Bava Batra — Daf 92a

מתני׳ המוכר פירות לחברו וזרען ולא צמחו ואפילו זרע פשתן אינו חייב באחריותן ר"ש בן גמליאל אומר זרעוני גינה שאינן נאכלין חייב באחריותן:

גמ׳ איתמר המוכר שור לחבירו ונמצא נגחן רב אמר הרי זה מקח טעות ושמואל אמר יכול לומר לו לשחיטה מכרתיו לך

וליחזי אי גברא דזבין לנכסתא לנכסתא אי לרדיא לרדיא בגברא דזבין להכי ולהכי

וליחזי דמי היכי נינהו

לא צריכא דאייקר בישרא וקם בדמי רדיא אי הכי למאי נפקא מינה נפקא מינה לטרחא

היכי דמי

MISHNAH. [IF] ANYONE HAS SOLD FRUIT TO ANOTHER [NOT SPECIFYING WHETHER AS FOOD OR SEED], AND [THE BUYER] SOWED THEM AND THEY DID NOT GROW, EVEN [IF THEY WERE] LINSEED,  HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.  R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: FOR GARDEN SEEDS WHICH ARE NOT EATEN, HE  IS RESPONSIBLE. GEMARA. It has been stated:  [If] one has sold an ox to another, and it was found to have been wont to gore.  Rab said, the [sale] is under false pretences.  But Samuel said: [The seller] can say to him, 'I have sold it to you for [the purpose of] slaughtering'.  But [cannot the object of the sale] be seen [from the following]? If [he is] a man that buys for slaughtering [then this sale also must have been] for [the purpose of] slaughtering; [and] if for ploughing, [it must have been] for [the purpose of] ploughing. [why then, should there be a dispute between Rab and Samuel]? — [This dispute relates to the case] of a man who buys for both.  But why not see what price  was paid?  — The dispute is applicable [to the case] when the price of meat has risen and stands at [the same level as] the price of [an animal for] ploughing. If so, what difference is there [whether the animal was bought for ploughing or slaughtering]?  — [There is] a difference [in respect] of the trouble.  How is this  to be understood?