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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 15, 2016 | ื™ืดื“ ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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. ย Two are rejected and one is accepted. ย The mishna discusses only the percentage at which there is fraud. ย What happens if it’s less than or more than? ย If it’s less, we assume the parties agreed and they cannot get their money back. ย However the gemara questions whether they also have a window of opportunity where they can get the money back that they were overcharged. ย If they were overcharged more than ย 1/6, the deal can be cancelled. ย But again, is there a certain time frame in which that can be done or is there no statute of limitations? ย The gemara tries to answers there questions from our mishna but in the end if unsuccessful. ย 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"

ืฉื•ื” ืฉืฉ ื‘ื—ืžืฉ ืžื™ ื ืชืื ื” ืžื•ื›ืจ ื™ื“ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืขืœ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืจืฆื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืชืŸ ืœื™ ืžืงื—ื™ ืื• ืชืŸ ืœื™ ืžื” ืฉืื•ื ื™ืชื ื™

an item worth six maโ€™a for five maโ€™a, 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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืืœืชืจ ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ื™ืœื” ืื• ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื•ืช ืœืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช

ยง 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?

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืœื• ืฉืชื•ืช ื™ื“ื• ืขืœ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืจืฆื” ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืจืฆื” ืงื•ื ื” ื•ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ืื•ื ืื” ื•ืื™ืœื• ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ืงื ื” ื•ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ืื•ื ืื”

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.

ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื—ื–ืจื• ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื

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.

ืกื‘ืจื•ื” ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืœื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื›ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ื—ื–ืจื• ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืืœืชืจ ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ื™ืœื”

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,

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœืืœืชืจ ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ื™ืœื” ืืžืื™ ื—ื–ืจื• ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื ื™ื—ื ืœื”ื• ื˜ืคื™ ื“ืžืื™ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงื ืžืฉื•ื™ ืœื”ื• ืื•ื ืื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ื™ืœื”

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.

ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืœื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื›ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉืชื•ืช ื•ืขื“ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื›ืฉืชื•ืช ืขืฆืžื” ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื‘ืžืื™ ืฉืžื—ื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื

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.

ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ื“ื‘ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ื ืื•ื ืื” ืฉืžื—ื• ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ื—ื–ืจื•

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.

ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ื‘ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ื‘ืžืื™ ืฉืžื—ื• ืฉืžื—ื• ื‘ืฉืชื•ืช ืขืฆืžื” ื“ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ืžื—ื™ืœื” ื•ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื•ื ืื”

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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ืžื” ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื•ืช ืœื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ืฉืชื•ืช ืื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ืœื• ืฉืชื•ืช ืžื™ ืฉื ืชืื ื” ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืื™ืœื• ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ืฉืชื•ืช ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ื

ยง 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.

ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื—ื–ืจื• ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ื—ื–ืจื• ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืืžืื™ ื—ื–ืจื• ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื ื™ื—ื ืœื”ื• ื˜ืคื™ ื“ืงื ืžืฉื•ื™ ืœื”ื• ืื•ื ืื” ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ืชื• ืœื

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.

ื‘ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื—

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืœื›ืชื ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ื ืงื ื” ืžืงื— ื™ื•ืชืจ ืขืœ ืฉืชื•ืช ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืฉืชื•ืช ืงื ื” ื•ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ืื•ื ืื” ื•ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื•

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.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืื•ื ืื” ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ื ืงื ื” ืžืงื— ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ืฉืชื•ืช ื‘ื˜ืœ ืžืงื— ืฉืชื•ืช ืงื ื” ื•ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ืื•ื ืื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ืฉื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื“ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืขืœ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืจื•ืฆื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืชืŸ ืœื™ ืžืงื—ื™ ืื• ืชืŸ ืœื™ ืžื” ืฉืื ื™ืชื ื™ ื•ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื•

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.

ืขื“ ืžืชื™ ืžื•ืชืจ ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืœื•ืงื— ืื‘ืœ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื ื™ืžื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ื—ื–ืจื• ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžื•ื›ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ื—ื•ื–ืจ

ยง 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 Naแธฅman 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 sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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

ืฉื•ื” ืฉืฉ ื‘ื—ืžืฉ ืžื™ ื ืชืื ื” ืžื•ื›ืจ ื™ื“ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืขืœ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืจืฆื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืชืŸ ืœื™ ืžืงื—ื™ ืื• ืชืŸ ืœื™ ืžื” ืฉืื•ื ื™ืชื ื™

an item worth six maโ€™a for five maโ€™a, 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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืืœืชืจ ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ื™ืœื” ืื• ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื•ืช ืœืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช

ยง 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?

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืœื• ืฉืชื•ืช ื™ื“ื• ืขืœ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืจืฆื” ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืจืฆื” ืงื•ื ื” ื•ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ืื•ื ืื” ื•ืื™ืœื• ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ืงื ื” ื•ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ืื•ื ืื”

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.

ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื—ื–ืจื• ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื

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.

ืกื‘ืจื•ื” ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืœื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื›ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ื—ื–ืจื• ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืืœืชืจ ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ื™ืœื”

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,

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœืืœืชืจ ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ื™ืœื” ืืžืื™ ื—ื–ืจื• ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื ื™ื—ื ืœื”ื• ื˜ืคื™ ื“ืžืื™ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงื ืžืฉื•ื™ ืœื”ื• ืื•ื ืื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ื™ืœื”

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.

ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืœื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื›ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉืชื•ืช ื•ืขื“ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื›ืฉืชื•ืช ืขืฆืžื” ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื‘ืžืื™ ืฉืžื—ื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื

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.

ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ื“ื‘ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ื ืื•ื ืื” ืฉืžื—ื• ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ื—ื–ืจื•

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.

ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ื‘ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ื‘ืžืื™ ืฉืžื—ื• ืฉืžื—ื• ื‘ืฉืชื•ืช ืขืฆืžื” ื“ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ืžื—ื™ืœื” ื•ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื•ื ืื”

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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ืžื” ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื•ืช ืœื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ืฉืชื•ืช ืื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ืœื• ืฉืชื•ืช ืžื™ ืฉื ืชืื ื” ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืื™ืœื• ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ืฉืชื•ืช ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื—ื•ื–ืจื™ื

ยง 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.

ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื—ื–ืจื• ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื• ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ื—ื–ืจื• ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืขื•ืœื ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืืžืื™ ื—ื–ืจื• ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื˜ืจืคื•ืŸ ื ื™ื—ื ืœื”ื• ื˜ืคื™ ื“ืงื ืžืฉื•ื™ ืœื”ื• ืื•ื ืื” ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ืชื• ืœื

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.

ื‘ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื—

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืœื›ืชื ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ื ืงื ื” ืžืงื— ื™ื•ืชืจ ืขืœ ืฉืชื•ืช ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงื— ืฉืชื•ืช ืงื ื” ื•ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ืื•ื ืื” ื•ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื•

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.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืื•ื ืื” ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื•ืช ื ืงื ื” ืžืงื— ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ืฉืชื•ืช ื‘ื˜ืœ ืžืงื— ืฉืชื•ืช ืงื ื” ื•ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ืื•ื ืื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ืฉื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื“ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืขืœ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ื ื” ืจื•ืฆื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืชืŸ ืœื™ ืžืงื—ื™ ืื• ืชืŸ ืœื™ ืžื” ืฉืื ื™ืชื ื™ ื•ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืจืื” ืœืชื’ืจ ืื• ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื•

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.

ืขื“ ืžืชื™ ืžื•ืชืจ ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืœื•ืงื— ืื‘ืœ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื ื™ืžื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ื—ื–ืจื• ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžื•ื›ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ื—ื•ื–ืจ

ยง 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 Naแธฅman 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