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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 26, 2017 | 诇壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Batra 94

Study Guide Bava Batra 94. When one sells produce, what percentage of bad produce can we assume will be mixed in and therefore the buyer has no rights to claim compensation from the seller for it. 聽According to Rav Huna, once one goes over that percentage, one has to compensate for all the bad produce – even the percentage that would have been allowed had the seller not gone over. 聽Various sources are brought to either support or contradict Rav Huna – however, they are all rejected as the case can be looked at in various ways.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讞讟讬谉

must give him the value of wheat of equal volume to the pebble that he removed. Had he not removed the pebble, the owner would have sold his wheat together with the pebble, all for the price of wheat. Accordingly, the removal of the pebble effectively caused the owner a small loss. It is apparent from this ruling that when selling produce, a buyer accepts upon himself that a quantity of dirt may be mixed in.

拽讟谞讬转 专讜讘注 注驻专讜专讬转 驻讞讜转 诪专讜讘注

The Gemara answers: With regard to legumes, one accepts a quarter-kav per se鈥檃, but with regard to dirt, he accepts less than a quarter-kav.

讜注驻专讜专讬转 专讜讘注 诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘专讜 讞讟讬谉 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 专讜讘注 拽讟谞讬转 诇住讗讛 砖注讜专讬诐 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 专讜讘注 谞讬砖讜讘转 诇住讗讛 注讚砖讬诐 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 专讜讘注 注驻专讜专讬转 诇住讗讛

And is so that he does not accept a quarterkav of dirt? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who sells produce to another, if he sells him wheat, the buyer accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of legumes may be present in each se鈥檃 of wheat purchased. When purchasing barley, he accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of chaff may be present in each se鈥檃 purchased. When purchasing lentils, he accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of dirt may be present in each se鈥檃 purchased.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讞讟讬诐 讜诇砖注讜专讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注讚砖讬诐 讚诪讬注拽专 注拽专讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: What, is it not that just as the baraita rules with regard to lentils, the same is true for wheat and for barley? The Gemara answers: No, lentils are different, because they are dug up from the ground and dirt can easily get mixed in. Lentils often contain a higher percentage of dirt than do wheat and barley, which are harvested rather than dug up.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚注讚砖讬诐 讚诪讬注拽专 注拽专讬 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 讞讟讬 讜砖注专讬 诇讗 转驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讞讟讬 讜砖注专讬 讚注驻专讜专讬转 诇讗 诪拽讘诇

The Gemara suggests: But according to this, the only reason that a buyer accepts that dirt may be present in lentils but not in wheat and barley is that lentils are dug up from the ground, whereas wheat and barley are not. If so, resolve the dilemma from this baraita and conclude that when purchasing wheat and barley, a buyer does not accept that a quarter-kav of dirt may be present in each se鈥檃.

诇注讜诇诐 讞讟讬 讜砖注专讬 诪拽讘诇 注驻专讜专讬转 注讚砖讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬注拽专 注拽专讬 诇讛讜 讬讜转专 诪专讜讘注 谞诪讬 诇拽讘诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects this: Actually, perhaps when purchasing wheat and barley as well, a buyer accepts that a quarter-kav of dirt may be present in each se鈥檃, but it was necessary for the baraita to state the halakha specifically with regard to lentils. This is because it might enter your mind to say that since lentils are dug up from the ground, the buyer would also accept even more than a quarter-kav of dirt. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诐 讘讗 诇谞驻讜转 诪谞驻讛 讗转 讻讜诇讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讚讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽谞住讗

Rav Huna says: If the buyer comes to sift the produce to check if there is more than the acceptable proportion of impurities and he finds that there is too much, he sifts all of it and returns all the impurities to the seller, not just the amount in excess of a quarter-kav per se鈥檃. The seller must instead provide produce that is free of any impurities. Some say that this is the strict halakha, and some say that it is a penalty.

讗诪专讬 诇讛 讚讬谞讗 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 讗驻讬专讬 砖驻讬专讬 讬讛讬讘 讜专讜讘注 诇讗 讟专讞 讗讬谞讬砖 讬讜转专 诪专讜讘注 讟专讞 讗讬谞讬砖 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讟专讞 讟专讞 讘讻讜诇讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: Some say that this is the strict halakha, as one who gives money for produce gives it for good-quality produce containing no impurities at all. Even so, where there is just a quarterkav of impurities per se鈥檃, a person will not take the trouble to sift the grain to remove the impurities; instead, he accepts the small quantity of impurities that are present. By contrast, where there is more than a quarter-kav of impurities per se鈥檃, a person will take the trouble to sift the grain to remove the impurities, and once he takes the trouble to sift the grain, he does not stop once he reduces the proportion of impurities to a quarter-kav per se鈥檃; rather, he takes the trouble to sift all of it. Accordingly, once he has sifted out the impurities, he never agrees to accept any quantity of impurities, and so the seller must take back all the impurities.

讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽谞住讗 专讜讘注 砖讻讬讞 讬讜转专 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讜讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚注专讬讘 讜讻讬讜谉 讚注专讬讘 拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讘讻讜诇讬讛

And some say it is a penalty. They understand that it is usual for a quarter-kav of impurities to be present in each se鈥檃 of produce, and so it is presumed that a buyer accepts that quantity. More than a quarter-kav is unusual, and consequently the seller is suspected of having deceitfully mixed additional impurities into the produce that he sold. And since the seller deceitfully mixed in impurities, the Sages penalized him by requiring him to pay for all of the impurities present, even those which he did not add.

(住讬诪谉 讻诇 转专讬 砖讟专讬 讚专讗讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜谞讗讛 讜拽讘诇谞讜转讗)

The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the cases it will cite: All two documents of Ravin bar Rav Na岣an are exploitation and a contract.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 住讗讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 专讜讘注 诪诪讬谉 讗讞专 讬诪注讟 住讘专讜讛 讚专讜讘注 讚讻诇讗讬诐 讻讬讜转专 诪专讜讘注 讚讛讻讗 讜拽讗 转谞讬 讬诪注讟

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from a mishna (Kilayim 2:1): With regard to any se鈥檃 of seeds that contains a quarterkav or more of seeds of a different kind, before sowing such seeds one must reduce the quantity of the other kind of seeds in the mixture so as not to violate the prohibition against growing a mixture of diverse kinds (see Leviticus 19:19). The Gemara explains: It can be assumed that the presence of a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se鈥檃 with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds is as problematic as more than a quarter-kav of impurities per se鈥檃 with regard to a sale, as discussed here, and therefore, since the mishna teaches with regard to diverse kinds only that one must reduce the additional amount, but not that one is required to remove all the seeds of a different kind, it follows that the same is true in the case of a sale, and the seller should not have to take back all of the impurities. This contradicts Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

诇讗 专讜讘注 讚讻诇讗讬诐 讻讬 专讜讘注 讚讛讻讗 讚诪讬

The Gemara deflects the challenge: No, this assumption is not necessarily correct; perhaps the presence of a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se鈥檃 with regard to diverse kinds is comparable to a quarter-kav of impurities per se鈥檃 with regard to a sale, as discussed here, and both are considered acceptable levels of admixture.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讬诪注讟 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诪专讗 讚讻诇讗讬诐

The Gemara asks: If it is so that a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se鈥檃 is acceptable, why does the mishna teach that one must reduce the quantity of seeds of a different kind? The Gemara answers: The requirement is a rabbinic decree due to the severity of the prohibition of diverse kinds.

讗讬 讛讻讬

The Gemara challenges this answer: If so,

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讘讜专

say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: It is insufficient to merely reduce the quantity of seeds of a different kind; rather, one must pick out all the seeds of a different kind.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讬讜转专 诪专讜讘注 讟谞讜驻转 讚诪讬 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗 拽谞住讬谞谉 讛转讬专讗 讗讟讜 讗讬住讜专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 拽谞住讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻专讜讘注 讚诪讬 讗诪讗讬 讬讘讜专

The Gemara explains the difficulty: Granted, if you say that a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se鈥檃 with regard to diverse kinds is comparable to more than a quarter-kav of impurities per se鈥檃 with regard to a sale, then it is about this that they disagree: The first tanna holds that we do not penalize one by requiring him to remove that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited, and consequently it is sufficient to merely reduce the quantity of seeds of a different kind to an acceptable level, whereas Rabbi Yosei holds that we do penalize one by requiring him to remove that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited. But if you say that a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se鈥檃 with regard to diverse kinds is comparable to a quarter-kav of impurities per se鈥檃 with regard to a sale, then why does Rabbi Yosei rule that one must pick out all the seeds of a different kind?

讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to diverse kinds, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei: One must pick out all the seeds, because once he is purifying the admixture of seeds, if he deliberately leaves a quantity of seeds of a different kind mixed in, it appears as though he is intentionally planting and maintaining diverse kinds in his field.

转讗 砖诪注 砖谞讬诐 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇 讗讞讚 讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 诪讗转讬诐 讝讛 讗讜诪专 诪讗转讬诐 砖诇讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 诪讗转讬诐 砖诇讬 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讛砖讗专 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another challenge to Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from a mishna (Bava Metzia 37a): In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, and this one deposited one hundred dinars and that one deposited two hundred dinars, and when they return to collect their deposits, this one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, and that one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, the bailee gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one, and the rest of the money, i.e., the contested one hundred dinars, will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes and prophetically determines the truth. In this case, one of the parties is certainly lying, but nevertheless, the Sages did not penalize the parties by placing all of the money in a safe place. Similarly, in the case of a sale, where a seller deceitfully mixed additional impurities into the produce he sold, he should not be penalized and required to take back all of the impurities.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 诪谞讛 诇诪专 讜诪谞讛 诇诪专 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诇讗讜 讻讜诇讬讛 注专讜讘讬 注专讬讘

The Gemara rejects this challenge: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the deposits, it is certain that at least one hundred dinars belongs to this Master and one hundred dinars belongs to that Master. Here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in, who can say that the seller did not mix in the entire amount intentionally? Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讛驻住讬讚 讛专诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讻诇 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a support for Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from the latter clause of that mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: If so, what did the swindler lose? He lost nothing by claiming the one hundred dinars that belongs to another, and he has no incentive to admit the truth. Rather, the entire deposit will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. Since through his lie the swindler risks losing even the one hundred dinars that he deposited, perhaps that will induce him to admit his deceit. According to Rabbi Yosei, the Sages did penalize one who acts deceitfully, which accords with Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 专诪讗讬 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚注专讜讘讬 注专讬讘

The Gemara rejects the proof: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the deposits, there is certainly a swindler, and it is reasonable to penalize both parties in order to induce the swindler to admit his deceit. Here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable level of impurities mixed in with the produce, who can say that the seller intentionally mixed in anything? Perhaps the impurities were inadvertently mixed in during the processing. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讟专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专讘讬转 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another support for Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from a baraita: In the case of a promissory note in which the details of a loan with interest were written, the court penalizes the creditor, and he may collect neither the principal nor the interest; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages did penalize one who acts improperly, which accords with Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖讜诪讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚注专讜讘讬 注专讬讘

The Gemara rejects the proof: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of a loan with interest, it is already at the time of the writing of the bill that the lender performed the transgression of placing interest upon the borrower. Since he certainly committed a transgression, it is reasonable that the Sages penalized him. But here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in with the produce, who can say that the seller intentionally mixed in anything? Perhaps the impurities were inadvertently mixed in during the processing. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the baraita.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a challenge to Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from the latter clause of the baraita: But the Rabbis say: He may collect the principal but may not collect the interest. According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages did not penalize one who acts improperly, contrary to Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 拽专谞讗 讚讛转讬专讗 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚讻讜诇讬讛 诇讗 注专讜讘讬 注专讬讘

The Gemara rejects this challenge: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of a loan with interest, according to strict halakha it is certainly permitted to collect the principal, so the Sages did not penalize him with regard to it. But here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in, who can say that the seller did not mix in the entire amount intentionally? Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 讗转 讛诪讜转专 讘诇讘讚 讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 讗诇讗 诪讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讻诇 讛专讘注讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讗诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 讗讛讚讜专讬 讻讜诇讛 诪讛讚专

Come and hear further support for Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from that which Ravin bar Rav Na岣an teaches (104b). Ravin bar Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement is with regard to a situation when land that was sold is later found to be larger than stated at the time of the sale. If the deviation is not more than an area required to sow a quarter-kav of seed per beit se鈥檃 of land, then the buyer need not return any land to the seller. If the proportion of extra land is larger than this, not only must the buyer return the extra land that is beyond the limit of a quarter-kav area per beit se鈥檃, but he must also return to him every one of the extra quarter-kav areas of land that he received beyond the stated area of a beit kor. The Gemara infers: Apparently, when one is required to return part of a sale because of a discrepancy that is beyond the acceptable limit of deviation, then one is required to return the entire discrepancy and not just the amount that is beyond the acceptable limit. This supports Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared?

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 94

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 94

谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讞讟讬谉

must give him the value of wheat of equal volume to the pebble that he removed. Had he not removed the pebble, the owner would have sold his wheat together with the pebble, all for the price of wheat. Accordingly, the removal of the pebble effectively caused the owner a small loss. It is apparent from this ruling that when selling produce, a buyer accepts upon himself that a quantity of dirt may be mixed in.

拽讟谞讬转 专讜讘注 注驻专讜专讬转 驻讞讜转 诪专讜讘注

The Gemara answers: With regard to legumes, one accepts a quarter-kav per se鈥檃, but with regard to dirt, he accepts less than a quarter-kav.

讜注驻专讜专讬转 专讜讘注 诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 驻讬专讜转 诇讞讘专讜 讞讟讬谉 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 专讜讘注 拽讟谞讬转 诇住讗讛 砖注讜专讬诐 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 专讜讘注 谞讬砖讜讘转 诇住讗讛 注讚砖讬诐 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 专讜讘注 注驻专讜专讬转 诇住讗讛

And is so that he does not accept a quarterkav of dirt? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who sells produce to another, if he sells him wheat, the buyer accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of legumes may be present in each se鈥檃 of wheat purchased. When purchasing barley, he accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of chaff may be present in each se鈥檃 purchased. When purchasing lentils, he accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of dirt may be present in each se鈥檃 purchased.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讞讟讬诐 讜诇砖注讜专讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注讚砖讬诐 讚诪讬注拽专 注拽专讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: What, is it not that just as the baraita rules with regard to lentils, the same is true for wheat and for barley? The Gemara answers: No, lentils are different, because they are dug up from the ground and dirt can easily get mixed in. Lentils often contain a higher percentage of dirt than do wheat and barley, which are harvested rather than dug up.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚注讚砖讬诐 讚诪讬注拽专 注拽专讬 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 讞讟讬 讜砖注专讬 诇讗 转驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讞讟讬 讜砖注专讬 讚注驻专讜专讬转 诇讗 诪拽讘诇

The Gemara suggests: But according to this, the only reason that a buyer accepts that dirt may be present in lentils but not in wheat and barley is that lentils are dug up from the ground, whereas wheat and barley are not. If so, resolve the dilemma from this baraita and conclude that when purchasing wheat and barley, a buyer does not accept that a quarter-kav of dirt may be present in each se鈥檃.

诇注讜诇诐 讞讟讬 讜砖注专讬 诪拽讘诇 注驻专讜专讬转 注讚砖讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬注拽专 注拽专讬 诇讛讜 讬讜转专 诪专讜讘注 谞诪讬 诇拽讘诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects this: Actually, perhaps when purchasing wheat and barley as well, a buyer accepts that a quarter-kav of dirt may be present in each se鈥檃, but it was necessary for the baraita to state the halakha specifically with regard to lentils. This is because it might enter your mind to say that since lentils are dug up from the ground, the buyer would also accept even more than a quarter-kav of dirt. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诐 讘讗 诇谞驻讜转 诪谞驻讛 讗转 讻讜诇讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讚讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽谞住讗

Rav Huna says: If the buyer comes to sift the produce to check if there is more than the acceptable proportion of impurities and he finds that there is too much, he sifts all of it and returns all the impurities to the seller, not just the amount in excess of a quarter-kav per se鈥檃. The seller must instead provide produce that is free of any impurities. Some say that this is the strict halakha, and some say that it is a penalty.

讗诪专讬 诇讛 讚讬谞讗 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 讗驻讬专讬 砖驻讬专讬 讬讛讬讘 讜专讜讘注 诇讗 讟专讞 讗讬谞讬砖 讬讜转专 诪专讜讘注 讟专讞 讗讬谞讬砖 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讟专讞 讟专讞 讘讻讜诇讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: Some say that this is the strict halakha, as one who gives money for produce gives it for good-quality produce containing no impurities at all. Even so, where there is just a quarterkav of impurities per se鈥檃, a person will not take the trouble to sift the grain to remove the impurities; instead, he accepts the small quantity of impurities that are present. By contrast, where there is more than a quarter-kav of impurities per se鈥檃, a person will take the trouble to sift the grain to remove the impurities, and once he takes the trouble to sift the grain, he does not stop once he reduces the proportion of impurities to a quarter-kav per se鈥檃; rather, he takes the trouble to sift all of it. Accordingly, once he has sifted out the impurities, he never agrees to accept any quantity of impurities, and so the seller must take back all the impurities.

讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽谞住讗 专讜讘注 砖讻讬讞 讬讜转专 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讜讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚注专讬讘 讜讻讬讜谉 讚注专讬讘 拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讘讻讜诇讬讛

And some say it is a penalty. They understand that it is usual for a quarter-kav of impurities to be present in each se鈥檃 of produce, and so it is presumed that a buyer accepts that quantity. More than a quarter-kav is unusual, and consequently the seller is suspected of having deceitfully mixed additional impurities into the produce that he sold. And since the seller deceitfully mixed in impurities, the Sages penalized him by requiring him to pay for all of the impurities present, even those which he did not add.

(住讬诪谉 讻诇 转专讬 砖讟专讬 讚专讗讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜谞讗讛 讜拽讘诇谞讜转讗)

The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the cases it will cite: All two documents of Ravin bar Rav Na岣an are exploitation and a contract.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 住讗讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 专讜讘注 诪诪讬谉 讗讞专 讬诪注讟 住讘专讜讛 讚专讜讘注 讚讻诇讗讬诐 讻讬讜转专 诪专讜讘注 讚讛讻讗 讜拽讗 转谞讬 讬诪注讟

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from a mishna (Kilayim 2:1): With regard to any se鈥檃 of seeds that contains a quarterkav or more of seeds of a different kind, before sowing such seeds one must reduce the quantity of the other kind of seeds in the mixture so as not to violate the prohibition against growing a mixture of diverse kinds (see Leviticus 19:19). The Gemara explains: It can be assumed that the presence of a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se鈥檃 with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds is as problematic as more than a quarter-kav of impurities per se鈥檃 with regard to a sale, as discussed here, and therefore, since the mishna teaches with regard to diverse kinds only that one must reduce the additional amount, but not that one is required to remove all the seeds of a different kind, it follows that the same is true in the case of a sale, and the seller should not have to take back all of the impurities. This contradicts Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

诇讗 专讜讘注 讚讻诇讗讬诐 讻讬 专讜讘注 讚讛讻讗 讚诪讬

The Gemara deflects the challenge: No, this assumption is not necessarily correct; perhaps the presence of a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se鈥檃 with regard to diverse kinds is comparable to a quarter-kav of impurities per se鈥檃 with regard to a sale, as discussed here, and both are considered acceptable levels of admixture.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讬诪注讟 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诪专讗 讚讻诇讗讬诐

The Gemara asks: If it is so that a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se鈥檃 is acceptable, why does the mishna teach that one must reduce the quantity of seeds of a different kind? The Gemara answers: The requirement is a rabbinic decree due to the severity of the prohibition of diverse kinds.

讗讬 讛讻讬

The Gemara challenges this answer: If so,

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讘讜专

say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: It is insufficient to merely reduce the quantity of seeds of a different kind; rather, one must pick out all the seeds of a different kind.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讬讜转专 诪专讜讘注 讟谞讜驻转 讚诪讬 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗 拽谞住讬谞谉 讛转讬专讗 讗讟讜 讗讬住讜专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 拽谞住讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻专讜讘注 讚诪讬 讗诪讗讬 讬讘讜专

The Gemara explains the difficulty: Granted, if you say that a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se鈥檃 with regard to diverse kinds is comparable to more than a quarter-kav of impurities per se鈥檃 with regard to a sale, then it is about this that they disagree: The first tanna holds that we do not penalize one by requiring him to remove that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited, and consequently it is sufficient to merely reduce the quantity of seeds of a different kind to an acceptable level, whereas Rabbi Yosei holds that we do penalize one by requiring him to remove that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited. But if you say that a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se鈥檃 with regard to diverse kinds is comparable to a quarter-kav of impurities per se鈥檃 with regard to a sale, then why does Rabbi Yosei rule that one must pick out all the seeds of a different kind?

讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讻诇讗讬诐

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to diverse kinds, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei: One must pick out all the seeds, because once he is purifying the admixture of seeds, if he deliberately leaves a quantity of seeds of a different kind mixed in, it appears as though he is intentionally planting and maintaining diverse kinds in his field.

转讗 砖诪注 砖谞讬诐 砖讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇 讗讞讚 讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 诪讗转讬诐 讝讛 讗讜诪专 诪讗转讬诐 砖诇讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 诪讗转讬诐 砖诇讬 谞讜转谉 诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜诇讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讛砖讗专 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another challenge to Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from a mishna (Bava Metzia 37a): In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, and this one deposited one hundred dinars and that one deposited two hundred dinars, and when they return to collect their deposits, this one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, and that one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, the bailee gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one, and the rest of the money, i.e., the contested one hundred dinars, will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes and prophetically determines the truth. In this case, one of the parties is certainly lying, but nevertheless, the Sages did not penalize the parties by placing all of the money in a safe place. Similarly, in the case of a sale, where a seller deceitfully mixed additional impurities into the produce he sold, he should not be penalized and required to take back all of the impurities.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 诪谞讛 诇诪专 讜诪谞讛 诇诪专 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诇讗讜 讻讜诇讬讛 注专讜讘讬 注专讬讘

The Gemara rejects this challenge: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the deposits, it is certain that at least one hundred dinars belongs to this Master and one hundred dinars belongs to that Master. Here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in, who can say that the seller did not mix in the entire amount intentionally? Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 讛驻住讬讚 讛专诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讻诇 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a support for Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from the latter clause of that mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: If so, what did the swindler lose? He lost nothing by claiming the one hundred dinars that belongs to another, and he has no incentive to admit the truth. Rather, the entire deposit will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. Since through his lie the swindler risks losing even the one hundred dinars that he deposited, perhaps that will induce him to admit his deceit. According to Rabbi Yosei, the Sages did penalize one who acts deceitfully, which accords with Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 专诪讗讬 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚注专讜讘讬 注专讬讘

The Gemara rejects the proof: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the deposits, there is certainly a swindler, and it is reasonable to penalize both parties in order to induce the swindler to admit his deceit. Here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable level of impurities mixed in with the produce, who can say that the seller intentionally mixed in anything? Perhaps the impurities were inadvertently mixed in during the processing. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讟专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专讘讬转 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another support for Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from a baraita: In the case of a promissory note in which the details of a loan with interest were written, the court penalizes the creditor, and he may collect neither the principal nor the interest; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages did penalize one who acts improperly, which accords with Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖讜诪讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚注专讜讘讬 注专讬讘

The Gemara rejects the proof: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of a loan with interest, it is already at the time of the writing of the bill that the lender performed the transgression of placing interest upon the borrower. Since he certainly committed a transgression, it is reasonable that the Sages penalized him. But here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in with the produce, who can say that the seller intentionally mixed in anything? Perhaps the impurities were inadvertently mixed in during the processing. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the baraita.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛专讘讬转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a challenge to Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from the latter clause of the baraita: But the Rabbis say: He may collect the principal but may not collect the interest. According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages did not penalize one who acts improperly, contrary to Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讜讚讗讬 拽专谞讗 讚讛转讬专讗 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚讻讜诇讬讛 诇讗 注专讜讘讬 注专讬讘

The Gemara rejects this challenge: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of a loan with interest, according to strict halakha it is certainly permitted to collect the principal, so the Sages did not penalize him with regard to it. But here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in, who can say that the seller did not mix in the entire amount intentionally? Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 讗转 讛诪讜转专 讘诇讘讚 讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 讗诇讗 诪讞讝讬专 诇讜 讗转 讻诇 讛专讘注讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讗诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 讗讛讚讜专讬 讻讜诇讛 诪讛讚专

Come and hear further support for Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling from that which Ravin bar Rav Na岣an teaches (104b). Ravin bar Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement is with regard to a situation when land that was sold is later found to be larger than stated at the time of the sale. If the deviation is not more than an area required to sow a quarter-kav of seed per beit se鈥檃 of land, then the buyer need not return any land to the seller. If the proportion of extra land is larger than this, not only must the buyer return the extra land that is beyond the limit of a quarter-kav area per beit se鈥檃, but he must also return to him every one of the extra quarter-kav areas of land that he received beyond the stated area of a beit kor. The Gemara infers: Apparently, when one is required to return part of a sale because of a discrepancy that is beyond the acceptable limit of deviation, then one is required to return the entire discrepancy and not just the amount that is beyond the acceptable limit. This supports Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared?

Scroll To Top