Bava Batra

And should you reply that the Rabbis do not accept [the law of the return of overcharge or that of] the cancellation of the purchase,  surely.  have we not learnt: R. Judah says: 'In the case of the sale of a scroll of the Law, a beast or a pearl, [the law of] overcharging does not apply.  But they  said unto him: Only [about] those [mentioned above]  has [this]  been said.'?  — What is the meaning of [the statement that] the price is no proof? That the [entire] sale is to be cancelled.  If you prefer, I would say: The Rabbis apply [the laws of] overcharging and cancellation of sale [only in cases] where one is likely  to be deceived,  but not when one is unlikely to be deceived,  [for in the latter case] it may be assumed that [the difference] was given as a gift. nbsp; MISHNAH. HE WHO SELLS AN ASS HAS NOT SOLD ITS EQUIPMENT.  NAHUM THE MEDE SAYS: HE HAS SOLD ITS EQUIPMENT.  R. JUDAH SAYS: SOMETIMES IT IS SOLD, SOMETIMES IT IS NOT SOLD. HOW SO? IF THE ASS WITH ITS EQUIPMENT UPON IT STOOD BEFORE HIM AND HE [THE BUYER] SAID UNTO HIM: 'SELL ME THIS ASS  OF YOURS, THEN ITS EQUIPMENT IS SOLD. [IF, HOWEVER, HE SAID]: 'IS THE ASS YOURS? [SELL IT TO ME].'  ITS EQUIPMENT IS NOT SOLD. GEMARA. 'Ulla said: The dispute [between the first Tanna and Nahum the Mede is only] about the sack, the saddle-bag,  and pallet.  For the first Tanna is of the opinion that an ass is, as a rule, used for riding,  and Nahum the Mede is of the opinion that an' ass is, as a rule, used for carrying burdens;  but [in the case of the] saddle, pack-saddle, cover  and saddle-belt both agree  that these are included in the sale. An objection was raised: [It has been taught: If one says to another] 'I sell you the ass and its equipment', he has sold him the saddle, the pack.saddle. the cover and the saddle-belt, but he has not sold the sack, the saddle-bag and the pallet; if, however, he said unto him, '[I sell you] it [the ass] and all that is upon it', then all these are included in the sale. [From this follows that] the reason why [the buyer] acquires possession of the saddle and the pack. saddle is that [the seller] said '[I sell] it and its equipment', but if he had not said so, [the buyer would] not [have acquired these]?  No! The law that the saddle and the pack-saddle are included in the sale is applicable even though [the seller] did not say unto him '[I sell you the] ass and its equipment'; but [by the inclusion of the statement]  he teaches us that although [the seller] said unto him: '[I sell you] the ass and its equipment's he [the buyer] does not acquire the sack, the saddle-bag and the pallet. What is kumni?  — R. Papa b. Samuel said: A [mattress] seat  for travelling women. The students inquired: Is the dispute [between the first Tanna and Nahum the Mede] in the case when [the sack and saddle-bag] are upon it,  but when these are not upon it, Nahum the Mede agrees with the Rabbis,  or is the dispute in the case when these are not upon it, but when they are upon it, the Rabbis agree with Nahum? Come and hear: [It is stated in the above Baraitha:] But when he said unto him, '[I sell you] it and all that is upon it', then all these are sold. Now, this would be correct if it were assumed that the dispute [related to the case] when they  are upon it;  [since] this [Baraitha] could be assigned to the Rabbis.  If, however, it is assumed that the dispute [relates to the case] when they  are not upon it,  but that [in case] they are upon it both agree that they are [implicitly] included in the sale, to whom [could] this [Baraitha be assigned]?  — It may still be said that the dispute relates to the case when they are not upon it, and the Baraitha may be assigned to the Rabbis, but read: If, however, he said unto him, 'it and all that ought  to be on it'. Come and hear: R. JUDAH SAYS: SOMETIMES IT IS SOLD, SOMETIMES IT IS NOT SOLD. Now, does not R. Judah presumably base his statement on what the first Tanna has said? [And since R. Judah specifically  deals with the case when the equipment is upon the ass, the first Tanna must also be speaking of a similar case!]  — No; R. Judah