Talmud do Szewuot 5:7

Mishnah: “Be married to me preliminarily by this date fruit,” etc. The Mishnah [presents the case] that she said, I cannot accept this one, try that one; I cannot accept this one, try that one⁵⁶In this interpretation, if the man said: Be preliminarily married to me by this, by that one, etc., she would be married if all dates together were worth a peruṭah. If the preliminary marriage must be mentioned every time, it must be that the proposal was rejected in between. Then not any date but specifically the last one must be worth a peruṭah.. “By this and by that one and by that one.⁵⁷The triple mention is the version of the Mishnah in the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss.” Who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rebbi Jehudah. But for Rebbi Meïr, either this or this or that one⁵⁸The positions of Rebbis Jehudah and Meïr about the interpretation of conjunctions in multiple statements are discussed in Giṭṭin 9:7, Notes 93–101..

If somebody sells a bull to another person and it turns out to be goring. Rav said, it is an acquisition in error, but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you to be slaughtered¹⁰⁷According to Rav, the buyer can force the annulment of the sale and receive his money back. According to Samuel, since a bull can be sold either for meat or for work, it is up to the buyer to specify for which use he is buying since for livestock there do not exist generally valid criteria of quality. (Ševi‘it 5:8, Notes 70,71; Babli 46a, Bava batra 92a).. “He shall give weregilt for his person.¹⁰⁸Ex.. 21:30. It is not clear to whom the verse refers in mentioning “his”, cf. Ketubot 3:10, Note 151 and all sources quoted there, in particular Babli 40a.” Some Tannaїm state: The attacker’s person. Some Tannaїm state: The person suffering the damage. Following him who said, the person suffering the damage, [assume] the first one injured him fatally and then the second came and kept him in confusion¹⁰⁹The bull of owner A injured a person who was prevented by the bull of owner B to seek immediate medical attention; the person then died.. If you say that damages are fully required¹¹⁰Damages are due even though weregilt was paid., the first one pays damages and the second pays the weregilt. If you say that damages are not fully required¹¹¹There is no claim for damages if there is one for weregilt., the first one pays weregilt but the second is not liable. Following him who said, the attacker’s person, if you say that damages are fully required, the first one pays weregilt and the second is not liable¹¹²Since the action of B’s bull was strictly defensive, he is not an attacker.. If you say that damages are not fully required, neither one is liable¹¹³If neither of them can be held criminally liable, neither of them can be held financially liable..