Bava Metzia 50b — the Talmud in English

But if you say

that

less than a sixth, according to the Rabbis, is immediately relinquishment, ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page-column location")

and according to Rabbi Tarfon

the equivalent of this is less than a third,

also is immediately relinquishment,

the difficulty is:

Why did

the merchants of Lod return to conduct themselves according to the Rabbis, when

according to Rabbi Tarfon it was much more convenient for them!

Since

what the Rabbis call “onaah”

is from a sixth and more than a sixth up to a third, for according to their words he can retract and demand the money of his onaah, whereas, in contrast,

according to Rabbi Tarfon, it is

immediately

relinquishment.

And they would be found to gain much according to Rabbi Tarfon, for they could refrain from raising the price by a third, and whatever they raised the price by less than a third would all be relinquished for them immediately!?

Rather, it is proven from here that according to the Rabbis less than a sixth is not immediately relinquishment, and similarly, according to Rabbi Tarfon, less than a third is not immediately relinquishment. And since Rabbi Tarfon extended the time of relinquishment, which according to his view takes effect only after the entire day has passed, the merchants of Lod preferred to return to the words of the Sages, because according to their words, after the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative has passed, the relinquishment takes effect, even before the end of the day.

But the Gemara rejects the proof:

Actually, less than a third is immediately relinquishment according to the Rabbis, and there is no proof from the merchants of Lod.

For

do you hold

that every

less than a third according to Rabbi Tarfon is comparable to less than a sixth according to the Rabbis,

as you said, and everything is relinquished immediately!?

No,

that is not so!

Rather,

from a sixth up to a third according to Rabbi Tarfon is comparable to the sixth itself according to the Rabbis!

And just as according to the Rabbis, with the sixth itself it is not immediately relinquishment with regard to onaah, so according to Rabbi Tarfon, with a sixth and more than a sixth, up to a third, it is not immediately relinquishment.

And he differs from the Sages only with regard to the annulment of the transaction. For according to his words, with a sixth and more than a sixth up to a third, the wronged party has the upper hand, whereas according to the words of the Rabbis, with more than a sixth the transaction is annulled, and both of them can retract.

Rather, the Gemara argues against this rejection:

If so,

that Rabbi Tarfon differs from the Rabbis only concerning the annulment of a transaction with more than a sixth up to less than a third, but with regard to immediate relinquishment he holds that with more than a sixth it is not immediately relinquished, and this is not comparable to less than a sixth, which is immediately relinquished, the difficulty is:

On account of what did

the merchants of Lod

initially

rejoice, when Rabbi Tarfon told them that the onaah is at a third and not at a sixth? For even according to Rabbi Tarfon, with more than a sixth it is not immediately relinquished; rather, the wronged party can demand the return of his onaah. And what was the great gain they had, until they rejoiced at his words?

And necessarily, according to your words,

you can resolve

the problem that the Gemara will raise below: whether according to the Rabbis, with more than a sixth the transaction is annulled forever, and both of them can always retract from the transaction, or perhaps the possibility of retracting and annulling the transaction exists only until the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative.

And according to your words, one can resolve

that annulment of a transaction

with more than a sixth

is always subject to retraction.

For according to this side, it is understandable why the merchants of Lod rejoiced initially,

because since Rabbi Tarfon told them that

with more than a sixth

it is

only

onaah

and not annulment of the transaction,

they rejoiced,

because for onaah there is a limited time, sufficient for him to show it to a merchant, whereas for annulment of the transaction there is no limited time, and the wronged party can always retract. Therefore they gained much, since the wronged buyer would not be able to retract from the transaction after the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant had passed.

But afterward,

when he told them

Rabbi Tarfon that

the entire day

the wronged party can retract, and not only for the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant,

the merchants of Lod returned

to the words of the Rabbis. For the gain from Rabbi Tarfon’s words—that the wronged party cannot retract forever, but only until the end of the day—is not a great gain for them, because during the time of the entire day he has ample time to change his mind. Conversely, according to Rabbi Tarfon they lose the return of the onaah at the sixth itself, because according to the Rabbis he returns it only until the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant, whereas according to Rabbi Tarfon he returns it throughout the entire day. Therefore it was preferable for them to return to the words of the Rabbis.

If it enters your mind

as the second side of the problem,

that annulment of a transaction according to the Rabbis

with more than a sixth is only

for the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative,

as with onaah, the difficulty is:

On account of what did

the merchants of Lod initially rejoice when Rabbi Tarfon told them that the onaah is at a third and not at a sixth?

For according to the Rabbis as well, once the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant has passed, the wronged party can no longer annul the transaction, as according to Rabbi Tarfon.

Whereas relinquishment with more than a sixth is not relinquishment immediately even according to Rabbi Tarfon, and the wronged party can demand the return of the money of his onaah until the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant. If so, what did the merchants of Lod gain according to Rabbi Tarfon, until they rejoiced at his words!?

Rather, necessarily, resolve from here the problem below: that annulment of a transaction according to the Rabbis with more than a sixth is forever. Therefore the merchants of Lod rejoiced that Rabbi Tarfon defined more than a sixth [up to a third] as onaah and not as annulment of a transaction, and there is a limit to the time for claiming onaah.

But the Gemara rejects this: one cannot resolve from here the problem below. For even if we say that according to the Rabbis, with more than a sixth there is annulment of the transaction only for the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant, there was nevertheless room for the merchants of Lod to rejoice at Rabbi Tarfon’s words, and they

rejoiced at the sixth itself, for according to Rabbi Tarfon

the sixth itself is

relinquishment

immediately, as less than a sixth is according to the Rabbis,

whereas

according to

the Rabbis,

the sixth itself is

onaah,

and not relinquishment.

That is, what we said above—that from a sixth up to a third according to Rabbi Tarfon is like a sixth according to the Rabbis—means more than a sixth, but the sixth itself is not included. Rather, according to Rabbi Tarfon it is relinquishment immediately, and the wronged party cannot claim it at all, whereas according to the Rabbis the wronged party can claim it until the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative. In this they initially rejoiced at Rabbi Tarfon’s words.

And now the Gemara brings the second problem:

They raised a problem before them: annulment of a transaction according to the Rabbis

with more than a sixth: is it

always subject to retraction,

so that both of them have the power to retract from the transaction forever,

or perhaps

annulment of a transaction also exists only

for the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative?

And if you find it to say,

if you might say that certainly it is always subject to retraction, because if according to the Rabbis even annulment of a transaction is only

for the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative,

the difficulty is:

What difference is there between a sixth and more than a sixth?

You cannot say this, because one can answer that even if we hold that both with onaah of a sixth and with annulment of a transaction, with more than a sixth, the time in both cases is only the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative, nevertheless

there is,

there is a difference between them:

for whereas with a sixth,

only

the one who was wronged retracts, whereas with more than a sixth both retract!

Therefore the Gemara is uncertain:

what

is the law in this uncertainty? With more than a sixth according to the Rabbis, do both retract forever, or only for the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative?

Come and hear

a proof to resolve this question, from our Mishna, in which we learned:

the merchants of Lod returned

to

the words of the Sages.

And the Gemara proves:

Granted, if you say that annulment of a transaction according to the Rabbis is only for the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative, and according to Rabbi Tarfon it is the entire day; for this reason they returned

the merchants of Lod to conduct themselves according to the words of the Rabbis, because according to them annulment of the transaction is only until the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant, whereas according to Rabbi Tarfon the time for claiming onaah is the entire day.

But if you say that annulment of a transaction according to the Rabbis is always subject to retraction, why did they return

to conduct themselves according to the Rabbis?

But

according to Rabbi Tarfon it was more convenient for them,

it was more convenient for them to conduct themselves according to Rabbi Tarfon’s method,

because he makes it

the raising of the price that they had raised from a sixth up to less than a third into the category of

onaah,

which the buyer can claim back only during

the entire day, and no more!

Whereas according to the Rabbis, with more than a sixth the transaction is annulled, and both retract forever!

And the Gemara rejects the proof: it is possible to say that annulment of a transaction with more than a sixth according to the Rabbis is subject to retraction forever, and nevertheless Rabbi Tarfon’s words were not convenient for them, since he holds that more than a sixth is only onaah, and one returns the onaah only on that day, because

annulment of a transaction is not common!

That is, they have no gain from the fact that according to Rabbi Tarfon there is no annulment of a transaction with more than a sixth, but only return of the onaah on that day, since annulment of a transaction is not common. And even if it occurs, the extended time that Rabbi Tarfon gives for returning the onaah throughout the entire day is sufficient for people who reconsider to retract, and it is equivalent to annulment of a transaction forever according to the Rabbis.

Conversely, with a sixth according to the Rabbis, one returns the onaah only for the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative, whereas Rabbi Tarfon extends the time for returning the onaah of a sixth to the entire day. Therefore it was preferable for them to return to the method of the Rabbis.

Rava said: The halakha is,

if the onaah was:

Less than a sixth —

the transaction is acquired

immediately, and there is no claim of onaah, because of relinquishment.

More than a sixth —

the transaction is annulled,

and both of them can retract during the time that will be explained.

A sixth —

he acquires,

and neither of them can retract from the transaction,

and he returns

the

onaah

to the one whom he wronged, if he claimed the onaah during the time that will be explained.

And both of these,

both the claim for the return of the onaah with a sixth and the possibility of annulling the transaction with more than a sixth, are only

for the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rava: onaah —

Less than a sixth —

the transaction is acquired

immediately, and there is no claim of onaah, because of relinquishment.

More than a sixth —

the transaction is annulled.

A sixth —

he acquires and returns the onaah.

The words of Rabbi Natan.

Rabbi Judah the Patriarch says: The hand of the seller

who was wronged

has the upper hand.

If he wishes, he says to him, “Give me my purchase

back.”

Or

if he wishes, he says to him,

“Give me what you wronged me.”

And both of these,

the claim for the return of the onaah or the possibility of annulling the transaction, are only

for the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative.

We learned in the Mishna:

Until when is it permitted to return,

until the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative.

Rav Nahman said: They taught

that he can claim his onaah only for the time sufficient for him to show it to a merchant

only concerning a buyer

who was wronged, since his purchase is in his hand and he can show it to another merchant.

But a seller

who was wronged, since the purchase has already left his hand and he cannot show it to a merchant, and he cannot ascertain his onaah until he sees a similar object being sold at a higher price,

can always retract.

And the Gemara discusses:

Shall we say that he supports him

the tannai in our Mishna supports Rav Nahman, for we learned:

the merchants of Lod returned

to

the words of the Sages.

Granted, if you say

according to Rav Nahman, that

a seller can always retract,