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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 15, 2016 | 讬状讚 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讝

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

Bava Metzia 50

Various proofs are brought to support Shmuel’s opinion that fraud percentage is determined based on the market price and also on the amount actually paid. 聽Two are rejected and one is accepted. 聽The mishna discusses only the percentage at which there is fraud. 聽What happens if it’s less than or more than? 聽If it’s less, we assume the parties agreed and they cannot get their money back. 聽However the gemara questions whether they also have a window of opportunity where they can get the money back that they were overcharged. 聽If they were overcharged more than 聽1/6, the deal can be cancelled. 聽But again, is there a certain time frame in which that can be done or is there no statute of limitations? 聽The gemara tries to answers there questions from our mishna but in the end if unsuccessful. 聽Then Rava paskens and explains both the answers to these questions and also brings an alternative psak to what our mishna held regarding fraud (at 1/6).

Study Guide Bava Metzia 50


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

砖讜讛 砖砖 讘讞诪砖 诪讬 谞转讗谞讛 诪讜讻专 讬讚 诪讜讻专 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 诪拽讞讬 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 诪讛 砖讗讜谞讬转谞讬

an item worth six ma鈥檃 for five ma鈥檃, who was exploited? It is the seller. Therefore, the seller is at an advantage. If he wishes, he can say to the buyer: Give me back my merchandise and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum which you received by engaging in exploitation of me.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛 讗讜 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 砖转讜转 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of the Rabbis that one has only until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative in order to claim that he has been exploited, in a case where the disparity between the value of the purchase item and the price paid is less than one-sixth, is there a waiver of the discrepancy and therefore the transaction is finalized immediately, or in this case as well, is the transaction finalized only after the time that it takes the buyer to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative? And in addition, if you say that the transaction is finalized only after the time that it takes to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative, what difference is there between a disparity of one-sixth and a disparity of less than one-sixth?

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诇讜 砖转讜转 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 讞讜讝专 专爪讛 拽讜谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗讜谞讗讛 讜讗讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗讜谞讗讛

The Gemara answers: There is a difference, as in the case of a disparity of one-sixth, the one who was exploited has the advantage, since if he wishes, he reneges on the transaction, and if he wishes, the buyer acquires the purchase item, and the one who perpetrated the exploitation returns the sum gained through his exploiting the other, while in the case of a disparity of less than one-sixth, the buyer acquires the purchase item, and the one who perpetrated the exploitation returns the sum gained through his exploiting the other, but there is no option of nullifying the transaction.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讞讝专讜 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara returns to the dilemma: At what point in time is a disparity of less than one-sixth between the value of the purchase item and the price paid waived? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from the mishna: 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. They reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis.

住讘专讜讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇讬砖 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讻驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 诇专讘谞谉 讚诪讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 诇专讘谞谉 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 讜诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讞讝专讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛

The Gemara explains the proof. The Sages assumed that the legal status of a disparity of less than one-third according to the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who holds that one-third is the determinative disparity, is like a disparity of less than one-sixth according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one-sixth is the determinative disparity. Granted, if you say that in the case of a disparity of less than one-sixth according to the Rabbis the buyer can claim exploitation only in the time that it takes him to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative, and according to Rabbi Tarfon the transaction is finalized only after the entire day has passed, it is due to that reason that the merchants of Lod reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis, as there was some benefit to them in following the opinion of the Rabbis. But if you say that in the case of a disparity of less than one-sixth according to the Rabbis the waiver is in effect and the transaction is finalized immediately,

讜诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讝专讜 讘讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讟驻讬 讚诪讗讬 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讛讜 讗讜谞讗讛 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛

and according to Rabbi Tarfon too, there is a waiver of the disparity of less than one-third and the transaction is finalized immediately, why did they revert to following the statement of the Rabbis? In that case, the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon would be preferable for them, as that which the Rabbis deem exploitation, i.e., a discrepancy of one-sixth, is waived according to Rabbi Tarfon.

诪讬 住讘专转 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇讬砖 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讻驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 诇专讘谞谉 讚诪讬 诇讗 诪砖转讜转 讜注讚 砖诇讬砖 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讻砖转讜转 注爪诪讛 诇专讘谞谉 讚诪讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讗讬 砖诪讞讜 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: Do you maintain that the legal status of a disparity of less than one-third according to the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon is like the legal status of a disparity of less than one-sixth according to the opinion of the Rabbis? No, the legal status of a disparity ranging from one-sixth until one-third according to the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon is like the legal status of a disparity of one-sixth itself according to the opinion of the Rabbis, and the exploited party receives the sum of the exploitation in return. The Gemara asks: If so, for what reason did the merchants of Lod rejoice initially? They gained nothing relative to the ruling of the Rabbis.

转驻砖讜讟 讚讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讞讜讝专 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讜讬讗 讗讜谞讗讛 砖诪讞讜 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讞讝专讜

Resolve, based on this difficulty, the dilemma raised below, and conclude that in cases of nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis, one may always renege on the transaction. Therefore, the reaction of the merchants of Lod is understandable, as, since Rabbi Tarfon said to them that a disparity between one-sixth and one-third is merely exploitation, they rejoiced, as this would mean that the buyer has only the time it takes to show the merchandise to a merchant or a relative to renege. When he said to them that the exploited person can renege on the transaction for the entire day, they reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis.

讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇专讘谞谉 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 讘诪讗讬 砖诪讞讜 砖诪讞讜 讘砖转讜转 注爪诪讛 讚诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讞讬诇讛 讜诇专讘谞谉 讗讜谞讗讛

The Gemara explains why the dilemma is resolved: As, if it enters your mind to say that nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis is limited to only within the time that it takes for the buyer to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative, for what reason did they rejoice over the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon? His ruling did not enable them to sell the merchandise at a higher price than the ruling of the Rabbis did. The Gemara rejects this proof: They initially rejoiced over the case of a disparity of one-sixth itself, as according to Rabbi Tarfon there is a waiver of the disparity, and according to the Rabbis it is exploitation.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讞讜讝专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 诪讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 砖转讜转 诇讬转专 注诇 砖转讜转 讗讬讻讗 讚讗讬诇讜 砖转讜转 诪讬 砖谞转讗谞讛 讞讜讝专 讜讗讬诇讜 讬转专 注诇 砖转讜转 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讜讝专讬诐

搂 The Gemara cites the dilemma referenced above. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis, may one always renege on the transaction? Or perhaps he can renege only within the time that it takes him to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative. And if you say that the transaction is nullified only within the time that it takes him to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative, what difference is there between a disparity of one-sixth and a disparity of greater than one-sixth? The Gemara answers: There is a difference, as in the case of a disparity of one-sixth, only the one who was exploited can renege on the transaction, while in the case where the disparity is greater than one-sixth, both can renege on the transaction.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讞讝专讜 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇专讘谞谉 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 讜诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讞讝专讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讞讜讝专 讗诪讗讬 讞讝专讜 讘讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讟驻讬 讚拽讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讛讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讜转讜 诇讗

The Gemara returns to discuss the dilemma: What is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from the mishna: The merchants of Lod reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis. Granted, if you say that one can claim nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis only within the time that it takes the buyer to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative, and according to Rabbi Tarfon one can do so for the entire day, it is due to that reason that they reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis. But if you say that one can claim nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis and always renege on the transaction, why did they revert to following the statement of the Rabbis? In that case, the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon is preferable for them, as he deems such a disparity exploitation and rules that one can claim nullification of the transaction for the entire day and no more, which is more beneficial to the merchant.

讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: Nullification of the transaction is un-common, and therefore the merchants of Lod did not take that into consideration when calculating which ruling was most advantageous.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 谞拽谞讛 诪拽讞 讬讜转专 注诇 砖转讜转 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 砖转讜转 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗讜谞讗讛 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜

The Gemara cites the halakhic resolutions of these dilemmas. Rava said: The halakha is that if the disparity is less than one-sixth, the merchandise is acquired immediately. If the disparity is greater than one-sixth, either party can demand nullification of the transaction. If the disparity is precisely one-sixth, the buyer has acquired the merchandise, and the one who benefited from the exploitation returns the sum gained by the exploitation. And one may claim both this, nullification of the transaction, and that, return of the sum gained, only within the time that it takes to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗讜谞讗讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 谞拽谞讛 诪拽讞 讬转专 注诇 砖转讜转 讘讟诇 诪拽讞 砖转讜转 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗讜谞讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗讜诪专 讬讚 诪讜讻专 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专讜爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 诪拽讞讬 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 诪讛 砖讗谞讬转谞讬 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: In cases of exploitation, if the disparity is less than one-sixth, the merchandise is acquired immediately. If the disparity is greater than one-sixth, the transaction is nullified. If the disparity is precisely one-sixth, the buyer has acquired the merchandise, and the one who benefited from the exploitation returns the sum gained by the exploitation. This is the statement of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In a case where the seller was exploited, the seller is at an advantage. If he wishes, he reneges on the transaction and says to the buyer: Give me my merchandise, or he can say: Give me the sum that you gained by exploiting me. And one may claim both this, nullification of the transaction, and that, return of the sum gained, only within the time that it takes to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative.

注讚 诪转讬 诪讜转专 诇讛讞讝讬专 讻讜壮 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 谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讞讝专讜 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讜讻专 诇注讜诇诐 讞讜讝专

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. Rav Na岣an says: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to a buyer, but a seller may always renege on the transaction. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports his opinion, as the merchants of Lod reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis. Granted, if you say that a seller may always renege on a transaction,

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Bava Metzia 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 50

砖讜讛 砖砖 讘讞诪砖 诪讬 谞转讗谞讛 诪讜讻专 讬讚 诪讜讻专 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 诪拽讞讬 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 诪讛 砖讗讜谞讬转谞讬

an item worth six ma鈥檃 for five ma鈥檃, who was exploited? It is the seller. Therefore, the seller is at an advantage. If he wishes, he can say to the buyer: Give me back my merchandise and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum which you received by engaging in exploitation of me.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛 讗讜 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 砖转讜转 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of the Rabbis that one has only until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative in order to claim that he has been exploited, in a case where the disparity between the value of the purchase item and the price paid is less than one-sixth, is there a waiver of the discrepancy and therefore the transaction is finalized immediately, or in this case as well, is the transaction finalized only after the time that it takes the buyer to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative? And in addition, if you say that the transaction is finalized only after the time that it takes to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative, what difference is there between a disparity of one-sixth and a disparity of less than one-sixth?

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诇讜 砖转讜转 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 讞讜讝专 专爪讛 拽讜谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗讜谞讗讛 讜讗讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗讜谞讗讛

The Gemara answers: There is a difference, as in the case of a disparity of one-sixth, the one who was exploited has the advantage, since if he wishes, he reneges on the transaction, and if he wishes, the buyer acquires the purchase item, and the one who perpetrated the exploitation returns the sum gained through his exploiting the other, while in the case of a disparity of less than one-sixth, the buyer acquires the purchase item, and the one who perpetrated the exploitation returns the sum gained through his exploiting the other, but there is no option of nullifying the transaction.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讞讝专讜 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara returns to the dilemma: At what point in time is a disparity of less than one-sixth between the value of the purchase item and the price paid waived? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from the mishna: 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. They reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis.

住讘专讜讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇讬砖 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讻驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 诇专讘谞谉 讚诪讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 诇专讘谞谉 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 讜诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讞讝专讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛

The Gemara explains the proof. The Sages assumed that the legal status of a disparity of less than one-third according to the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who holds that one-third is the determinative disparity, is like a disparity of less than one-sixth according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one-sixth is the determinative disparity. Granted, if you say that in the case of a disparity of less than one-sixth according to the Rabbis the buyer can claim exploitation only in the time that it takes him to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative, and according to Rabbi Tarfon the transaction is finalized only after the entire day has passed, it is due to that reason that the merchants of Lod reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis, as there was some benefit to them in following the opinion of the Rabbis. But if you say that in the case of a disparity of less than one-sixth according to the Rabbis the waiver is in effect and the transaction is finalized immediately,

讜诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讝专讜 讘讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讟驻讬 讚诪讗讬 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讛讜 讗讜谞讗讛 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛

and according to Rabbi Tarfon too, there is a waiver of the disparity of less than one-third and the transaction is finalized immediately, why did they revert to following the statement of the Rabbis? In that case, the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon would be preferable for them, as that which the Rabbis deem exploitation, i.e., a discrepancy of one-sixth, is waived according to Rabbi Tarfon.

诪讬 住讘专转 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇讬砖 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讻驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 诇专讘谞谉 讚诪讬 诇讗 诪砖转讜转 讜注讚 砖诇讬砖 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讻砖转讜转 注爪诪讛 诇专讘谞谉 讚诪讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讗讬 砖诪讞讜 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: Do you maintain that the legal status of a disparity of less than one-third according to the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon is like the legal status of a disparity of less than one-sixth according to the opinion of the Rabbis? No, the legal status of a disparity ranging from one-sixth until one-third according to the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon is like the legal status of a disparity of one-sixth itself according to the opinion of the Rabbis, and the exploited party receives the sum of the exploitation in return. The Gemara asks: If so, for what reason did the merchants of Lod rejoice initially? They gained nothing relative to the ruling of the Rabbis.

转驻砖讜讟 讚讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讞讜讝专 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛讜讬讗 讗讜谞讗讛 砖诪讞讜 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讞讝专讜

Resolve, based on this difficulty, the dilemma raised below, and conclude that in cases of nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis, one may always renege on the transaction. Therefore, the reaction of the merchants of Lod is understandable, as, since Rabbi Tarfon said to them that a disparity between one-sixth and one-third is merely exploitation, they rejoiced, as this would mean that the buyer has only the time it takes to show the merchandise to a merchant or a relative to renege. When he said to them that the exploited person can renege on the transaction for the entire day, they reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis.

讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇专讘谞谉 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 讘诪讗讬 砖诪讞讜 砖诪讞讜 讘砖转讜转 注爪诪讛 讚诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讞讬诇讛 讜诇专讘谞谉 讗讜谞讗讛

The Gemara explains why the dilemma is resolved: As, if it enters your mind to say that nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis is limited to only within the time that it takes for the buyer to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative, for what reason did they rejoice over the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon? His ruling did not enable them to sell the merchandise at a higher price than the ruling of the Rabbis did. The Gemara rejects this proof: They initially rejoiced over the case of a disparity of one-sixth itself, as according to Rabbi Tarfon there is a waiver of the disparity, and according to the Rabbis it is exploitation.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讞讜讝专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 诪讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 砖转讜转 诇讬转专 注诇 砖转讜转 讗讬讻讗 讚讗讬诇讜 砖转讜转 诪讬 砖谞转讗谞讛 讞讜讝专 讜讗讬诇讜 讬转专 注诇 砖转讜转 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讜讝专讬诐

搂 The Gemara cites the dilemma referenced above. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis, may one always renege on the transaction? Or perhaps he can renege only within the time that it takes him to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative. And if you say that the transaction is nullified only within the time that it takes him to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative, what difference is there between a disparity of one-sixth and a disparity of greater than one-sixth? The Gemara answers: There is a difference, as in the case of a disparity of one-sixth, only the one who was exploited can renege on the transaction, while in the case where the disparity is greater than one-sixth, both can renege on the transaction.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讞讝专讜 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇专讘谞谉 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜 讜诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讞讝专讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讞讜讝专 讗诪讗讬 讞讝专讜 讘讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讟驻讬 讚拽讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讛讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讜转讜 诇讗

The Gemara returns to discuss the dilemma: What is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from the mishna: The merchants of Lod reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis. Granted, if you say that one can claim nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis only within the time that it takes the buyer to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative, and according to Rabbi Tarfon one can do so for the entire day, it is due to that reason that they reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis. But if you say that one can claim nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis and always renege on the transaction, why did they revert to following the statement of the Rabbis? In that case, the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon is preferable for them, as he deems such a disparity exploitation and rules that one can claim nullification of the transaction for the entire day and no more, which is more beneficial to the merchant.

讘讟讜诇 诪拽讞 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: Nullification of the transaction is un-common, and therefore the merchants of Lod did not take that into consideration when calculating which ruling was most advantageous.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 谞拽谞讛 诪拽讞 讬讜转专 注诇 砖转讜转 讘讬讟讜诇 诪拽讞 砖转讜转 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗讜谞讗讛 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜

The Gemara cites the halakhic resolutions of these dilemmas. Rava said: The halakha is that if the disparity is less than one-sixth, the merchandise is acquired immediately. If the disparity is greater than one-sixth, either party can demand nullification of the transaction. If the disparity is precisely one-sixth, the buyer has acquired the merchandise, and the one who benefited from the exploitation returns the sum gained by the exploitation. And one may claim both this, nullification of the transaction, and that, return of the sum gained, only within the time that it takes to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗讜谞讗讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讜转 谞拽谞讛 诪拽讞 讬转专 注诇 砖转讜转 讘讟诇 诪拽讞 砖转讜转 拽谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗讜谞讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗讜诪专 讬讚 诪讜讻专 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专讜爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 诪拽讞讬 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 诪讛 砖讗谞讬转谞讬 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讜

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: In cases of exploitation, if the disparity is less than one-sixth, the merchandise is acquired immediately. If the disparity is greater than one-sixth, the transaction is nullified. If the disparity is precisely one-sixth, the buyer has acquired the merchandise, and the one who benefited from the exploitation returns the sum gained by the exploitation. This is the statement of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In a case where the seller was exploited, the seller is at an advantage. If he wishes, he reneges on the transaction and says to the buyer: Give me my merchandise, or he can say: Give me the sum that you gained by exploiting me. And one may claim both this, nullification of the transaction, and that, return of the sum gained, only within the time that it takes to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative.

注讚 诪转讬 诪讜转专 诇讛讞讝讬专 讻讜壮 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 谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讞讝专讜 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讜讻专 诇注讜诇诐 讞讜讝专

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. Rav Na岣an says: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to a buyer, but a seller may always renege on the transaction. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports his opinion, as the merchants of Lod reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis. Granted, if you say that a seller may always renege on a transaction,

Scroll To Top