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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 16, 2016 | 讟状讜 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 51

Is the time allotted for getting your money back in a case of over/undercharging the same for the buyer and the seller?聽 Do the laws of fraud apply only to businesses and not to individuals? 聽Does it depend on what they are selling? 聽Are there certain merchants to whom laws of fraud do not apply or are there certain laws of fraud that do not apply to any merchants? 聽The answer to this questions depends upon the explanation of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in the mishna. 聽If one agrees that he is willing to buy/sell an item and will not make a fraud claim, is that a valid condition? 聽Is it the same as a case where one betroths a woman and conditions it upon not giving her the financial rights that a wife has in a marriage? 聽Does it depend on whether he says it with or without knowing that he was overcharged/underpaid?

诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讞讝专讜

it is due to this reason that they reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis, as the sellers were in any event able to renege at any point, while Rabbi Tarfon extended the period during which the buyers could renege on the transaction.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讜讻专 谞诪讬 讻诇讜拽讞 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 诇诇讜拽讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 诇诪讜讻专

But if you say that the legal status of a seller is also limited like that of a buyer in terms of the period of time during which he may renege, what difference is there to the merchants? Just as the Sages instituted an ordinance on behalf of a buyer enabling him to renege on the transaction, so too, the Sages instituted an ordinance on behalf of a seller. If the time afforded to the seller is equal to the time afforded to the buyer, the fact that Rabbi Tarfon extended this time would not be a reason for the merchants to revert to following the opinion of the Rabbis, as there is a benefit and a loss for the merchants according to both opinions.

转讙专讬 诇讜讚 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讚讟注讜

The Gemara answers: With regard to the merchants of Lod, it is rare for them to err, and therefore they preferred limiting the period during which the buyer could renege over extending the period during which they themselves could renege.

讗讜砖驻讝讬讻谞讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讝讘讬谉 讞诪专讗 讜讟注讛 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讛讜讛 注爪讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 注爪讬讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬 讞诪专讗 讜讟注讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讚专 讘讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 砖讛讗讬 诇讬 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 砖讗专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讬 砖讚专讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 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 relates: The landlord of Rami bar 岣ma sold a donkey and erred in fixing its price. Rami bar 岣ma encountered him and noticed that he was sad. Rami bar 岣ma said to him: Why are you sad? The landlord said to him: I sold a donkey and I erred in fixing its price. Rami bar 岣ma said to him: Go and renege on the transaction. The landlord said to him: I have waited more than the period of time that it takes for me to show the merchandise to a merchant or to my relative. Rami bar 岣ma sent the landlord before Rav Na岣an for a ruling and Rav Na岣an said to him: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to a buyer, but a seller may always renege on a transaction.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讜拽讞 诪拽讞讜 讘讬讚讜 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讝讬诇 诪讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讟注讛 讗讬 诇讗 讟注讛 诪讜讻专 讚诇讗 谞拽讟 诪拽讞讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 注讚 讚诪讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞转讗 讻讝讘讬谞转讬讛 讜讬讚注 讗讬 讟注讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讟注讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains: A buyer has his merchandise in his possession; therefore, anywhere that he goes he shows it to those familiar with the market price and they tell him whether he erred or whether he did not err. A seller, who does not have his merchandise in his possession, can ascertain the market price only when merchandise like his merchandise happens to come before him, and only then will he know whether he erred or whether he did not err.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 谞拽讟 讜专砖讻讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬 拽专讬 砖讬转讗 讜砖讜讬讗 讞诪砖讗 讜讗讬 讛讜讜 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛 讗转谉 诇讬讛 砖讬转讗 讜讗转讘注讬讛 诇讚讬谞讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛转讙专 讗讘诇 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who had silk strips [varshekhei] to sell. He announced that he was selling them for six ma鈥檃, and they were worth five ma鈥檃, and if they would give him five and a half ma鈥檃, he would take it and sell the silk. This man, i.e., a potential buyer, came and said to himself: If I give him five and a half ma鈥檃, it is a case of a waiver, and I will not be entitled to recover the difference. I will give him six ma鈥檃 and claim from him by law the return of the sum gained by the exploitation. He did so. The case came before Rava, who said to him: The Sages taught this halakha of exploitation only with regard to one who buys merchandise from a merchant, but one who buys merchandise from a regular homeowner does not have a claim of exploitation against him.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 讻讬驻讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬 拽专讬 砖转讬谉 讜砖讜讬 讞诪砖讬谉 讜讗讬 讛讜讜 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 讜讞诪砖讗 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 讜讞诪砖讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛 讗转谉 诇讬讛 砖讬转讬谉 讜讗转讘注讬讛 诇讚讬谞讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛转讙专 讗讘诇 讘诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain man who was holding jewelry to sell. He announced that he was selling it for sixty ma鈥檃, and it was worth fifty ma鈥檃, and if they would give him fifty-five ma鈥檃, he would take it and sell the jewels. This man, i.e., a potential buyer, came and said to himself: If I give him fifty-five ma鈥檃, it is a case of a waiver, and I will not be entitled to recover the difference. I will give him sixty ma鈥檃 and claim from him by law the return of the sum gained by the exploitation. He did so. The case came before Rav 岣sda, who said to him: The Sages taught this halakha of exploitation only with regard to one who buys merchandise from a merchant, but one who buys merchandise from a regular homeowner does not have a claim of exploitation against him.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讬砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讬砖专 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讻砖诐 砖讗讜谞讗讛 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讻讱 讗讜谞讗讛 诇转讙专 诪讗谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诇讗讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘爪讚专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 诪讗谞讬 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 讚讬拽讬专讬 注诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讚诪讬 讬转讬专讬

Rav Dimi said to Rav 岣sda: The ruling is correct. And likewise, Rabbi Elazar said: The ruling is correct. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that follows: Just as the halakhot of exploitation apply to a layman [lahedyot], so do the halakhot of exploitation apply to a merchant? Who is the layman to whom the mishna is referring? Is he not a regular homeowner as opposed to a merchant? Rav 岣sda said: That mishna is referring to simple linen garments [tzadriyyata], which the homeowner crafts expressly for sale. But with regard to vessels and garments designed for the personal use of a homeowner, which are important to him, he sells them only to receive extra money, as people are generally hesitant to part with their belongings. Therefore, when purchasing an item from a homeowner, a buyer must consider the likelihood that his asking price is greater than the item鈥檚 actual worth.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讚 讛诇讜拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讛诪讜讻专 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讜谞讗讛 讻砖诐 砖讗讜谞讗讛 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讻讱 讗讜谞讗讛 诇转讙专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜谞讗讛 诇转讙专 诪讬 砖讛讜讟诇 注诇讬讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 诪注讜转讬 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 诪讛 砖讗谞讬转谞讬

MISHNA: Both the buyer and the seller are subject to the halakhot of exploitation. Just as the halakhot of exploitation apply to a layman, so do the halakhot of exploitation apply to a merchant. Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no exploitation for a merchant, as he is an expert in the market price of merchandise. The one upon whom the exploitation was imposed has the advantage. If he wishes, he can say to the other: Give me back my money and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum that you gained by exploiting me.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讗诇 转讜谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖谞转讗谞讛 诇讜拽讞 谞转讗谞讛 诪讜讻专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 拽谞讛 讗诇 转讜谞讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that both the buyer and the seller are subject to the halakha of exploitation? As the Sages taught concerning the verse: 鈥淎nd if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague鈥檚 hand, you shall not exploit his brother鈥 (Leviticus 25:14). I have derived only a case where a buyer was exploited. From where do I derive that the halakha is the same in a case where the seller was exploited? The same verse states: 鈥淥r acquire from your colleague鈥檚 hand, you shall not exploit his brother.鈥

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 诇讜拽讞 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 诪讜讻专 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讜讻专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讝讘讬谞转讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞 讚诇讗 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讝讘讬谞转讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讗讝讛专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇讗 转讜谞讜

The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to write the prohibition against exploitation with regard to a buyer, and it was necessary to write the prohibition against exploitation with regard to a seller. As, had the Merciful One written this prohibition only with regard to a seller, one would conclude that it is prohibited for him because he is certain of the value of his merchandise, but with regard to a buyer, who is not certain of the value of the seller鈥檚 merchandise, say that the Merciful One did not render it prohibited for him to engage in exploitation with the verse 鈥淵ou shall not exploit.鈥

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讜拽讞 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 拽谞讬 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讝讘谞讬转 拽谞讬转 讗讘诇 诪讜讻专 讚讗讘讜讚讬 拽讗 诪讜讘讬讚 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讝讘讬谉 讗讜讘讬讚 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讗讝讛专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇讗 转讜谞讜 爪专讬讻讗

And had the Merciful One written this prohibition only with regard to a buyer, one would conclude that it is prohibited for him because he acquires the item and he benefits from his purchase, as people say: If you purchased an item, you acquired a durable item for yourself. But with regard to a seller, who loses from the sale, as people say: One who sells an item loses, say that the Merciful One did not render it prohibited for him to engage in exploitation with the verse 鈥淵ou shall not exploit.鈥 Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to write this prohibition with regard to both parties to the transaction.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜谞讗讛 诇转讙专 诪砖讜诐 砖讛讜讗 转讙专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讜谞讗讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no exploitation for a merchant. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Due to the fact that he is a merchant, he is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation? Anyone could arrive at a mistaken assessment of the value of merchandise.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讘转讙专 住驻住专 砖谞讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讝讘讬谞转讬讛 讻诪讛 砖讜讬讗 讜讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞讬诇 讙讘讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚讝讘谞讗 讛讻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转专诪讬讗 诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞转讗 讗讞专讬转讬

Rav Na岣an says that Rav says: It is with regard to a merchant who is a trader, who buys and sells merchandise, that they taught the halakha. What is the reason that he is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation according to Rabbi Yehuda? He knows how much his merchandise is worth, and he waives the sum of the disparity between the value and the price for the buyer. And the reason why he sells the merchandise in that manner, knowing that he is selling it for less than its value, is due to the fact that other merchandise happens to become available to him and he needs the money to purchase that item.

讜讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇转讙专 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谞讜 讘转讜专转 讗讜谞讗讛 砖讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讞讜讝专 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转讙专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讜谞讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘拽讬

The Gemara asks: But now, in any event, he retracts from the transaction, indicating that he did not waive the sum of the disparity. Rav Ashi said: What is the meaning of: There is no exploitation for a merchant? He is not subject to the principles of exploitation at all, as even if the disparity is less than the measure of exploitation, i.e., less than one-sixth, he may renege on the transaction. Since his entire livelihood is based on the slight profit margin that he earns from each transaction, he does not waive even that sum. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an: Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no exploitation for a merchant, because he is expert in these matters.

诪讬 砖讛讜讟诇 注诇讬讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches: The one upon whom the exploitation was imposed has the advantage. If he wishes, he can say to the other: Give me back my money and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum that you gained by exploiting me. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is neither the opinion of Rabbi Natan nor the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 专爪讛 讜讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 专爪讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 诇讜拽讞 讘专讬讬转讗 拽转谞讬 诪讜讻专

The Gemara explains: If it is the opinion of Rabbi Natan, in the mishna the tanna teaches: If he wishes, he can say: Give me back my money and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum that you gained by exploiting me. And in the baraita (50b) Rabbi Natan does not teach: If he wishes, indicating that the transaction takes effect regardless of his wishes. And if it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, in the mishna the tanna teaches the halakha with regard to the buyer, and in the baraita Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches: In a case where the seller was exploited, the seller is at an advantage, apparently to the exclusion of the buyer.

(住讬诪谉 讝讘 专砖)

The Gemara presents a mnemonic device for the Sages who discussed this difficulty: Zayin, referring to Rabbi Elazar; beit, referring to Rabba; reish, referring to Rava; shin, referring to Rav Ashi.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜谞讗讛 讝讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讬 砖谞讗讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗 讜转谞讬 谞诪讬 讘讘专讬讬转讗 专爪讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诪讗讬 讚砖讬讬专 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽讗 诪驻专讬砖 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讗讞讚 讛诇讜拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讛诪讜讻专 讜诪驻专砖 诇讬讛 诇诇讜拽讞 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讬讜专讬讛 砖讬讬专讬讛 诇诪讜讻专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Elazar says: Concerning this halakha of exploitation in the mishna, I do not know who taught it, as it does not correspond to the opinion of any of the Sages. Rabba said: Actually, the mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Natan, and emend and teach that Rabbi Natan stated in the baraita as well: If he wishes. Rava said: Actually, the mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the ruling that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi omits in the mishna he explicates in the baraita. The mishna and the baraita are complementary. Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as the tanna teaches: Both the buyer and the seller, and then he proceeds to elucidate the halakha of the buyer. Learn from it that the tanna indeed omitted the halakha of the seller, but he did not exclude the seller from the halakha. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case.

讗讬转诪专 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 讗讜谞讗讛 专讘 讗诪专 讬砖 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

It was stated that there is a dispute among amora鈥檌m. With regard to one who says to another: I will be party to this sale on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, even if you are exploited, Rav says: The exploited party has a claim of exploitation against him, and Shmuel says: He does not have a claim of exploitation against him. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and Shmuel stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 砖讗专 讻住讜转 讜注讜谞讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜转谞讗讜 讘讟诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讚讘专 砖讘诪诪讜谉 转谞讗讜 拽讬讬诐

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that you do not have a claim against me for food, clothing, and conjugal rights that a husband is obligated to provide his wife by Torah law, she is betrothed to him and his condition is void; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that a person cannot stipulate a condition that negates obligations by Torah law. And Rabbi Yehuda says: In monetary matters, as opposed to personal obligations, one鈥檚 condition is in effect.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讬讚注讛 讜拽讗 诪讞诇讛

The Gemara refutes this parallel. Rav could have said to you: I stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion that a stipulation is valid in monetary matters only there, where a woman knows that she is entitled to food and clothing but waives her rights to them.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讚注 讚诪讞讬诇

But here, where he says: On the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, does the other party know that there will be exploitation so that he will consciously waive his rights to claim compensation in the event that there is? He believes that perhaps there will be no exploitation at all.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讜讚讗讬 拽讗 注拽专 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚拽讗 注拽专 诪讬讚讬

And Shmuel says: I state my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir states his opinion only there, in the case of betrothal, where the husband definitely abrogates Torah law with his condition. But here, who says that either party to the sale will abrogate any Torah law?

讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讛专讬 讬砖 讘讜 讗讜谞讗讛

Rav Anan says: This matter was explained to me personally by Mar Shmuel. In the case of one who says to another: I will be party to this sale on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, the other party does not have a claim of exploitation against him, as one can waive his rights to compensation for the exploitation that he suffered. But if one said: I will be party to this sale on the condition that it is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, it is subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as in this case it is directly counter to Torah law.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讜砖讗 讜讛谞讜转谉 讘讗诪谞讛 讜讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 诪谞讬

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who conducts business on faith; and in the case of one who says to another: I will be party to this sale on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, the exploited party does not have a claim of exploitation against the one who exploited him. According to Rav, who said: I stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita, as pursuant to that statement, even Rabbi Yehuda holds that in cases of exploitation one cannot stipulate counter to that which is written in the Torah?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讞讜讜专转讗 专讘 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Abaye said: Based on this proof from the baraita it is clear that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and that Shmuel stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this baraita expresses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘住转诐 讻讗谉 讘诪驻专砖

Rava said: It is not difficult, as there is a distinction between the cases. Here, in this baraita, the tanna is speaking in a case where the condition is stated in an ordinary case, where it is not stated explicitly that the price paid is not the market value. In that case, Rav says that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the condition is void. There, where Rabbi Yehuda would uphold the condition, the tanna is speaking in a case where the exploitation is explicit, i.e., both parties know that the price paid is not the market value.

讚转谞讬讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘住转诐 讗讘诇 讘诪驻专砖 诪讜讻专 砖讗诪专 诇诇讜拽讞 讞驻抓 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讘诪讗转讬诐 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 讘讜 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讜讻谉 诇讜拽讞 砖讗诪专 诇诪讜讻专 讞驻抓 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 诇讜拽讞 诪诪讱 讘诪谞讛 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 讘讜 砖砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement said? It is in an ordinary case, but in a case where the exploitation is explicit, e.g., in the case of a seller who said to the buyer: Concerning this item that I am selling to you for two hundred dinars, I know about it that it is worth only one hundred dinars, and I am selling it on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, the buyer has no claim of exploitation against him. And likewise, in the case of a buyer who said to the seller: Concerning this item that I am buying from you for one hundred dinars, I know about it that it is worth two hundred dinars, and I am buying it on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, the seller has no claim of exploitation against him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讜砖讗 讜讛谞讜转谉 讘讗诪谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞砖讘 讗转 讛专注 讘讗诪谞讛 讜讗转 讛讬驻讛 讘砖讜讛 讗诇讗 讗讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讗诪谞讛 讗讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讘砖讜讛

Apropos the mention of one who conducts business on faith, the Gemara cites a baraita that teaches several halakhot concerning such an arrangement. The Sages taught: When selling merchandise that one purchased in bulk, one who conducts business on faith may not calculate the price of the merchandise of inferior quality on faith and the price of the merchandise of superior quality at their market value. Rather, he has two options: Either the price of both this merchandise and that merchandise must be calculated on faith, or the price of both this merchandise and that merchandise must be calculated at their market value.

讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专 讻转祝 砖讻专 讙诪诇 砖讻专 驻讜谞讚拽 砖讻专 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 砖讻讘专 谞转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐

The baraita continues: And the buyer gives the seller the payment for the money he spent in hiring a porter, the payment for the money he spent in hiring a camel driver if necessary, and the payment for the lodgings he used during the time of the transaction. These expenses had been borne by the seller, so it is not exploitation if he recovers them by charging the buyer. But as for the seller鈥檚 own wages, i.e., payment for the time he spent engaging in the transaction, he does not take his own wages, as the one from whom he purchased the merchandise already gave him his full wages.

砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐 诪讛讬讻讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘爪讚专讜讬讬 讚讬讛讘讬 讗专讘注 诇诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to his wages in full, from where did he give that to him? With what was he paid by the one from whom he purchased the merchandise? The Gemara responds: Rav Pappa said: This is referring to sellers of inexpensive garments, where the one from whom he purchases the merchandise gives four additional units for each one hundred units purchased, and that functions as payment for his efforts.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诪讛 转讛讗 讛住诇注 讞住讬专讛 讜诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讛 讗讜谞讗讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注 讗讬住专讜转 讗讬住专 诇讚讬谞专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讜转 驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 诇讚讬谞专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

MISHNA: How much can the sela coin be eroded through usage, and its use in a transaction at its original value will still not constitute exploitation? Rabbi Meir says: The accepted depreciation is four issar, which is a rate of one issar per dinar, or one twenty-fourth of a dinar. And Rabbi Yehuda says: The accepted depreciation is four pundeyon, which is a rate of one pundeyon per dinar, or one-twelfth of a dinar. And Rabbi Shimon says:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 51

诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讞讝专讜

it is due to this reason that they reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis, as the sellers were in any event able to renege at any point, while Rabbi Tarfon extended the period during which the buyers could renege on the transaction.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讜讻专 谞诪讬 讻诇讜拽讞 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 诇诇讜拽讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 诇诪讜讻专

But if you say that the legal status of a seller is also limited like that of a buyer in terms of the period of time during which he may renege, what difference is there to the merchants? Just as the Sages instituted an ordinance on behalf of a buyer enabling him to renege on the transaction, so too, the Sages instituted an ordinance on behalf of a seller. If the time afforded to the seller is equal to the time afforded to the buyer, the fact that Rabbi Tarfon extended this time would not be a reason for the merchants to revert to following the opinion of the Rabbis, as there is a benefit and a loss for the merchants according to both opinions.

转讙专讬 诇讜讚 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讚讟注讜

The Gemara answers: With regard to the merchants of Lod, it is rare for them to err, and therefore they preferred limiting the period during which the buyer could renege over extending the period during which they themselves could renege.

讗讜砖驻讝讬讻谞讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讝讘讬谉 讞诪专讗 讜讟注讛 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讛讜讛 注爪讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 注爪讬讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬 讞诪专讗 讜讟注讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讚专 讘讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 砖讛讗讬 诇讬 讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 砖讗专讗讛 诇转讙专 讗讜 诇拽专讜讘讬 砖讚专讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 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 relates: The landlord of Rami bar 岣ma sold a donkey and erred in fixing its price. Rami bar 岣ma encountered him and noticed that he was sad. Rami bar 岣ma said to him: Why are you sad? The landlord said to him: I sold a donkey and I erred in fixing its price. Rami bar 岣ma said to him: Go and renege on the transaction. The landlord said to him: I have waited more than the period of time that it takes for me to show the merchandise to a merchant or to my relative. Rami bar 岣ma sent the landlord before Rav Na岣an for a ruling and Rav Na岣an said to him: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to a buyer, but a seller may always renege on a transaction.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讜拽讞 诪拽讞讜 讘讬讚讜 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讝讬诇 诪讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讟注讛 讗讬 诇讗 讟注讛 诪讜讻专 讚诇讗 谞拽讟 诪拽讞讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 注讚 讚诪讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞转讗 讻讝讘讬谞转讬讛 讜讬讚注 讗讬 讟注讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讟注讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains: A buyer has his merchandise in his possession; therefore, anywhere that he goes he shows it to those familiar with the market price and they tell him whether he erred or whether he did not err. A seller, who does not have his merchandise in his possession, can ascertain the market price only when merchandise like his merchandise happens to come before him, and only then will he know whether he erred or whether he did not err.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 谞拽讟 讜专砖讻讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬 拽专讬 砖讬转讗 讜砖讜讬讗 讞诪砖讗 讜讗讬 讛讜讜 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛 讗转谉 诇讬讛 砖讬转讗 讜讗转讘注讬讛 诇讚讬谞讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛转讙专 讗讘诇 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who had silk strips [varshekhei] to sell. He announced that he was selling them for six ma鈥檃, and they were worth five ma鈥檃, and if they would give him five and a half ma鈥檃, he would take it and sell the silk. This man, i.e., a potential buyer, came and said to himself: If I give him five and a half ma鈥檃, it is a case of a waiver, and I will not be entitled to recover the difference. I will give him six ma鈥檃 and claim from him by law the return of the sum gained by the exploitation. He did so. The case came before Rava, who said to him: The Sages taught this halakha of exploitation only with regard to one who buys merchandise from a merchant, but one who buys merchandise from a regular homeowner does not have a claim of exploitation against him.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 讻讬驻讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬 拽专讬 砖转讬谉 讜砖讜讬 讞诪砖讬谉 讜讗讬 讛讜讜 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 讜讞诪砖讗 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 讜讞诪砖讗 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬诇讛 讗转谉 诇讬讛 砖讬转讬谉 讜讗转讘注讬讛 诇讚讬谞讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛转讙专 讗讘诇 讘诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain man who was holding jewelry to sell. He announced that he was selling it for sixty ma鈥檃, and it was worth fifty ma鈥檃, and if they would give him fifty-five ma鈥檃, he would take it and sell the jewels. This man, i.e., a potential buyer, came and said to himself: If I give him fifty-five ma鈥檃, it is a case of a waiver, and I will not be entitled to recover the difference. I will give him sixty ma鈥檃 and claim from him by law the return of the sum gained by the exploitation. He did so. The case came before Rav 岣sda, who said to him: The Sages taught this halakha of exploitation only with regard to one who buys merchandise from a merchant, but one who buys merchandise from a regular homeowner does not have a claim of exploitation against him.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讬砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讬砖专 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讻砖诐 砖讗讜谞讗讛 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讻讱 讗讜谞讗讛 诇转讙专 诪讗谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诇讗讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘爪讚专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 诪讗谞讬 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 讚讬拽讬专讬 注诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讝讘讬谉 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讚诪讬 讬转讬专讬

Rav Dimi said to Rav 岣sda: The ruling is correct. And likewise, Rabbi Elazar said: The ruling is correct. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that follows: Just as the halakhot of exploitation apply to a layman [lahedyot], so do the halakhot of exploitation apply to a merchant? Who is the layman to whom the mishna is referring? Is he not a regular homeowner as opposed to a merchant? Rav 岣sda said: That mishna is referring to simple linen garments [tzadriyyata], which the homeowner crafts expressly for sale. But with regard to vessels and garments designed for the personal use of a homeowner, which are important to him, he sells them only to receive extra money, as people are generally hesitant to part with their belongings. Therefore, when purchasing an item from a homeowner, a buyer must consider the likelihood that his asking price is greater than the item鈥檚 actual worth.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讚 讛诇讜拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讛诪讜讻专 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讜谞讗讛 讻砖诐 砖讗讜谞讗讛 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讻讱 讗讜谞讗讛 诇转讙专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜谞讗讛 诇转讙专 诪讬 砖讛讜讟诇 注诇讬讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 诪注讜转讬 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 诪讛 砖讗谞讬转谞讬

MISHNA: Both the buyer and the seller are subject to the halakhot of exploitation. Just as the halakhot of exploitation apply to a layman, so do the halakhot of exploitation apply to a merchant. Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no exploitation for a merchant, as he is an expert in the market price of merchandise. The one upon whom the exploitation was imposed has the advantage. If he wishes, he can say to the other: Give me back my money and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum that you gained by exploiting me.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讗诇 转讜谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖谞转讗谞讛 诇讜拽讞 谞转讗谞讛 诪讜讻专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 拽谞讛 讗诇 转讜谞讜

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that both the buyer and the seller are subject to the halakha of exploitation? As the Sages taught concerning the verse: 鈥淎nd if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague鈥檚 hand, you shall not exploit his brother鈥 (Leviticus 25:14). I have derived only a case where a buyer was exploited. From where do I derive that the halakha is the same in a case where the seller was exploited? The same verse states: 鈥淥r acquire from your colleague鈥檚 hand, you shall not exploit his brother.鈥

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 诇讜拽讞 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 诪讜讻专 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讜讻专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讝讘讬谞转讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讜拽讞 讚诇讗 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讝讘讬谞转讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讗讝讛专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇讗 转讜谞讜

The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to write the prohibition against exploitation with regard to a buyer, and it was necessary to write the prohibition against exploitation with regard to a seller. As, had the Merciful One written this prohibition only with regard to a seller, one would conclude that it is prohibited for him because he is certain of the value of his merchandise, but with regard to a buyer, who is not certain of the value of the seller鈥檚 merchandise, say that the Merciful One did not render it prohibited for him to engage in exploitation with the verse 鈥淵ou shall not exploit.鈥

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讜拽讞 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 拽谞讬 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讝讘谞讬转 拽谞讬转 讗讘诇 诪讜讻专 讚讗讘讜讚讬 拽讗 诪讜讘讬讚 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讝讘讬谉 讗讜讘讬讚 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讗讝讛专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇讗 转讜谞讜 爪专讬讻讗

And had the Merciful One written this prohibition only with regard to a buyer, one would conclude that it is prohibited for him because he acquires the item and he benefits from his purchase, as people say: If you purchased an item, you acquired a durable item for yourself. But with regard to a seller, who loses from the sale, as people say: One who sells an item loses, say that the Merciful One did not render it prohibited for him to engage in exploitation with the verse 鈥淵ou shall not exploit.鈥 Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to write this prohibition with regard to both parties to the transaction.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜谞讗讛 诇转讙专 诪砖讜诐 砖讛讜讗 转讙专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讜谞讗讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no exploitation for a merchant. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Due to the fact that he is a merchant, he is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation? Anyone could arrive at a mistaken assessment of the value of merchandise.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讘转讙专 住驻住专 砖谞讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讝讘讬谞转讬讛 讻诪讛 砖讜讬讗 讜讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞讬诇 讙讘讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚讝讘谞讗 讛讻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转专诪讬讗 诇讬讛 讝讘讬谞转讗 讗讞专讬转讬

Rav Na岣an says that Rav says: It is with regard to a merchant who is a trader, who buys and sells merchandise, that they taught the halakha. What is the reason that he is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation according to Rabbi Yehuda? He knows how much his merchandise is worth, and he waives the sum of the disparity between the value and the price for the buyer. And the reason why he sells the merchandise in that manner, knowing that he is selling it for less than its value, is due to the fact that other merchandise happens to become available to him and he needs the money to purchase that item.

讜讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇转讙专 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谞讜 讘转讜专转 讗讜谞讗讛 砖讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讞讜讝专 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转讙专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讜谞讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘拽讬

The Gemara asks: But now, in any event, he retracts from the transaction, indicating that he did not waive the sum of the disparity. Rav Ashi said: What is the meaning of: There is no exploitation for a merchant? He is not subject to the principles of exploitation at all, as even if the disparity is less than the measure of exploitation, i.e., less than one-sixth, he may renege on the transaction. Since his entire livelihood is based on the slight profit margin that he earns from each transaction, he does not waive even that sum. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an: Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no exploitation for a merchant, because he is expert in these matters.

诪讬 砖讛讜讟诇 注诇讬讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches: The one upon whom the exploitation was imposed has the advantage. If he wishes, he can say to the other: Give me back my money and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum that you gained by exploiting me. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is neither the opinion of Rabbi Natan nor the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 专爪讛 讜讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 专爪讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 诇讜拽讞 讘专讬讬转讗 拽转谞讬 诪讜讻专

The Gemara explains: If it is the opinion of Rabbi Natan, in the mishna the tanna teaches: If he wishes, he can say: Give me back my money and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum that you gained by exploiting me. And in the baraita (50b) Rabbi Natan does not teach: If he wishes, indicating that the transaction takes effect regardless of his wishes. And if it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, in the mishna the tanna teaches the halakha with regard to the buyer, and in the baraita Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches: In a case where the seller was exploited, the seller is at an advantage, apparently to the exclusion of the buyer.

(住讬诪谉 讝讘 专砖)

The Gemara presents a mnemonic device for the Sages who discussed this difficulty: Zayin, referring to Rabbi Elazar; beit, referring to Rabba; reish, referring to Rava; shin, referring to Rav Ashi.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜谞讗讛 讝讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讬 砖谞讗讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛讬讗 讜转谞讬 谞诪讬 讘讘专讬讬转讗 专爪讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诪讗讬 讚砖讬讬专 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽讗 诪驻专讬砖 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讗讞讚 讛诇讜拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讛诪讜讻专 讜诪驻专砖 诇讬讛 诇诇讜拽讞 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讬讜专讬讛 砖讬讬专讬讛 诇诪讜讻专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Elazar says: Concerning this halakha of exploitation in the mishna, I do not know who taught it, as it does not correspond to the opinion of any of the Sages. Rabba said: Actually, the mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Natan, and emend and teach that Rabbi Natan stated in the baraita as well: If he wishes. Rava said: Actually, the mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the ruling that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi omits in the mishna he explicates in the baraita. The mishna and the baraita are complementary. Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as the tanna teaches: Both the buyer and the seller, and then he proceeds to elucidate the halakha of the buyer. Learn from it that the tanna indeed omitted the halakha of the seller, but he did not exclude the seller from the halakha. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case.

讗讬转诪专 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 讗讜谞讗讛 专讘 讗诪专 讬砖 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

It was stated that there is a dispute among amora鈥檌m. With regard to one who says to another: I will be party to this sale on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, even if you are exploited, Rav says: The exploited party has a claim of exploitation against him, and Shmuel says: He does not have a claim of exploitation against him. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and Shmuel stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 砖讗专 讻住讜转 讜注讜谞讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜转谞讗讜 讘讟诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讚讘专 砖讘诪诪讜谉 转谞讗讜 拽讬讬诐

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that you do not have a claim against me for food, clothing, and conjugal rights that a husband is obligated to provide his wife by Torah law, she is betrothed to him and his condition is void; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that a person cannot stipulate a condition that negates obligations by Torah law. And Rabbi Yehuda says: In monetary matters, as opposed to personal obligations, one鈥檚 condition is in effect.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讬讚注讛 讜拽讗 诪讞诇讛

The Gemara refutes this parallel. Rav could have said to you: I stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion that a stipulation is valid in monetary matters only there, where a woman knows that she is entitled to food and clothing but waives her rights to them.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讚注 讚诪讞讬诇

But here, where he says: On the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, does the other party know that there will be exploitation so that he will consciously waive his rights to claim compensation in the event that there is? He believes that perhaps there will be no exploitation at all.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讜讚讗讬 拽讗 注拽专 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚拽讗 注拽专 诪讬讚讬

And Shmuel says: I state my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir states his opinion only there, in the case of betrothal, where the husband definitely abrogates Torah law with his condition. But here, who says that either party to the sale will abrogate any Torah law?

讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讛专讬 讬砖 讘讜 讗讜谞讗讛

Rav Anan says: This matter was explained to me personally by Mar Shmuel. In the case of one who says to another: I will be party to this sale on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, the other party does not have a claim of exploitation against him, as one can waive his rights to compensation for the exploitation that he suffered. But if one said: I will be party to this sale on the condition that it is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation, it is subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as in this case it is directly counter to Torah law.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讜砖讗 讜讛谞讜转谉 讘讗诪谞讛 讜讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 诪谞讬

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who conducts business on faith; and in the case of one who says to another: I will be party to this sale on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, the exploited party does not have a claim of exploitation against the one who exploited him. According to Rav, who said: I stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita, as pursuant to that statement, even Rabbi Yehuda holds that in cases of exploitation one cannot stipulate counter to that which is written in the Torah?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讞讜讜专转讗 专讘 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Abaye said: Based on this proof from the baraita it is clear that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and that Shmuel stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this baraita expresses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘住转诐 讻讗谉 讘诪驻专砖

Rava said: It is not difficult, as there is a distinction between the cases. Here, in this baraita, the tanna is speaking in a case where the condition is stated in an ordinary case, where it is not stated explicitly that the price paid is not the market value. In that case, Rav says that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the condition is void. There, where Rabbi Yehuda would uphold the condition, the tanna is speaking in a case where the exploitation is explicit, i.e., both parties know that the price paid is not the market value.

讚转谞讬讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘住转诐 讗讘诇 讘诪驻专砖 诪讜讻专 砖讗诪专 诇诇讜拽讞 讞驻抓 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讘诪讗转讬诐 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 讘讜 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛 讜讻谉 诇讜拽讞 砖讗诪专 诇诪讜讻专 讞驻抓 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 诇讜拽讞 诪诪讱 讘诪谞讛 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 讘讜 砖砖讜讛 诪讗转讬诐 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 注诇讬 讗讜谞讗讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讗讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement said? It is in an ordinary case, but in a case where the exploitation is explicit, e.g., in the case of a seller who said to the buyer: Concerning this item that I am selling to you for two hundred dinars, I know about it that it is worth only one hundred dinars, and I am selling it on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, the buyer has no claim of exploitation against him. And likewise, in the case of a buyer who said to the seller: Concerning this item that I am buying from you for one hundred dinars, I know about it that it is worth two hundred dinars, and I am buying it on the condition that you have no claim of exploitation against me, the seller has no claim of exploitation against him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讜砖讗 讜讛谞讜转谉 讘讗诪谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞砖讘 讗转 讛专注 讘讗诪谞讛 讜讗转 讛讬驻讛 讘砖讜讛 讗诇讗 讗讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讗诪谞讛 讗讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讘砖讜讛

Apropos the mention of one who conducts business on faith, the Gemara cites a baraita that teaches several halakhot concerning such an arrangement. The Sages taught: When selling merchandise that one purchased in bulk, one who conducts business on faith may not calculate the price of the merchandise of inferior quality on faith and the price of the merchandise of superior quality at their market value. Rather, he has two options: Either the price of both this merchandise and that merchandise must be calculated on faith, or the price of both this merchandise and that merchandise must be calculated at their market value.

讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专 讻转祝 砖讻专 讙诪诇 砖讻专 驻讜谞讚拽 砖讻专 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 砖讻讘专 谞转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐

The baraita continues: And the buyer gives the seller the payment for the money he spent in hiring a porter, the payment for the money he spent in hiring a camel driver if necessary, and the payment for the lodgings he used during the time of the transaction. These expenses had been borne by the seller, so it is not exploitation if he recovers them by charging the buyer. But as for the seller鈥檚 own wages, i.e., payment for the time he spent engaging in the transaction, he does not take his own wages, as the one from whom he purchased the merchandise already gave him his full wages.

砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐 诪讛讬讻讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘爪讚专讜讬讬 讚讬讛讘讬 讗专讘注 诇诪讗讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to his wages in full, from where did he give that to him? With what was he paid by the one from whom he purchased the merchandise? The Gemara responds: Rav Pappa said: This is referring to sellers of inexpensive garments, where the one from whom he purchases the merchandise gives four additional units for each one hundred units purchased, and that functions as payment for his efforts.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诪讛 转讛讗 讛住诇注 讞住讬专讛 讜诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讛 讗讜谞讗讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注 讗讬住专讜转 讗讬住专 诇讚讬谞专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讜转 驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 诇讚讬谞专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

MISHNA: How much can the sela coin be eroded through usage, and its use in a transaction at its original value will still not constitute exploitation? Rabbi Meir says: The accepted depreciation is four issar, which is a rate of one issar per dinar, or one twenty-fourth of a dinar. And Rabbi Yehuda says: The accepted depreciation is four pundeyon, which is a rate of one pundeyon per dinar, or one-twelfth of a dinar. And Rabbi Shimon says:

Scroll To Top