OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that one who sells a donkey does not include its accessories. Nachum ha'Madi says that the accessories are included. Ula explains that the argument between the Tana Kama and Nachum ha'Madi revolves around the accessories used to carry loads. The Tana Kama maintains that the primary purpose of a donkey is for riding, not hauling, and thus the hauling accessories are not included. Nachum ha'Madi maintains that a donkey is also used for hauling, and thus its sale includes the cargo accessories. Ula adds that everyone agrees that the riding accessories, such as the saddle, are included in the sale.

In the Gemara later (78b), Abaye gives a list of Tana'im who maintain that when one sells an object, he sells it with all of its accessories. One of those Tana'im is Nachum ha'Madi. According to the explanation of Ula that Nachum ha'Madi merely maintains that the hauling accessories are part and parcel of the purchase of a donkey, it seems that Nachum ha'Madi should not be in Abaye's list. Does Ula argue with Abaye?

(a) The RASHBA and RAMBAN explain that they do not argue at all. When Ula says that Nachum ha'Madi maintains that a donkey is used for hauling, he means that Nachum ha'Madi agrees that a donkey is used primarily for riding. However, because it is also used for hauling its hauling accessories are sold with the animal. This is because, as Abaye states, Nachum ha'Madi maintains that when one sells an object he includes all of its accessories in the sale.

(b) The RITVA cites the explanation of the Rashba and Ramban, but he offers an alternative explanation and says that Ula and Abaye indeed argue about the opinion of Nachum ha'Madi. Ula understands that Nachum ha'Madi does not maintain that one always sells an object's accessories with the object. Rather, he maintains that one of the main purposes of a donkey is hauling, which is why the hauling accessories are included in the sale. Abaye disagrees and says that Nachum ha'Madi maintains that an object's accessories are always included in its sale. (Y. MONTROSE)



QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that when one sells a donkey, he includes its offspring in the sale. When one sells a cow, however, he does not include its calf in the sale. What is the difference between the sale of a donkey and the sale of a cow? Rav Papa answers that the Mishnah refers to a case in which the seller specifies that he is selling a nursing cow or a nursing donkey. In an ordinary sale, only the animal itself is sold, not its offspring. When the seller specifies that he is selling a nursing animal, he clearly intends to include something additional in the sale by mentioning that the animal is nursing. In the case of a nursing cow, it is assumed that he intends to include the valuable milk in the sale. In contrast, in the case of a nursing donkey, the seller presumably does not intend to include the donkey's milk in the sale, because the donkey's milk is not kosher. For what purpose does he mention that the donkey is nursing? It must be that he intends to include the donkey's offspring in the sale.

The VILNA GA'ON and other Acharonim answer a problematic Midrash based on this Gemara. When the Torah lists the animals that Yakov Avinu sent to Esav as a present, it states, "Gemalim Meinikos u'Veneihem Sheloshim" -- "thirty nursing camels and their sons" (Bereishis 32:16). In his second explanation, RASHI (DH Gemalim) explains that the word "u'Veneihem" does not mean simply "and their sons," but "and their builders," a reference to the camels that help the female camels "build" baby camels, namely their male mates. Why does the verse not mention explicitly that thirty male camels were also sent, as the verse mentions with regard to the other animals that it lists? Rashi explains that the Torah alludes to the fact that camels are modest when they have relations.

What is problematic about the verse's simple explanation, that "u'Veneihem" means "and their sons"? Why does the Midrash need to suggest a novel interpretation of that word, and then pose a difficulty on the verse based on that interpretation?


(a) The simple answer to this question is that the verse which lists the camels mentions only the females and not the males, while the verses which list the other animals which Yakov Avinu sent mentions both the females and the males. The Midrash understands that this verse also must be including the males in its list, but the verse disguises its mention of the males in order to show that camels mate in a modest manner.

(b) The Gemara here teaches that when a person specifies that he is selling a nursing animal, the additions included in the sale depend on whether or not the animal is kosher. If the animal is kosher, the milk is included. If the animal is not kosher, the animal's offspring is included. The verse states that Yakov Avinu sent "thirty nursing camels and their sons" to Esav. Considering that Esav made himself appear to observe the Mitzvos, it seems odd that Yakov would send him a gift of unkosher camel milk. If Yakov treated Esav like an ordinary Jew who observes the Mitzvos, why does the verse mention that he sent him "thirty nursing camels and their sons"? By merely mentioning "nursing camels," the verse already includes their offspring and it does not need to add "and their sons"! It must be that the word "u'Veneihem" does not refer to the sons of the camels, which are already included with their mothers, but to the "builders" of the camels -- the male camels. (Y. MONTROSE)