Bava Metzia 51a (נא.) — the Talmud in English

For this reason they returned to following the opinion of the Rabbis,

the merchants of Lod.

Since they were sellers, even if the buyers had wronged them by purchasing cheaply, they would have gained nothing from Rabbi Tarfon’s extension of the period for claiming the ona’a throughout the entire day. According to the Rabbis, as Rav Naḥman established their ruling, sellers may retract even indefinitely. For the Sages said that only with regard to a buyer is the period limited to the time required for him to show the item to a merchant or to his relative, but not with regard to a seller. Therefore, it was indeed worthwhile for the merchants of Lod to return to following the opinion of the Rabbis.

Rather, if you say

that the halakha is not in accordance with 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 [the time required for him to show the item 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 follow the Sages, according to whom the buyer may claim the ona’a only during the time required to show the item to a merchant? On the other hand, Rabbi Tarfon’s extension of the period to the entire day would benefit them more: if they erred and sold cheaply, they could claim restitution of their ona’a throughout the entire day, and not merely during the limited period established by the Rabbis.

[This segment is included in the preceding translation.]

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

just as the Sages enacted a remedy for the buyer [just as, according to Rabbi Tarfon, the Sages established the buyer’s period for claiming ona’a as the entire day],

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

so too the Sages enacted a remedy for the seller,

allowing him to claim restitution of his ona’a throughout the entire day.

It follows that it would have been preferable for them to remain pleased with Rabbi Tarfon’s position: if they made an error and the buyers wronged them, they would have the possibility of claiming restitution of their ona’a throughout the entire day, rather than returning to the opinion of the Sages, who allow a seller to claim restitution of ona’a only during the limited period established for a buyer, namely, the time required to show it to a merchant.

Rather, this is proof in accordance with Rav Naḥman: a seller is not considered like a buyer, and according to the Sages he may claim restitution of his ona’a indefinitely. 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 being able to reclaim an erroneous ona’a [when the buyers wronged them] throughout the entire day. On the contrary, they were interested in ensuring that the buyers could claim restitution of ona’a only during a limited period, namely, the time required to show it to a merchant.

If so, even if we say that according to the Sages a seller cannot claim restitution of his ona’a indefinitely, it was indeed worthwhile for the merchants of Lod to return to the words of the Sages, in order to benefit from limiting the buyer’s period for claiming restitution of his ona’a.

His innkeeper,

the owner of the lodging,

whom Rami bar Ḥama sold wine,

sold wine

and erred

in its price, selling it for one-sixth less than the market price.

He found him,

Rami bar Ḥama found his host

saddened.

Rami bar Ḥama said to him

—his host:

Why are you sad?

He said to him: I sold wine,

I sold wine,

and I erred,

I made an error in its price and sold it for one-sixth less.

Rami bar Ḥama said to him:

Rami bar Ḥama said:

Go and retract!

Go and retract this price and claim restitution of the ona’a!

He said to him: I have delayed,

I delayed after the sale

beyond the time required to show it to a merchant or to my relative,

and I cannot claim 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 taught

that he may retract only during the time required to show it to a merchant

only

with regard to a

buyer. But a seller may retract indefinitely!

What is the reason

that a seller differs from a buyer?

A buyer has his purchase in his hand; wherever he goes, he can show it

to a merchant or to his relative,

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

Once the period passed and he did not ascertain the price of his purchase, he has waived his claim.

But

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

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

until he happens upon a sale like the sale he made,

until he encounters another transaction resembling the item he sold and was wronged concerning, and only then

will he know whether he erred or did not err,

and until then he may retract indefinitely.

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

1.

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

holding silk laces in his hands in order to sell them, and

he called out,

he announced their price:

six,

that is, six dinars,

although their value was

in truth the silk laces were worth

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 be willing to accept that amount 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 one-sixth, and therefore

it will be waived

on my part immediately, and I will not be able to claim it after purchasing 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 take him to court,

to reclaim the ona’a after the purchase, during the time required to show it to a merchant. And he did so.

He came before Rava,

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

Rava said to him:

Rava said:

They taught

that he may claim ona’a

only when buying from a merchant,

who purchases merchandise cheaply and sells it for a profit, and has no special attachment to the merchandise being sold.

But when buying from a homeowner,

who is compelled to sell household utensils dear to him,

there is no ona’a concerning it.

Since the seller sells them at an inflated price because they are dear to him, it is as though he explicitly informed the buyer that he was demanding a price higher than their true value and would not otherwise agree to sell them. In such a case there is no ona’a at all.

2.

There was a certain man who was holding spices to sell,

holding spices in his hand in order to sell them.

He called out sixty, although they were worth fifty,

he announced that their price was sixty dinars, although they were worth 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, an addition of five dinars to fifty, which is only one-tenth of the price,

it will be waived. I will give him sixty

sixty dinars,

and I will take him to court,

to reclaim it during the time required to show it to a merchant.

He came before Rav Ḥisda. He said to him:

Rav Ḥisda said:

They taught

that the seller returns the money of the ona’a

only when one buys from a merchant. But when one buys from a homeowner, there is no ona’a concerning it.

Rav Dimi said to Rav Ḥisda:

to Rav Ḥisda:

Correct!

I affirm your statement.

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 is

the one called an “ordinary person” in contrast to a “merchant”?

Is it not

is it not

a homeowner

who sells his household utensils? This proves that ona’a does apply to a homeowner!

Rav Ḥisda said:

The Mishna is speaking

of hemp garments,

clothing made of hemp, which a homeowner is also accustomed to sell, and therefore there is ona’a when it is sold by a homeowner.

But his household utensils, which are dear to him,

his household utensils that he values,

he does not sell them except at an inflated price,

and this is like someone who explicitly announces that he is selling at a higher price, in which case there is no ona’a.

Mishna:

Our Mishna explains with regard to whom the laws of ona’a mentioned in the preceding Mishna were stated:

Both the buyer

who paid more than the value of his purchase

, and the seller

who sold for less than its value

, have

the law of

ona’a,

as mentioned above.

As it is stated: “And when you sell a sale 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—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. We do not say that he certainly recognized the ona’a and waived it.

[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 ona’a:

One upon whom the ona’a was imposed [one who was wronged]

that is, one who was deceived,

has the advantage.

He may claim as he wishes:

if he wishes, he says to him—

Give me my money,

and we will annul the transaction. [If the buyer was wronged],

or, give me what you wronged me by.

The transaction remains in force.

The Gemara will explain according to whose opinion our Mishna is formulated.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains how we know that the law of ona’a applies to both the seller and the buyer:

From where are these matters derived?

The Sages taught: A verse states in the Torah [Leviticus 25:14]:

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

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

a man his brother,”

I have only that a buyer was wronged; from where do I know that a seller was wronged?

The verse states: “Or buy

from the hand of your fellow,

you shall not wrong.”

And it was necessary to write both buyer and seller.

For had the Merciful One written

the warning against ona’a only concerning the

seller,

so that he must not mislead the buyer, I might have said that only the seller was warned,

because he is knowledgeable about his sale. [He knows the value of his merchandise and how much he paid for it], and certainly he misled the buyer deliberately.

He knows the value of his merchandise and the price at which he bought it, and certainly deceived the buyer intentionally.

But concerning a buyer, who is not knowledgeable about his sale, one might say that the Merciful One did not warn him with “you shall not wrong”.

And

so too conversely,

had the Merciful One written

the warning against ona’a only concerning the

buyer,

I might have said that only the buyer was warned,

because he is acquiring.

That is, he does not suffer as great a loss in the transaction, since in any event the item is in his possession.

As people say—

“If you bought, you gained.” [If you acquired a durable item, you have gained, since your money will not be dissipated through ongoing expenses.]

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

But concerning a seller, who is losing what he possesses

[his money is being lost],

as people say—

“If you sold, you lost.”

[You sold your possessions—you lost, since your money is dissipated through expenditure]

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

And he should be permitted to raise the price in order to cover the loss that will subsequently be caused to him.

Therefore:

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

[The verse had to specify the prohibition of overcharging with regard to both a seller and a buyer.]

We learned:

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

The Gemara explains Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning:

But

merely because he is a merchant, does he have no ona’a?!

Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: They taught

[this ruling] with regard to

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

What is the reason

that he has no ona’a?

Since

he certainly knows how much his purchase is worth,

for he did not wait a long time between purchasing it and selling it,

and

if he certainly sold it cheaply,

he waived it for him.

And the fact that he sold it in this manner was because another sale presented itself to him. [He found another business opportunity and urgently needed the money].

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

And

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

It must be said that

now, at any rate, he is retracting.

But at the time of the sale he knew of 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 laws of ona’a! Even when the difference is less than the measure of ona’a

[one-sixth],

he may retract.

Since his livelihood depends on this, the Sages enacted that he may retract even when the difference 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 an expert.”

It is evident that according to Rabbi Yehuda he does not retract even when the difference reaches the measure of ona’a, since he is expert regarding his purchase and certainly waived the ona’a at the time of the transaction. This accords with Rav Naḥman.

We learned:

“One upon whom the ona’a was imposed has the advantage,” and so forth:

And we raise a difficulty:

According to whom is this Mishna?

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

not

in accordance with the words of

Rabbi Natan

[mentioned above, on page 50b]: “When the ona’a is less than one-sixth, the transaction is acquired; when it is more than one-sixth, the transaction is void; when it is exactly one-sixth, the transaction is acquired and the ona’a is returned.”

Nor

is it in accordance with the words of

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi

[there]: “The seller has the advantage.”

The Gemara explains:

If it is Rabbi Natan,

the Mishna states, “If he wishes,”

he says to him, “Give me my money,”

but the beraita does not state, “If he wishes,”

and in the case of exactly one-sixth, the transaction is acquired and the ona’a is returned.

And

if it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi,

the Mishna states

the case in which the

buyer

was wronged, since he says to him, “Give me my money.” But

the beraita states: “The

“The

seller

has the advantage.”

Mnemonic: Zayin-Bet, Resh-Shin

Rabbi Elazar said: This ona’a

[this Mishna]

I do not know who taught it.

And the halakha does not follow it.

Rabba said: Actually, it is Rabbi Natan. And teach

[read]

also in the beraita

the words of Rabbi Natan:

“If he wishes,

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

Rava said: Actually, it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And that which the Mishna left unstated, the beraita explains.

Therefore, the Mishna is referring to a case in which the buyer was overcharged, and consequently the buyer has the advantage; while the beraita is referring to a case in which the seller was underpaid, and consequently he has the advantage.

Rav Ashi said: This is also precise

in accordance with Rava’s statement,

as it teaches: “The one upon whom the overcharge was imposed has the advantage,”

which indicates

both the buyer and the seller, and

if afterward

it were to explain it

only in a case where the overcharge was

to the buyer.

This proves that it left the seller’s case unstated,

in accordance with Rava . And we conclude: Indeed,

this proves

in accordance with Rava.

It was stated [

a statement was made in the beit-midrash]:

One who says to another: “On the condition that you have no claim of overcharging against me,

I will sell you this item” , and an overcharge is found in the transaction.

Rav said: He does have

a

claim of overcharging against him .

And Shmuel said: He does not have

a

claim of overcharging against him.

And we inquire:

Let us say that Rav, who said

that he does have a claim of overcharging, holds

in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

whose opinion is cited below.

And Shmuel, who said

that he does not have a claim of overcharging, holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

As it is taught:

“One who says to a woman, ‘Behold, you are betrothed to me on the condition that you have no claim of she’er, clothing, or conjugal rights against me,’ she is betrothed, but his condition is void. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.”

And he holds: Anyone who stipulates contrary to a Torah provision—the condition is void, even with regard to a monetary matter .

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a monetary matter,

such as she’er and clothing,

his condition is valid.

For she waived that monetary obligation. But conjugal rights, which involve bodily pain, are not subject to waiver .

Apparently, this is similar to the issue before us, in which he stipulated contrary to a Torah provision with regard to a monetary matter.

And we reject this:

Rav could say to you: When I say

“he does have a claim of overcharging against him,”

it is even

according to the opinion of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that with regard to a monetary matter the condition is valid; here, he would agree with this statement.

Since

Rabbi Yehuda said this only

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

and she knows

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

and she waives them .