Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 16, 2017 | 讻壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 84

The mishna discusses 4 types of sales – one where the buyer can renege, one where the seller can renege (cases where the quality was different than the one agreed upon), one where neither xcan renege and one where either side can renege. 聽Rav Chisda adds that if there was ona’ah (over or undercharging) in which case the sale can be cancelled, and then the price changed after the sale, still only the side that was over/undercharged can renege.聽How does one acquire fruits? 聽The mishna聽discusses which methods work and which don’t. 聽Rabbi Asi and Rabbi Zeira debate what Rabbi Yochanan holds regarding one who measured and put the items in a side area off the main thoroughfare. 聽Does one acquire it if it is simply put there or does it need to be placed in the vessels of the buyer in the side area?

讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讗讜谞讬转谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪爪讬转 讛讚专转 讘讱 讛砖转讗 讚讗讜谞讬转谉 诪爪讬转 讛讚专转 讘讱 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讬驻讜转 讜谞诪爪讗讜 专注讜转 诇讜拽讞 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讜诇讗 诪讜讻专

the buyer can say to the seller: If you had not exploited me, you would not be able to renege on the sale, and I would receive the profit. Now that you have exploited me, can you renege on the sale and benefit? And similarly, the tanna of the mishna also taught: If the seller sold him wheat while claiming that the wheat was good, and it is found to be bad, the buyer can renege on the sale. This implies that the buyer can renege but not the seller, even in a situation where the seller would want to renege on the sale, e.g., if the item became more expensive.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讻专 诇讜 砖讜讛 砖砖 讘讞诪砖 讜讛讜讝诇讜 讜注诪讚讜 注诇 砖诇砖 诪讬 谞转讗谞讛 诪讜讻专 诪讜讻专 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讜诇讗 诇讜拽讞 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讗讜谞讬转谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪爪讬转 讛讚专转 讘讱 讛砖转讗 诪爪讬转 讛讚专转 讘讱 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 专注讜转 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讬驻讜转 诪讜讻专 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讜诇讗 诇讜拽讞

And similarly, Rav 岣sda says: If he sold him an item that was worth six dinars for five dinars, and its price was reduced and its value now stood at three dinars, who was exploited in this case? The seller; therefore, the seller, but not the buyer, can renege on the sale. The reason is that the seller can say to him: If you had not exploited me, you would not be able to renege on the sale. Now that you have exploited me, can you renege on the sale? And similarly, the tanna of the mishna also taught: If the seller sold him bad wheat and it is found to be good, the seller can renege on the sale, but not the buyer.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诇诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪爪讜 讛讚专讬 讘讛讜 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚诇讜拽讞 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

The Gemara asks: What is Rav 岣sda teaching us? It is all already taught in the mishna. The Gemara answers: If the halakha were derived from the mishna alone, I would say that perhaps in the cases brought by Rav 岣sda, both the buyer and the seller are able to renege on the sale. The reason is that this is a case of exploitation, as the item was sold for more than its value, and therefore as long the buyer can renege on the sale, the sale is not complete. Consequently, as the seller lost out as well, he can also renege on the sale. And as for the mishna, it comes to teach us that if the seller said that he is selling good wheat and it is found to be bad, the buyer can renege on the sale, as this is considered a case of exploitation.

讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 专注 专注 讬讗诪专 讛拽讜谞讛

It is necessary to teach this, as it might enter your mind to say that this is not a case of exploitation because it is written: 鈥淚t is bad, it is bad, says the buyer; but when he is gone his way, then he boasts鈥 (Proverbs 20:14). In other words, it is the usual manner of sellers to praise their merchandise, while buyers disparage it. Therefore, the mishna teaches that the buyer can renege on the sale if the item was found to be bad, and the seller can change his mind if it was found to be good.

砖讞诪转讬转 讜谞诪爪讗转 诇讘谞讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 诇讘谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 砖诪砖讗 住讜诪拽转讬 讛讬讗 转讚注 讚拽讗 住诪拽讗 爪驻专讗 讜驻谞讬讗 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 谞讛讜专讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讘专讬

搂 The mishna teaches that if the seller said that he was selling reddish-brown [she岣mtit] wheat and it is found to be white, both the seller and the buyer can renege on the sale. The Gemara assumes that she岣mtit means the color of the sun [岣ma]. Therefore, Rav Pappa said: From the fact that the mishna teaches: White, in contrast to she岣mtit, and there are two types of wheat, one white and the other red, conclude from the mishna that this sun is red, not white. Know that this is the case, as it reddens in the morning and evening. And the reason that we do not see the red color all day is because our eyesight is not strong and we cannot discern the redness of the sun.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜诪专讗讛讜 注诪拽 诪谉 讛注讜专 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 注诪讜拽讛 诪谉 讛爪诇 讜讛转诐 诇讘谉 讛讜讗 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 讜诇讗 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 讚注诪讜拽讛 诪谉 讛爪诇 讜诇讗 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 诇讘谉 讜讛讻讗 讗讚讜诐

The Gemara raises an objection to this claim: With regard to a verse that speaks of leprosy: 鈥淎nd, behold, if its appearance is deeper than the skin鈥 (Leviticus 13:30), the Sages explain: This means that it is like the appearance of the sun, which is deeper than the shadow. But there, leprosy is white and yet it is likened to the sun. The Gemara answers: There, it means that it has an appearance like the sun in certain respects, but it is not like the appearance of the sun in all respects. It is like the appearance of the sun in that it is deeper than the shadow, and it is not entirely like the appearance of the sun, as there the leprous spot is white, and here the sun is red.

讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讗 拽讗 住诪拽讗 爪驻专讗 讜驻谞讬讗 讘爪驻专讗 讚讞诇驻讗 讗讘讬 讜讜专讚讬 讚讙谉 注讚谉 讘驻谞讬讗 讚讞诇驻讗 讗驻转讞讗 讚讙讬讛谞诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬驻讻讗

The Gemara asks: And according to that which entered our mind initially, that the sun is white, doesn鈥檛 it redden in the morning and evening? The Gemara answers: In the morning it becomes red as it passes over the site of the roses of the Garden of Eden, whose reflections give the light a red hue. In the evening the sun turns red because it passes over the entrance of Gehenna, whose fires redden the light. And there are those who say the opposite in explaining why the sun is red in the morning and the evening, i.e., in the morning it passes over the entrance of Gehenna, while in the evening it passes over the site of the roses of the Garden of Eden.

讬讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗 讞讜诪抓 砖谞讬讛谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛谉 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches: If the seller sold wine and it is found to be vinegar, both the seller and the buyer can renege on the sale. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? As it is taught in a baraita:

讬讬谉 讜讞讜诪抓 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专 讜转专讜诪讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗

Wine and vinegar are one type of food, which means that if, for example, one separated teruma from one of these with the intention that it should exempt the other, his action is effective. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: They are two types of food. Apparently, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in the baraita. The Gem ara rejects this claim: You may even say that the mishn a is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only with regard to the issue of whether one can separate tithe and teruma from wine to redeem vinegar and vice versa. And the Rabbis hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ela.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 诪谞讬谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讗讜 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗 讘讛专讬诪讻诐 讗转 讞诇讘讜 诪诪谞讜

As Rabbi Ela says: From where is it derived with regard to one who separates teruma from poorquality produce for superiorquality produce, i.e., in order to fulfill the obligation of separating teruma from the high-quality produce, that his teruma is valid teruma? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing as you have set apart from it its best鈥 (Numbers 18:32).

讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 谞砖讬讗讜转 讞讟讗 诇诪讛 诪讻讗谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

The verse is understood as indicating that one who sets aside inferior produce has sinned. It also demonstrates that if one did, in fact, set aside teruma from poor-quality produce in order to render permitted superior-quality produce, his action is effective and the inferior produce is sanctified as teruma. The reason is that if the inferior produce is not consecrated, why would one bear a sin? It should be considered as though he did nothing. From here it is derived with regard to one who separates teruma from poorquality produce for superiorquality produce that his teruma is valid teruma. The Rabbis agree and hold that in the case of one who separates vinegar in order to redeem wine, his teruma is valid despite the difference in quality, as wine and vinegar are considered a single type of food.

讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讞诪专讗 讜诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讞诇讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讞诇讗 讜诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讞诪专讗

But with regard to buying and selling, everyone, including the Rabbis, agrees that wine and vinegar are two types of food, as they have different uses. There are those for whom wine is preferable and vinegar is not preferable, and there are those for whom vinegar is preferable and wine is not preferable.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪砖讱 讜诇讗 诪讚讚 拽谞讛 诪讚讚 讜诇讗 诪砖讱 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻讬拽讞 砖讜讻专 讗转 诪拽讜诪谉

mishna This mishna discusses several methods of acquiring movable property. With regard to one who sells produce to another, if the buyer pulled the produce but did not measure it, he has acquired the produce through the act of acquisition of pulling. If he measured the produce but did not pull it, he has not acquired it, and either the seller or the buyer can decide to rescind the sale. If the buyer is perspicacious and wants to acquire the produce without having to pull it, and he wishes to do so before the seller could change his mind and decide not to sell, he rents its place, where the produce is located, and his property immediately effects acquisition of the produce on his behalf.

讛诇讜拽讞 驻砖转谉 诪讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讟诇讟诇谞讜 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讜转诇砖 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 拽谞讛

With regard to one who buys flax from another, because flax is usually carried around this purchaser has not acquired it until he carries it from place to place and acquires it by means of the act of acquisition of lifting. Pulling the flax is ineffective. And if it was attached to the ground, and he detached any amount, he has acquired it, as the Gemara will explain.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讚讚 讜讛谞讬讞 注诇 讙讘讬 住讬诪讟讗 拽谞讛

gemara The mishna mentions several modes of acquisition without elaboration. It does not explain in which domain the act takes place, whether on the property of the seller or in the public domain. Likewise, it does not specify who performs these actions. The Gemara clarifies these details. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If the seller measured the produce and placed it in an alleyway, which is not the public domain but a location where people can keep their belongings, then even if the buyer did not pull the produce, he acquires it.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讗 讘诪讜讚讚 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 诪专讘谞谉 讻讚诇讗 讙诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖诪注转讗 诪讚讚 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 诪讬诪专讗 讘注讬

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Perhaps my teacher heard this halakha from Rabbi Yo岣nan only with regard to one who measures into his basket, i.e., that of the buyer, in which case his possessions effect acquisition of the produce for him. But if the produce is placed on the floor of the alleyway, the buyer does not acquire the produce. Rabbi Asi said to him: This one of the Sages, i.e., Rabbi Zeira, seems like one who has not studied halakha. If he measured it into the basket of the buyer, is it necessary to say that he acquires it? If an item is placed in the buyer鈥檚 basket it is clearly acquired by him, regardless of the location of the basket. Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement with regard to an alleyway must be referring to items placed on the floor of the alleyway.

拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诇讗 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Zeira accept this claim from Rabbi Asi, or did he not accept it from him? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as Rabbi Yannai says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to a courtyard belonging to partners, which is similar in status to an alleyway, the partners acquire from one another. What, is it not correct to say that there is no difference between placing items on the ground and in their basket, as a partner acquires an item even when it is placed upon the ground, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Asi? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is referring to a case where the item is measured into the basket of the buyer.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讚讚 讜讛谞讬讞 注诇 讙讘讬 住讬诪讟讗 诇讗 拽谞讛 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 讘诪讜讚讚 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讻讗谉 讘诪讜讚讚 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara points out: So, too, Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement is reasonable, as Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one measured and placed an item in an alleyway, the buyer has not acquired it. Apparently, these two halakhot cited in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan are difficult, as they contradict each other, since earlier it was stated that according to Rabbi Yo岣nan the buyer can acquire an item in this manner. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from this apparent contradiction that here, i.e., in the statement cited by Rabbi Asi, he is referring to one who measures into the basket of the buyer, which effects acquisition; and there, i.e., in the statement of Rabbi Yaakov, he is referring to one who measures onto the ground, which does not effect acquisition. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讚讚 讜诇讗 诪砖讱 诇讗 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘住讬诪讟讗 诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 诪砖讱 讜诇讗 诪讚讚 拽谞讛 诪砖讬讻讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讬 拽谞讬讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If he measured the produce but did not pull it, he does not acquire it. What, is it not referring to one who did so in an alleyway, which indicates that placing produce on the ground of an alleyway does not effect acquisition, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Zeira? The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the mishna is referring to one who did so in the public domain. The Gemara asks: If that is so, say the first clause: If the buyer pulled the produce but did not measure it, he has acquired the produce. But does pulling in the public domain effect acquisition?

讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪住讬专讛 拽讜谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讞爪专 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 砖谞讬讛谉 诪砖讬讻讛 拽讜谞讛 讘住讬诪讟讗 讜讘讞爪专 砖讛讬讗 砖诇 砖谞讬讛谉 讜讛讙讘讛讛 拽讜谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐

But don鈥檛 Abaye and Rava both say that passing effects acquisition in the public domain and in a courtyard that does not belong to either of them; pulling effects acquisition only in an alleyway or in a courtyard that belongs to both of them, but not in the public domain; and lifting effects acquisition in every place, even in the seller鈥檚 domain? This demonstrates that pulling in the public domain does not effect acquisition.

诪讗讬 诪砖讱 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇住讬诪讟讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻讬拽讞 砖讜讻专 讗转 诪拽讜诪谉 讜讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪诪讗谉 讗讙专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诐 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻讬拽讞 砖讜讻专 讗转 诪拽讜诪谉

The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the phrase: If he pulled it, that is taught in the mishna? It means that he pulled it from the public domain into an alleyway. The Gemara asks: If that is so, say the latter clause: If the buyer is perspicacious he rents its place, i.e., where the produce is located. The Gemara explains the difficulty: But if the mishna is referring to a spot in the public domain, from whom can he rent the place where the produce is located? The Gemara answers: The latter clause is referring to a separate halakha, and this is what the mishna is saying: And if the produce is in a domain that has an owner, if he is perspicacious he rents the place where the produce is located from the owner.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the manner in which an acquisition takes place. Rav and Shmuel both say:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 84

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 84

讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讗讜谞讬转谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪爪讬转 讛讚专转 讘讱 讛砖转讗 讚讗讜谞讬转谉 诪爪讬转 讛讚专转 讘讱 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 讬驻讜转 讜谞诪爪讗讜 专注讜转 诇讜拽讞 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讜诇讗 诪讜讻专

the buyer can say to the seller: If you had not exploited me, you would not be able to renege on the sale, and I would receive the profit. Now that you have exploited me, can you renege on the sale and benefit? And similarly, the tanna of the mishna also taught: If the seller sold him wheat while claiming that the wheat was good, and it is found to be bad, the buyer can renege on the sale. This implies that the buyer can renege but not the seller, even in a situation where the seller would want to renege on the sale, e.g., if the item became more expensive.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讻专 诇讜 砖讜讛 砖砖 讘讞诪砖 讜讛讜讝诇讜 讜注诪讚讜 注诇 砖诇砖 诪讬 谞转讗谞讛 诪讜讻专 诪讜讻专 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讜诇讗 诇讜拽讞 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讗讜谞讬转谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪爪讬转 讛讚专转 讘讱 讛砖转讗 诪爪讬转 讛讚专转 讘讱 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 专注讜转 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讬驻讜转 诪讜讻专 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讜诇讗 诇讜拽讞

And similarly, Rav 岣sda says: If he sold him an item that was worth six dinars for five dinars, and its price was reduced and its value now stood at three dinars, who was exploited in this case? The seller; therefore, the seller, but not the buyer, can renege on the sale. The reason is that the seller can say to him: If you had not exploited me, you would not be able to renege on the sale. Now that you have exploited me, can you renege on the sale? And similarly, the tanna of the mishna also taught: If the seller sold him bad wheat and it is found to be good, the seller can renege on the sale, but not the buyer.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诇诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪爪讜 讛讚专讬 讘讛讜 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚诇讜拽讞 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

The Gemara asks: What is Rav 岣sda teaching us? It is all already taught in the mishna. The Gemara answers: If the halakha were derived from the mishna alone, I would say that perhaps in the cases brought by Rav 岣sda, both the buyer and the seller are able to renege on the sale. The reason is that this is a case of exploitation, as the item was sold for more than its value, and therefore as long the buyer can renege on the sale, the sale is not complete. Consequently, as the seller lost out as well, he can also renege on the sale. And as for the mishna, it comes to teach us that if the seller said that he is selling good wheat and it is found to be bad, the buyer can renege on the sale, as this is considered a case of exploitation.

讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 专注 专注 讬讗诪专 讛拽讜谞讛

It is necessary to teach this, as it might enter your mind to say that this is not a case of exploitation because it is written: 鈥淚t is bad, it is bad, says the buyer; but when he is gone his way, then he boasts鈥 (Proverbs 20:14). In other words, it is the usual manner of sellers to praise their merchandise, while buyers disparage it. Therefore, the mishna teaches that the buyer can renege on the sale if the item was found to be bad, and the seller can change his mind if it was found to be good.

砖讞诪转讬转 讜谞诪爪讗转 诇讘谞讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 诇讘谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 砖诪砖讗 住讜诪拽转讬 讛讬讗 转讚注 讚拽讗 住诪拽讗 爪驻专讗 讜驻谞讬讗 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 谞讛讜专讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讘专讬

搂 The mishna teaches that if the seller said that he was selling reddish-brown [she岣mtit] wheat and it is found to be white, both the seller and the buyer can renege on the sale. The Gemara assumes that she岣mtit means the color of the sun [岣ma]. Therefore, Rav Pappa said: From the fact that the mishna teaches: White, in contrast to she岣mtit, and there are two types of wheat, one white and the other red, conclude from the mishna that this sun is red, not white. Know that this is the case, as it reddens in the morning and evening. And the reason that we do not see the red color all day is because our eyesight is not strong and we cannot discern the redness of the sun.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜诪专讗讛讜 注诪拽 诪谉 讛注讜专 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 注诪讜拽讛 诪谉 讛爪诇 讜讛转诐 诇讘谉 讛讜讗 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 讜诇讗 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 讚注诪讜拽讛 诪谉 讛爪诇 讜诇讗 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 诇讘谉 讜讛讻讗 讗讚讜诐

The Gemara raises an objection to this claim: With regard to a verse that speaks of leprosy: 鈥淎nd, behold, if its appearance is deeper than the skin鈥 (Leviticus 13:30), the Sages explain: This means that it is like the appearance of the sun, which is deeper than the shadow. But there, leprosy is white and yet it is likened to the sun. The Gemara answers: There, it means that it has an appearance like the sun in certain respects, but it is not like the appearance of the sun in all respects. It is like the appearance of the sun in that it is deeper than the shadow, and it is not entirely like the appearance of the sun, as there the leprous spot is white, and here the sun is red.

讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讗 拽讗 住诪拽讗 爪驻专讗 讜驻谞讬讗 讘爪驻专讗 讚讞诇驻讗 讗讘讬 讜讜专讚讬 讚讙谉 注讚谉 讘驻谞讬讗 讚讞诇驻讗 讗驻转讞讗 讚讙讬讛谞诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬驻讻讗

The Gemara asks: And according to that which entered our mind initially, that the sun is white, doesn鈥檛 it redden in the morning and evening? The Gemara answers: In the morning it becomes red as it passes over the site of the roses of the Garden of Eden, whose reflections give the light a red hue. In the evening the sun turns red because it passes over the entrance of Gehenna, whose fires redden the light. And there are those who say the opposite in explaining why the sun is red in the morning and the evening, i.e., in the morning it passes over the entrance of Gehenna, while in the evening it passes over the site of the roses of the Garden of Eden.

讬讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗 讞讜诪抓 砖谞讬讛谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛谉 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches: If the seller sold wine and it is found to be vinegar, both the seller and the buyer can renege on the sale. The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? As it is taught in a baraita:

讬讬谉 讜讞讜诪抓 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专 讜转专讜诪讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗

Wine and vinegar are one type of food, which means that if, for example, one separated teruma from one of these with the intention that it should exempt the other, his action is effective. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: They are two types of food. Apparently, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in the baraita. The Gem ara rejects this claim: You may even say that the mishn a is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only with regard to the issue of whether one can separate tithe and teruma from wine to redeem vinegar and vice versa. And the Rabbis hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ela.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 诪谞讬谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讗讜 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗 讘讛专讬诪讻诐 讗转 讞诇讘讜 诪诪谞讜

As Rabbi Ela says: From where is it derived with regard to one who separates teruma from poorquality produce for superiorquality produce, i.e., in order to fulfill the obligation of separating teruma from the high-quality produce, that his teruma is valid teruma? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing as you have set apart from it its best鈥 (Numbers 18:32).

讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 谞砖讬讗讜转 讞讟讗 诇诪讛 诪讻讗谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注讛 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

The verse is understood as indicating that one who sets aside inferior produce has sinned. It also demonstrates that if one did, in fact, set aside teruma from poor-quality produce in order to render permitted superior-quality produce, his action is effective and the inferior produce is sanctified as teruma. The reason is that if the inferior produce is not consecrated, why would one bear a sin? It should be considered as though he did nothing. From here it is derived with regard to one who separates teruma from poorquality produce for superiorquality produce that his teruma is valid teruma. The Rabbis agree and hold that in the case of one who separates vinegar in order to redeem wine, his teruma is valid despite the difference in quality, as wine and vinegar are considered a single type of food.

讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讞诪专讗 讜诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讞诇讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讞诇讗 讜诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讞诪专讗

But with regard to buying and selling, everyone, including the Rabbis, agrees that wine and vinegar are two types of food, as they have different uses. There are those for whom wine is preferable and vinegar is not preferable, and there are those for whom vinegar is preferable and wine is not preferable.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪砖讱 讜诇讗 诪讚讚 拽谞讛 诪讚讚 讜诇讗 诪砖讱 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻讬拽讞 砖讜讻专 讗转 诪拽讜诪谉

mishna This mishna discusses several methods of acquiring movable property. With regard to one who sells produce to another, if the buyer pulled the produce but did not measure it, he has acquired the produce through the act of acquisition of pulling. If he measured the produce but did not pull it, he has not acquired it, and either the seller or the buyer can decide to rescind the sale. If the buyer is perspicacious and wants to acquire the produce without having to pull it, and he wishes to do so before the seller could change his mind and decide not to sell, he rents its place, where the produce is located, and his property immediately effects acquisition of the produce on his behalf.

讛诇讜拽讞 驻砖转谉 诪讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讟诇讟诇谞讜 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讜转诇砖 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 拽谞讛

With regard to one who buys flax from another, because flax is usually carried around this purchaser has not acquired it until he carries it from place to place and acquires it by means of the act of acquisition of lifting. Pulling the flax is ineffective. And if it was attached to the ground, and he detached any amount, he has acquired it, as the Gemara will explain.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讚讚 讜讛谞讬讞 注诇 讙讘讬 住讬诪讟讗 拽谞讛

gemara The mishna mentions several modes of acquisition without elaboration. It does not explain in which domain the act takes place, whether on the property of the seller or in the public domain. Likewise, it does not specify who performs these actions. The Gemara clarifies these details. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If the seller measured the produce and placed it in an alleyway, which is not the public domain but a location where people can keep their belongings, then even if the buyer did not pull the produce, he acquires it.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讗 讘诪讜讚讚 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 诪专讘谞谉 讻讚诇讗 讙诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖诪注转讗 诪讚讚 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 诪讬诪专讗 讘注讬

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Perhaps my teacher heard this halakha from Rabbi Yo岣nan only with regard to one who measures into his basket, i.e., that of the buyer, in which case his possessions effect acquisition of the produce for him. But if the produce is placed on the floor of the alleyway, the buyer does not acquire the produce. Rabbi Asi said to him: This one of the Sages, i.e., Rabbi Zeira, seems like one who has not studied halakha. If he measured it into the basket of the buyer, is it necessary to say that he acquires it? If an item is placed in the buyer鈥檚 basket it is clearly acquired by him, regardless of the location of the basket. Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement with regard to an alleyway must be referring to items placed on the floor of the alleyway.

拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诇讗 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Zeira accept this claim from Rabbi Asi, or did he not accept it from him? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as Rabbi Yannai says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to a courtyard belonging to partners, which is similar in status to an alleyway, the partners acquire from one another. What, is it not correct to say that there is no difference between placing items on the ground and in their basket, as a partner acquires an item even when it is placed upon the ground, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Asi? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is referring to a case where the item is measured into the basket of the buyer.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讚讚 讜讛谞讬讞 注诇 讙讘讬 住讬诪讟讗 诇讗 拽谞讛 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 讘诪讜讚讚 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讻讗谉 讘诪讜讚讚 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara points out: So, too, Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement is reasonable, as Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one measured and placed an item in an alleyway, the buyer has not acquired it. Apparently, these two halakhot cited in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan are difficult, as they contradict each other, since earlier it was stated that according to Rabbi Yo岣nan the buyer can acquire an item in this manner. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from this apparent contradiction that here, i.e., in the statement cited by Rabbi Asi, he is referring to one who measures into the basket of the buyer, which effects acquisition; and there, i.e., in the statement of Rabbi Yaakov, he is referring to one who measures onto the ground, which does not effect acquisition. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讚讚 讜诇讗 诪砖讱 诇讗 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘住讬诪讟讗 诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 诪砖讱 讜诇讗 诪讚讚 拽谞讛 诪砖讬讻讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讬 拽谞讬讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If he measured the produce but did not pull it, he does not acquire it. What, is it not referring to one who did so in an alleyway, which indicates that placing produce on the ground of an alleyway does not effect acquisition, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Zeira? The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the mishna is referring to one who did so in the public domain. The Gemara asks: If that is so, say the first clause: If the buyer pulled the produce but did not measure it, he has acquired the produce. But does pulling in the public domain effect acquisition?

讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪住讬专讛 拽讜谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讞爪专 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 砖谞讬讛谉 诪砖讬讻讛 拽讜谞讛 讘住讬诪讟讗 讜讘讞爪专 砖讛讬讗 砖诇 砖谞讬讛谉 讜讛讙讘讛讛 拽讜谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐

But don鈥檛 Abaye and Rava both say that passing effects acquisition in the public domain and in a courtyard that does not belong to either of them; pulling effects acquisition only in an alleyway or in a courtyard that belongs to both of them, but not in the public domain; and lifting effects acquisition in every place, even in the seller鈥檚 domain? This demonstrates that pulling in the public domain does not effect acquisition.

诪讗讬 诪砖讱 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇住讬诪讟讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻讬拽讞 砖讜讻专 讗转 诪拽讜诪谉 讜讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪诪讗谉 讗讙专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诐 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻讬拽讞 砖讜讻专 讗转 诪拽讜诪谉

The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the phrase: If he pulled it, that is taught in the mishna? It means that he pulled it from the public domain into an alleyway. The Gemara asks: If that is so, say the latter clause: If the buyer is perspicacious he rents its place, i.e., where the produce is located. The Gemara explains the difficulty: But if the mishna is referring to a spot in the public domain, from whom can he rent the place where the produce is located? The Gemara answers: The latter clause is referring to a separate halakha, and this is what the mishna is saying: And if the produce is in a domain that has an owner, if he is perspicacious he rents the place where the produce is located from the owner.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the manner in which an acquisition takes place. Rav and Shmuel both say:

Scroll To Top