Bava Batra 95a — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

How can these matters be compared!? ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

There,

since at first he said to him, “I am selling you a beit kor,” which implies precisely—not less and not more—and only afterward

“whether deficient or in excess”

he said to him,

therefore what he said initially, “a beit kor,” was also effective, for he relinquishes only a quarter, because

“but a quarter is not considered significant.”

But

more than a quarter,

which is

considered significant,

he does not relinquish at all.

For since it is fit to join together into nine kav,

for it is suitable that, if many quarters join together, they will reach the area for sowing nine kav, which is a significant measure. Therefore

it becomes

also now

significant land in itself,

significant land in its own right,

and it returns.

And the buyer is obligated to return all the excess beyond a beit kor.

But with regard to a quarter of waste, where it is not necessary for the seller to specify it, but even ordinarily it is a relinquishment with regard to a quarter of waste, because it is common for there to be a quarter of waste, therefore even when more than a quarter is found, the seller returns only what is more than a quarter, because the buyer relinquishes the quarter.

Ta shma

from that which was taught in a beraita in tractate Bava Metzia [50b]:

The overcharge

in a sale and purchase has the following law:

a. If the overcharge in the price was

less than a sixth

[one-sixth],

the sale is acquired

completely, and the overcharge is not returned, because it is the way of people to relinquish it.

b. If it was

more than a sixth, the

sale

is annulled.

c. If it was

a sixth, he acquires it,

the sale remains in force,

and he returns

the one who overcharged

the overcharge.

And the Gemara infers:

Why

when it is a sixth does he return the entire overcharge?

Let him return,

let him return only

until

there remains

less than a sixth,

for people relinquish less than a sixth, and it turns out that the overcharge is only that bit which completes it to a sixth, and he should return only that bit.

Rather,

infer from this: wherever he needs to return,

in every place where he must return,

he returns all of it.

He returns everything.

And this is proof for Rav Huna, that the seller returns all the waste if it was more than a quarter.

And we reject this:

How can these matters be compared!? There, from the outset he said to him “equally.”

The seller spoke with the buyer that he was selling him the object at its true value, and only on this understanding did the buyer agree. Therefore, by strict law, the seller should return even less than a sixth.

However, less than a sixth is not recognizable in the vessel,

since the overcharge is not perceptible at less than a sixth, and it appears as though this is its true value,

and

therefore

a person relinquishes.

But

a sixth is recognizable;

the overcharge is perceptible,

and a person does not relinquish

at all, not even the less-than-a-sixth portion, and therefore he must return everything to him. And likewise with

more than a sixth, it is a mistaken sale, and the

sale

is annulled.

This is not so with a mixture of waste in produce: since it is common for there to be a quarter of waste per se'a, it is possible to say that the buyer always relinquishes the quarter, even if more is found there. Only what is more than a quarter must the seller return.

Ta shma

from that which was taught:

One who receives a field from his fellow to plant,

a laborer who received a field from the landowner, who hired him to plant all of it with trees,

he accepts upon himself ten barren trees per hundred.

The owner of the field accepts upon himself ten trees out of a hundred that do not produce fruit, so that up to this measure the laborer is not obligated to plant other trees in their place, because it is the way of trees to be so, and the owner of the field relinquishes this.

And if there were

more than this,

such as eleven barren trees per hundred,

they impose upon him

upon the laborer

everything,

for he is obligated to plant new trees in place of all the barren trees, and it is not enough for him to plant only one tree in place of the eleventh tree, because over such a quantity of barren trees the owner of the field does not relinquish.

And this is proof for Rav Huna, that the seller is obligated to pay for all the waste found in the produce.

And we reject this:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

With a field,

anything more than this,

ten barren trees per hundred, is considered a complete field in its own right, and with regard to that field

it is comparable to one who comes to plant it initially.

As though he has not yet planted anything in it, and only now is he beginning to plant it. Therefore he must plant all eleven trees. This is not so with waste, for even more than a quarter does not have significance in its own right, since it is not discernible to the eyes; therefore it is possible to say that the buyer relinquishes the quarter, and only what is more than a quarter must the seller pay him.

We learned in the Mishna: One who sells to his fellow

a cellar of wine

accepts upon himself ten spoiled ones per hundred.

And we consider it:

What are the circumstances?

How is this speaking; with what wording did the seller say this to him?

If he said to him

“a cellar of wine”

without specification,

and he did not tell him which cellar,

it is difficult.

As will be explained.

If he said to him

“this cellar of wine,”

it is difficult.

As will be explained.

And the Gemara explains the difficulties:

If he said to him

“this cellar,”

it is difficult,

for we learned in the beraita all these possibilities, and in all of them the law differs from what is stated in the Mishna.

For it was taught:

One who says to his fellow:

“I am selling you a cellar of wine! He gives him wine that is entirely good,”

for “wine” without specification implies good wine.

Whereas our Mishna says that the buyer accepts upon himself ten spoiled ones per hundred!?

And likewise the beraita says: If he said to him:

“I am selling you this cellar of wine! He gives him wine sold in a shop.”

That is, the lowest-quality wine sold in a shop, namely, even if all the barrels are spoiled. For “this cellar of wine” implies as it is, provided that it bears the name “wine.”

Whereas our Mishna says that the buyer accepts upon himself only ten spoiled ones per hundred!

And the beraita continues: And if he said to him:

“I am selling you this cellar! Even if it is entirely vinegar, it is delivered to him.”

Because “this cellar” implies as it is, even if it is not wine.

Whereas our Mishna says that everything must be wine.

And we answer:

Always

the Mishna is speaking

of one who said to him: “A cellar of wine, without specification.”

And there is no difficulty from the beraita, for the beraita also agrees with the Mishna,

and it teaches at the beginning of the beraita,

with regard to a cellar of wine without specification,

“and he accepts upon himself ten spoiled ones per hundred,”

because it is the way for it to be so, and the buyer relinquishes it.

And we object:

and

is it that

with

“a cellar of wine”

without specification,

does he accept

upon himself ten spoiled ones per hundred?

But Rabbi Hiyya taught: One who sells a barrel of wine to his fellow gives him wine that is entirely good,

and the buyer does not accept anything upon himself.

And we answer:

A barrel is different, for it is all one wine.

It is all one wine, and it is not applicable for the buyer to accept part of it upon himself, even if it is inferior. But when he sells many barrels, the buyer accepts upon himself ten spoiled ones per hundred.

And we object:

But Rav Zevid taught in the academy of Rabbi Oshaya: “I am selling you a cellar of wine; he gives him wine that is entirely good.”

“I am selling you this cellar of wine; he gives him wine that is entirely good, and he accepts upon himself ten spoiled ones per hundred.”