1This is like that which we learned in a mishna (167b): A scribe may write a bill of sale for the seller even if the buyer is not with him when the seller presents his request. In a case of this kind, once this buyer takes possession of the land the deed is acquired wherever it is. And this is that which we learned in another mishna ( Kiddushin 26a): Property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired together with property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, when the land is acquired by means of giving money, or by means of giving a document, or by means of taking possession. This shows that a bill of sale can be transferred without any act of acquisition performed for the document, and certainly through words, which presents a difficulty to Rav Ashi’s opinion.
2The Gemara answers: Acquiring a bill of sale by means of acquisition of land is different, as it is similar to acquisition through an item, not by means of words. The reason is that money, which cannot be acquired through symbolic exchange, a pro forma act of acquisition effecting the transfer of ownership of an item, nevertheless can be acquired by means of land.
3This is like that incident where Rav Pappa had deposited twelve thousand dinars with bailees in Bei Ḥozai. He transferred ownership of the money in Bei Ḥozai to his agent Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa by means of the threshold of his house. The Gemara adds: When Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa came from Bei Ḥozai with the money, Rav Pappa was so happy that he was bringing him his money that he went out all the way until Tavakh to greet him.
4§ The mishna teaches that when one sells a ship he has sold various other items; but he has not sold the slaves, nor the packing bags, nor the antikei . But when one said to the buyer: You are purchasing the ship and all that it contains, all of these are sold as well. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of antikei ? Rav Pappa said: It means the merchandise that is on the ship. This merchandise is not sold together with the ship.
5MISHNA: One who sold a wagon [ hakkaron ] has not sold the mules that pull the wagon. Similarly, if one sold the mules, he has not sold the wagon. One who sold a yoke [ hatzemed ] has not sold the oxen, and one who sold the oxen has not sold the yoke. Rabbi Yehuda says: The sum of money indicates what one has sold. How so? If the buyer said to the seller: Sell me your yoke for two hundred dinars, since it is a known matter that a yoke is not sold for two hundred dinars he clearly intended to purchase the oxen as well. And the Rabbis say: The sum of money is not proof.
6GEMARA: Rav Taḥlifa, from the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, taught a baraita before Rabbi Abbahu. If one sold a wagon, he has sold the mules together with it. Rabbi Abbahu asked: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that he has not sold the mules? Rav Taḥlifa said to him: Should I erase this baraita , as it is incorrect? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: No, do not erase it; you should explain that your baraita is referring to a case where the mules are fastened to the wagon. In that situation, one who purchases the wagon receives the mules as well.
7The mishna teaches: One who sold a yoke has not sold the oxen; and the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree over whether the sum of money proves exactly what was sold. The Gemara analyzes their disagreement: What are the circumstances? If we say that the mishna is referring to a place where they call a yoke: Tzimda , and they call oxen: Bakar , it is obvious that he sold him a yoke and did not sell him the oxen. But if the mishna is referring to a place where they also call oxen: Tzimda , then the seller sold him everything.
8The Gemara explains: No, their dispute is necessary in a place where they call a yoke: Tzimda , and call oxen: Bakar , but there are also those who call oxen: Tzimda . Since it is unclear what is meant by the term: Tzimda , Rabbi Yehuda holds that the sum of money indicates whether he purchased a yoke or oxen, and the Rabbis hold that the amount of money does not serve as proof. The Gemara asks: But if the amount of money does not serve as proof, then in a case where the buyer paid two hundred dinars and received only a yoke, let the transaction be nullified.