Bava Metzia 74b — the Talmud in English

He said

he answers:

Rava: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

The rainy season is the point of disagreement between them.

And there are three disputes concerning this:

a

The first tanna holds: He may set a price with him for the manure throughout the entire year, both during the summer season and during the rainy season, even though the seller does not have manure, because it is always available [“and this is considered ‘he has it’.”].

b

Rabbi Yosei disagrees with the first tanna and holds: He may not set a price, either during the summer season or during the rainy season, unless the seller had manure [gathered] in the refuse heap [the place in which manure is gathered].

C.

c The Sages permit it during the summer season, for everyone has manure, which has already rotted and been trampled [rubbed by the feet of people who tread upon it] during the rainy season and has become manure; and even if he does not have any, others have some. But during the rainy season he may not set a price, since it has not yet been trampled, and it is considered as “he does not have it.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“And he may set a price with him according to the higher rate.”

There was a certain man who gave money for the dowry ornaments

the daughters’ jewelry

of his father-in-law’s household,

that is, a man whom his father-in-law appointed as an agent to set a price and purchase jewelry [and the market rate had already been established], and the agent gave the money to the seller so that he would give him the jewelry at a specified time.

In the end,

when the time arrived at which the seller had to give him the jewelry,

the dowry ornaments depreciated

the jewelry became cheaper [than the established rate], and the agent wanted to retract, because his father-in-law did not want to purchase them at the established rate, but at the cheaper rate.

They came

the agent, his father-in-law, and the seller came to court

before Rav Pappa.

He said to him,

Rav Pappa said to the agent:

If you set a price with him

with the seller

according to the higher rate,

that is, we learned in the Mishna: “And he may set a price with him according to the higher rate” [meaning the cheaper rate], that it is permitted to set a price [once the market rate has been established], so that if it becomes cheaper than the established rate, he will give it to him at the cheaper rate; therefore Rav Pappa said to him: If you explicitly set a price with the seller “according to the higher rate,”

take it as it is now

take the dowry ornaments from the seller at the rate of now, which is the cheaper rate, for this is how you set the price with him;

but if not,

and if you did not explicitly set a price with him according to the higher rate,

take it as it was originally

take the dowry ornaments from the seller at the earlier rate, before they became cheaper.

They said to him

they challenged him,

the Sages

the members of the academy

to Rav Pappa

concerning what Rav Pappa had said

“And if he did not set a price, he takes it as it was originally”:

And the members of the academy understood that Rav Pappa meant that the agent takes it at the earlier rate and cannot retract. Therefore they challenged him: The agent did not pull the dowry ornaments; rather,

they are money

he gave money to the seller,

and money does not acquire,

for money without pulling does not acquire movable property, and if so, the agent can retract.

He said to them

Rav Pappa answered them:

I too

I hold as you do, and the sale is not acquired; rather,

I am speaking of accepting mi shepara

all my words concerned only the matter that the one who retracts accepts upon himself the curse of mi shepara. And I shall explain my words:

If he set a price

the agent explicitly set a price with the seller

according to the higher rate, and the seller retracts

and the seller retracts from the condition and does not want to give it at the cheaper rate,

the seller accepts upon himself

the curse of

“mi shepara.”

He said

he challenged

Ravina to Rav Pappa,

concerning what Rav Pappa had said: If the agent did not explicitly set a price with the seller according to the “higher rate,” the buyer can retract and accept the curse of mi shepara, relying on the Mishna, which says that only when the agent explicitly stipulated “according to the higher rate” must the seller give it “according to the higher rate.”

And Ravina challenged this:

And from where

do you know that the Mishna, which required explicitly setting a price according to the “higher rate,”

is [the view of] the Sages

above, on 44a and 47b,

who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, who say

the Sages:

“Money does not acquire,”

for one who gives money to purchase an item but does not pull it has not acquired it, and the buyer and the seller may retract, and the one who retracts accepts upon himself the curse of mi shepara;

and even so

our Mishna holds that if the rate meanwhile became cheaper, only

if he set a price

the buyer explicitly set a price with the seller

according to the higher rate, he takes it

the buyer takes it

as it is now

at the cheaper rate, but

if he did not set a price

the buyer did not explicitly set a price with the seller according to the “higher rate,”

he takes it

the buyer takes it

as it was originally,

at the earlier rate, or he will accept mi shepara.

Perhaps,

it can be said that our Mishna is only according to

Rabbi Shimon, who says: “Money acquires,”

for one who gives money to purchase an item but does not pull it has acquired it, and the buyer cannot retract even if he accepts upon himself mi shepara; only the seller can retract and accept mi shepara.

And therefore even in our Mishna, where it speaks of one who gave money in order to receive the item later, and meanwhile the rate became cheaper, only

when he set a price

if the buyer explicitly set a price with the seller

according to the higher rate, he takes it

the buyer takes it

as it is now,

at the cheaper rate, for he explicitly set the price in this manner; but

if he did not set a price

the buyer did not explicitly set a price according to the “higher rate,”

he takes it

the buyer takes it

as it was originally,

at the earlier rate.

Because the money acquired it for him.

Since his money acquired it for him, the [buyer] cannot retract even if he accepts mi shepara.

But according to the Sages,

there is room to distinguish and say that everything the Sages said—that money does not acquire, and the one who retracts [whether the buyer or the seller] accepts mi shepara—applies only where the buyer did not give his money in order to receive the item later and the rate did not change. But our Mishna, which speaks of one who did not give the money in order to receive the item now, but in order to receive the purchase later, and meanwhile the rate became cheaper, may be understood as follows:

whether he set a price

the buyer explicitly set a price with the seller according to the “higher rate,”

or whether he did not set a price

the buyer did not set a price with the seller according to the “higher rate,”

he takes it,

the buyer takes it

as it is now,

at the cheaper rate.

And the reason is:

A person’s intention is for the cheaper rate.

For one who gives money without specification in order to receive the purchase later sets the price according to the “higher rate” [to take it cheaply if it becomes cheaper meanwhile], even if he did not explicitly stipulate this. Therefore, if the seller refuses to give it to him at the cheaper rate, the buyer may retract, and he is not even subject to mi shepara [according to Rabbi Judah in the Mishna [72b]], and if so, this is difficult for Rav Pappa, who said that if he did not explicitly set a price according to the “higher rate” and the buyer retracts, the buyer accepts mi shepara.

He said to him,

Rav Pappa answered Ravina’s question:

Say that he said,

when do we find that

Rabbi Shimon

said that the buyer acquired through his money and cannot retract? Only

with one rate,

at one rate, for example, when the rate did not change, or even when it changed, but the buyer set the price in order to receive the purchase immediately and waited, and meanwhile the rate became cheaper; since he set the price in order to receive it immediately, it is certain that he did not set the price on the assumption that the rate would become cheaper, but according to the established rate.

But

with two rates,

at two rates, for example, the market rate had been established and the buyer set a price with the seller in order to receive the purchase later, and meanwhile the rate became cheaper—that is the case spoken of by the Mishna—we do not find that Rabbi Shimon said that money acquires and he cannot retract. Rather, he agrees with the Sages that the buyer may retract, and he is subject only to mi shepara; and if he explicitly set a price “according to the higher rate,” he is not even subject to mi shepara [and if the seller retracts, he is subject to mi shepara]. It follows that our Mishna is according to everyone, both Rabbi Shimon and the Sages [for we do not find a dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Shimon “with two rates.”]

And Rav Pappa adds to strengthen his words:

For if you do not say so,

if you do not say this, [according to the words] that Rabbi Shimon concedes “with two rates” that the buyer may retract and is subject only to mi shepara, but say [according to your words] that even “with two rates” Rabbi Shimon holds that the buyer acquired through his money and cannot retract at all, it follows [according to your words]:

Does Rabbi Shimon have no mi shepara for a buyer?!

That is, is it possible to say that according to Rabbi Shimon there is no circumstance in which the buyer can retract while being subject only to mi shepara?!

And if you would say

and if you maintain your reasoning and say,

“So too!”

It is impossible to say this:

And it was taught

for we learned in a beraita [48a] that Rabbi Shimon himself said:

“In any event, this is the law”

that according to Torah law money acquires.

“But the Sages said: ‘[The one who retracts is subject to] mi shepara’

and so on.”

And Rav Pappa explains:

What is the meaning of “in any event”?

What is Rabbi Shimon’s intention in the beraita when he said “in any event”? These words appear to mean that his intention concerns interest;

no,

necessarily, Rabbi Shimon’s intention is to say:

“It makes no difference whether the buyer or whether the seller!”

to include the buyer, whose law is like that of the seller [for there is no dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages concerning the seller]: he may retract, and he accepts upon himself mi shepara.

And if so, Rabbi Shimon’s words in the beraita apparently contradict what he said in the Mishna [44a], that the buyer cannot retract at all, even if he accepts upon himself mi shepara.

Rather,

necessarily,

when Rabbi Shimon says

in the Mishna, it is only

with one rate,

but

with two rates he did not say so

and his words in the beraita are to be understood as referring to two rates.

The Gemara continues to challenge Rav Pappa’s words, who said that if the agent did not explicitly set a price with the seller according to the “higher rate” and the buyer retracts, the buyer accepts mi shepara:

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And let him derive it from the fact that he appointed him an agent!

That is, in this incident, in which his father-in-law made him an agent to set a price and purchase dowry ornaments, and the agent gave money but did not set the price according to the “higher rate,” and the dowry ornaments became cheaper, the one who retracts is not subject to mi shepara.

For the agent is not subject to the curse of mi shepara, since he wants to stand by his word; rather, the principal [his father-in-law] prevents him and retracts.

Nor is the principal subject to the curse of mi shepara, because he can argue to the agent: “I sent you only to correct, and not to distort; and since you could have set the price according to the higher rate but did not do so, you are not my agent in this purchase.”

And if so, this is difficult for Rav Pappa, who said that the buyer retracts subject to the curse of mi shepara.

He said to him,

Rav Ashi answered Rav Aḥa [to reconcile Rav Pappa’s words]:

With a merchant,

with a trader,

who buys and sells,

who purchases and sells; that is, the son-in-law was not made an agent of his father-in-law , but his father-in-law set a price to purchase from his son-in-law, and his son-in-law, who was a merchant, set a price with others [in order to sell to his father-in-law], and through this [the son-in-law] earns.

Mishna:

Even though it is forbidden to lend a se’a for a se’a when the market rate has not been established,

a person may lend his tenant-farmers

it is permitted for the field owner to lend his tenant-farmers

wheat for wheat.

on condition that they return wheat to him [even if it becomes more expensive].

For seed, but not for eating.

This loan is permitted only when he lends to the tenant-farmer for the purpose of sowing the field, but it is forbidden to lend him wheat for eating [on condition that he return wheat to him].

The tanna needed to teach this Mishna because

Rabban Gamaliel

was stringent in this matter, and he

would lend his tenant-farmers wheat for wheat for seed, at the expensive rate,

if at the time of the loan wheat was expensive—for example, a se’a stood at two sela—and he lent them a se’a,

and it became cheaper

the wheat became cheaper at the time of repayment, and a se’a stood at one sela.

Or at the cheap rate

if at the time of the loan wheat was cheap—for example, a se’a stood at one sela and he lent them a se’a,

and it became more expensive,

the wheat

at the time of repayment, and a se’a stood at two sela,

he takes

Rabban Gamaliel

from them

from his tenant-farmers

according to the cheap rate.

That is: [in the first manner,] when the wheat became cheaper, he took from them only one se’a according to the cheap rate at the time of repayment [even though at the time he lent them the wheat, a se’a stood at two sela, and with two sela one can now purchase two se’a].

And [in the second manner,] when the wheat became more expensive, he took from them only half a se’a according to the cheap rate at the time of the loan, when a se’a stood at one sela, and he reckoned for them as though he had lent them only one sela [and not one se’a]; and now, when the wheat became more expensive, one can purchase only half a se’a with one sela.

And the Mishna informs us:

“And not”

did Rabban Gamaliel

“do this because this was the halakha, but because he wished to be stringent upon himself.”

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

we learned in a beraita.

A person may lend his tenant-farmers wheat for wheat for seed. In what case is this said

that it is permitted for the field owner to lend his tenant-farmers wheat for seed?

When he has not yet entered

the tenant-farmer has not yet entered the field to work it, with any type of labor.

But

if he has already

entered

the tenant-farmer has entered the field to work it,

it is forbidden

for the field owner to lend him even for seed.

The Gemara asks:

What is different,

what is the reason for the distinction, that

our tanna

in our Mishna

does not distinguish

and permits lending to him,

between whether he has descended and whether he has not descended, and what is different

and why

the outside tanna

in the baraita

does distinguish,

for he does distinguish

between whether he has descended

the sharecropper onto the field to work it, in which case it is permitted to lend to him,

and whether he has not descended

in which case it is forbidden?

Rava said: Rav Idi explained

explained

to me

to me the distinction between our Mishna and the baraita:

In the place

in the place

of our tanna

it was customary that

the sharecropper gives

gives

the seed

the seed, in order to sow the field, and therefore the Mishna did not distinguish, and it is permitted

whether he has descended or whether he has not descended,

and the reason is:

as long as

as long as

he has not given

the sharecropper

the seed, he can remove him.

Even if the sharecropper has “descended” and plowed, the owner of the field can remove him, because the sharecropper has no seed with which to sow, and the local custom is that the sharecropper gives the seed. Therefore, when the owner of the field gives him wheat for seed, this is not a loan, which is forbidden because perhaps the wheat will become more expensive, but rather a condition in the division of the produce between the owner of the field and the sharecropper,

and therefore,

when he descends,

when the sharecropper now descends to sow,

for less

at least

than this he descends,

that is: he is like one who descends into it from now, on the condition that he take less than the other sharecroppers, by the measure of the seed that the owner of the field gave him, and the owner of the field takes, in addition to his portion, also the seed that he gave to the sharecropper.

In the place

in the place

of the outside tanna

it was customary that

the owners of the land,

the owner of the field, is the one who

gives the seed,

and this owner of the field, whose land was good, deviated from the custom of the city and stipulated with the sharecropper that he would give the seed. Therefore, the outside tanna distinguishes:

if he has not descended

yet, and he stipulated this with him, it is permitted, because

he can remove him,

for the owner of the field can remove him, if the sharecropper has no seed; if so,

when he descends

the sharecropper,

for less than this he descends

he descended with this understanding, and this is not a loan but rather a condition.

But

if he has descended

the sharecropper with the understanding of the local custom, that the owner of the field gives the seed, and afterward he stipulated this with him, and the sharecropper agreed, because the owner of the field had given it, and so on,

for he cannot remove him,

since after he has descended, the owner of the field can no longer remove him now, this is a loan of a measure for a measure,

and it is forbidden.

The Sages taught: A person may say to his fellow: