Bava Batra 94a (צד.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Legumes,

it is possible that they are mixed in even in the amount of

a quarter-kav.

But

earth,

is possible only in an amount of

less than a quarter-kav. Even with an amount slightly less than a quarter-kav, this is permitted, provided that there is not a full quarter-kav. And the Mishna, which says “even a quarter-kav,” necessarily speaks of legumes and not of earth. Whereas Rabba, who speaks of earth, refers to a case where less than a quarter-kav was mixed in.

And we still ask:

And

since

earth, a quarter-kav, is not

accepted by the buyer?

But was it not taught in a beraita: One who sells produce to another,

if it was

wheat, the buyer accepts a quarter-kav of legumes per se’a.

And if it was

barley, he accepts a quarter-kav of nishuvot [

straw blown about by the prevailing wind]

per se’a.

And if it was

lentils, he accepts a quarter-kav of earth

per se’a.

What, is this not also the law with regard to wheat and barley,

that he accepts a quarter-kav of earth? And the reason it mentions this only with regard to lentils is that earth is ordinarily found there, just as legumes are commonly found in wheat and nishuvot in barley.

This is difficult for Rav Ketina, who says that with wheat the buyer does not accept a quarter-kav of earth.

And we answer: No. Rather, it is specifically with regard to lentils that he accepts a quarter-kav of earth, because

lentils are uprooted.

They are pulled from the ground together with their roots rather than being cut, and therefore a great deal of earth is commonly found among them.

And we challenge this:

Rather, the reason with regard to lentils is that they are uprooted;

if, as you say, earth is commonly found only among lentils because they are uprooted,

but with wheat and barley, it is not

commonly found among them. If so,

derive from it,

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

wheat and barley, the buyer does not accept earth.

For with wheat and barley the buyer accepts only less than a quarter-kav of earth. For if this were not so, the tanna should have taught us this 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 fact,

even with

wheat and barley he accepts

a quarter-kav of

earth.

Nevertheless,

lentils had to be mentioned

by the tanna,

for it might have entered your mind to say

that lentils,

since they are uprooted,

might therefore be accepted even when there is

more than a quarter-kav

of earth,

as well

by the buyer.

It teaches us

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

Rav Huna said: If he came

the buyer

to sift

the grain of its refuse, because it appeared to him that it contained a great deal of refuse and he wished to ascertain whether there was more than a quarter-kav per se’a,

he sifts it all.

If he found more than a quarter-kav there, the seller must pay him or provide him with other produce corresponding to all the refuse, and he cannot say to him that you have already accepted the quarter-kav, and I will pay you only for the excess.

Some say: It is the fundamental law.

There are those who say that this is the law in its essence.

And some say: It is a penalty.

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

And the Gemara explains:

Some say that it is the fundamental law,

because they hold that

one who gives money gives it for fine produce.

One who buys grain does not truly waive his claim at all with regard to the refuse mixed into it; rather, because of the effort required to sift the small amount of refuse mixed into the grain, he waives his claim with regard to it.

And

specifically,

for a quarter-kav a person does not trouble himself;

for a quarter-kav of refuse it is not worthwhile for him to undertake the effort of sifting, since the benefit would be outweighed by the effort involved. But when it appears to him that there is

more than a quarter-kav, a person does trouble himself;

he undertakes to sift it.

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

Once he has begun to trouble himself to sift out the refuse, it is not difficult for him to complete the sifting of all the refuse. Consequently, he does not waive his claim even with regard to the quarter-kav of refuse. Therefore, the seller is fundamentally required to pay him for all of it.

And some say it is a penalty,

because they hold that according to the fundamental law the buyer waives his claim even with regard to more than a quarter-kav of refuse, since he knows that it is customary for grain to contain refuse. However, up to

a quarter-kav

per se’a, it is

common

to find refuse. But

more

than this

is not common.

And we suspect that

he himself mixed it in,

that the seller himself mixed in all the refuse.

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

so that he must pay for all the refuse. [

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.]

Mnemonic: All two documents of Ravin bar Rav Naḥman—ona’a and contract work

the mnemonic devices for the beraitot from which the Gemara seeks to prove one side in the dispute between the two formulations, whether it is the fundamental law or a penalty].

The objection is raised:

We learned in tractate Kilayim [2a]:

Every se’a

of seed

that contains

that is mixed with it

a quarter-kav

of

another species

of seed,

he must reduce it

the other species until it is less than a quarter-kav, and then he may sow them together. This is the measure with regard to kilayim of seeds: if one species is less than one twenty-fourth of the other species [corresponding to 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-kav of kilayim

which renders the se’a prohibited is the measure established by Torah law, because at that point it is significant and is not nullified,

like

the law of

more than a quarter-kav here,

with regard to buying and selling, where more than a quarter-kav of refuse per se’a is significant and the buyer does not accept it.

And yet it teaches: “He must reduce it.”

It is sufficient for him to reduce it to less than a quarter-kav; 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 less stringent law [as monetary law permits the court to expropriate one person’s property for the benefit of another], do we penalize the seller by requiring him to pay for all of it?

And the Gemara rejects this:

No.

Rather,

the quarter-kav of kilayim

has the same law

as the quarter-kav here,

which is nullified.

And the Gemara immediately asks:

If so, why must he reduce it?

And it answers:

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.