
The Talmud answers: No, it is necessary to discuss the case where the seller does have sufficient funds for the buyer to be reimbursed by him.
רב אמר: הרי זה מקח טעות – בתר רובא אזלינן, ורובא לרדיא זבני. ושמואל אמר לך: כי אזלינן בתר רובא – באיסורא, בממונא – לא.
The Talmud 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.
(סימן: אשה, ועבד, שור, שורין, ופירות.)
The Talmud 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.