Bava Batra 84a (פד.) — the Talmud in English

Because

he said to him

the buyer said to the seller: “Behold,

if you had not cheated me

[if you had not deceived me] initially,

you would not have been able to retract

[you would not have been able to retract] on account of the increase in the value of the item, since the sale would have been completed when the item was worth five.

And is it so that

now that you have cheated me, you are able to retract!?

Is it possible that as a result of your having transgressed and cheated me, you should acquire the right to retract from the sale, with the result that the sinner benefits!? Rav Ḥisda added to his statement

and

said:

The tanna teaches this as well,

as there is proof of my statement from the tanna of our Mishna:

As we learned: If he sold him wheat under the presumption that it was

superior, and it was found to be inferior—

the buyer may retract, but not the seller,

even if the wheat increased in value, and this is in accordance with Rav Ḥisda’s statement, as the buyer says to the seller: “You cannot nullify the sale because you cheated me initially.”

And

again

Rav Ḥisda said:

A person who

sold him

to the buyer an item

worth six for five,

with the result that the buyer cheated the seller by one-sixth of the item’s value.

And

even if afterward

the items became cheaper

in the marketplace

and stood at three,

with the result that the buyer suffered a loss in the sale of more than one-sixth, nevertheless the buyer cannot retract and nullify the sale.

As

who was cheated

initially was the

seller,

and not the buyer; therefore,

the seller may retract, but not the buyer,

even though the sale had not yet been finalized, since the seller had the option of nullifying the sale by claiming that he had been cheated, with the result that the buyer too was cheated “at the time of the sale.” Nevertheless, the buyer cannot retract.

Because

he said to him

the seller said to the buyer: “Behold,

if you had not cheated me

initially,

you would not have been able to retract,

on account of the item’s becoming cheaper after the time of the sale, since the sale was completed when the item was worth six,

and is it so that

now,

when you have cheated me,

you are able to retract,

with the result that the sinner benefits!?”

Rav Ḥisda added to his statement

and

said:

The tanna teaches this as well, as there is proof of my statement from the words of the tanna in our Mishna:

As we learned: If he sold him wheat under the presumption that it was

inferior,

and it was found to be superior—

the seller may retract, but not the buyer,

if the wheat became cheaper, and this is in accordance with Rav Ḥisda’s statement, as the seller says to the buyer: “You cannot nullify the sale because you cheated me initially.”

And we raise an objection:

What does this come to teach us,

what novelty did Rav Ḥisda teach!?

After all,

it is the Mishna,

which provides proof for Rav Ḥisda’s reasoning. What novelty did Rav Ḥisda teach!?

And we answer: Rav Ḥisda’s statement is not compelled by the words of the Mishna.

For

if you would derive it from the Mishna,

if you wished to prove his statement from the Mishna,

one could reject this and say: In

Rav Ḥisda’s case, both of them may retract,

both the seller and the buyer.

When he sold him an item worth five for six, and it increased in value and stood at eight, the buyer may retract, since he was cheated initially, and the seller may retract, since he too was ultimately cheated.

Similarly, when he sold him an item worth six for five, and it became cheaper and stood at three, the seller may retract, since he was cheated initially, and the buyer may retract, since he too was ultimately cheated.

And we do not say: The sinner does not benefit, and therefore the first party who overcharged may not retract when he too was cheated.

But the Mishna

in which we learned: The one who was cheated may retract, but not the one who overcharged,

is referring to a case in which there was no monetary overcharge, but the buyer or the seller now claims: “I do not want these.”

Accordingly, if he sold superior wheat and it was found to be inferior, the buyer may retract, but not the seller.

The buyer may retract and say to the seller: “I requested superior wheat, and you gave me inferior wheat; mine is a mistaken transaction.”

But the seller cannot retract and say to the buyer: “Behold, ours was a mistaken transaction, since you requested superior wheat and I gave you inferior wheat.”

And

this is the reason:

because the buyer says to him: “Our sale was not a mistaken transaction, since I too bought this wheat under the presumption that it was inferior,”

because ‘Bad, bad, says the buyer’

[Proverbs 20:14]. That is, it is the nature of a buyer to regard every merchandise that he purchases as bad merchandise. And similarly, if he sold inferior wheat and it was found to be superior, the seller may retract, but not the buyer.

The seller may retract and say to the buyer: “I said I would give you inferior wheat, and you received superior wheat; ours was a mistaken transaction.”

But the buyer cannot retract and say to the seller: “Behold, ours was a mistaken transaction, since you said you would give me inferior wheat and I received superior wheat.”

And this is the reason: The seller says to him: “Our sale was not a mistaken transaction, since you took this wheat under the presumption that it was inferior, in keeping with the practice of every buyer who says ‘Bad, bad’ about the merchandise he receives; and I too acknowledge to you that this wheat is inferior.”

We learned in the Mishna: “

Dark-colored, and it was found to be white,” and so on. There are two types of wheat: red wheat and white wheat.

Rav Pappa said:

“The ‘dark-colored’ wheat that we learned in the Mishna is wheat named after the sun, and

since it teaches: “dark-colored, and it was found

white,”

it follows that ‘dark-colored’ wheat is red wheat. If so,

conclude from it: This sun is red”

[the color of the sun is red].

learn from this: This sun is red

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

Rav Pappa added and said: Know; I will bring you proof of my statement:

For it reddens

the sun

in the morning and evening

[in the morning and toward evening the sun appears red]. Conclude 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

our light

[our eyesight]

is not clear

[our vision is not sufficiently 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.

Meytivi

The Gemara raises an objection from a beraita to Rav Pappa’s statement:

It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 13:2–3]: “When a person has on the skin of his flesh a swelling, 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 koen or to one of his sons, the priests. The koen shall look at the plague on the skin of the flesh, and if 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; when the koen sees it, he shall declare him impure.”

The se’et, sapahat, or baheret mentioned by the verse are appearances of white. One appearance is especially white, and another is not quite as white. And so we learned in Tractate Nega’im [chapter 1, Mishna 1]: “Baheret—bright as snow; the second after it—as the lime of the Sanctuary; and se’et—as the membrane of an egg,” and so on.

And so we learned in a beraita: “

And its appearance”

“deeper than the skin”—

the appearance of the plague

is deeper and lower than the skin; the substance of the plague is not actually deeper than the skin, but like the appearance of the sun, which is deeper than the shade,

like an area upon which the sun shines, which appears to the eye as though it is deeper than the surrounding shaded area.

And

behold,

there,

in the context of plagues,

it is white!?

And if the white plague is like the appearance of the sun, it follows that the sun is white, and this is difficult for Rav Pappa!?

And we answer: Indeed, the appearance of the plague

is

like the appearance of the sun,

but it is

not entirely like the appearance of the sun.

It is

like the appearance of the sun

in that

it is deeper

than

the shade,

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

But it is not entirely like the appearance of the sun,

because

there

[the appearance of the plague] it is

white, whereas here

[the appearance of the sun] it is

red

.

And

we ask:

According to what we initially assumed,

to prove from the beraita that the sun is white,

you should find this difficult:

It reddens

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 vision is not sufficiently clear.

But according to what we initially assumed, that the sun is white, why does the sun appear red in the morning and toward evening!?

And we answer: We initially assumed that although the sun is white, it nevertheless appears red

in the morning,

because

it passes over the rosebeds of the Garden of Eden,

and in the evening

it appears red because

it passes by the entrance to Gehenna.

In the morning, the sun rises in the east and becomes red, because it passes over the House of Roses

of Gan 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 to Gehinnom and becomes red from the force of the fire of Gehinnom.

And some say: The reverse.

In the morning, the sun becomes red because it stands in the east and shines opposite itself in the west, and it is reddened by the force of Gehinnom in the west, as the column of sunlight strikes opposite Gehinnom and reddens the sun by its force.

And toward evening, the sun becomes red because it stands in the west, while a column of sunlight proceeds toward the east and strikes Gan Eden, reddening the sun through the redness of the roses of Gan Eden. This is what we might initially have thought. This was when we raised an objection from the Mishna of Nega’im, which says that the sun is white. But Rav Pappa inferred from our Mishna that the sun is red, as it appears in the morning and toward evening.

We learned in the Mishna: If he sold him

wine and it was found to be vinegar,

vinegar and it was found to be wine—

both of them may retract.

The Mishna indicates 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 would be like fine wheat that was found to be poor-quality wheat, or poor-quality wheat that was found to be fine wheat, concerning which we learned: The one who was cheated may retract, but not the one who cheated. Whereas with regard to wine and vinegar we learned: Both of them may retract.

And the Gemara discusses this:

Shall we say that the Mishna,

which considers wine and vinegar two separate species, is stated according to the opinion of

Rabbi,

and

not

according to the opinion of

the Rabbis?

One may not separate terumot and tithes from one species for another species; and even if one did separate them, his teruma is not teruma, and his tithes are not tithes.