Bava Metzia 51a — the Talmud in English

For that reason they returned

to conduct themselves according to the Rabbis.

Since they were sellers, and if so, even if the buyers deceived them and bought cheaply, they had no benefit from Rabbi Tarfon’s extension of the time for reclaiming the ona’a throughout the entire day. For according to the Rabbis, as Rav Naḥman established, they, in their capacity as sellers, may retract even forever. For it was only with regard to the buyer that the Sages said that his time is only long enough to show it to a merchant or to his relative, but not with regard to the seller. Therefore, it was properly the case that they returned to conduct themselves according to the Rabbis.

Rather, if you say

not according to Rav Naḥman, and

a seller is also considered like a buyer,

so that according to the Rabbis he may retract only during the period established for a buyer [long enough for him to show it to a merchant or to his relative, although the seller cannot show it to a merchant]],

what difference does it make to them!?

What benefit was there for them in returning to conduct themselves according to the Sages, according to whom the buyer may demand the return of the ona’a only for the time long enough to show it to a merchant, when, on the other hand, Rabbi Tarfon’s extension of the time to the entire day was more beneficial to them? If they made a mistake and sold cheaply, they could demand the return of their ona’a throughout the entire day, and not merely during the limited time of the Rabbis.

The Gemara continues and explains that according to Rabbi Tarfon the Sages indeed extended the time for reclaiming the ona’a to the entire day also with regard to the seller,

just as the Rabbis made a regulation for the buyer

[as, according to Rabbi Tarfon, the Sages established the buyer’s time for reclaiming the ona’a as the entire day],

so too the Rabbis made a regulation for the seller,

so that he could demand the return of his ona’a throughout the entire day.

It follows that it would have been preferable for them to remain in their joy according to Rabbi Tarfon’s method: if an error occurred and the buyers deceived them, they would have the possibility of demanding the return of their ona’a throughout the entire day, rather than returning to the method of the Sages, who allow the seller to demand the return of the ona’a only during the limited period established for the buyer, long enough to show it to a merchant.

Rather, from here there is proof according to Rav Naḥman, that a seller is not like a buyer, and according to the Sages he can demand the return of his ona’a forever. Therefore, the merchants of Lod preferred to return to the words of the Sages.

But the Gemara rejects the proof:

The merchants of Lod were not commonly mistaken,

and therefore they had no interest in reclaiming a mistaken ona’a [when the buyers deceived them] throughout the entire day. Rather, they were interested in the opposite: that the buyers should not be able to demand the return of the ona’a except during a limited period, long enough to show it to a merchant.

And if so, even if we say that according to the Sages the seller cannot demand the return of his ona’a forever, it was properly the case that the merchants of Lod returned to the words of the Sages, in order to gain the restriction of the buyer’s time for reclaiming his ona’a.

His innkeeper,

the owner of the inn,

Rami bar Ḥama sold wine,

he sold wine,

and erred

in its price, selling it more cheaply than the market price, by a sixth.

He found him,

Rami bar Ḥama found his host

who was distressed.

He said to him,

Rami bar Ḥama said to his host:

Why are you distressed?

He said to him: I sold wine,

I sold wine,

and I erred,

I erred in its price and sold it for a sixth less.

He said to him,

Rami bar Ḥama said:

Go retract!

Go and retract this price, and demand the return of its ona’a!

He said to him: I have delayed,

I delayed after the sale

more than the time needed to show it to a merchant or to my relative,

and I cannot demand my ona’a.

He sent him,

Rami bar Ḥama sent his host

before Rav Naḥman,

to ask him what he should do.

Rav Naḥman said to him:

Rav Naḥman said:

They stated

that he can retract only for the time needed to show it to a merchant

only

with regard to a

buyer. But a seller may retract forever!

What is the reason

that a seller differs from a buyer?

A buyer has his purchase in his hand; wherever he goes, he shows it to him,

he can show his purchase wherever he goes, to a merchant or to his relative,

and they tell him whether he erred or did not err.

And when the time passes and he did not ascertain the price of his purchase, he has waived his claim.

But

a seller, who does not hold his merchandise in his hand,

for after the sale the merchandise is in the buyer’s possession, we must wait

until a sale of merchandise like what he sold happens to him,

until another purchase resembling the merchandise that he sold and was deceived in happens to him, and only then

will he know whether he erred or did not err,

and until then he may retract forever.

The Gemara now brings two similar cases, in which Rava and Rav Ḥisda ruled that when a householder sells his household utensils at a high price, there is no ona’a in this. 1.

A.

There was a certain man who held silk laces to sell,

he held silk laces in his hands in order to sell them, and

he called out,

he announced their price,

six,

which was six dinars,

while their value was

the actual value of those silk laces was

five,

only five dinars,

and if they gave him five and a half, he would take it.

If they gave him five and a half dinars for them, he would agree to take them and sell them at that price.

A certain man came

and wanted to buy them, and said to himself:

If I give him five and a half,

half a dinar more than their value, the ona’a will be less than a sixth, and if so

it will be a waiver

of the ona’a on my part immediately, and I will not be able to demand it after I purchase the silk laces from him. Therefore

I will give him six,

six dinars, as he demands for them, and there will thereby be an ona’a of one dinar,

and I will bring a legal claim against him,

to return the ona’a after the purchase, for the time needed to show it to a merchant. And so he did.

He came before Rava,

to demand his ona’a, one dinar, after paying him six dinars, as the seller had requested.

Rava said to him:

Rava said:

They stated

that he may demand ona’a

only when buying from a merchant,

who purchases merchandise cheaply and sells it for a profit, and has no sentiment toward the merchandise being sold.

But when buying from a householder

who is forced to sell his beloved household utensils,

there is no ona’a against him,

because since the seller sells them at a high price on account of his affection for them, it is as though the seller explicitly informed him that he was requesting a price higher than their true value, and that otherwise he was unwilling to sell them. In such a case there is no ona’a at all. 2.

B.

There was a certain man who held perfumes to sell,

he held spices in his hand in order to sell them.

He called out sixty, while their value was fifty,

he announced that their price was sixty dinars, while their value was only fifty,

and if they gave him fifty-five, he would take it.

A certain man came and said

to himself:

If I give him fifty-five

dinars, which is an addition of five dinars over fifty, only a tenth of the price,

it will be a waiver. I will give him sixty

sixty dinars,

and I will bring a legal claim against him,

to return them, for the time needed to show it to a merchant.

He came before Rav Ḥisda. He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda said:

They stated

that the seller returns the money of the ona’a

only when buying from a merchant. But when buying from a householder, there is no ona’a against him.

Rav Dimi said to Rav Ḥisda:

to Rav Ḥisda:

Correct!

I affirm your words.

And Rabbi Elazar likewise said: Correct!

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But we learned in the Mishna: Just as there is ona’a for an ordinary person, so there is ona’a for a merchant!

Who,

who is called an “ordinary person” in relation to a “merchant,”

is it not

is it not

the householder

who sells his household utensils? And it is proved that ona’a does apply to a householder!

Rav Ḥisda said:

the Mishna is speaking

of hemp garments,

garments of hemp, which a householder is also accustomed to sell, and therefore there is ona’a with regard to a householder;

but his household utensils, which are dear to him,

his household utensils, which are dear to him,

he does not sell them except for an excessive price,

and this is like one who explicitly informs [the buyer] that he is selling at a higher price, in which there is no ona’a.

Mishna:

Our Mishna will explain with regard to whom the laws of ona’a mentioned in the previous Mishna were stated:

One who buys

who paid more than its value for his purchase

, and one who sells

who sold for less than its value

, they have

the law of

ona’a.

mentioned above. This is as it is stated: “When you sell anything to your fellow, or buy from the hand of your fellow, you shall not wrong one another.” Both of them—the seller and the buyer—were mentioned in the verse.

As it is stated: “When you sell merchandise to your fellow, or buy from the hand of your fellow, do not wrong one another.” Both of them—the seller and the buyer—are mentioned in the verse.

And

just as

there is the law of

ona’a for an ordinary person,

who is not expert in merchandise,

so

there is the law of

ona’a for a merchant

[a trader], who is expert in commerce. And we do not say that he certainly sensed the ona’a and waived it.

And Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no ona’a for a merchant.

This will be explained in the Gemara.

Another law concerning the laws of ona’a:

One upon whom it was imposed,

[one who was deceived],

has the upper hand.

To demand as he wishes:

If he wishes, he says to him—

Give me my money,

and we will annul the sale. [If the buyer was deceived],

or, give me what you deceived me of.

And the sale stands.

The Gemara will explain according to whose opinion our Mishna holds.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains: From where do we know that there is a law of ona’a for the seller and for the buyer?

From where are these matters?

For the Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 25:14]:

“And when you sell anything to your fellow, you shall not wrong

a man his brother

”; I have only that a buyer was deceived. From where [do I know that when] a seller was deceived?

The verse says: “Or buy

from the hand of your fellow,

you shall not wrong.”

And it was necessary to write [the case of] a buyer, and it was necessary to write [the case of] a seller.

For had the Merciful One written

the warning against ona’a only for the

seller,

so that he should not deceive the buyer, I would have said that only the seller was warned,

because he is familiar with his sale.

[He knows the value of his merchandise, for how much he bought it], and certainly he deceived the buyer intentionally.

But as for a buyer, who is not familiar with his sale, I might say that the Merciful One did not warn him with “you shall not wrong.”

And

so too the opposite:

if the Merciful One wrote

the warning against ona’a only for the

buyer,

I would have said that only the buyer was warned,

because he is acquiring.

That is to say, he does not lose so much in the sale, since in any event the object is in his possession.

For people say—

“You bought, you acquired.”

[If you acquired a durable object, you profited, since your money will not be wasted on ongoing expenses.]

But as for a seller, who is losing what he loses

[his money is lost],

for people say—

“He sold, he lost,”

[You sold your objects, you lost, since your money is lost through expenditure]

, I might say that the Merciful One did not warn him with “you shall not wrong.”

And it would be permitted for him to raise the price in order to cover the loss that would subsequently be caused to him.

And therefore:

It was necessary.

[The verse had to specify the prohibition of ona’a for both the seller and the buyer.]

We learned:

“Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no ona’a for a merchant”:

The Gemara explains Rabbi Yehuda’s reason:

But

because he is a merchant, is there no ona’a for him?!

Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: They taught this

[about a broker-merchant, a merchant who continually buys and sells from hand to hand]

with regard to a broker-merchant.

What is the reason

that there is no ona’a for him?

Since

he certainly knows how much his merchandise is worth,

for he did not wait a long time between its purchase and its sale,

and

if he certainly sold it cheaply,

he waived it with regard to him.

And this fact that he sold it in this manner was because another sale happened to present itself to him.

[He found another business opportunity and urgently needed the money].

And

if you say: If so, why did he return to demand the ona’a?

It must be said:

Now, at any rate, he is retracting.

But at the time of the sale he knew about the ona’a and waived it.

But

Rav Ashi said: What does it mean that there is no ona’a for a merchant?

He is not subject to the law of ona’a! Even when it is less than the measure of ona’a

[a sixth]

he retracts.

Since his livelihood depends on this, they established for him that he may retract even when it is less than the measure of ona’a.

However, in a beraita

it was taught in accordance with Rav Naḥman’s opinion: “Rabbi Yehuda says: A merchant has no ona’a, because he is expert.”

And it is proven that according to Rabbi Yehuda he does not retract even with regard to the measure of ona’a. Since he is expert in his merchandise, he certainly waived the ona’a at the time of the sale. This is in accordance with Rav Naḥman.

We learned:

“One upon whom it was imposed has the upper hand,” and so on:

And we raise a difficulty:

According to whom is our Mishna?

[According to whose opinion does the Mishna hold?] Apparently, the Mishna is

not

according to the words of

Rabbi Natan

[mentioned above, on page 50b]: “Ona’a less than a sixth—the sale is acquired; more than a sixth—the sale is void; a sixth—the sale is acquired and he returns the ona’a.”

Nor

according to the words of

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi

[there]: “The seller has the upper hand.”

The Gemara explains:

If it is Rabbi Natan,

the Mishna teaches, “If he wishes

he says to him, ‘Give me my money,’”

whereas the beraita does not teach, “If he wishes...”

and it is always the case that with a sixth, the sale is acquired and he returns the ona’a.

And

if it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi,

the Mishna teaches

in a case where the

buyer was deceived,

since he says to him, “Give me my money.” But in the

beraita it teaches:

“The

seller has the upper hand.” [

has the upper hand.”

Mnemonic: ZB-RSh ]

Rabbi Elazar said: This ona’a

[this Mishna]

I do not know who taught it.

And the halakha is not in accordance with it.

Rabba said: It is always Rabbi Natan. And teach

[read]

also in the beraita

in Rabbi Natan’s words:

“If he wishes

he says to him, ‘Give me my money’; if he wishes, he keeps the purchase and returns the ona’a.”

Rava said: In truth, it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And that which he left out in the Mishna, he explains in the beraita.

Therefore, in the Mishna it is speaking when the buyer was wronged, and therefore the buyer has the upper hand; and in the beraita it is speaking when the seller was wronged, and therefore he has the upper hand.

Rav Ashi said: It is also precise

according to Rava’s words,

as it teaches: \-

“The one upon whom it was imposed has the upper hand,” and it implies,

whether the buyer or the seller, and

if afterward

it explains it

only in a situation in which the overreaching was

to the buyer.

Conclude from it that it left out the seller,

like Rava . And we conclude: Indeed,

conclude from it

like Rava.

It was stated

a statement was said in the beit-midrash:

One who says to his fellow, “On the condition that you have no claim of onaa against me,

I will sell you this object ”, and overreaching was found in the sale.

Rav said: He does have against him

a law of

onaa .

And Shmuel said: He does not have against him

a law of

onaa.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Shall we say that Rav, who said

that he has onaa, holds

like Rabbi Meir

cited below?

And Shmuel, who said

that he does not have onaa, holds

like Rabbi Yehuda.

For it was taught—

One who says to a woman, “Behold, you are betrothed to me on the condition that you have no claim against me for food, clothing, and conjugal relations,” she is betrothed, and his condition is null. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And he holds: Anyone who stipulates against that which is written in the Torah, his condition is null—even in a monetary matter .

Rabbi Yehuda says: In a monetary matter

such as food and clothing,

his condition stands.

For she waived that money. But conjugal relations, which is bodily suffering, cannot be waived .

And apparently this is analogous to our case, in which he stipulated against that which is written in the Torah in a monetary matter.

And we reject this:

Rav could say to you: I am saying

“He does have onaa against him,”

even according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that in a monetary matter his condition stands; here, he will agree with the words of

since

Rabbi Yehuda said this only there, rather

when he makes the condition with the woman before the marriage,

she knows

that she will not be able to claim food and clothing from him,

and she waives them .