Bava Batra

or by a bill of sale.  'Letters'! Who mentioned them?  — Something is missing [in the statement of the first Tanna], and the following is the correct reading: A ship is acquired by meshikah, and letters by mesirah.  R. Nathan said: A ship and letters are acquired by meshikah and by a bill of sale. [But] why should a bill of sale be required in [the case of] a ship? [Surely] it is a movable object!  But no,  the following is the correct reading: A ship is acquired by meshikah and letters by mesirah. R. Nathan said: A ship [is acquired] by meshikah, and letters by a bill of sale.  [Is not the statement of R. Nathan], 'a ship [is acquired] by meshikah', identical with that of the first Tanna?  [May we not then conclude that] they differ on the same principles as Rab and Samuel?  — No; [the views of] both  are either like [those of] Rab or like [those of] Samuel; and in [the case of] a ship there is no dispute whatsoever between them. They differ only in [the case of] letters. And this is what R. Nathan said to the first Tanna: in [the case of] a ship I certainly agree with you;  but, as regards letters, if there is [also] a bill of sale he does [acquire the right to the debt]; otherwise, [he does] not. And their dispute  is analogous to that of the following Tannaim.  For it has been taught: Letters may be acquired by mesirah,  these are the words of Rabbi. But the Sages say: Whether [the seller] has written [a bill of sale] but has not delivered [the bond],  or whether he has delivered [the bond] but has not written [a bill of sale], [the buyer] does not acquire possession until [the seller] has written [the bill of sale] and delivered [the bond]. How has the matter been established? [That the first Tanna is] in agreement with Rabbi! Should not [then] a ship also be acquired by mesirah?  For it was taught: A ship is acquired by mesirah, these are the words of Rabbi. And the Sages say: It is not acquired