Az olaj esetében talán a legszokatlanabb az eljárás: esketünk.
...
Az esketés sorrendjét magyarázza a Szmá. De az nem derül ki, hogy miért nem mondjuk, hogy dámim mochichin?
...
A Netivot más kontextusban említi a dámimot. Feltehetjük, hogy ebben az esetben a dámim nem mochichin, és ha mochichin, elfogadjuk?
...
Ebben a széifben dámim mochichin. Szmá ad kritériumot, mikor működik, mikor nem.
...
Akkor nem működik, ha a pénz által bizonyított tény ellentmond az ikár lásonnak.
...
Ezt a törvényt idézi (cemed bákár), ahol a pénz nem bizonyít semmit:
...
Az eredeti két Gemárát összehangoló Toszfot azonban összetettebb kritériumot ad:
MISHNA: 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.
MISHNA: With regard to one who sells produce to another that is sometimes purchased for consumption and sometimes for planting, and the buyer planted it and it did not sprout, and even if he had sold flaxseeds, which are only occasionally eaten, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for them, i.e., he is not required to compensate the buyer. Since the buyer did not specify that he purchased the produce in order to plant it, the seller can claim that he assumed the buyer intended to eat it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he had sold seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, then the seller bears financial responsibility for them, as they were certainly purchased for planting.
The Gemara persists: But let us see the payment he made; how much was it? Since an ox fit for plowing costs more than one fit only for slaughter, the purpose for which the ox was purchased will be apparent from the price paid.
Toszfot szerint rovot és cházákát nem képes egyszerre tagadni (nincs annyi érvelési ereje).
(További válaszok: Metivtá 1325. o.)
...