Bava Batra 94

Bava Batra 94

נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי חִטִּין!

must give him the value of wheat of equal volume to the pebble that he removed. Had he not removed the pebble, the owner would have sold his wheat together with the pebble, all for the price of wheat. Accordingly, the removal of the pebble effectively caused the owner a small loss. It is apparent from this ruling that when selling produce, a buyer accepts upon himself that a quantity of dirt may be mixed in.

קִטְנִית – רוֹבַע, עַפְרוּרִית – פָּחוֹת מֵרוֹבַע.

The Gemara answers: With regard to legumes, one accepts a quarter-kav per se’a, but with regard to dirt, he accepts less than a quarter-kav.

וְעַפְרוּרִית – רוֹבַע לָא?! וְהָא תַּנְיָא: הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ, חִטִּין – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו רוֹבַע קִטְנִית לִסְאָה. שְׂעוֹרִים – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו רוֹבַע נִישּׁוֹבֶת לִסְאָה. עֲדָשִׁים – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו רוֹבַע עַפְרוּרִית לִסְאָה.

And is it so that he does not accept a quarter–kav of dirt? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who sells produce to another, if he sells him wheat, the buyer accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of legumes may be present in each se’a of wheat purchased. When purchasing barley, he accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of chaff may be present in each se’a purchased. When purchasing lentils, he accepts upon himself that a quarter-kav of dirt may be present in each se’a purchased.

מַאי, לָאו הוּא הַדִּין לְחִטִּים וְלִשְׂעוֹרִין? שָׁאנֵי עֲדָשִׁים, דְּמִיעְקָר עָקְרִי לְהוּ.

The Gemara asks: What, is it not that just as the baraita rules with regard to lentils, the same is true for wheat and for barley? The Gemara answers: No, lentils are different, because they are dug up from the ground and dirt can easily get mixed in. Lentils often contain a higher percentage of dirt than do wheat and barley, which are harvested rather than dug up.

אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דַעֲדָשִׁים דְּמִיעְקָר עָקְרִי לְהוּ, אֲבָל חִטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי – לָא; תִּפְשׁוֹט מִינַּהּ, חִטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי דְּעַפְרוּרִית לָא מְקַבֵּל!

The Gemara suggests: But according to this, the only reason that a buyer accepts that dirt may be present in lentils but not in wheat and barley is that lentils are dug up from the ground, whereas wheat and barley are not. If so, resolve the dilemma from this baraita and conclude that when purchasing wheat and barley, a buyer does not accept that a quarter-kav of dirt may be present in each se’a.

לְעוֹלָם חִטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי מְקַבֵּל עַפְרוּרִית; עֲדָשִׁים אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ – דְּסָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: כֵּיוָן דְּמִיעְקָר עָקְרִי לְהוּ, יוֹתֵר מֵרוֹבַע נָמֵי לְקַבֵּל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara rejects this: Actually, perhaps when purchasing wheat and barley as well, a buyer accepts that a quarter-kav of dirt may be present in each se’a, but it was necessary for the baraita to state the halakha specifically with regard to lentils. This is because it might enter your mind to say that since lentils are dug up from the ground, the buyer would also accept even more than a quarter-kav of dirt. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אִם בָּא לְנַפּוֹת, מְנַפֶּה אֶת כּוּלּוֹ. אָמְרִי לַהּ דִּינָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ קִנְסָא.

§ Rav Huna says: If the buyer comes to sift the produce to check if there is more than the acceptable proportion of impurities and he finds that there is too much, he sifts all of it and returns all the impurities to the seller, not just the amount in excess of a quarter-kav per se’a. The seller must instead provide produce that is free of any impurities. Some say that this is the strict halakha, and some say that it is a penalty.

אָמְרִי לַהּ דִּינָא – מַאן דְּיָהֵיב זוּזֵי, אַפֵּירֵי שַׁפִּירֵי יָהֵיב; וְרוֹבַע לָא טָרַח אִינִישׁ, יוֹתֵר מֵרוֹבַע טָרַח אִינִישׁ; וְכֵיוָן דְּטָרַח – טָרַח בְּכוּלֵּיהּ.

The Gemara elaborates: Some say that this is the strict halakha, as one who gives money for produce gives it for good-quality produce containing no impurities at all. Even so, where there is just a quarter–kav of impurities per se’a, a person will not take the trouble to sift the grain to remove the impurities; instead, he accepts the small quantity of impurities that are present. By contrast, where there is more than a quarter-kav of impurities per se’a, a person will take the trouble to sift the grain to remove the impurities, and once he takes the trouble to sift the grain, he does not stop once he reduces the proportion of impurities to a quarter-kav per se’a; rather, he takes the trouble to sift all of it. Accordingly, once he has sifted out the impurities, he never agrees to accept any quantity of impurities, and so the seller must take back all the impurities.

וְאָמְרִי לַהּ קִנְסָא – רוֹבַע שְׁכִיחַ, יוֹתֵר לָא שְׁכִיחַ; וְאִיהוּ הוּא דְּעָרֵיב; וְכֵיוָן דְּעָרֵיב – קַנְסוּהוּ רַבָּנַן בְּכוּלֵּיהּ.

And some say it is a penalty. They understand that it is usual for a quarter-kav of impurities to be present in each se’a of produce, and so it is presumed that a buyer accepts that quantity. More than a quarter-kav is unusual, and consequently the seller is suspected of having deceitfully mixed additional impurities into the produce that he sold. And since the seller deceitfully mixed in impurities, the Sages penalized him by requiring him to pay for all of the impurities present, even those which he did not add.

(סִימָן: כֹּל תְּרֵי שְׁטָרֵי דְּרָאבִין בַּר רַב נַחְמָן, אוֹנָאָה וְקַבְּלָנוּתָא.)

The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the cases it will cite: All two documents of Ravin bar Rav Naḥman are exploitation and a contract.

מֵיתִיבִי: כׇּל סְאָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ רוֹבַע מִמִּין אַחֵר – יְמַעֵט. סַבְרוּהָ דְּרוֹבַע דְּכִלְאַיִם – כְּיוֹתֵר מֵרוֹבַע דְּהָכָא, וְקָא תָנֵי: יְמַעֵט!

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna’s ruling from a mishna (Kilayim 2:1): With regard to any se’a of seeds that contains a quarter–kav or more of seeds of a different kind, before sowing such seeds one must reduce the quantity of the other kind of seeds in the mixture so as not to violate the prohibition against growing a mixture of diverse kinds (see Leviticus 19:19). The Gemara explains: It can be assumed that the presence of a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se’a with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds is as problematic as more than a quarter-kav of impurities per se’a with regard to a sale, as discussed here, and therefore, since the mishna teaches with regard to diverse kinds only that one must reduce the additional amount, but not that one is required to remove all the seeds of a different kind, it follows that the same is true in the case of a sale, and the seller should not have to take back all of the impurities. This contradicts Rav Huna’s ruling.

לֹא, רוֹבַע דְּכִלְאַיִם – כִּי רוֹבַע דְּהָכָא דָּמֵי.

The Gemara deflects the challenge: No, this assumption is not necessarily correct; perhaps the presence of a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se’a with regard to diverse kinds is comparable to a quarter-kav of impurities per se’a with regard to a sale, as discussed here, and both are considered acceptable levels of admixture.

אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי יְמַעֵט? מִשּׁוּם חוּמְרָא דְכִלְאַיִם.

The Gemara asks: If it is so that a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se’a is acceptable, why does the mishna teach that one must reduce the quantity of seeds of a different kind? The Gemara answers: The requirement is a rabbinic decree due to the severity of the prohibition of diverse kinds.

אִי הָכִי,

The Gemara challenges this answer: If so,

אֵימָא סֵיפָא – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יָבוֹר.

say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: It is insufficient to merely reduce the quantity of seeds of a different kind; rather, one must pick out all the seeds of a different kind.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא כְּיוֹתֵר מֵרוֹבַע טִנּוֹפֶת דָּמֵי, בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: לָא קָנְסִינַן הֶתֵּירָא אַטּוּ אִיסּוּרָא, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: קָנְסִינַן. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ כְּרוֹבַע דָּמֵי, אַמַּאי יָבוֹר?

The Gemara explains the difficulty: Granted, if you say that a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se’a with regard to diverse kinds is comparable to more than a quarter-kav of impurities per se’a with regard to a sale, then it is about this that they disagree: The first tanna holds that we do not penalize one by requiring him to remove that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited, and consequently it is sufficient to merely reduce the quantity of seeds of a different kind to an acceptable level, whereas Rabbi Yosei holds that we do penalize one by requiring him to remove that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited. But if you say that a quarter-kav of seeds of a different kind per se’a with regard to diverse kinds is comparable to a quarter-kav of impurities per se’a with regard to a sale, then why does Rabbi Yosei rule that one must pick out all the seeds of a different kind?

הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיחֲזֵי כִּי מְקַיֵּים כִּלְאַיִם.

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to diverse kinds, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei: One must pick out all the seeds, because once he is purifying the admixture of seeds, if he deliberately leaves a quantity of seeds of a different kind mixed in, it appears as though he is intentionally planting and maintaining diverse kinds in his field.

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֵצֶל אֶחָד, זֶה מָנֶה וְזֶה מָאתַיִם; זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״מָאתַיִם שֶׁלִּי״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״מָאתַיִם שֶׁלִּי״ – נוֹתֵן לָזֶה מָנֶה וְלָזֶה מָנֶה, וְהַשְּׁאָר יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another challenge to Rav Huna’s ruling from a mishna (Bava Metzia 37a): In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, and this one deposited one hundred dinars and that one deposited two hundred dinars, and when they return to collect their deposits, this one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, and that one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, the bailee gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one, and the rest of the money, i.e., the contested one hundred dinars, will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes and prophetically determines the truth. In this case, one of the parties is certainly lying, but nevertheless, the Sages did not penalize the parties by placing all of the money in a safe place. Similarly, in the case of a sale, where a seller deceitfully mixed additional impurities into the produce he sold, he should not be penalized and required to take back all of the impurities.

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, וַדַּאי מָנֶה לְמָר וּמָנֶה לְמָר; הָכָא, מִי יֵימַר דְּלָאו כּוּלֵּיהּ עָרוֹבֵי עָרֵיב?

The Gemara rejects this challenge: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the deposits, it is certain that at least one hundred dinars belongs to this Master and one hundred dinars belongs to that Master. Here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in, who can say that the seller did not mix in the entire amount intentionally? Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא – אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אִם כֵּן, מָה הִפְסִיד הָרַמַּאי? אֶלָּא הַכֹּל יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a support for Rav Huna’s ruling from the latter clause of that mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: If so, what did the swindler lose? He lost nothing by claiming the one hundred dinars that belongs to another, and he has no incentive to admit the truth. Rather, the entire deposit will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. Since through his lie the swindler risks losing even the one hundred dinars that he deposited, perhaps that will induce him to admit his deceit. According to Rabbi Yosei, the Sages did penalize one who acts deceitfully, which accords with Rav Huna’s ruling.

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם וַדַּאי אִיכָּא רַמַּאי, הָכָא מִי יֵימַר דְּעָרוֹבֵי עָרֵיב.

The Gemara rejects the proof: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the deposits, there is certainly a swindler, and it is reasonable to penalize both parties in order to induce the swindler to admit his deceit. Here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable level of impurities mixed in with the produce, who can say that the seller intentionally mixed in anything? Perhaps the impurities were inadvertently mixed in during the processing. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רִבִּית – קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה לֹא אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הָרִבִּית; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another support for Rav Huna’s ruling from a baraita: In the case of a promissory note in which the details of a loan with interest were written, the court penalizes the creditor, and he may collect neither the principal nor the interest; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages did penalize one who acts improperly, which accords with Rav Huna’s ruling.

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה הוּא דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ שׂוּמָא, הָכָא מִי יֵימַר דְּעָרוֹבֵי עָרֵיב.

The Gemara rejects the proof: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of a loan with interest, it is already at the time of the writing of the bill that the lender performed the transgression of placing interest upon the borrower. Since he certainly committed a transgression, it is reasonable that the Sages penalized him. But here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in with the produce, who can say that the seller intentionally mixed in anything? Perhaps the impurities were inadvertently mixed in during the processing. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the baraita.

תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא – וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן, וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶת הָרִבִּית!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a challenge to Rav Huna’s ruling from the latter clause of the baraita: But the Rabbis say: He may collect the principal but may not collect the interest. According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages did not penalize one who acts improperly, contrary to Rav Huna’s ruling.

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם וַדַּאי קַרְנָא דְּהֶתֵּירָא הוּא, הָכָא מִי יֵימַר דְּכוּלֵּיהּ לָא עָרוֹבֵי עָרֵיב.

The Gemara rejects this challenge: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of a loan with interest, according to strict halakha it is certainly permitted to collect the principal, so the Sages did not penalize him with regard to it. But here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in, who can say that the seller did not mix in the entire amount intentionally? Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רָבִין בַּר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא אֶת הַמּוֹתָר בִּלְבַד הוּא מַחֲזִיר, אֶלָּא מַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֶת כָּל הָרְבָעִין כּוּלָּן. אַלְמָא הֵיכָא דְּבָעֵי אַהְדּוֹרֵי – כּוּלַּהּ מַהְדַּר!

Come and hear further support for Rav Huna’s ruling from that which Ravin bar Rav Naḥman teaches (104b). Ravin bar Rav Naḥman’s statement is with regard to a situation when land that was sold is later found to be larger than stated at the time of the sale. If the deviation is not more than an area required to sow a quarter-kav of seed per beit se’a of land, then the buyer need not return any land to the seller. If the proportion of extra land is larger than this, not only must the buyer return the extra land that is beyond the limit of a quarter-kav area per beit se’a, but he must also return to him every one of the extra quarter-kav areas of land that he received beyond the stated area of a beit kor. The Gemara infers: Apparently, when one is required to return part of a sale because of a discrepancy that is beyond the acceptable limit of deviation, then one is required to return the entire discrepancy and not just the amount that is beyond the acceptable limit. This supports Rav Huna’s ruling.

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?!

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared?