Bava Batra 94a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

legumes,

it is possible that there may be mixed in even

a quarter.

But

soil,

it is possible only

less than a quarter. And even something less than a quarter, provided that there is not a complete quarter. And the Mishna that says “even a quarter” necessarily speaks of legumes and not of soil. Whereas Rava, who speaks of soil, means when less than a quarter was mixed in.

And we still raise an objection:

And

if it is

soil, a quarter, does he not

accept it upon himself, the buyer?

But it was taught:

One who sells produce to another,

if they were

wheat, he accepts upon himself a quarter of legumes per se'a.

And if they were

barley, he accepts upon himself a quarter of windblown chaff

the straw blown by the blowing wind

per se'a.

And if they were

lentils, he accepts upon himself a quarter of soil

per se'a.

What, is it not the same law for wheat and barley,

that he accepts upon himself a quarter of soil? And the reason that it mentions it only with regard to lentils is that it is usual for soil to be found there, just as legumes are common in wheat, and windblown chaff in barley.

And this is difficult for Rav Ketina, who says that with wheat he does not accept upon himself a quarter of soil.

And we answer: No; rather, specifically with lentils he accepts upon himself a quarter of soil, because

lentils are uprooted, they are uprooted. For they uproot them with the root from the earth and do not harvest them, and therefore much soil is commonly found in them.

And we raise an objection:

Rather, the reason for lentils is that they are uprooted, they are uprooted;

if it is as you say, that soil is found specifically in lentils because they are uprooted,

but wheat and barley, not

soil is not commonly found in them. If so,

derive from it,

prove from the beraita a proof for what you answered above, that with

wheat and barley, he does not accept soil.

For with wheat and barley the buyer accepts upon himself a quarter of soil only if it is less than a quarter. For if this were not so, the tannai should have taught it with regard to wheat and barley, and all the more so with regard to lentils.

And we reject this: There is no proof from the beraita. Rather,

in truth, even with

wheat and barley he accepts

upon himself a quarter of

soil.

Nevertheless,

lentils was necessary for him

for the tannai to teach us,

for it might have entered your mind to say

that I might have thought that lentils,

since they are uprooted, they are uprooted,

if so, even

more than a quarter

of soil

also he should accept

upon himself, the buyer.

It teaches us this:

that even with lentils he accepts only a quarter and no more.

Rav Huna said: If he comes

the buyer

to sift

the grain of refuse, because it appears to him that there is much refuse in it, and he wants to ascertain whether there is more than a quarter-kav per se'a there,

he sifts all of it.

If he found more than a quarter there, the seller is obligated to pay him or to give him other produce in exchange for all the refuse,

and he cannot say to him that you already accepted the quarter, and I shall pay you only for the excess.

Some say: It is the law. There are those who say that this is so according to the fundamental law.

And some say: It is a penalty.

There are those who say that it is merely a penalty imposed upon the seller and not according to the fundamental law.

And the Gemara explains:

Some say that it is the law,

because they hold that

one who gives money gives it for fine produce.

The buyer of grain, in truth, does not waive his claim at all concerning the refuse mixed into it; rather, because of the trouble of sifting the small amount of refuse mixed into it, he waives his claim concerning it.

And

specifically

for a quarter a person does not trouble himself,

for a quarter-kav of refuse it is not worthwhile for him to trouble himself and sift, since the gain is outweighed by the trouble involved. But when it appears to him that there is

more than a quarter, a person troubles himself,

he troubles himself to sift it.

And since he troubles himself, he troubles himself with all of it.

Once he has begun to trouble himself with sifting the refuse, it is not difficult for him to finish sifting all the refuse. Consequently, he does not waive his claim even concerning the quarter-kav of refuse. Therefore the seller is obligated to pay him for all of it according to the fundamental law.

And once he undertakes the effort, he undertakes it for all of it.

And some say that it is a penalty,

since they hold that according to the fundamental law the buyer waives his claim even concerning more than a quarter of refuse, because he knows that it is the way of grain for refuse to be found in it. However, up to a quarter

per se'a,

it is common

that refuse will be found. But

more

than this

is not common.

And we suspect that

he is the one who mixed it,

that the seller himself mixed in all the refuse.

And since he mixed it, the Sages penalized him concerning all of it,

so that he must pay for all the refuse. [

And since he mixed it in, the Sages penalized him with regard to all of it,

Mnemonic: All two deeds of Ravin son of Rav Nahman: ona'a and contracting

The mnemonic for the beraitot from which the Gemara seeks to establish a proof in the dispute between the two expressions, whether it is the law or a penalty.]

He raises an objection:

We learned in tractate Kil'ayim [2a]:

Every se'a

of seeds

that has in it,

that has mixed into it,

a quarter

of a kav

of another species

of seeds,

he shall reduce

the other species until it is less than a quarter, and then he may sow them together.

This is the measure with regard to diverse kinds of seeds: if one species is less than one twenty-fourth of the other species, [like the ratio of a quarter-kav to a se'a,] it is nullified with regard to it, and it is permitted to sow them together.

They assumed, the members of the academy assumed,

that the quarter of diverse kinds

that prohibits the se'a is the measure from the Torah, because at that point it is significant and is not nullified,

like

the law of

more than a quarter here,

with regard to buying and selling, for more than a quarter of refuse per se'a is significant, and the buyer does not accept it upon himself.

more than a quarter-kav here,

And it teaches: “He shall reduce.”

It is sufficient that he reduce it below a quarter; we do not penalize him by requiring him to remove all of it. If so, this is difficult: Why, with regard to a sale, which is a more lenient law [for in monetary law a court may declare one person’s property ownerless for the benefit of another], do we penalize the seller, requiring him to pay him for all of it?

And the Gemara rejects this:

No.

Rather,

the quarter of diverse kinds

has the same law

as the quarter here,

that it is nullified.

And immediately the Gemara asks:

If so, why “he shall reduce”?

And it answers:

Because of the stringency of diverse kinds

the Sages said that he should reduce it below a quarter, and this is not according to the fundamental law. Therefore it is sufficient that he reduce it below the quarter, since according to the law he would not have needed to reduce it at all. But if there were more than a quarter there, which is prohibited according to the fundamental law, he would indeed have to remove all of it.

Because of the stringency of kilayim

the Sages said that he must reduce it below a quarter-kav, but this is not the fundamental law. Therefore, it is sufficient for him to reduce it below the quarter-kav, since according to the fundamental law he should not have had to reduce it at all. But if there were more than a quarter-kav, which is prohibited according to the fundamental law, he would indeed have to remove all of it.