Rav and Rabbi Yochanan hold differing views on the implications of a down payment in a transaction. Must both parties fulfill the entire agreement, risking a curse upon breach, or does the down payment bind them only to the part already transacted? The Gemara suggests that a similar debate arises in a tannaitic discussion regarding loan cancellation during the shmita year, when an object taken as collateral doesn’t cover the loan’s full value. However, in conclusion, the debate is explained differently – does the collateral act as payment or merely a reminder of the debt? Further questions emerge: Can one party unilaterally dissolve a verbal agreement? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether or not this action constitutes dishonesty. Two difficulties are raised against Rav from tannaitic sources and one against Rabbi Yochanan from a different statement he made. Most, if not all the difficulties are resolved. The Mishna delves into laws of ona’ah, addressing overcharging or underpaying. What percentage triggers ona’ah, and within what timeframe can a buyer claim fraud? Rav and Shmuel offer different opinions on whether this percentage is based on market value only, or also on the item’s purchase price. Moreover, what recourse exists for a buyer/seller over/undercharged beyond or below the ona’ah threshold?
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Bava Metzia 49
אֶלָּא מַשְׁכּוֹן דְּנָקֵיט לְמָה לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁמַע מִינֵּיהּ: מַאי ״אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט״ דְּקָאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט בְּכוּלּוֹ, וּמַאי ״מְשַׁמֵּט״ דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא – לְהָךְ פַּלְגָא דְּלָא נָקֵיט עֲלֵיהּ מַשְׁכּוֹן.
If that half is canceled as well, then why does he need the collateral that he is holding? The lender clearly took the collateral to enable him to collect at least part of his debt after the Sabbatical Year. Rather, do we not conclude from it: What is the meaning of the statement: The Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is saying? It means that the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the entire loan. And what is the meaning of: The Sabbatical Year abrogates the loan, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying? It is referring to that half of the loan that he did not take on the basis of collateral.
וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלּוֹ הוּא קוֹנֶה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא סָבַר: כְּנֶגְדּוֹ הוּא קוֹנֶה.
And they disagree with regard to this: As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that a down payment effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with the entire amount of the transaction, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that a down payment effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with its value. Apparently, the amoraic dispute parallels the tannaitic dispute.
לָא, מַאי ״אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט״ דְּקָאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל – לְהָךְ פַּלְגָא דְּנָקֵיט עֲלֵיהּ מַשְׁכּוֹן, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא סָבַר: לְהָךְ פַּלְגָא דְּנָקֵיט עֲלֵיהּ מַשְׁכּוֹן נָמֵי מְשַׁמֵּט. אֶלָּא מַשְׁכּוֹן דְּנָקֵיט, לְמָה לֵיהּ? לְזִכְרוֹן דְּבָרִים בְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara rejects that parallel: No, what is the meaning of the statement: The Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is saying? It is referring to that half of the loan that he took on the basis of collateral. This indicates by inference that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: The Sabbatical Year also abrogates that half of the loan that he took on the basis of collateral. The Gemara asks: Then why does he need the collateral that he is holding? The Gemara answers: He requires it as a mere reminder to increase the likelihood that the loan will be repaid, and it does not prevent cancellation of a loan.
רַב כָּהֲנָא יְהַבוּ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי אַכִּיתָּנָא, לְסוֹף אִיַּיקַּר כִּיתָּנָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּמַאי דִּנְקִיטַתְּ זוּזֵי – הַב לְהוּ, וְאִידַּךְ – דְּבָרִים נִינְהוּ, וּדְבָרִים אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה.
§ The Gemara relates: Buyers gave money to Rav Kahana to purchase linen. Ultimately, the price of linen increased. Rav Kahana came before Rav to ask his opinion. Rav said to him: Give them a quantity of linen equivalent in value to the money that you received, and concerning the rest, your verbal commitment is merely a statement, and reneging on a verbal commitment that was unaccompanied by an act of acquisition does not constitute an act of bad faith.
דְּאִיתְּמַר: דְּבָרִים, רַב אָמַר: אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֵשׁ בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה.
The Gemara comments: This is as it was stated: There is an amoraic dispute with regard to reneging on a verbal commitment that was unaccompanied by an act of acquisition. Rav says: It does not constitute an act of bad faith. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It constitutes an act of bad faith.
מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הִין צֶדֶק״, וַהֲלֹא ״הִין״ בִּכְלַל אֵיפָה הָיָה? אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: שֶׁיְּהֵא הֵן שֶׁלְּךָ צֶדֶק, וְלָאו שֶׁלְּךָ צֶדֶק. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יְדַבֵּר אֶחָד בַּפֶּה וְאֶחָד בַּלֵּב.
The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “A just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have” (Leviticus 19:36)? But wasn’t a hin included in an ephah? Why is it necessary to state both? Rather, this is an allusion that serves to say to you that your yes [hen] should be just, and your no should be just. Apparently, it is a mitzva for one to fulfill his promises. Abaye says: That verse means that one should not say one matter with his mouth and think one other matter in his heart. It is prohibited for one to make a commitment that he has no intention of fulfilling. Rav Kahana made his commitment in good faith and reneged due to changed circumstances. That is not prohibited.
מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ טַלִּית קוֹנָה דִּינַר זָהָב, וְאֵין דִּינַר זָהָב קוֹנֶה טַלִּית, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם כָּךְ הֲלָכָה. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ: מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מֵאַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל וּמֵאַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַפְּלַגָּה הוּא עָתִיד לִיפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד בְּדִיבּוּרוֹ!
The Gemara raises an objection. Rabbi Shimon says: Even though the Sages said that when one party takes possession of a garment, the other party acquires a gold dinar, but when one party takes possession of a gold dinar, the other party does not acquire a garment, in any case, that is what the halakha would be. But the Sages said with regard to one who reneges on a transaction where one party pulled the gold dinar into his possession: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, and from the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from the Egyptians in the Red Sea, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. And one who negotiates, where the negotiation culminates with a statement in which he commits himself to acquire the item, did not acquire the item without a formal act of acquisition. But with regard to one who reneges on his commitment, the Sages are displeased with him. Apparently, one who reneges is considered to have acted in bad faith.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דִּתְנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן מַתְיָא שֶׁאָמַר לִבְנוֹ: צֵא וּשְׂכוֹר לָנוּ פּוֹעֲלִים. הָלַךְ וּפָסַק לָהֶם מְזוֹנוֹת. וּכְשֶׁבָּא אֵצֶל אָבִיו, אָמַר לוֹ: בְּנִי, אֲפִילּוּ אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶם כִּסְעוּדַת שְׁלֹמֹה בִּשְׁעָתוֹ לֹא יָצָאתָ יְדֵי חוֹבָתְךָ עִמָּהֶם, שֶׁהֵן בְּנֵי אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב. אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַתְחִילוּ בִּמְלָאכָה, צֵא וֶאֱמוֹר לָהֶם: עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם עָלַי אֶלָּא פַּת וְקִטְנִית בִּלְבַד.
The Gemara explains: This matter is a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 83a): There was an incident involving Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya, who said to his son: Go out and hire laborers for us. His son went and allocated sustenance for them, as part of their employment terms, without specifying the type of sustenance. And when he came to his father, his father said to him: My son, even if you prepare for them a meal like the feast of Solomon during his era, you will not fulfill your obligation to them, as they are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and due to that status they are deserving of any meal that they want. Rather, this is what you should do: Before they begin engaging in their labor, go out and say to them: Your employment is on the condition that you have the right to claim from me only the customary meal of bread and legumes.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּבָרִים יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה, הֵיכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ זִיל הֲדַר בָּךְ? שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּפוֹעֲלִים גּוּפַיְיהוּ לָא סָמְכָא דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא – מִידָּע יָדְעִי דְּעַל אֲבוּהּ סָמֵךְ.
The Gemara asks: And if it enters your mind that reneging on a verbal commitment unaccompanied by an act of acquisition constitutes an act of bad faith, how did Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya tell his son to renege? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; it is different there in that case, as the laborers themselves do not rely on the son. What is the reason they do not rely on the son? It is due to the fact that they know that he relied on his father giving his approval when committing to feed them.
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ הִתְחִילוּ בִּמְלָאכָה נָמֵי? הִתְחִילוּ בִּמְלָאכָה, וַדַּאי סָמְכִי דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ, אֲמַרוּ: מֵימָר אָמַר קַמֵּיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ וְנִיחָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: If so, then even if the laborers began engaging in their labor, they still would not rely on the son. Why then did his father instruct him specifically to tell them of the change before they began their labor? The Gemara answers: Once they began engaging in their labor they would certainly rely on the son’s commitment, as they would say: He must have come before his father and stated the conditions of their employment, and his father is amenable to those terms. Therefore, it was necessary to inform them before they began working.
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ מַתָּנָה אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָךְ – יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. יָכוֹל, פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא: מוּתָּר לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה מוּעֶטֶת, דְּסָמְכָא דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ.
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan say this, i.e., that one who reneges on a verbal commitment acted in bad faith? But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who says to another: I am giving you a gift, is able to renege on his commitment? The Gemara asks: He is able to renege? It is obvious that he is able to renege, as in the absence of an act of acquisition no one can compel him to give the gift. Rather, it means: It is permitted for him to renege on his commitment. Apparently, one who reneges on a verbal guarantee is not considered to have acted in bad faith. Rav Pappa said: And Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes that in the case of a small gift one may not renege, as the recipients rely on him to fulfill his verbal commitment. By contrast, in the case of a large gift the recipients are aware that one might reconsider, and therefore they do not rely on his statement and do not assume that his decision is final.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְבֶן לֵוִי: כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי. בֶּן לֵוִי רַשַּׁאי לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לָא מָצֵי לְמִיהְדַּר בֵּיהּ – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי רַשַּׁאי. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מָצֵי לְמִיהְדַּר בֵּיהּ, אַמַּאי רַשַּׁאי? אִישְׁתְּכַח דְּקָא אָכֵיל טְבָלִים!
The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to an Israelite who said to a Levite: You have a kor of first-tithe produce that is in my possession and that I separated from my produce, the Levite may render all or part of this kor teruma of the tithe for first-tithe produce that he has in another place. Granted, if you say that one is unable, i.e., it is not permitted for him, to renege, it is due to that reason that the Levite may render it teruma of the tithe for other produce. But if you say that one is able, i.e., it is permitted for him, to renege, why may he render it teruma of the tithe for other produce? The owner of the produce could renege, and in that case it will eventuate that he is consuming untithed produce, as the teruma of the tithe that he separated did not belong to him.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ וְחָזַר וְהִפְקִידוֹ אֶצְלוֹ.
The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the Levite took the first-tithe produce from him and then deposited it with him, so that it already belongs to the Levite.
אִי הָכִי אֵימָא סֵיפָא: נְתָנוֹ לְבֶן לֵוִי אַחֵר – אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעוֹמֶת. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כְּגוֹן שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ וְחָזַר וְהִפְקִידוֹ אֶצְלוֹ, אַמַּאי אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעוֹמֶת? כֵּיוָן דְּמַשְׁכֵיהּ מָמוֹנָא אִית לֵיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בִּדְלָא נְטָלוֹ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara asks: If so, that this is the circumstance addressed in the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, say the latter clause of that halakha: If the owner of the produce gave the first-tithe produce to a different Levite, the first Levite has only a grievance against the owner, but not any legal claim. And if it enters your mind that this is a case where the first Levite took the first-tithe produce from the owner and then deposited it with him, why does the Levite have only a grievance against him? Once the first Levite pulled the produce into his possession it is his, and therefore, he has property in the possession of the owner of the produce. Rather, must one not conclude from it that this is a case where the Levite did not take the produce and deposit it? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that there was only a verbal commitment, and that proves that reneging on a verbal commitment constitutes an act of bad faith.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּיהַיב זוּזֵי אַשּׁוּמְשְׁמֵי. לְסוֹף אִיַּיקַּר שׁוּמְשְׁמֵי. הֲדַרוּ בְּהוּ וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לֵית לַן שׁוּמְשְׁמֵי, שְׁקוֹל זוּזָךְ. לָא שְׁקֵיל זוּזֵיהּ, אִיגְּנוּב. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמְרִי לָךְ שְׁקוֹל זוּזָךְ וְלָא שְׁקַלְיתְּ, לָא מִבַּעְיָא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר דְּלָא הָוֵי, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: וְהָא בָּעֵי לְקַבּוֹלֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״מִי שֶׁפָּרַע״? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי נָמֵי.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who gave money as payment for sesame. Ultimately, the price of sesame increased, and the sellers reneged and said to him: We have no sesame; take your money. The buyer did not take his money, and the money was stolen. They came before Rava to adjudicate the case. Rava said to the buyer: Once they said to you: Take your money, and you did not take it, it is not necessary to say that their legal status is not that of a paid bailee. But my ruling is that their legal status is not even that of an unpaid bailee. The Sages said to Rava: But aren’t the sellers who reneged required to accept upon themselves the curse: He Who exacted payment? Rava said to them: Indeed, they must pay or accept the curse.
אָמַר רַב פַּפֵּי, אָמַר לִי רָבִינָא: לְדִידִי אֲמַר לִי הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְרַב טָבוּת שְׁמֵיהּ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר זוּטְרָא שְׁמֵיהּ, דְּאִי הֲווֹ יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ כֹּל חֲלָלָא דְעָלְמָא לָא (הֲוֵי קָא) [הָוֵה] מְשַׁנֵּי בְּדִבּוּרֵיהּ. בְּדִידִי הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא: הָהוּא יוֹמָא אַפַּנְיָא דְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא הֲוָה, וַהֲוָה יָתֵיבְנָא, וַאֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא וְקָאֵי אַבָּבָא. אֲמַר לִי: אִית לָךְ שׁוּמְשְׁמֵי לְזַבּוֹנֵי?
Rav Pappi said that Ravina said to me: One of the Sages, and Rav Tavot is his name, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Zutra is his name, and he is one who even if they were to give him the entire expanse of the world he would not deviate from the truth in his speech, said to me: There was an incident in which I was involved. On that day, it was twilight on Shabbat eve, and I was sitting, and a certain man came and stood at the entrance. He said to me: Do you have sesame to sell?
אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: לָא. אֲמַר לִי: לֶיהְווֹ הָנָךְ זוּזֵי בְּפִקָּדוֹן גַּבָּךְ, דְּהָא חֲשַׁכָה לִי. אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: הָא בֵּיתָא קַמָּךְ. אוֹתְבִינְהוּ בְּבֵיתָא וְאִיגְּנוּב. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל ״הָא בֵּיתָא קַמָּךְ״ לָא מִיבַּעְיָא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר דְּלָא הָוֵי, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי. אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: וְהָא אֲמַרוּ [לֵיהּ] רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְקַבּוֹלֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״מִי שֶׁפָּרַע״. וַאֲמַר לִי: לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם.
I said to him: No. He said to me: Let these dinars remain as a deposit with you, as the day has grown dark for me and I am unable to reach home before Shabbat. I said to him: This house is before you. He placed them in the house and the dinars were stolen. That man came to have his case judged before Rava, demanding his money. Rava said to him: With regard to anyone who states: This house is before you, it is not necessary to say that he is not a paid bailee, but he is not even an unpaid bailee. Ravina said to Rav Tavot: But didn’t the Sages say to Rava: The sesame merchant is required to accept upon himself the curse: He Who exacted payment? And Rav Tavot said to me: There were never such matters; that incident never occurred.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁהַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדוֹ – יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַכֶּסֶף וְהַפֵּירוֹת בְּיַד מוֹכֵר. אֲבָל כֶּסֶף בְּיַד מוֹכֵר וּפֵירוֹת בְּיַד לוֹקֵחַ – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכַּסְפּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ. ״בְּיָדוֹ״?! בְּיַד מוֹכֵר הוּא. אֶלָּא – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדְּמֵי כַסְפּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Anyone who has the money in his possession has the advantage. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: When does the one with the money in his possession have the advantage? It is when both the money and the produce are in the possession of the seller. But if the money is in the possession of the seller and the produce is in the possession of the buyer, the seller cannot renege, because his money is in his possession. The Gemara understood this to mean that the buyer still had the money in his possession, and asks: In his, i.e., the buyer’s, possession? Isn’t it in the possession of the seller? Rather, emend the text: Because the value of his, i.e., the buyer’s, money is in his, i.e., the buyer’s, possession.
פְּשִׁיטָא! אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה עֲלִיָּיה שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ מוּשְׂכֶּרֶת בְּיַד מוֹכֵר. טַעְמָא מַאי תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן מְשִׁיכָה – גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר לוֹ נִשְׂרְפוּ חִטֶּיךָ בַּעֲלִיָּיה. הָכָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דְּלוֹקֵחַ נִינְהוּ, אִי נָפְלָה דְּלֵיקָה בְּאוֹנֶס – אִיהוּ טָרַח וּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that the seller cannot renege, as the buyer acquired the produce through the transaction of pulling? Rava said: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the upper story of the house belonging to the buyer, where the produce was stored, was rented to the seller. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason the Sages instituted that pulling, and not payment of money, effects acquisition? It is a rabbinic decree, lest a seller say to the buyer: Your wheat burned in the upper story after you paid. Here, the produce is in the domain of the buyer. Therefore, if a fire is ignited due to circumstances beyond his control, the buyer will exert himself and bring the produce from the upper story.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּיהַיב זוּזֵי אַחַמְרָא. לְסוֹף שְׁמַע דְּקָא בָעֵי לְמִנְסְבֵיהּ דְּבֵי פַּרְזַק רוּפִילָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי זוּזַי, לָא בָּעֵינָא חַמְרָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתִּיקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּמּוֹכְרִין כָּךְ תִּיקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּלָּקוֹחוֹת.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who gave money in exchange for wine. Ultimately he heard that men from the house of Parzak the vizier [rufila] sought to appropriate the wine. The buyer said to the seller: Give me my money, as I do not want the wine. The case came before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Just as the Sages instituted pulling with regard to sellers, so did they institute pulling with regard to buyers. Since the buyer had yet to pull the wine into his possession, he can renege on the transaction.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹנָאָה, אַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁתוּת לְמִקָּח. עַד מָתַי מוּתָּר לְהַחְזִיר? עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ.
MISHNA: The measure of exploitation for which one can claim that he was exploited is four silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a in a sela, or one-sixth of the transaction. Until when is it permitted for the buyer to return the item? He may return it only until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative who is more familiar with the market price of merchandise. If more time has elapsed he can no longer return the item, as the assumption is that he waived his right to receive the sum of the disparity.
הוֹרָה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בְּלוֹד: הָאוֹנָאָה שְׁמוֹנָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁלִישׁ לְמִקָּח. וְשָׂמְחוּ תַּגָּרֵי לוֹד. אָמַר לָהֶם: כׇּל הַיּוֹם מוּתָּר לַחְזוֹר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ יַנִּיחַ לָנוּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בִּמְקוֹמֵינוּ, וְחָזְרוּ לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
The mishna continues: Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation is a measure of eight silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a of a sela, one-third of the transaction. And the merchants of Lod rejoiced, as this ruling allowed them a greater profit margin and rendered the nullification of a transaction less likely. Rabbi Tarfon said to them: Throughout the entire day it is permitted to renege on the transaction and not merely for the period of time it takes to show the purchase item to a merchant or a relative. The merchants of Lod said to him: Let Rabbi Tarfon leave us as we were, with the previous ruling, and they reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna with regard to both rulings.
גְּמָ׳ אִתְּמַר: רַב אָמַר: שְׁתוּת מִקָּח שָׁנִינוּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שְׁתוּת מָעוֹת נָמֵי שָׁנִינוּ. שָׁוֵי שִׁיתָּא בְּחַמְשָׁא, שָׁוֵי שִׁיתָּא בְּשִׁבְעָה – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָתַר מִקָּח אָזְלִינַן וְאוֹנָאָה הָוְיָא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי שָׁוֵי חַמְשָׁא בְּשִׁיתָּא וְשָׁוֵי שִׁבְעָה בְּשִׁיתָּא.
GEMARA: It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to exploitation. Rav says: We learned that exploitation is determined by one-sixth of the transaction, i.e., one-sixth of the purchase item, not one-sixth of the money paid. And Shmuel says: We learned that exploitation is also determined by one-sixth of the money paid. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to an item worth six ma’a that was sold for five ma’a, or an item worth six ma’a that was sold for seven ma’a, everyone agrees that we follow the transaction, i.e., the fraction of the variation in price is determined relative to the market value of the item sold, and it is exploitation. Where Rav and Shmuel disagree is in the case of an item worth five ma’a sold for six ma’a, or an item worth seven ma’a sold for six ma’a.
לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר: בָּתַר מָעוֹת אָזְלִינַן, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אוֹנָאָה הָוֵי. לְרַב דְּאָמַר: בָּתַר מִקָּח אָזְלִינַן, שָׁוֵי חַמְשָׁא בְּשִׁיתָּא בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח הָוְיָא. שָׁוֵי שִׁבְעָה בְּשִׁיתָּא, מְחִילָה הָוְיָא.
According to Shmuel, who says that we also follow the fraction of the variation in price as determined by the money paid, both this case and that case are exploitation, as there is a disparity of one-sixth between the price paid and the value of the item. According to Rav, who says that we follow the transaction, when an item worth five ma’a sells for six ma’a, the halakha is that there is a nullification of the transaction, as the disparity between the value of the item and the price paid is greater than one-sixth. When an item worth seven ma’a sells for six ma’a, the halakha is that there is a waiver of the sum of the disparity, as the disparity between the value of the item and the price paid is less than one-sixth.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כִּי אָמְרִינַן מְחִילָה וּבִיטּוּל מִקָּח – הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא שְׁתוּת מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִים. אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא שְׁתוּת מִצַּד אֶחָד – אוֹנָאָה הָוְיָא.
And Shmuel says: When we say that there is a waiver or a nullification of the transaction, it is in a case where there is not a disparity of one-sixth from both aspects, i.e., both in terms of the money paid and in terms of the value of the item. But in a case where there is a disparity of one-sixth from one aspect, either in terms of the money paid or the value of the item, it is exploitation.
תְּנַן: הָאוֹנָאָה אַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁתוּת לְמִקָּח. מַאי לָאו, דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים בְּעֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבְּעָה, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׁתוּת מָעוֹת נָמֵי שָׁנִינוּ! לָא, דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה בְּעֶשְׂרִים.
The Gemara cites proof for the opinions of Rav and Shmuel. We learned in the mishna: The measure of exploitation for which one can claim that he was exploited is four silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a in a sela, which is one-sixth of the transaction. What, is it not a case where he bought an item worth twenty ma’a for twenty-four ma’a? And accordingly, one can conclude from the mishna that we learned that exploitation is also determined by one-sixth of the money paid, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma’a for twenty ma’a.
מִי נִתְאַנָּה – מוֹכֵר. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עַד מָתַי מוּתָּר לְהַחְזִיר – בִּכְדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לוֹקֵחַ, אֲבָל מוֹכֵר – לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר.
The Gemara asks: If so, who was exploited in this transaction? It is the seller. Say the latter clause of the mishna: Until when is it permitted for the buyer to return the item? In the time that it takes the buyer to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative. And Rav Naḥman said: The Rabbis taught this halakha only with regard to a buyer, who is in possession of the item and can show it to a merchant immediately. But a seller may always renege on the transaction. Since the purchase item is not in his possession, he can determine its market price only if he happens to encounter a similar item, and there is no time frame within which this will certainly occur.
אֶלָּא דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה בְּעֶשְׂרִין וּתְמָנְיָא. תְּנַן, הוֹרָה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בְּלוֹד: הָאוֹנָאָה שְׁמוֹנָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁלִישׁ לְמִקָּח. מַאי לָאו, דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי שִׁיתַּסְרֵי בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה? וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׁלִישׁ מָעוֹת נָמֵי שָׁנִינוּ.
Rather, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma’a for twenty-eight ma’a. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation is a measure of eight silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a of a sela, one-third of the transaction. What, is it not a case where he bought an item worth sixteen ma’a for twenty-four ma’a? And accordingly, one can conclude from the mishna that we learned that exploitation is also determined by one-third of the money paid, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.
לָא: דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה בְּשִׁיתְּסַר. מִי נִתְאַנָּה מוֹכֵר, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אָמַר לָהֶם – כׇּל הַיּוֹם מוּתָּר לַחְזוֹר. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לוֹקֵחַ, אֲבָל מוֹכֵר לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר. אֶלָּא דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה בִּתְלָתִין וּתְרֵין.
The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma’a for sixteen ma’a. The Gemara asks: If so, who was exploited in this transaction? It is the seller. Say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Tarfon said to them: Throughout the entire day it is permitted to renege on the transaction. And Rav Naḥman says: They taught this halakha only with regard to a buyer, but a seller may always renege on the transaction. Rather, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma’a for thirty-two ma’a.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: מִי שֶׁהוּטַּל עָלָיו יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. כֵּיצַד? מָכַר לוֹ שָׁוֶה חֲמִשָּׁה בְּשִׁשָּׁה, מִי נִתְאַנָּה – לוֹקֵחַ, יָד לוֹקֵחַ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, רָצָה אוֹמֵר: תֵּן לִי מְעוֹתַי, אוֹ תֵּן לִי מָה שֶׁאוֹנֵיתַנִי. מָכַר לוֹ
The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: The one upon whom the exploitation was imposed has the advantage. How so? In a case where one sold him an item worth five ma’a for six ma’a, who was exploited? It is the buyer. Therefore, the buyer is at an advantage. If he wishes, he can say to the seller: Give me back my money and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum which you received by engaging in exploitation of me. In a case where one sold him
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Bava Metzia 49
אֶלָּא מַשְׁכּוֹן דְּנָקֵיט לְמָה לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁמַע מִינֵּיהּ: מַאי ״אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט״ דְּקָאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט בְּכוּלּוֹ, וּמַאי ״מְשַׁמֵּט״ דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא – לְהָךְ פַּלְגָא דְּלָא נָקֵיט עֲלֵיהּ מַשְׁכּוֹן.
If that half is canceled as well, then why does he need the collateral that he is holding? The lender clearly took the collateral to enable him to collect at least part of his debt after the Sabbatical Year. Rather, do we not conclude from it: What is the meaning of the statement: The Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is saying? It means that the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the entire loan. And what is the meaning of: The Sabbatical Year abrogates the loan, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying? It is referring to that half of the loan that he did not take on the basis of collateral.
וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלּוֹ הוּא קוֹנֶה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא סָבַר: כְּנֶגְדּוֹ הוּא קוֹנֶה.
And they disagree with regard to this: As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that a down payment effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with the entire amount of the transaction, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that a down payment effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with its value. Apparently, the amoraic dispute parallels the tannaitic dispute.
לָא, מַאי ״אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט״ דְּקָאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל – לְהָךְ פַּלְגָא דְּנָקֵיט עֲלֵיהּ מַשְׁכּוֹן, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא סָבַר: לְהָךְ פַּלְגָא דְּנָקֵיט עֲלֵיהּ מַשְׁכּוֹן נָמֵי מְשַׁמֵּט. אֶלָּא מַשְׁכּוֹן דְּנָקֵיט, לְמָה לֵיהּ? לְזִכְרוֹן דְּבָרִים בְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara rejects that parallel: No, what is the meaning of the statement: The Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is saying? It is referring to that half of the loan that he took on the basis of collateral. This indicates by inference that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: The Sabbatical Year also abrogates that half of the loan that he took on the basis of collateral. The Gemara asks: Then why does he need the collateral that he is holding? The Gemara answers: He requires it as a mere reminder to increase the likelihood that the loan will be repaid, and it does not prevent cancellation of a loan.
רַב כָּהֲנָא יְהַבוּ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי אַכִּיתָּנָא, לְסוֹף אִיַּיקַּר כִּיתָּנָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּמַאי דִּנְקִיטַתְּ זוּזֵי – הַב לְהוּ, וְאִידַּךְ – דְּבָרִים נִינְהוּ, וּדְבָרִים אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה.
§ The Gemara relates: Buyers gave money to Rav Kahana to purchase linen. Ultimately, the price of linen increased. Rav Kahana came before Rav to ask his opinion. Rav said to him: Give them a quantity of linen equivalent in value to the money that you received, and concerning the rest, your verbal commitment is merely a statement, and reneging on a verbal commitment that was unaccompanied by an act of acquisition does not constitute an act of bad faith.
דְּאִיתְּמַר: דְּבָרִים, רַב אָמַר: אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֵשׁ בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה.
The Gemara comments: This is as it was stated: There is an amoraic dispute with regard to reneging on a verbal commitment that was unaccompanied by an act of acquisition. Rav says: It does not constitute an act of bad faith. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It constitutes an act of bad faith.
מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הִין צֶדֶק״, וַהֲלֹא ״הִין״ בִּכְלַל אֵיפָה הָיָה? אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: שֶׁיְּהֵא הֵן שֶׁלְּךָ צֶדֶק, וְלָאו שֶׁלְּךָ צֶדֶק. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יְדַבֵּר אֶחָד בַּפֶּה וְאֶחָד בַּלֵּב.
The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “A just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have” (Leviticus 19:36)? But wasn’t a hin included in an ephah? Why is it necessary to state both? Rather, this is an allusion that serves to say to you that your yes [hen] should be just, and your no should be just. Apparently, it is a mitzva for one to fulfill his promises. Abaye says: That verse means that one should not say one matter with his mouth and think one other matter in his heart. It is prohibited for one to make a commitment that he has no intention of fulfilling. Rav Kahana made his commitment in good faith and reneged due to changed circumstances. That is not prohibited.
מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ טַלִּית קוֹנָה דִּינַר זָהָב, וְאֵין דִּינַר זָהָב קוֹנֶה טַלִּית, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם כָּךְ הֲלָכָה. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ: מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מֵאַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל וּמֵאַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַפְּלַגָּה הוּא עָתִיד לִיפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד בְּדִיבּוּרוֹ!
The Gemara raises an objection. Rabbi Shimon says: Even though the Sages said that when one party takes possession of a garment, the other party acquires a gold dinar, but when one party takes possession of a gold dinar, the other party does not acquire a garment, in any case, that is what the halakha would be. But the Sages said with regard to one who reneges on a transaction where one party pulled the gold dinar into his possession: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, and from the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from the Egyptians in the Red Sea, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. And one who negotiates, where the negotiation culminates with a statement in which he commits himself to acquire the item, did not acquire the item without a formal act of acquisition. But with regard to one who reneges on his commitment, the Sages are displeased with him. Apparently, one who reneges is considered to have acted in bad faith.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דִּתְנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן מַתְיָא שֶׁאָמַר לִבְנוֹ: צֵא וּשְׂכוֹר לָנוּ פּוֹעֲלִים. הָלַךְ וּפָסַק לָהֶם מְזוֹנוֹת. וּכְשֶׁבָּא אֵצֶל אָבִיו, אָמַר לוֹ: בְּנִי, אֲפִילּוּ אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶם כִּסְעוּדַת שְׁלֹמֹה בִּשְׁעָתוֹ לֹא יָצָאתָ יְדֵי חוֹבָתְךָ עִמָּהֶם, שֶׁהֵן בְּנֵי אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב. אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַתְחִילוּ בִּמְלָאכָה, צֵא וֶאֱמוֹר לָהֶם: עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם עָלַי אֶלָּא פַּת וְקִטְנִית בִּלְבַד.
The Gemara explains: This matter is a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 83a): There was an incident involving Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya, who said to his son: Go out and hire laborers for us. His son went and allocated sustenance for them, as part of their employment terms, without specifying the type of sustenance. And when he came to his father, his father said to him: My son, even if you prepare for them a meal like the feast of Solomon during his era, you will not fulfill your obligation to them, as they are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and due to that status they are deserving of any meal that they want. Rather, this is what you should do: Before they begin engaging in their labor, go out and say to them: Your employment is on the condition that you have the right to claim from me only the customary meal of bread and legumes.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּבָרִים יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם מְחוּסְּרֵי אֲמָנָה, הֵיכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ זִיל הֲדַר בָּךְ? שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּפוֹעֲלִים גּוּפַיְיהוּ לָא סָמְכָא דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא – מִידָּע יָדְעִי דְּעַל אֲבוּהּ סָמֵךְ.
The Gemara asks: And if it enters your mind that reneging on a verbal commitment unaccompanied by an act of acquisition constitutes an act of bad faith, how did Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya tell his son to renege? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; it is different there in that case, as the laborers themselves do not rely on the son. What is the reason they do not rely on the son? It is due to the fact that they know that he relied on his father giving his approval when committing to feed them.
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ הִתְחִילוּ בִּמְלָאכָה נָמֵי? הִתְחִילוּ בִּמְלָאכָה, וַדַּאי סָמְכִי דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ, אֲמַרוּ: מֵימָר אָמַר קַמֵּיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ וְנִיחָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: If so, then even if the laborers began engaging in their labor, they still would not rely on the son. Why then did his father instruct him specifically to tell them of the change before they began their labor? The Gemara answers: Once they began engaging in their labor they would certainly rely on the son’s commitment, as they would say: He must have come before his father and stated the conditions of their employment, and his father is amenable to those terms. Therefore, it was necessary to inform them before they began working.
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ מַתָּנָה אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָךְ – יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. יָכוֹל, פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא: מוּתָּר לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה מוּעֶטֶת, דְּסָמְכָא דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ.
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan say this, i.e., that one who reneges on a verbal commitment acted in bad faith? But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who says to another: I am giving you a gift, is able to renege on his commitment? The Gemara asks: He is able to renege? It is obvious that he is able to renege, as in the absence of an act of acquisition no one can compel him to give the gift. Rather, it means: It is permitted for him to renege on his commitment. Apparently, one who reneges on a verbal guarantee is not considered to have acted in bad faith. Rav Pappa said: And Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes that in the case of a small gift one may not renege, as the recipients rely on him to fulfill his verbal commitment. By contrast, in the case of a large gift the recipients are aware that one might reconsider, and therefore they do not rely on his statement and do not assume that his decision is final.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְבֶן לֵוִי: כּוֹר מַעֲשֵׂר יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּיָדִי. בֶּן לֵוִי רַשַּׁאי לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לָא מָצֵי לְמִיהְדַּר בֵּיהּ – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי רַשַּׁאי. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מָצֵי לְמִיהְדַּר בֵּיהּ, אַמַּאי רַשַּׁאי? אִישְׁתְּכַח דְּקָא אָכֵיל טְבָלִים!
The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to an Israelite who said to a Levite: You have a kor of first-tithe produce that is in my possession and that I separated from my produce, the Levite may render all or part of this kor teruma of the tithe for first-tithe produce that he has in another place. Granted, if you say that one is unable, i.e., it is not permitted for him, to renege, it is due to that reason that the Levite may render it teruma of the tithe for other produce. But if you say that one is able, i.e., it is permitted for him, to renege, why may he render it teruma of the tithe for other produce? The owner of the produce could renege, and in that case it will eventuate that he is consuming untithed produce, as the teruma of the tithe that he separated did not belong to him.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ וְחָזַר וְהִפְקִידוֹ אֶצְלוֹ.
The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the Levite took the first-tithe produce from him and then deposited it with him, so that it already belongs to the Levite.
אִי הָכִי אֵימָא סֵיפָא: נְתָנוֹ לְבֶן לֵוִי אַחֵר – אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעוֹמֶת. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כְּגוֹן שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ וְחָזַר וְהִפְקִידוֹ אֶצְלוֹ, אַמַּאי אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעוֹמֶת? כֵּיוָן דְּמַשְׁכֵיהּ מָמוֹנָא אִית לֵיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בִּדְלָא נְטָלוֹ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara asks: If so, that this is the circumstance addressed in the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, say the latter clause of that halakha: If the owner of the produce gave the first-tithe produce to a different Levite, the first Levite has only a grievance against the owner, but not any legal claim. And if it enters your mind that this is a case where the first Levite took the first-tithe produce from the owner and then deposited it with him, why does the Levite have only a grievance against him? Once the first Levite pulled the produce into his possession it is his, and therefore, he has property in the possession of the owner of the produce. Rather, must one not conclude from it that this is a case where the Levite did not take the produce and deposit it? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that there was only a verbal commitment, and that proves that reneging on a verbal commitment constitutes an act of bad faith.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּיהַיב זוּזֵי אַשּׁוּמְשְׁמֵי. לְסוֹף אִיַּיקַּר שׁוּמְשְׁמֵי. הֲדַרוּ בְּהוּ וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לֵית לַן שׁוּמְשְׁמֵי, שְׁקוֹל זוּזָךְ. לָא שְׁקֵיל זוּזֵיהּ, אִיגְּנוּב. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמְרִי לָךְ שְׁקוֹל זוּזָךְ וְלָא שְׁקַלְיתְּ, לָא מִבַּעְיָא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר דְּלָא הָוֵי, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: וְהָא בָּעֵי לְקַבּוֹלֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״מִי שֶׁפָּרַע״? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי נָמֵי.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who gave money as payment for sesame. Ultimately, the price of sesame increased, and the sellers reneged and said to him: We have no sesame; take your money. The buyer did not take his money, and the money was stolen. They came before Rava to adjudicate the case. Rava said to the buyer: Once they said to you: Take your money, and you did not take it, it is not necessary to say that their legal status is not that of a paid bailee. But my ruling is that their legal status is not even that of an unpaid bailee. The Sages said to Rava: But aren’t the sellers who reneged required to accept upon themselves the curse: He Who exacted payment? Rava said to them: Indeed, they must pay or accept the curse.
אָמַר רַב פַּפֵּי, אָמַר לִי רָבִינָא: לְדִידִי אֲמַר לִי הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְרַב טָבוּת שְׁמֵיהּ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר זוּטְרָא שְׁמֵיהּ, דְּאִי הֲווֹ יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ כֹּל חֲלָלָא דְעָלְמָא לָא (הֲוֵי קָא) [הָוֵה] מְשַׁנֵּי בְּדִבּוּרֵיהּ. בְּדִידִי הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא: הָהוּא יוֹמָא אַפַּנְיָא דְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא הֲוָה, וַהֲוָה יָתֵיבְנָא, וַאֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא וְקָאֵי אַבָּבָא. אֲמַר לִי: אִית לָךְ שׁוּמְשְׁמֵי לְזַבּוֹנֵי?
Rav Pappi said that Ravina said to me: One of the Sages, and Rav Tavot is his name, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Zutra is his name, and he is one who even if they were to give him the entire expanse of the world he would not deviate from the truth in his speech, said to me: There was an incident in which I was involved. On that day, it was twilight on Shabbat eve, and I was sitting, and a certain man came and stood at the entrance. He said to me: Do you have sesame to sell?
אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: לָא. אֲמַר לִי: לֶיהְווֹ הָנָךְ זוּזֵי בְּפִקָּדוֹן גַּבָּךְ, דְּהָא חֲשַׁכָה לִי. אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: הָא בֵּיתָא קַמָּךְ. אוֹתְבִינְהוּ בְּבֵיתָא וְאִיגְּנוּב. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל ״הָא בֵּיתָא קַמָּךְ״ לָא מִיבַּעְיָא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר דְּלָא הָוֵי, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי. אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: וְהָא אֲמַרוּ [לֵיהּ] רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְקַבּוֹלֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״מִי שֶׁפָּרַע״. וַאֲמַר לִי: לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם.
I said to him: No. He said to me: Let these dinars remain as a deposit with you, as the day has grown dark for me and I am unable to reach home before Shabbat. I said to him: This house is before you. He placed them in the house and the dinars were stolen. That man came to have his case judged before Rava, demanding his money. Rava said to him: With regard to anyone who states: This house is before you, it is not necessary to say that he is not a paid bailee, but he is not even an unpaid bailee. Ravina said to Rav Tavot: But didn’t the Sages say to Rava: The sesame merchant is required to accept upon himself the curse: He Who exacted payment? And Rav Tavot said to me: There were never such matters; that incident never occurred.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁהַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדוֹ – יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַכֶּסֶף וְהַפֵּירוֹת בְּיַד מוֹכֵר. אֲבָל כֶּסֶף בְּיַד מוֹכֵר וּפֵירוֹת בְּיַד לוֹקֵחַ – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכַּסְפּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ. ״בְּיָדוֹ״?! בְּיַד מוֹכֵר הוּא. אֶלָּא – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדְּמֵי כַסְפּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Anyone who has the money in his possession has the advantage. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: When does the one with the money in his possession have the advantage? It is when both the money and the produce are in the possession of the seller. But if the money is in the possession of the seller and the produce is in the possession of the buyer, the seller cannot renege, because his money is in his possession. The Gemara understood this to mean that the buyer still had the money in his possession, and asks: In his, i.e., the buyer’s, possession? Isn’t it in the possession of the seller? Rather, emend the text: Because the value of his, i.e., the buyer’s, money is in his, i.e., the buyer’s, possession.
פְּשִׁיטָא! אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה עֲלִיָּיה שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ מוּשְׂכֶּרֶת בְּיַד מוֹכֵר. טַעְמָא מַאי תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן מְשִׁיכָה – גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר לוֹ נִשְׂרְפוּ חִטֶּיךָ בַּעֲלִיָּיה. הָכָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דְּלוֹקֵחַ נִינְהוּ, אִי נָפְלָה דְּלֵיקָה בְּאוֹנֶס – אִיהוּ טָרַח וּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that the seller cannot renege, as the buyer acquired the produce through the transaction of pulling? Rava said: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the upper story of the house belonging to the buyer, where the produce was stored, was rented to the seller. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason the Sages instituted that pulling, and not payment of money, effects acquisition? It is a rabbinic decree, lest a seller say to the buyer: Your wheat burned in the upper story after you paid. Here, the produce is in the domain of the buyer. Therefore, if a fire is ignited due to circumstances beyond his control, the buyer will exert himself and bring the produce from the upper story.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּיהַיב זוּזֵי אַחַמְרָא. לְסוֹף שְׁמַע דְּקָא בָעֵי לְמִנְסְבֵיהּ דְּבֵי פַּרְזַק רוּפִילָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי זוּזַי, לָא בָּעֵינָא חַמְרָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתִּיקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּמּוֹכְרִין כָּךְ תִּיקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּלָּקוֹחוֹת.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who gave money in exchange for wine. Ultimately he heard that men from the house of Parzak the vizier [rufila] sought to appropriate the wine. The buyer said to the seller: Give me my money, as I do not want the wine. The case came before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Just as the Sages instituted pulling with regard to sellers, so did they institute pulling with regard to buyers. Since the buyer had yet to pull the wine into his possession, he can renege on the transaction.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹנָאָה, אַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁתוּת לְמִקָּח. עַד מָתַי מוּתָּר לְהַחְזִיר? עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ.
MISHNA: The measure of exploitation for which one can claim that he was exploited is four silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a in a sela, or one-sixth of the transaction. Until when is it permitted for the buyer to return the item? He may return it only until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative who is more familiar with the market price of merchandise. If more time has elapsed he can no longer return the item, as the assumption is that he waived his right to receive the sum of the disparity.
הוֹרָה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בְּלוֹד: הָאוֹנָאָה שְׁמוֹנָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁלִישׁ לְמִקָּח. וְשָׂמְחוּ תַּגָּרֵי לוֹד. אָמַר לָהֶם: כׇּל הַיּוֹם מוּתָּר לַחְזוֹר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ יַנִּיחַ לָנוּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בִּמְקוֹמֵינוּ, וְחָזְרוּ לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
The mishna continues: Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation is a measure of eight silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a of a sela, one-third of the transaction. And the merchants of Lod rejoiced, as this ruling allowed them a greater profit margin and rendered the nullification of a transaction less likely. Rabbi Tarfon said to them: Throughout the entire day it is permitted to renege on the transaction and not merely for the period of time it takes to show the purchase item to a merchant or a relative. The merchants of Lod said to him: Let Rabbi Tarfon leave us as we were, with the previous ruling, and they reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna with regard to both rulings.
גְּמָ׳ אִתְּמַר: רַב אָמַר: שְׁתוּת מִקָּח שָׁנִינוּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שְׁתוּת מָעוֹת נָמֵי שָׁנִינוּ. שָׁוֵי שִׁיתָּא בְּחַמְשָׁא, שָׁוֵי שִׁיתָּא בְּשִׁבְעָה – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָתַר מִקָּח אָזְלִינַן וְאוֹנָאָה הָוְיָא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי שָׁוֵי חַמְשָׁא בְּשִׁיתָּא וְשָׁוֵי שִׁבְעָה בְּשִׁיתָּא.
GEMARA: It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to exploitation. Rav says: We learned that exploitation is determined by one-sixth of the transaction, i.e., one-sixth of the purchase item, not one-sixth of the money paid. And Shmuel says: We learned that exploitation is also determined by one-sixth of the money paid. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to an item worth six ma’a that was sold for five ma’a, or an item worth six ma’a that was sold for seven ma’a, everyone agrees that we follow the transaction, i.e., the fraction of the variation in price is determined relative to the market value of the item sold, and it is exploitation. Where Rav and Shmuel disagree is in the case of an item worth five ma’a sold for six ma’a, or an item worth seven ma’a sold for six ma’a.
לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר: בָּתַר מָעוֹת אָזְלִינַן, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אוֹנָאָה הָוֵי. לְרַב דְּאָמַר: בָּתַר מִקָּח אָזְלִינַן, שָׁוֵי חַמְשָׁא בְּשִׁיתָּא בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח הָוְיָא. שָׁוֵי שִׁבְעָה בְּשִׁיתָּא, מְחִילָה הָוְיָא.
According to Shmuel, who says that we also follow the fraction of the variation in price as determined by the money paid, both this case and that case are exploitation, as there is a disparity of one-sixth between the price paid and the value of the item. According to Rav, who says that we follow the transaction, when an item worth five ma’a sells for six ma’a, the halakha is that there is a nullification of the transaction, as the disparity between the value of the item and the price paid is greater than one-sixth. When an item worth seven ma’a sells for six ma’a, the halakha is that there is a waiver of the sum of the disparity, as the disparity between the value of the item and the price paid is less than one-sixth.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כִּי אָמְרִינַן מְחִילָה וּבִיטּוּל מִקָּח – הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא שְׁתוּת מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִים. אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא שְׁתוּת מִצַּד אֶחָד – אוֹנָאָה הָוְיָא.
And Shmuel says: When we say that there is a waiver or a nullification of the transaction, it is in a case where there is not a disparity of one-sixth from both aspects, i.e., both in terms of the money paid and in terms of the value of the item. But in a case where there is a disparity of one-sixth from one aspect, either in terms of the money paid or the value of the item, it is exploitation.
תְּנַן: הָאוֹנָאָה אַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁתוּת לְמִקָּח. מַאי לָאו, דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים בְּעֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבְּעָה, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׁתוּת מָעוֹת נָמֵי שָׁנִינוּ! לָא, דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה בְּעֶשְׂרִים.
The Gemara cites proof for the opinions of Rav and Shmuel. We learned in the mishna: The measure of exploitation for which one can claim that he was exploited is four silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a in a sela, which is one-sixth of the transaction. What, is it not a case where he bought an item worth twenty ma’a for twenty-four ma’a? And accordingly, one can conclude from the mishna that we learned that exploitation is also determined by one-sixth of the money paid, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma’a for twenty ma’a.
מִי נִתְאַנָּה – מוֹכֵר. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עַד מָתַי מוּתָּר לְהַחְזִיר – בִּכְדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לוֹקֵחַ, אֲבָל מוֹכֵר – לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר.
The Gemara asks: If so, who was exploited in this transaction? It is the seller. Say the latter clause of the mishna: Until when is it permitted for the buyer to return the item? In the time that it takes the buyer to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative. And Rav Naḥman said: The Rabbis taught this halakha only with regard to a buyer, who is in possession of the item and can show it to a merchant immediately. But a seller may always renege on the transaction. Since the purchase item is not in his possession, he can determine its market price only if he happens to encounter a similar item, and there is no time frame within which this will certainly occur.
אֶלָּא דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה בְּעֶשְׂרִין וּתְמָנְיָא. תְּנַן, הוֹרָה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בְּלוֹד: הָאוֹנָאָה שְׁמוֹנָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁלִישׁ לְמִקָּח. מַאי לָאו, דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי שִׁיתַּסְרֵי בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה? וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׁלִישׁ מָעוֹת נָמֵי שָׁנִינוּ.
Rather, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma’a for twenty-eight ma’a. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation is a measure of eight silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a of a sela, one-third of the transaction. What, is it not a case where he bought an item worth sixteen ma’a for twenty-four ma’a? And accordingly, one can conclude from the mishna that we learned that exploitation is also determined by one-third of the money paid, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.
לָא: דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה בְּשִׁיתְּסַר. מִי נִתְאַנָּה מוֹכֵר, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אָמַר לָהֶם – כׇּל הַיּוֹם מוּתָּר לַחְזוֹר. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לוֹקֵחַ, אֲבָל מוֹכֵר לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר. אֶלָּא דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה בִּתְלָתִין וּתְרֵין.
The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma’a for sixteen ma’a. The Gemara asks: If so, who was exploited in this transaction? It is the seller. Say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Tarfon said to them: Throughout the entire day it is permitted to renege on the transaction. And Rav Naḥman says: They taught this halakha only with regard to a buyer, but a seller may always renege on the transaction. Rather, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma’a for thirty-two ma’a.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: מִי שֶׁהוּטַּל עָלָיו יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. כֵּיצַד? מָכַר לוֹ שָׁוֶה חֲמִשָּׁה בְּשִׁשָּׁה, מִי נִתְאַנָּה – לוֹקֵחַ, יָד לוֹקֵחַ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, רָצָה אוֹמֵר: תֵּן לִי מְעוֹתַי, אוֹ תֵּן לִי מָה שֶׁאוֹנֵיתַנִי. מָכַר לוֹ
The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: The one upon whom the exploitation was imposed has the advantage. How so? In a case where one sold him an item worth five ma’a for six ma’a, who was exploited? It is the buyer. Therefore, the buyer is at an advantage. If he wishes, he can say to the seller: Give me back my money and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum which you received by engaging in exploitation of me. In a case where one sold him
