The Eri B. Sit edition and audio series of the Talmud Bavli, tractate Bava Batra. This tractate, the longest in the Talmud in terms of page count, has been dedicated by our good friend and pioneering student in the daily Talmud study program, Adam Azra, for the success of his dear children: that they should grow up to give him satisfaction, that they should have wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, and that they should be a source of honor to him, his wife, and his entire family. Amen.
We are beginning thirteen lines from the bottom, starting with the first word on the line: How does one acquire a boat? If you want to make an acquisition of a boat, what do you have to do? Which form of acquisition applies?
It was stated: With regard to a boat, Rav says that once one pulls it even a small amount, he acquires it. One performs pulling: if the boat moves even slightly, the buyer has acquired it. Shmuel, however, says that he does not acquire it until he has pulled the entire boat. In other words, one must pull it until the end of the boat reaches the place where the front of the boat had been. He must pull the boat its entire length.
This is a disagreement over the minimum or maximum amount of movement required. The Gemara suggests that the disagreement between Rav and Shmuel is actually a disagreement among the earlier tannaitic authorities. Before we proceed, let us read the explanation of Rashbam.
When does the buyer acquire the boat? Once he acquires it, the seller can no longer change his mind; an acquisition has already taken place. What is the point of no return? We know that when movable property is sold, payment does not effect the acquisition. One must perform pulling, or bring the item into one’s own domain. Once it is placed in the buyer’s domain, the acquisition is complete.
The Gemara explains that according to the first opinion, even a small amount means a handbreadth or half a handbreadth. According to the other opinion, one must pull the entire boat, until the end of the boat reaches the place where its front had been. The entire boat must be moved.
We now want to say that this disagreement between Rav and Shmuel is indeed a disagreement among the tannaitic authorities, the earlier generation. The discussion concerns the acquisition of an animal through handing over the reins. Suppose you want to acquire an animal. One of the ways to acquire it is through handing over control of it to the buyer. With a small animal, such as a sheep, you can pull it toward you. A large animal is more difficult to pull, so with a large animal one can acquire it by taking hold of its reins or otherwise taking control of it.
The Gemara lists the parts of the animal that one may take hold of: its hoof, or the hair on its body; its saddle; the sack or load placed on the animal, if the load is fastened to it; the bit in its mouth; or the bell around its neck.
The discussion then turns to the required movement. One possibility is that the buyer merely causes the animal to move. He calls the animal, and it walks toward him, or he strikes it with a stick, and it runs away from him. According to this opinion, it is sufficient for the animal to take one step.
The other opinion says that the animal must walk until the hind legs reach the place where the front legs had been. The entire length of the animal must move. We therefore have a disagreement concerning animals that resembles the disagreement concerning boats: how much movement is required in order to complete the acquisition?
The Gemara suggests that Rav, who said regarding a boat that it is sufficient to move it a small amount, follows the first tannaitic opinion, which likewise says that with an animal it is sufficient to move it one step. Shmuel, who said that the entire boat must be pulled, would follow the opinion that requires the entire animal to move.
Rav can respond that he may agree even with the stricter opinion. That opinion required the entire animal to move only in the case of a living animal. When an animal moves one step, it is still essentially in the same place. Its front legs may have moved, while its other legs remain stationary; technically, only part of the animal has moved. Therefore, the entire animal must be moved.
A boat is different. When one pulls even a small part of the boat, the entire boat moves slightly. It is not that only the front of the boat has moved while the back remains stationary. By pulling the front, the back also moves. Thus, Rav can agree that an animal must be moved in its entirety while still maintaining that a small amount of pulling is sufficient for a boat.
Shmuel can likewise say that he may agree even with the opinion that requires the entire animal to move. Once the animal has taken one step, its movement is already in progress. It is destined to continue walking, and the next steps will follow automatically. Therefore, once the animal has begun walking, it is as though the entire animal has been moved.
That is not true of a boat. Pulling a small part of a boat does not automatically mean that the remainder of the boat will follow all the way. The entire boat must be pulled. Thus, Shmuel can explain that although an animal is acquired once it has begun walking, a boat must be pulled in its entirety.
The Gemara concludes that we have not yet established a disagreement among the tannaitic authorities. We therefore return to the drawing board and examine another disagreement.
One teaching states plainly: A boat is acquired through pulling. This is the first opinion, but it does not tell us how much of the boat must be pulled. Rabbi Natan says that a boat and written documents are acquired through pulling and through a document.
Rabbi Natan appears to be introducing a new item: written letters. What does it mean to make an acquisition of letters? “Letters” is another way of referring to a document. Suppose I hold a document recording that someone owes me money. I can sell that document to you, and you can then collect the debt. How does one sell such a document? That is the subject referred to as written letters.
The teaching says that two acquisitions are necessary to acquire the document. First, it must be handed over through pulling. In addition, the seller must write a document stating, “I hereby sell you this document, and you may collect the debt.” Thus, Rabbi Natan seems to say that even in the case of a boat, two acquisitions are required: it is not enough to pull it; one must also have a document.
The Gemara finds this teaching strange. The first opinion was discussing a boat, while Rabbi Natan suddenly begins discussing documents. Who introduced documents into the discussion? The Gemara asks, “Who mentioned written letters?” It answers that the teaching is missing some words and must be reconstructed.
The first opinion should be read as follows: A boat is acquired through pulling, while documents are acquired through handing over. Rabbi Natan then says that a boat and documents are acquired through pulling and through a document.
According to this reconstruction, the first opinion says that a document is acquired through handing it over. Rabbi Natan disagrees and says that a document requires pulling as well as an additional document.
Why is handing over insufficient? If I give you the document, I have given you a piece of paper. You can use it as a bottle stopper, but you have not necessarily acquired what is written on it—the debt itself. The seller wants to transfer both the physical paper and the debt recorded on it. In order to acquire what is written on the document, a document stating that the debt is being transferred is also necessary.
Pulling applies to an item that has intrinsic monetary value: for example, a box or a tissue holder. If the owner tells me to pull it, and I move it, I acquire the object itself. But if the item is merely a document, its significant value lies in the debt recorded on it. Handing over the document means that the lender must place it in the buyer’s hands and transfer control of it. That is handing over, not pulling.
According to the first opinion, then, the document is acquired through handing it over. Rabbi Natan says that two things are required: pulling for the physical paper, and a written document to transfer the debt.
Now that the case has been clarified, the Gemara analyzes it further. The first opinion appears to make no sense if it is saying that a boat also requires two acquisitions, both pulling and a document. I can understand why a document would require two acquisitions, but a boat is movable property. Why would a boat require both?
The Gemara therefore explains the teaching differently. The first opinion says that a boat is acquired through pulling, while documents are acquired through handing over. Rabbi Natan agrees that a boat is acquired through pulling and is discussing only the additional requirement concerning documents. Thus, there is no disagreement regarding boats. Both opinions agree that a boat is acquired through pulling. Their disagreement concerns documents: the first opinion says that handing over is sufficient, while Rabbi Natan says that pulling and an additional document are required.
The Gemara then asks: If there is no disagreement concerning boats, why were boats mentioned at all? The first opinion says that a boat is acquired through pulling, and Rabbi Natan says the same thing. What is being added?
The Gemara answers that the disagreement between the tannaitic authorities may be the same as the disagreement between Rav and Shmuel. The first opinion says that a boat is acquired through pulling, meaning that the entire boat must be pulled. Rabbi Natan says that a boat is acquired through pulling, but it is sufficient to pull even a small amount. The disagreement between these tannaitic authorities would then parallel the disagreement between Rav and Shmuel.
The Gemara rejects this explanation. Everyone may follow either Rav or Shmuel; the tannaitic statements cannot necessarily be assigned to one or the other. Perhaps all of them agree with Rav, or perhaps all of them agree with Shmuel. The disagreement here is not about the boat at all. It concerns the written document.
The first opinion is teaching that a boat is acquired through pulling and that a document is acquired through handing over. Rabbi Natan says that he agrees regarding the boat, but disagrees regarding the document. He is not arguing about the boat; whatever the required degree of pulling may be, he agrees that pulling is the relevant acquisition. His disagreement is that handing over the document is insufficient. One must also write a document transferring the debt.
The Gemara then identifies this as the well-known disagreement among the tannaitic authorities concerning the sale of a debt document. One teaching states that written documents are acquired through handing over; these are the words of Rabbi. Rabbi says that the lender must hand the document to the new creditor and state, “I am giving you this document; you may collect the debt.” That is handing over.
The Sages, however, say that whether the seller wrote a document but did not hand it over, or handed over the document but did not write a transfer document, the buyer has not acquired the debt until the seller writes and hands over the document.
According to Rabbi, handing over is sufficient. According to the Sages, both requirements are necessary: the transfer must be written and the document must be handed over. This is a new disagreement between Rabbi and the Sages.
Let us now read the explanation of Rashbam. If the new creditor wants to acquire the loan in order to collect it, the debtor can no longer come and say, “You cannot collect from me.” Once the document was handed over, the debt became his. The seller cannot claim that he gave the buyer only a piece of paper to use as a bottle stopper; according to Rabbi, handing it over transfers the debt as well.
According to the Sages, if the seller wrote a transfer document but did not hand over the original document, the buyer has not acquired it, because the seller can say, “I sold you only a piece of paper.” The document itself is not sufficient to transfer another document. A document can effect the acquisition of land and servants, but one document cannot, by itself, transfer another debt document. Therefore, the seller must both write the transfer and hand over the actual document.
We now see that the disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Natan is the same as the disagreement between Rabbi and the Sages. Rabbi Natan, who says that both requirements are necessary, follows the Sages of the latter teaching. The first opinion, which says that handing over is sufficient, follows Rabbi.
The Gemara then asks how we can establish the first opinion according to Rabbi. What did the first opinion say? It said that the boat requires pulling, whereas Rabbi says that handing over is sufficient in the case of a document. If the first opinion follows Rabbi regarding documents, then the same principle should apply to a boat: a boat should also be acquired through handing over.
But how can one hand over a boat? One cannot simply lift an entire boat and give it to the buyer. The Gemara therefore examines the meaning of handing over in the case of a boat.
A teaching states that a boat is acquired through handing over. The word “through” indicates that the boat itself must be handed over. Alternatively, the buyer can rent or purchase the place beneath the boat. Once he owns the area beneath it, whatever is located on that property becomes his as well.
What does handing over mean in this case? The buyer takes hold of the rope. Every boat has a rope, and the seller can hand the rope to the buyer. This is handing over. The buyer does not need to lift the boat itself.
The Gemara now asks how to reconcile this with the first opinion. Rabbi, in the other teaching, says that a document is acquired through handing over. That sounds exactly like the first opinion of Rabbi Natan’s teaching, which says that handing over is sufficient. Yet the first opinion here says that a boat requires pulling, not handing over.
The Gemara answers that the difference depends on where the boat is located. The boat may be in public waters, or it may be in private waters. The rules differ in those two locations.
As Rashbam explains, when Rabbi says that a boat is acquired through handing over, he is referring to a boat in the public domain, such as a pool of water in the public domain. Pulling cannot be performed in the public domain. Pulling works when one draws an object into one’s own domain, into a jointly owned domain, or into another private area. Therefore, in public waters the buyer acquires the boat by having the seller hand over the rope.
When the first opinion says that the boat is acquired through pulling, it is discussing a boat in a private area. It could be a small alleyway opening into the public domain, with water in the alleyway and the boat standing there. Since the boat is not actually in the public domain, pulling can be effective.
Sometimes people pass through such an area, but it remains a private domain in which private individuals may sit. It is treated as the domain of whoever arrives there first. In such a place, pulling works.
Thus, Rabbi and Rabbi Natan agree when the boat is in a private area: the acquisition is made through pulling. Rabbi, who says that handing over is sufficient, is referring to a boat in public waters, where pulling does not work and the only option is to hand over the rope. These are different cases, not a disagreement.
The Gemara then raises a difficulty from the latter part of the teaching. If the boat is in public waters, how can the Sages say that it must be acquired through pulling? Pulling does not work in the public domain.
The first opinion in that teaching, which says that handing over is sufficient, is understandable if the boat is in public waters. The seller can hand over the rope, and the buyer acquires it. But what do the Sages mean when they say that the buyer does not acquire the boat until he pulls it? Pulling is ineffective in the public domain.
The teaching also says that one can acquire the boat by renting or purchasing the property beneath it. But from whom is the buyer renting or purchasing the public domain? Who owns the public domain from whom he can acquire it?
We know that pulling works in a private domain or in a jointly owned area, but not in the public domain. Lifting an object, by contrast, works wherever the buyer is located. There are therefore three different forms of acquisition under discussion: lifting, pulling, and handing over.
The Gemara’s question is how the Sages can say that pulling is required when the boat is in the public domain. The answer is that the case was misunderstood. When the teaching says to rent or purchase the area beneath the boat, it means that there is a private area within or beside the public waters. The buyer pulls the boat into that private area. Once he pulls it into the private area, the pulling is effective.
It does not mean that the buyer pulls the boat within the public domain. He must pull it from the public waters into the private area. If that private area belongs to someone else, he must first rent or purchase it from that person. Once he owns the area beneath the boat, he can acquire the boat through pulling.
Rashbam emphasizes that pulling the boat in the public domain does not work. If the boat remains in the seller’s domain, pulling does not help either, because none of these acquisitions is effective while the object remains in the seller’s domain. The buyer must rent or purchase the relevant area from the seller. Once the buyer owns the property beneath the boat, the boat can be acquired as well.
For example, if one enters a stall or private area belonging to someone else, pulling does not work merely because the object is there. Lifting may not be possible in the case of a boat, and pulling within the seller’s domain does not help. Therefore, the buyer’s option is to change the ownership of the area: purchase or rent the property, and then the boat becomes subject to the buyer’s acquisition.
We can now understand the relationship between the first opinion and Rabbi Natan. The first opinion says that a boat is acquired through pulling, referring to a boat in a private area where pulling works. Rabbi Natan’s first opinion says that a boat is acquired through handing over, referring to a boat in public waters, where the seller hands over the rope because pulling there is ineffective.
Rabbi Natan’s other position says that a boat is acquired through pulling, meaning that it must be pulled into the private area. Thus, the first opinion and Rabbi Natan are not necessarily disagreeing. They are discussing different locations.
At this point, Abaye and Rava formulate the general rules emerging from the discussion. The first and simplest rule concerns lifting: when one lifts the item, it does not matter whether the item is in the seller’s domain, in a jointly owned area, or in the public domain. Once the buyer lifts it, it is his.
The next acquisition is pulling. Pulling in the seller’s domain does not work. Pulling in a jointly owned area does work, and pulling in a private area that does not belong to the public also works. Pulling in the public domain does not work. That is why the Sages say that the boat must be pulled into the private area, the side area where pulling is effective.
Then there is handing over. Handing over in the seller’s domain is ineffective, and handing over in a jointly owned area is also ineffective. In a public domain, however, handing over works. The rules are reversed because acquisitions follow the normal way in which an item is transferred in each setting.
In the public domain, the ordinary way to acquire a large item such as a boat is to hand over the rope or reins. One cannot lift the boat, and pulling is not normally performed in the public domain. In a private area, the normal acquisition is pulling. Therefore, pulling applies in a private area, while handing over applies in the public domain.
There is an important qualification. If the seller explicitly tells the buyer, “Go and make an acquisition,” everyone agrees that handing over the rope is sufficient. There is no disagreement between Rabbi and the Sages in a case where the seller tells the buyer to make an acquisition and hands him the rope.
Rav Ashi explains that the disagreement concerns a case in which the seller tells the buyer, “Go and pull and acquire it.” One authority understands those words literally: the seller specifically required pulling. Since pulling does not work in the public domain, the buyer must pull the boat all the way into the private area. Until he does so, the acquisition has not taken place.
The other authority understands the seller’s words as indicating the place in which the acquisition should be made, rather than requiring the technical act of pulling. When the seller says, “Go and pull,” he means, “Go and acquire it.” Even if the buyer merely takes the rope from the seller, the seller is satisfied. According to this view, the seller has already transferred the boat to him, and the buyer may then take it to his private waters.
Thus, according to the first view, the seller’s instruction to pull means that the buyer must actually pull the boat. According to the second view, the instruction means that the seller is giving the boat to the buyer and telling him to take control of it. Once the buyer takes the rope, the sale is final.
To summarize the discussion, there is indeed a disagreement among the authorities regarding a boat: how much of the boat must be pulled? One view requires the entire boat to be pulled, while the other view says that pulling even a small amount is sufficient.
There is also a disagreement regarding the acquisition of a debt document. According to one view, it is sufficient to hand over the document. According to the other view, the document must be handed over, and another document must be written stating that not only the physical paper is being transferred, but the debt itself is being transferred so that the buyer may collect it.
May the One who dwells in the highest heavens bless us. Amen.