Bava Batra 84a — the Talmud in English

because ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location on the folio")

for he said to him

the buyer said to the seller: Behold,

if you had not wronged me

[if you had not wronged me] at the outset,

you would not have been able to retract

[you would not have been able to retract] because of the rise in the value of the object, since the sale would have been concluded when the object was worth five.

And is it so that

now that you wronged me, you are able to retract!?

Is it possible that, on account of your having transgressed and wronged me, you should acquire the right to retract from the sale, and it will turn out that the sinner benefits!? Rav Hisda added to his words

and

said:

Our tanna tuna,

there is proof for my words from the tanna of our Mishna:

For we learned: If he sold him wheat on the presumption that it was

good, and it was found to be bad—

the buyer can retract, but not the seller,

even if the wheat increased in price, and this is in accordance with the words of Rav Hisda, for the buyer says to the seller: You cannot cancel the sale on account of your having wronged me at the outset.

And

further

Rav Hisda said:

A person who

sold him

to the buyer an object

worth six for five,

it is found that the buyer wronged the seller by a sixth of the value of the object.

And

even if afterward

the objects became cheaper

in the market

and stood at three,

and it is found that the buyer lost in the sale by more than a sixth, nevertheless the buyer cannot retract and cancel the sale.

For

who was wronged

at the outset was the

seller,

and not the buyer; therefore: the

seller can retract, but not the buyer,

even though the sale has still not been completed, since the seller had the possibility of canceling the sale on the claim of wronging, and it follows that the buyer too was wronged at the “time of the sale”; nevertheless, the buyer cannot retract.

Because

he says to him

the seller said to the buyer: Behold,

if you had not wronged me

at the outset,

you would not have been able to retract,

because the object became cheaper after the time of the sale, since the sale was completed when the object was worth six,

and is it so that

now,

when you wronged me,

you are able to retract,

and it will turn out that the sinner benefits!?

Rav Hisda added to his words

and

said:

Our tanna tuna,

there is proof for my words from the words of the tanna in our Mishna:

For we learned: If he sold him wheat on the presumption that it was

bad, and it was found to be good—

the seller can retract, but not the buyer,

if the wheat became cheaper, and this is in accordance with the words of Rav Hisda, for the seller says to the buyer: You cannot cancel the sale on account of your having wronged me at the outset.

And we raised an objection:

What does he teach us

what did Rav Hisda innovate!?

Behold,

it is our Mishna,

there is proof for Rav Hisda’s reasoning from the Mishna, so what did Rav Hisda innovate!?

And we answered: The words of Rav Hisda are not compelled by the words of the Mishna.

For

if from the Mishna,

if you wish to prove his words from the Mishna,

one can reject and say: In the case

of Rav Hisda, both of them can retract,

both the seller and the buyer.

When he sold him an object worth five for six, and it increased in price and stood at eight, the buyer can retract, since he was wronged at the outset, and the seller can retract, since he too was ultimately wronged.

And likewise, when he sold him an object worth six for five, and they became cheaper and stood at three, the seller can retract, since he was wronged at the outset, and the buyer can retract, since he too was ultimately wronged.

And we do not say: The sinner does not benefit, and the first one who wronged cannot retract when he too was wronged.

And our Mishna,

in which we learned: The one who was wronged can retract, but not the one who wronged,

deals with a case in which there was no wronging in the price, but the buyer or the seller now claims: I do not want these.

Accordingly, if he sold good wheat and it was found to be bad, the buyer can retract, but not the seller.

The buyer can retract and say to the seller: I requested good wheat, and you gave me bad wheat, and my sale is a mistaken sale.

But the seller cannot retract and say to the buyer: Behold, we made a mistaken sale, for you requested good wheat and I gave you bad wheat.

And

this is the reason,

because the buyer says to him: Our sale was not a mistaken sale, for I too took this wheat on the presumption that it was bad,

because “Bad, bad, the buyer will say”

Proverbs 20:14], that is, it is the nature of a buyer to regard every merchandise that he takes as bad merchandise. And likewise, if he sold bad wheat and it was found to be good, the seller can retract, but not the buyer.

The seller can retract and say to the buyer: I said I would give you bad wheat, and you received good wheat, and my sale is a mistaken sale.

But the buyer cannot retract and say to the seller: Behold, we made a mistaken sale, for you said you would give me bad wheat and I received good wheat.

And this is the reason, because the seller says to him: Our sale was not a mistaken sale, since you took this wheat on the presumption that it was bad, as is the way of every buyer to say “bad, bad” about the merchandise that he receives, and I too agree with you that this wheat is bad.

We learned in the Mishna:

that it was sun-colored and was found to be white, and so on.

There are two kinds of wheat: red wheat and white wheat.

Rav Pappa said:

“Sun-colored,” which we learned in the Mishna, is wheat named after the sun, and

since it teaches: “sun-colored and was found to be”

white,

white,

it implies that “sun-colored” means red wheat; therefore,

learn from it: this sun is red

[the color of the sun is red].

For if the sun were white, the tanna would call white wheat “sun-colored,” and would teach: “sun-colored and was found to be red”; and from the fact that we learned: “sun-colored and was found to be white,” we learn that the sun is red.

Rav Pappa added and said:

Know

I will bring you proof for my words:

for it becomes red

the sun

in the morning and evening

[in the morning and toward evening the sun appears red]; learn from it: the sun is red.

And the fact that we do not see it so throughout the entire day

[that during the entire day the sun does not appear red] is only because

the lights are not clear

[the light of our eyes is not so clear] because of the daylight that strikes and dims our eyes; but in the morning and evening, when the day is somewhat dark, the redness of the sun is discernible.

He objected

from a beraita to the words of Rav Pappa:

It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 13:2–3]: “When a person has on the skin of his flesh a swelling, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it becomes on the skin of his flesh a plague of leprosy, he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests. And the priest shall see the plague on the skin of the flesh, and the hair in the plague has turned white, and the appearance of the plague is deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy; and the priest shall see him and declare him impure.”

The swelling, or the scab, or the bright spot that Scripture mentioned are white appearances; one appearance is exceedingly white, and one is not so white. And thus we learned in the Mishna of Nega’im [chapter 1, mishna 1]: A bright spot—strong as snow; the one second to it—as the plaster of the Temple; and the swelling—as the membrane of an egg, and so on.

And thus we learned in a beraita:

“And its appearance

deeper than the skin”—

the appearance of the plague is deep and lower than the skin, but the substance of the plague is not actually deeper than the skin,

like the appearance of the sun, which is deeper than the shade,

like the appearance of a place upon which the sun shines, which appears to the eye as though it is deeper than the place of the shade surrounding it.

And

behold,

there,

in the matter of plagues,

it is white!?

And if the white plague is like the appearance of the sun, it implies that the sun is white, and not red, and this is a difficulty against Rav Pappa!?

And we answered: Indeed, the appearance of the plague

is like the appearance of the sun

itself,

but it is not like the appearance of the sun

entirely.

Like the appearance of the sun

it is in this respect:

that it is deeper

than

the shade,

and likewise the appearance of the plague appears deeper than the skin.

But it is not like the appearance of the sun

entirely,

for if there,

[the appearance of the plague]

it is white, whereas here,

[the appearance of the sun]

it is red

.

And

we raised a difficulty:

according to what entered our mind initially,

to prove from the beraita that the sun is white,

this should be a difficulty for you:

it becomes red

the sun

in the morning and evening!?

Granted, according to Rav Pappa, one can say: The sun is red, as we see in the morning and toward evening, and during the day our sight is not so clear.

But according to what entered our mind, that the sun is white, why does the sun appear red in the morning and toward evening!?

And we answered: It entered our mind to say: Indeed, the sun is white, but nevertheless it appears red

in the morning,

because

it passes over the roses of the Garden of Eden,

and in the evening

it appears red, because

it passes by the entrance of Gehenna.

In the morning the sun rises in the east and reddens, since it passes over the rose-house of the Garden of Eden, which is in the east of the world, as it is written [Genesis 2:8]: “And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden from the east ”

of the Garden of Eden, which is in the east of the world, as it is written [Genesis 2:8]: “And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east”

And toward evening the sun sets in the west, and it passes over the entrance of Gehinnom, and reddens by virtue of the fire of Gehinnom.

And there are those who say: The reverse.

In the morning the sun reddens, since it stands in the east, and shines opposite it in the west, and reddens by virtue of the Gehinnom that is in the west, for the pillar of the sun’s light strikes opposite Gehinnom and reddens the sun by its force.

And toward evening the sun reddens, since it stands in the west, and a pillar of the sun’s light goes toward the east and strikes the Garden of Eden, and reddens the sun by virtue of the redness of the roses of the Garden of Eden. Thus it would have arisen in our minds when we raised an objection from the Mishna of Negaim, that the sun is white; but Rav Pappa deduced from our Mishna that the sun is red, as it appears in the morning and toward evening.

We learned in the Mishna: He sold him

wine and it was found to be vinegar,

vinegar and it was found to be wine—

both of them can retract.

It follows from the Mishna that wine and vinegar are considered two separate species, for if you say that they are one species, except that wine is superior to vinegar, then they are like fine wheat that was found to be inferior, and inferior wheat that was found to be fine, concerning which we learned: the one who was deceived can retract, but not the one who deceived; whereas concerning wine and vinegar we learned: both of them can retract.

And the Gemara discusses:

Shall we say that our Mishna,

which considers wine and vinegar two separate species, is taught according to the view of

Rabbi,

and

not

according to the view of

the Rabbis?

One does not separate terumot and maaserot from one species for that which is not its species; and even if one separated them, its teruma is not teruma, and its maaserot are not maaserot.