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

Daf Yomi

November 14, 2016 | 讬状讙 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • 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鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Bava Metzia 49

If just a verbal agreement was made between two people, can one cancel the agreement? 聽if he does, is he looked at as a dishonest person or do we assume that verbal agreements are meant to be broken? 聽Rav and Rabbi Yochanan debate this point. 聽This argument between them directly related to an argument they have regarding one who gave a deposit (paid for part of it) on an item. 聽One side wants to change their mind about the part that wasn’t paid for. 聽Can they do that? 聽The laws on fraud regarding overcharging or underpaying are discussed in the mishna. 聽Various issues are debated – At what percentage? 聽Is the percentage calculated by the market value of the item or also by the price that was paid in that particular instance? 聽Until when can one claim he was defrauded? 聽If one was defrauded at that percentage, can he cancel the whole transaction or just get back the percentage by which he was defrauded?


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

讗诇讗 诪砖讻讜谉 讚谞拽讬讟 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讚拽讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讘讻讜诇讜 讜诪讗讬 诪砖诪讟 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 诇讛讱 驻诇讙讗 讚诇讗 谞拽讬讟 注诇讬讛 诪砖讻讜谉

 

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.

 

讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讻谞讙讚 讻讜诇讜 讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 住讘专 讻谞讙讚讜 讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛

 

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.

 

诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讚拽讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讛讱 驻诇讙讗 讚谞拽讬讟 注诇讬讛 诪砖讻讜谉 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 住讘专 诇讛讱 驻诇讙讗 讚谞拽讬讟 注诇讬讛 诪砖讻讜谉 谞诪讬 诪砖诪讟 讗诇讗 诪砖讻讜谉 讚谞拽讬讟 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇讝讻专讜谉 讚讘专讬诐 讘注诇诪讗

 

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.

 

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讻讬转谞讗 诇住讜祝 讗讬讬拽专 讻讬转谞讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诪讗讬 讚谞拽讬讟转 讝讜讝讬 讛讘 诇讛讜 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讘专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讜住专讬 讗诪谞讛

 

搂 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.

 

讚讗讬转诪专 讚讘专讬诐 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讜住专讬 讗诪谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讜住专讬 讗诪谞讛

 

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 Yo岣nan says: It constitutes an act of bad faith.

 

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讬谉 爪讚拽 讜讛诇讗 讛讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗讬驻讛 讛讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讬讛讗 讛谉 砖诇讱 爪讚拽 讜诇讗讜 砖诇讱 爪讚拽 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讬讚讘专 讗讞讚 讘驻讛 讜讗讞讚 讘诇讘

 

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎 just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have鈥 (Leviticus 19:36)? But wasn鈥檛 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.

 

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讟诇讬转 拽讜谞讛 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讜讗讬谉 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讟诇讬转 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讻讱 讛诇讻讛 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪讗谞砖讬 讚讜专 讛诪讘讜诇 讜诪讗谞砖讬 讚讜专 讛驻诇讙讛 讛讜讗 注转讬讚 诇讬驻专注 诪诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘讚讬讘讜专讜

 

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.

 

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 诪转讬讗 砖讗诪专 诇讘谞讜 爪讗 讜砖讻讜专 诇谞讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讛诇讱 讜驻住拽 诇讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讻砖讘讗 讗爪诇 讗讘讬讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讘谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 诇讛诐 讻住注讜讚转 砖诇诪讛 讘砖注转讜 诇讗 讬爪讗转 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讱 注诪讛诐 砖讛谉 讘谞讬 讗讘专讛诐 讬爪讞拽 讜讬注拽讘 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇讗 讬转讞讬诇讜 讘诪诇讗讻讛 爪讗 讜讗诪讜专 诇讛诐 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讻诐 注诇讬 讗诇讗 驻转 讜拽讟谞讬转 讘诇讘讚

 

The Gemara explains: This matter is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 83a): There was an incident involving Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

 

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讘专讬诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讜住专讬 讗诪谞讛 讛讬讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讚专 讘讱 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚驻讜注诇讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诇讗 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬 讚注诇 讗讘讜讛 住诪讱

 

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 Yo岣nan 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.

 

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛转讞讬诇讜 讘诪诇讗讻讛 谞诪讬 讛转讞讬诇讜 讘诪诇讗讻讛 讜讚讗讬 住诪讻讬 讚注转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讜 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讜谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

 

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鈥檚 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.

 

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪转谞讛 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讬讻讜诇 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 诪讜注讟转 讚住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讬讛讜

 

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan say this, i.e., that one who reneges on a verbal commitment acted in bad faith? But didn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

 

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇讘谉 诇讜讬 讻讜专 诪注砖专 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讘谉 诇讜讬 专砖讗讬 诇注砖讜转讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诇诪讬讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 专砖讗讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪爪讬 诇诪讬讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诪讗讬 专砖讗讬 讗讬砖转讻讞 讚拽讗 讗讻讬诇 讟讘诇讬诐

 

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

 

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讜讞讝专 讜讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜

 

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.

 

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞转谞讜 诇讘谉 诇讜讬 讗讞专 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讜讞讝专 讜讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖讻讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讚诇讗 谞讟诇讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

 

The Gemara asks: If so, that this is the circumstance addressed in the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

 

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 讗砖讜诪砖诪讬 诇住讜祝 讗讬讬拽专 砖讜诪砖诪讬 讛讚专讜 讘讛讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇谉 砖讜诪砖诪讬 砖拽讜诇 讝讜讝讱 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讝讜讝讬讛 讗讬讙谞讜讘 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讱 砖拽讜诇 讝讜讝讱 讜诇讗 砖拽诇讬转 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 讘注讬 诇拽讘讜诇讬 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖驻专注 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

 

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鈥檛 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.

 

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬谞讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜专讘 讟讘讜转 砖诪讬讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讝讜讟专讗 砖诪讬讛 讚讗讬 讛讜讜 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 讻诇 讞诇诇讗 讚注诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 拽讗 诪砖谞讬 讘讚讘讜专讬讛 讘讚讬讚讬 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讗驻谞讬讗 讚诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讛讜讛 讜讛讜讛 讬转讬讘谞讗 讜讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讜拽讗讬 讗讘讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讬转 诇讱 砖讜诪砖诪讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬

 

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?

 

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 诇讬讛讜讜 讛谞讱 讝讜讝讬 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讙讘讱 讚讛讗 讞砖讻讛 诇讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 讘讬转讗 拽诪讱 讗讜转讘讬谞讛讜 讘讘讬转讗 讜讗讬讙谞讜讘 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛讗 讘讬转讗 拽诪讱 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专讜 [诇讬讛] 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇拽讘讜诇讬 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖驻专注 讜讗诪专 诇讬 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐

 

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鈥檛 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.

 

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讻住祝 讜讛驻讬专讜转 讘讬讚 诪讜讻专 讗讘诇 讻住祝 讘讬讚 诪讜讻专 讜驻讬专讜转 讘讬讚 诇讜拽讞 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讻住驻讜 讘讬讚讜 讘讬讚讜 讘讬讚 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讚诪讬 讻住驻讜 讘讬讚讜

 

搂 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鈥檚, possession? Isn鈥檛 it in the possession of the seller? Rather, emend the text: Because the value of his, i.e., the buyer鈥檚, money is in his, i.e., the buyer鈥檚, possession.

 

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 注诇讬讬讛 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 诪讜砖讻专转 讘讬讚 诪讜讻专 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪砖讬讻讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 谞砖专驻讜 讞讟讬讱 讘注诇讬讬讛 讛讻讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚诇讜拽讞 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬 谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 讘讗讜谞住 讗讬讛讜 讟专讞 讜诪讬讬转讬 诇讛

 

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

 

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 讗讞诪专讗 诇住讜祝 砖诪注 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪谞住讘讬讛 讚讘讬 驻专讝拽 专讜驻讬诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 讞诪专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讚专讱 砖转讬拽谞讜 诪砖讬讻讛 讘诪讜讻专讬谉 讻讱 转讬拽谞讜 诪砖讬讻讛 讘诇拽讜讞讜转

 

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 岣sda, 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.

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜谞讗讛 讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诇住诇注 砖转讜转 诇诪拽讞 注讚 诪转讬 诪讜转专 诇讛讞讝讬专 注讚 讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜

 

MISHNA: The measure of exploitation for which one can claim that he was exploited is four silver ma鈥檃 from the twenty-four silver ma鈥檃 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.

 

讛讜专讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘诇讜讚 讛讗讜谞讗讛 砖诪讜谞讛 讻住祝 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讻住祝 诇住诇注 砖诇讬砖 诇诪拽讞 讜砖诪讞讜 转讙专讬 诇讜讚 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讞讝讜专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讬谞讬讞 诇谞讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘诪拽讜诪讬谞讜 讜讞讝专讜 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

 

The mishna continues: Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation is a measure of eight silver ma鈥檃 from the twenty-four silver ma鈥檃 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.

 

讙诪壮 讗转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 砖转讜转 诪拽讞 砖谞讬谞讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖转讜转 诪注讜转 谞诪讬 砖谞讬谞讜 砖讜讬 砖讬转讗 讘讞诪砖讗 砖讜讬 砖讬转讗 讘砖讘注讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘转专 诪拽讞 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讗讜谞讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 砖讜讬 讞诪砖讗 讘砖讬转讗 讜砖讜讬 砖讘注讛 讘砖讬转讗

 

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鈥檃 that was sold for five ma鈥檃, or an item worth six ma鈥檃 that was sold for seven ma鈥檃, 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鈥檃 sold for six ma鈥檃, or an item worth seven ma鈥檃 sold for six ma鈥檃.

 

诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪注讜转 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讛讜讬 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪拽讞 讗讝诇讬谞谉 砖讜讬 讞诪砖讗 讘砖讬转讗 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讛讜讬讗 砖讜讬 砖讘注讛 讘砖讬转讗 诪讞讬诇讛 讛讜讬讗

 

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鈥檃 sells for six ma鈥檃, 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鈥檃 sells for six ma鈥檃, 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.

 

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讞讬诇讛 讜讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖转讜转 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖转讜转 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讗讜谞讗讛 讛讜讬讗

 

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.

 

转谞谉 讛讗讜谞讗讛 讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诇住诇注 砖转讜转 诇诪拽讞 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讬 注砖专讬诐 讘注砖专讬谉 讜讗专讘注讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖转讜转 诪注讜转 谞诪讬 砖谞讬谞讜 诇讗 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讬 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘注砖专讬诐

 

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鈥檃 from the twenty-four silver ma鈥檃 in a sela, which is one-sixth of the transaction. What, is it not a case where he bought an item worth twenty ma鈥檃 for twenty-four ma鈥檃? 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鈥檃 for twenty ma鈥檃.

 

诪讬 谞转讗谞讛 诪讜讻专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注讚 诪转讬 诪讜转专 诇讛讞讝讬专 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讞 讗讘诇 诪讜讻专 诇注讜诇诐 讞讜讝专

 

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 Na岣an 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.

 

讗诇讗 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讬 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘注砖专讬谉 讜转诪谞讬讗 转谞谉 讛讜专讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘诇讜讚 讛讗讜谞讗讛 砖诪讜谞讛 讻住祝 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诇住诇注 砖诇讬砖 诇诪拽讞 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讬 砖讬转住专讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖诇讬砖 诪注讜转 谞诪讬 砖谞讬谞讜

 

Rather, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma鈥檃 for twenty-eight ma鈥檃. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation is a measure of eight silver ma鈥檃 from the twenty-four silver ma鈥檃 of a sela, one-third of the transaction. What, is it not a case where he bought an item worth sixteen ma鈥檃 for twenty-four ma鈥檃? 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.

 

诇讗 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讬 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘砖讬转住专 诪讬 谞转讗谞讛 诪讜讻专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讞讝讜专 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讞 讗讘诇 诪讜讻专 诇注讜诇诐 讞讜讝专 讗诇讗 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讬 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘转诇转讬谉 讜转专讬谉

 

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma鈥檃 for sixteen ma鈥檃. 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 Na岣an 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鈥檃 for thirty-two ma鈥檃.

 

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬 砖讛讜讟诇 注诇讬讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讻讬爪讚 诪讻专 诇讜 砖讜讛 讞诪砖讛 讘砖砖讛 诪讬 谞转讗谞讛 诇讜拽讞 讬讚 诇讜拽讞 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 讗讜诪专 转谉 诇讬 诪注讜转讬 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 诪讛 砖讗讜谞讬转谞讬 诪讻专 诇讜

 

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鈥檃 for six ma鈥檃, 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

 

  • 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鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni and Shalhevet Schwartz logo

Mi ShePara and the Laws of Guardianship

Gefet: Gemara, Perushim and Tosfot An in-depth (Iyun) Gemara shiur with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni and Shalhevet Schwartz As we approach...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Metzia – 43-49 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about cases where money is deposited at a moneychanger and when he has the right...
din & daf elana stein hain thumbnail

Din & Daf: The Multi-Dimensional History of Ona’a

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain The Multi-Dimensional History of 讗讜谞讗讛!...
talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 49: A Halakhic Better Business Bureau

Reneging on a verbal commitment toward a sale - illustrative stories. Also, a new mishnah! On "ona'ah" - cases of...

Bava Metzia 49

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 49

讗诇讗 诪砖讻讜谉 讚谞拽讬讟 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讚拽讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讘讻讜诇讜 讜诪讗讬 诪砖诪讟 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 诇讛讱 驻诇讙讗 讚诇讗 谞拽讬讟 注诇讬讛 诪砖讻讜谉

 

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.

 

讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讻谞讙讚 讻讜诇讜 讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 住讘专 讻谞讙讚讜 讛讜讗 拽讜谞讛

 

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.

 

诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讚拽讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讛讱 驻诇讙讗 讚谞拽讬讟 注诇讬讛 诪砖讻讜谉 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 住讘专 诇讛讱 驻诇讙讗 讚谞拽讬讟 注诇讬讛 诪砖讻讜谉 谞诪讬 诪砖诪讟 讗诇讗 诪砖讻讜谉 讚谞拽讬讟 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇讝讻专讜谉 讚讘专讬诐 讘注诇诪讗

 

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.

 

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讻讬转谞讗 诇住讜祝 讗讬讬拽专 讻讬转谞讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诪讗讬 讚谞拽讬讟转 讝讜讝讬 讛讘 诇讛讜 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讘专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讜住专讬 讗诪谞讛

 

搂 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.

 

讚讗讬转诪专 讚讘专讬诐 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讜住专讬 讗诪谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讜住专讬 讗诪谞讛

 

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 Yo岣nan says: It constitutes an act of bad faith.

 

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讬谉 爪讚拽 讜讛诇讗 讛讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗讬驻讛 讛讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讬讛讗 讛谉 砖诇讱 爪讚拽 讜诇讗讜 砖诇讱 爪讚拽 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讬讚讘专 讗讞讚 讘驻讛 讜讗讞讚 讘诇讘

 

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎 just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have鈥 (Leviticus 19:36)? But wasn鈥檛 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.

 

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讟诇讬转 拽讜谞讛 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讜讗讬谉 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 拽讜谞讛 讟诇讬转 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讻讱 讛诇讻讛 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪讗谞砖讬 讚讜专 讛诪讘讜诇 讜诪讗谞砖讬 讚讜专 讛驻诇讙讛 讛讜讗 注转讬讚 诇讬驻专注 诪诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘讚讬讘讜专讜

 

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.

 

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 诪转讬讗 砖讗诪专 诇讘谞讜 爪讗 讜砖讻讜专 诇谞讜 驻讜注诇讬诐 讛诇讱 讜驻住拽 诇讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讻砖讘讗 讗爪诇 讗讘讬讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讘谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 诇讛诐 讻住注讜讚转 砖诇诪讛 讘砖注转讜 诇讗 讬爪讗转 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讱 注诪讛诐 砖讛谉 讘谞讬 讗讘专讛诐 讬爪讞拽 讜讬注拽讘 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇讗 讬转讞讬诇讜 讘诪诇讗讻讛 爪讗 讜讗诪讜专 诇讛诐 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讻诐 注诇讬 讗诇讗 驻转 讜拽讟谞讬转 讘诇讘讚

 

The Gemara explains: This matter is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 83a): There was an incident involving Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

 

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讘专讬诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讜住专讬 讗诪谞讛 讛讬讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讚专 讘讱 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚驻讜注诇讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诇讗 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讬 讚注诇 讗讘讜讛 住诪讱

 

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 Yo岣nan 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.

 

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛转讞讬诇讜 讘诪诇讗讻讛 谞诪讬 讛转讞讬诇讜 讘诪诇讗讻讛 讜讚讗讬 住诪讻讬 讚注转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讜 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讜谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

 

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鈥檚 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.

 

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪转谞讛 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讬讻讜诇 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 诪讜注讟转 讚住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讬讛讜

 

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan say this, i.e., that one who reneges on a verbal commitment acted in bad faith? But didn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

 

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇讘谉 诇讜讬 讻讜专 诪注砖专 讬砖 诇讱 讘讬讚讬 讘谉 诇讜讬 专砖讗讬 诇注砖讜转讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诇诪讬讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 专砖讗讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪爪讬 诇诪讬讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诪讗讬 专砖讗讬 讗讬砖转讻讞 讚拽讗 讗讻讬诇 讟讘诇讬诐

 

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

 

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讜讞讝专 讜讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜

 

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.

 

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞转谞讜 诇讘谉 诇讜讬 讗讞专 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讜讞讝专 讜讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖讻讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讚诇讗 谞讟诇讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

 

The Gemara asks: If so, that this is the circumstance addressed in the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

 

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 讗砖讜诪砖诪讬 诇住讜祝 讗讬讬拽专 砖讜诪砖诪讬 讛讚专讜 讘讛讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇谉 砖讜诪砖诪讬 砖拽讜诇 讝讜讝讱 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讝讜讝讬讛 讗讬讙谞讜讘 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讱 砖拽讜诇 讝讜讝讱 讜诇讗 砖拽诇讬转 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 讘注讬 诇拽讘讜诇讬 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖驻专注 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

 

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鈥檛 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.

 

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬谞讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜专讘 讟讘讜转 砖诪讬讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讝讜讟专讗 砖诪讬讛 讚讗讬 讛讜讜 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 讻诇 讞诇诇讗 讚注诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 拽讗 诪砖谞讬 讘讚讘讜专讬讛 讘讚讬讚讬 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讗驻谞讬讗 讚诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讛讜讛 讜讛讜讛 讬转讬讘谞讗 讜讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讜拽讗讬 讗讘讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讬转 诇讱 砖讜诪砖诪讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬

 

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?

 

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬 诇讬讛讜讜 讛谞讱 讝讜讝讬 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讙讘讱 讚讛讗 讞砖讻讛 诇讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 讘讬转讗 拽诪讱 讗讜转讘讬谞讛讜 讘讘讬转讗 讜讗讬讙谞讜讘 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛讗 讘讬转讗 拽诪讱 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专讜 [诇讬讛] 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇拽讘讜诇讬 注诇讬讛 诪讬 砖驻专注 讜讗诪专 诇讬 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐

 

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鈥檛 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.

 

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讻住祝 讜讛驻讬专讜转 讘讬讚 诪讜讻专 讗讘诇 讻住祝 讘讬讚 诪讜讻专 讜驻讬专讜转 讘讬讚 诇讜拽讞 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讻住驻讜 讘讬讚讜 讘讬讚讜 讘讬讚 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讚诪讬 讻住驻讜 讘讬讚讜

 

搂 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鈥檚, possession? Isn鈥檛 it in the possession of the seller? Rather, emend the text: Because the value of his, i.e., the buyer鈥檚, money is in his, i.e., the buyer鈥檚, possession.

 

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 注诇讬讬讛 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 诪讜砖讻专转 讘讬讚 诪讜讻专 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪砖讬讻讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 谞砖专驻讜 讞讟讬讱 讘注诇讬讬讛 讛讻讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚诇讜拽讞 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬 谞驻诇讛 讚诇讬拽讛 讘讗讜谞住 讗讬讛讜 讟专讞 讜诪讬讬转讬 诇讛

 

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.

 

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 讗讞诪专讗 诇住讜祝 砖诪注 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪谞住讘讬讛 讚讘讬 驻专讝拽 专讜驻讬诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 讞诪专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讚专讱 砖转讬拽谞讜 诪砖讬讻讛 讘诪讜讻专讬谉 讻讱 转讬拽谞讜 诪砖讬讻讛 讘诇拽讜讞讜转

 

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 岣sda, 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.

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜谞讗讛 讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诇住诇注 砖转讜转 诇诪拽讞 注讚 诪转讬 诪讜转专 诇讛讞讝讬专 注讚 讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜

 

MISHNA: The measure of exploitation for which one can claim that he was exploited is four silver ma鈥檃 from the twenty-four silver ma鈥檃 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.

 

讛讜专讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘诇讜讚 讛讗讜谞讗讛 砖诪讜谞讛 讻住祝 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讻住祝 诇住诇注 砖诇讬砖 诇诪拽讞 讜砖诪讞讜 转讙专讬 诇讜讚 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讞讝讜专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讬谞讬讞 诇谞讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘诪拽讜诪讬谞讜 讜讞讝专讜 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

 

The mishna continues: Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation is a measure of eight silver ma鈥檃 from the twenty-four silver ma鈥檃 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.

 

讙诪壮 讗转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 砖转讜转 诪拽讞 砖谞讬谞讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖转讜转 诪注讜转 谞诪讬 砖谞讬谞讜 砖讜讬 砖讬转讗 讘讞诪砖讗 砖讜讬 砖讬转讗 讘砖讘注讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘转专 诪拽讞 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讗讜谞讗讛 讛讜讬讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 砖讜讬 讞诪砖讗 讘砖讬转讗 讜砖讜讬 砖讘注讛 讘砖讬转讗

 

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鈥檃 that was sold for five ma鈥檃, or an item worth six ma鈥檃 that was sold for seven ma鈥檃, 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鈥檃 sold for six ma鈥檃, or an item worth seven ma鈥檃 sold for six ma鈥檃.

 

诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪注讜转 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讛讜讬 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪拽讞 讗讝诇讬谞谉 砖讜讬 讞诪砖讗 讘砖讬转讗 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讛讜讬讗 砖讜讬 砖讘注讛 讘砖讬转讗 诪讞讬诇讛 讛讜讬讗

 

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鈥檃 sells for six ma鈥檃, 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鈥檃 sells for six ma鈥檃, 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.

 

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讞讬诇讛 讜讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖转讜转 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖转讜转 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讗讜谞讗讛 讛讜讬讗

 

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.

 

转谞谉 讛讗讜谞讗讛 讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诇住诇注 砖转讜转 诇诪拽讞 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讬 注砖专讬诐 讘注砖专讬谉 讜讗专讘注讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖转讜转 诪注讜转 谞诪讬 砖谞讬谞讜 诇讗 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讬 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘注砖专讬诐

 

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鈥檃 from the twenty-four silver ma鈥檃 in a sela, which is one-sixth of the transaction. What, is it not a case where he bought an item worth twenty ma鈥檃 for twenty-four ma鈥檃? 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鈥檃 for twenty ma鈥檃.

 

诪讬 谞转讗谞讛 诪讜讻专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注讚 诪转讬 诪讜转专 诇讛讞讝讬专 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讞 讗讘诇 诪讜讻专 诇注讜诇诐 讞讜讝专

 

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 Na岣an 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.

 

讗诇讗 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讬 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘注砖专讬谉 讜转诪谞讬讗 转谞谉 讛讜专讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘诇讜讚 讛讗讜谞讗讛 砖诪讜谞讛 讻住祝 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讻住祝 诇住诇注 砖诇讬砖 诇诪拽讞 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讬 砖讬转住专讬 讘注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖诇讬砖 诪注讜转 谞诪讬 砖谞讬谞讜

 

Rather, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma鈥檃 for twenty-eight ma鈥檃. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation is a measure of eight silver ma鈥檃 from the twenty-four silver ma鈥檃 of a sela, one-third of the transaction. What, is it not a case where he bought an item worth sixteen ma鈥檃 for twenty-four ma鈥檃? 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.

 

诇讗 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讬 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘砖讬转住专 诪讬 谞转讗谞讛 诪讜讻专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪讜转专 诇讞讝讜专 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讞 讗讘诇 诪讜讻专 诇注讜诇诐 讞讜讝专 讗诇讗 讚讝讘讬谉 砖讜讬 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讘转诇转讬谉 讜转专讬谉

 

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma鈥檃 for sixteen ma鈥檃. 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 Na岣an 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鈥檃 for thirty-two ma鈥檃.

 

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬 砖讛讜讟诇 注诇讬讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讻讬爪讚 诪讻专 诇讜 砖讜讛 讞诪砖讛 讘砖砖讛 诪讬 谞转讗谞讛 诇讜拽讞 讬讚 诇讜拽讞 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 讗讜诪专 转谉 诇讬 诪注讜转讬 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 诪讛 砖讗讜谞讬转谞讬 诪讻专 诇讜

 

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鈥檃 for six ma鈥檃, 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

 

Scroll To Top