Bava Metzia 49b — the Talmud in English

They said,

I said

to him,

to that man:

No,

I have no sesame to sell.

That man said to me

:

Let these dinars be

that I brought here in order to buy the sesame,

a deposit with you, for it has become dark for me,

and I cannot bring them to my house on Shabbat.

I said to him: Here is the house before you,

here is my house before you!

He placed them

that man placed his money,

in the house,

in the house of that Torah scholar,

and they were stolen

the money.

He came

that man

before Rava.

Rava said to him

:

Every

statement

“Here is the house before you” -

is not considered acceptance of responsibility for the object, and therefore

it is not necessary to say that he is not a “paid bailee,”

but even an “unpaid bailee” he

is not,

and the owner of the house is exempt from guarding the money.

Ravina said:

I said to him

to that Torah scholar who related this incident:

And

if it was as you said, that you did not accept money for the sesame,

behold the Sages said to Rava: “Here he must accept upon himself ‘He who exacted payment from the generation of the Flood,’”

and according to your words, their question has no meaning; after all, “He who exacted payment” applies only to one who retracts after receiving money!?

And he said to me

that Torah scholar: Indeed, this report—that the Sages asked Rava about the curse of “He who exacted payment,” in connection with that incident involving sesame—is not correct,

and such a thing never happened.

We learned in the Mishna: If he gave him money but did not pull fruits from him, he may retract [both the seller and the buyer].

Rabbi Shimon says: Whoever has the money in his possession,

the seller,

his hand is on the upper side

: If the seller wishes, he may retract; and if he wishes to uphold the sale, the buyer cannot cancel it.

It was taught

in a beraita to explain the words of Rabbi Shimon:

Rabbi Shimon said: When

does the seller have the possibility of retracting and canceling the sale?

When

the buyer paid the money, while the fruits are still not in his possession, because he did not pull them, and it turns out

that the money and the fruits,

both of them, are

in the seller’s possession,

then the Sages granted the seller permission to retract, so that if a fire breaks out he will make the effort to save the fruits.

But if the money

is already

in the seller’s possession, and the fruits

are already

in the buyer’s possession,

he cannot retract,

because his money is in his possession.

And we raise an objection: Is it so that the buyer’s money is

in his possession?

But it is

in the seller’s possession!?

Rather,

do not interpret the beraita literally, “his money is in his possession”; and this is what it is saying:

because the value of his money,

the fruits, is

in his possession,

the buyer’s.

It enters our mind that the buyer pulled the fruits and they are in his house.

And we raise an objection:

Is it obvious!?

After all, when the buyer pulled them, even the Sages agree with Rabbi Shimon that they cannot retract; so what did Rabbi Shimon teach us!?

Rabbi Shimon holds: Money effects acquisition by Torah law.

He said,

he answered,

Rava:

it is not speaking of a case in which the buyer performed pulling and a complete acquisition of the fruits; rather,

with what are we dealing here?

With a case where the upper room in which the fruits were placed was

the buyer’s upper room,

but

leased to the seller

[by the seller].

Indeed, that upper room does not acquire the seller’s fruits for the buyer through acquisition by means of a courtyard, even after he paid his money, because it is the seller’s courtyard, since he rented it from the buyer.

In any event, in such a case Rabbi Shimon holds that money effects acquisition; and although the Sages nullified acquisition by money, here the Sages did not institute that his money should not acquire for him.

For

what is the reason that the Sages instituted: pulling

acquires, but money does not?

It is a decree lest he say to him,

the seller to the buyer:

“Your wheat burned in the upper room.”

Here

there is no need to enact this decree, and there is no concern in the matter, since the fruits

are in his domain,

in his upper room,

they belong to the buyer,

and

if a fire falls by accident,

he,

the buyer,

will make the effort and bring it.

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving

a certain man who gave money for wine,

he paid money for a donkey that he wanted to purchase.

In the end he heard that the household of Parzak Rophila was seeking to take it,

he heard that the servants of “Parzak,” the viceroy, wished to take the donkey.

He said to him

the buyer to the seller:

Give me my money,

return my money to me; I

do not want the donkey,

I do not want the donkey.

He came before Rav Hisda,

who said to him: The buyer may retract and cancel the sale, for

just as they instituted

that pulling acquires and money does not

for sellers,

so that the seller would be able to retract,

so they instituted pulling for buyers,

so that the buyer may retract, if he wishes, as long as he has not given money.

Mishna:

This Mishna deals with the laws of overreaching: what its measure is, and until when the one who was overreached may demand payment for his overreaching.

“Overreaching” is in the price of the purchased object, whether on the seller’s side or on the buyer’s side. That is, if the seller raised the price of the object without the buyer knowing this, the buyer was overreached by the seller. Conversely, if the buyer paid a price that was less than the value of the object, the seller was thereby overreached by the buyer.

Three rules for three measures of overreaching were stated, and in the language of the Sages they were called by three expressions: “forgoing,” “overreaching,” and “the sale is void”:

A.

“Forgoing.”

If the price was higher or lower by an amount less than one-sixth of the object’s true price, the sale stands, and the one who was overreached is not entitled to demand payment for his overreaching, since he forgoes the slight overreaching. And this is called “the sale is acquired.”

B.

“Overreaching.”

If the measure of the overreaching was one-sixth [called “a sixth”] of the sale, the one who was overreached is entitled to demand back the amount of his overreaching. But he cannot demand cancellation of the sale. And this measure of a sixth is called “overreaching,” and is also called “he acquires, and returns the overreaching.”

C.

“The sale is void.”

If the overreaching was more than a sixth, the sale is void even if the one who overreached wishes to pay the one who was overreached the amount of his overreaching; and such a case is called “cancellation of the sale.”

In the first section, the Mishna explains the measure of overreaching of a sixth, and gives an example:

The overreaching,

for example, is when the overreaching was in the ratio of

four

silver zuz [coins],

out of twenty-four silver coins to a sela.

That is, a sela made of silver contains twenty-four silver coins [a sela contains four dinars, and each dinar contains six silver coins]; therefore, if the sale was for a sela, which is twenty-four coins, and there was overreaching of four silver coins, this is overreaching, whose measure is

a sixth of the sale.

Now, in the second section, the Mishna explains the period of time during which one may demand payment for the overreaching:

Until when is it permitted

for the one who was overreached to demand from the one who overreached him

to return

the amount of his overreaching?

Until the time that he shows

the one who was overreached the object

to a merchant,

who is familiar with prices,

or to his relative

of the one who was overreached.

The Mishna now brings, in its third section, an incident that occurred, and

Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: The overreaching

is at the measure of

eight coins out of twenty-four coins to a sela,

which is

a third of the sale.

And the merchants of Lod rejoiced,

since they were expert in prices, and were price raisers, selling at a price higher than a sixth; and from then on they could raise their prices without the customers being able to demand the return of the amount of the overreaching, up to an amount of less than a third.

And he said to them

Rabbi Tarfon afterward:

It is permitted all day

for the one who was overreached

to retract

and demand the amount of his overreaching, even after the period of time sufficient to show it to a merchant or to his relative had passed.

They said to him: Let Rabbi Tarfon leave us in our place!

We do not need his rulings.

And they returned to the words of the Sages,

that overreaching is up to a sixth, but the one who was overreached cannot retract throughout the entire day, but only for the time sufficient to show it to a merchant or to his relative.

Gemara:

The tannai in the Mishna stated that the measure of overreaching is “a sixth of the sale.” Only in such a case is the law that the sale is not void, but the one who overreached must return the amount of the overreaching to the one who was overreached.

The meaning of the expression “a sixth of the sale” is one-sixth of its true value. But it does not mean one-sixth of the sum of coins paid for the sale.

And sometimes there is a difference between them.

For example, if the true value of the sale was six coins, and the seller overreached the buyer and sold it to him for seven coins: relative to the true price of the sale, there is overreaching here of one coin, which is one-sixth of the value of the sale. But relative to the seven coins paid for the sale, the additional coin is overreaching of only one-seventh.

The Gemara brings a dispute among the amoraim concerning this matter:

It was stated: Rav said: “A sixth of the sale”

specifically

is what we learned,

and only in such a case must the one who overreached pay the amount of the overreaching, and the sale cannot be canceled if he pays the amount of the overreaching; but if the measure of the overreaching was a sixth of the coins of the sale, and not of the value of the sale, the laws of overreaching of a sixth of the sale were not stated with regard to it.

And Shmuel said: “A sixth of the money” is also what we learned.

Even when the overreaching was a sixth of the money, and not a sixth of the sale, the laws of overreaching apply to it as they do to overreaching of a sixth. That is, the amount of the overreaching must be returned, and the sale is not void if the one who overreached agrees to return the amount of the overreaching, as is the law with overreaching of “a sixth of the sale.” The Gemara explains their dispute:

If the value of the sale was

worth

six,

six,

six silver coins, and it was sold

for five,

for five coins, and the seller was overreached by one coin, which is one-sixth of the true value of the sale [but one-fifth of the sum of the coins paid],

or if the sale was

worth six,

and was sold

for seven

zuz [coins], and the buyer was overreached by one coin, which is one-sixth of the true value of the sale [but one-seventh of the sum of the coins paid]—

in this,

everyone,

Rav and Shmuel,

does not dispute,

they do not dispute that the laws of overreaching of a sixth apply here, since

we follow the sale, and it is overreaching.

For even Shmuel, who holds that we also learned a sixth of the money, agrees that a sixth in the sale itself certainly has the law of overreaching of a sixth, despite there not being a sixth in the coins of the sale [when they are one out of five, or one out of seven].

Where they dispute

Rav and Shmuel is in a case such as:

Worth,

the true value of the sale was

five,

and it was sold

for six.

In that case the overreaching is toward the buyer, by one zuz, which is one-fifth of the true value of the sale, but it is a sixth of the money actually paid for it.

And [a sale] worth seven for six.

In that case the overreaching is by one zuz toward the seller, which is one-seventh of the true value of the sale, but it is one-sixth of the sale money that was paid.

According to Shmuel, who says, “We also follow the money,

also

follow it,”

both this and that,

in both cases, since they contain one-sixth of the sale money that was paid,

it is overreaching.

According to Rav, who says

only

we follow the sale,

and we do not concern ourselves with the overreaching of the money, in the case where

something worth five was sold for six,

where the measure of the overreaching in the sale is one-fifth of its value,

it is cancellation of the sale.

But in the second case, where

something worth six was sold for seven,

where the ratio is one-seventh of the value of the sale,

it is forgoing!

And Shmuel said: When we say forgoing

for less than a sixth

and cancellation of the sale

for more than a sixth,

it is where there is no sixth from either side,

neither from the side of the value of the sale nor from the side of the payment of the money.

But where there is a sixth

even

from one side

alone,

it is overreaching.

He acquires, and returns the overreaching.

The Gemara brings proof from our Mishna for Shmuel:

We learned: The overreaching is four silver coins out of twenty-four silver coins to a sela, a sixth of the sale.

Is it not

speaking here, quite simply, of a case in which the seller overreached the buyer

who sold

him an item that was

worth twenty

zuz

for twenty-four

zuz, so that the overreaching [four zuz] was one-sixth of the money paid, even though it was one-fifth of the actual value of the sale,

and learn from it that we also state one-sixth of the money,

and this is in accordance with Shmuel!

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

you cannot prove Shmuel from here, for the Mishna is not dealing with the buyer’s being overreached, as you had thought, but rather with a case

in which he sold something worth twenty

and four

zuz

for twenty

zuz, and in this manner the overreaching was one-sixth of the sale.

But the Gemara still argues: According to you, since you established it as a case in which the item that was worth twenty-four zuz was sold for twenty zuz, it necessarily follows:

who

is the one who

was overreached?

Certainly, the

seller

is the one who was overreached by the buyer.

If so,

come and hear the latter clause,

where we state:

Until when is it permitted to return it? Until he shows it to a merchant or to his relative.

And

concerning this

Rav Naḥman said: They taught this only

that he cannot retract except during the short period until he shows it to his relative [or to a merchant],

but

only with regard to the

buyer. But as for the seller, he may always retract!

That is, he may demand the return of the amount of his overreaching or the return of the sale, always.

And it is thereby proven that the Mishna is speaking of overreaching in which the buyer was overreached, and not of overreaching in which the seller was overreached, contrary to your words, by which you established our Mishna as a case in which the seller was overreached!

Rather,

this is how our Mishna is to be established: It is speaking of a case in which the seller overreached the buyer by one-sixth of the value of

the sale,

which according to everyone constitutes overreaching, and such as

he sold something worth twenty-four z

uz

for twenty-eight,

for twenty-eight zuz, the additional four zuz being one-sixth of the value of the sale [twenty-four], and according to everyone it is overreaching.

And now the Gemara brings a similar proof for Shmuel from the latter clause of the Mishna, and rejects it in a similar manner:

We learned: Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: The overreaching is eight silver coins out of twenty-four silver coins to a sela,

which are

one-third of the sale.

The Gemara proves:

Is it not

the Mishna dealing with the buyer’s being overreached by the seller, and such as

he sold

him an item that

was worth sixteen

[sixteen zuz]

for twenty-four

zuz, and the overreaching was eight zuz more than the value of the sale, which is overreaching of half the value of the sale [in a ratio of eight to sixteen], and overreaching of one-third of the money paid for the sale [eight coins out of the twenty-four that were paid],

and learn from it

in accordance with Shmuel, that

we also state one-third of the money.

The Gemara rejects the proof:

No,

it is not speaking here in such a manner, but rather it is speaking of a case in which

he sold something worth twenty-four for sixteen,

so that the overreaching of eight zuz was one-third of the sale, and not one-third of the money.

But the Gemara objects: It necessarily follows:

who was overreached

in this manner? The

seller

is the one who was overreached, by selling the item for less than its value.

If so,

come and hear the latter clause: He said to them, “The entire day it is permitted to retract.”

And

concerning this

Rav Naḥman said: They taught this

that he may retract only throughout the entire day, and no more,

only with regard to the buyer. But as for the seller, he may always retract.

And it is thereby proven that the Mishna is speaking of a case in which the buyer was overreached, and not the seller, contrary to your words.

Rather,

this is how our Mishna is to be established: The Mishna is speaking of a case

in which he sold something worth twenty-four for thirty-two

[for thirty-two zuz], in which the buyer was overreached by one-third of the sale, which according to everyone is overreaching.

And now the Gemara brings a baraita that agrees with Shmuel:

A baraita was taught in accordance with Shmuel,

that we state both one-sixth of the sale and one-sixth of the money:

For it was taught: Anyone

upon whom

the loss of the overreaching was imposed, that is, the one who was overreached,

has the upper hand!

The baraita explains:

How?

One case is if

he sold him something worth five for six,

then

who was overreached?

Certainly, it was the

buyer.

Therefore,

the buyer has the upper hand:

If he wishes,

the buyer may retract entirely from the sale, and

say

to the seller who overreached him:

Give me my money

back, and thereby the sale is nullified.

Or,

if the buyer wishes to uphold the sale, he may uphold it, but he may say to the seller:

Give me

the amount of

what you overreached me by!