Commentary for Bava Metzia 100:1

ולרבי טרפון נמי לאלתר הויא מחילה אמאי חזרו בדר' טרפון ניחא להו טפי דמאי דרבנן קא משוו להו אונאה לר' טרפון הויא מחילה

whilst in R. Tarfon's view too [less than a third] immediately constitutes renunciation, why did they revert [etc.]? R. Tarfon's ruling was [surely] more advantageous to them, for what the Rabbis declared overreaching, R. Tarfon regarded as renunciation! — Do you really think that less than a third, according to R. Tarfon, is identical with less than a sixth on the view of the Rabbis? That is not so: from a sixth to a third, according to R. Tarfon, is as a sixth itself on the view of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in both cases the overcharge is returnable. But whereas the Rabbis maintain that an overcharge of more than a sixth entirely annuls the sale, R. Tarfon held that up to a third the defrauded party has the upper hand, and the sale may stand. ');">¹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 100:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.