Bava Metzia 100

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>

מי סברת פחות משליש לרבי טרפון כפחות משתות לרבנן דמי לא משתות ועד שליש לרבי טרפון כשתות עצמה לרבנן דמי אי הכי במאי שמחו מעיקרא

If so, whereat did they rejoice [in the first place]? Hence you may deduce that in the view of the Rabbis, in a case of annulment of the sale, one can always withdraw; they thus rejoiced when R. Tarfon told them that it [an overcharge up to a third] constitutes overreaching.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas on the ruling of the Rabbis, if it is more than one-sixth, the transaction is altogether cancelled. ');">²</span>

תפשוט דבטול מקח לרבנן לעולם חוזר דכיון דאמר להו רבי טרפון הויא אונאה שמחו כי אמר להו כל היום חזרו

whilst they reverted [to the ruling of the Rabbis] when he told them [that the time for withdrawing is] all day. For if you should think that in the view of the Rabbis the annulment of the sale<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For an overcharge of more than a sixth. ');">³</span>

דאי סלקא דעתך דבטול מקח לרבנן בכדי שיראה לתגר או לקרובו במאי שמחו שמחו בשתות עצמה דלרבי טרפון מחילה ולרבנן אונאה

is only within the time that he can shew it to a merchant or to a relative, whereat did they rejoice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The problem of the time within which the sale may be annulled is raised immediately after this passage. Here the Talmud anticipates it by pointing out that since the dealers originally rejoiced at R. Tarfon's ruling, which, ex hypathesi, means that from a sixth up to a third constitutes overreaching, it must be assumed that annulment in the view of the Rabbis is not limited by time. For otherwise, there was no reason to rejoice in the first place. The argument is this: There is very little practical difference between a whole day and always, because a day is quite ample for finding out that one was overreached; but there is a great difference between a day and the short time necessary for shewing one's purchase to a merchant, which may easily pass before the defrauded party discovers his loss. Furthermore, it is rare to overreach by more than a sixth (presumably buyers were very keen in those days!). Consequently, when R. Tarfon told them that a returnable overcharge is up to a third, which, as they thought, meant within the shorter period only, after which there was no redress, whilst in the view of the Rabbis the purchase could be annulled at any time if the overcharge was more than a sixth, R. Tarfon's ruling was naturally to their advantage. But if the annulment of the sale according to the Rabbis is only within the shorter period, why did they rejoice? On the contrary. R. Tarfon's ruling that up to a third constitutes overreaching as against the Rabbis' view that over a sixth annuls the sale was manifestly to their disadvantage: since according to the Rabbis both parties could withdraw, whilst on the view of R. Tarfon only the defrauded party had that right. ');">⁴</span>

איבעיא להו בטול מקח לרבנן לעולם חוזר או דלמא בכדי שיראה לתגר או לקרובו ואם תמצא לומר בכדי שיראה לתגר או לקרובו מה איכא בין שתות ליתר על שתות איכא דאילו שתות מי שנתאנה חוזר ואילו יתר על שתות שניהם חוזרין

— They rejoiced in respect of a sixth itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when we say that according to R. Tarfon from a sixth up to a third constitutes overreaching, a sixth itself is excluded, and not recoverable. Hence they might well rejoice, quite irrespective of the time within which the sale is revocable in the opinion of the Rabbis. ');">⁵</span>

מאי ת"ש חזרו לדברי חכמים אי אמרת בשלמא בטול מקח לרבנן בכדי שיראה לתגר או לקרובו ולר' טרפון כל היום משום הכי חזרו אלא אי אמרת בטול מקח לרבנן לעולם חוזר אמאי חזרו בדרבי טרפון ניחא להו טפי דקא משוי להו אונאה כל היום ותו לא

The scholars propounded: In the case of annulment of Sale, on the view of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., for an overcharge of more than one-sixth. ');">⁶</span>

בטול מקח לא שכיח

can one always retract, or perhaps only within the time necessary to shew [the purchase] to a dealer or a relative? And should you answer, [if only] within the time necessary to shew it to a dealer or a relative, wherein do a sixth and more than a sixth differ? There is a difference: for in the case of a sixth, [only] the defrauded party can retract, whereas in the case of more than a sixth both can retract.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is only if the defrauded party demands a refund. Otherwise, it is altogether illogical to give the defrauder a greater power of withdrawal than he would have enjoyed had the fraud amounted only to a sixth. (Tosaf. a.l. and B.B. 84a s.v. [H]) ');">⁷</span>

אמר רבא הלכתא פחות משתות נקנה מקח יותר על שתות בטול מקח שתות קנה ומחזיר אונאה וזה וזה בכדי שיראה לתגר או לקרובו

What is the ruling? — Come and hear: THEY REVERTED TO THE RULING OF THE SAGES. Now, if you say that annulment of the sale, on the view of the Rabbis, is only within the time necessary to shew [the purchase] to a dealer or a relative, whereas on R. Tarfon's view it is all day, it is well: on that account they reverted [etc.]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For their disadvantage in that the defrauded party had a longer time within which to retract outweighed their advantage that fraud of exactly one-sixth was not recoverable, as stated above. ');">⁸</span>

תניא כותיה דרבא אונאה פחות משתות נקנה מקח יתר על שתות בטל מקח שתות קנה ומחזיר אונאה דברי רבי נתן רבי יהודה הנשיא אומר יד מוכר על העליונה רוצה אומר לו תן לי מקחי או תן לי מה שאניתני וזה וזה בכדי שיראה לתגר או לקרובו:

But if you say that in the case of annulment of sale, on the view of the Rabbis, one can always retract, why did they revert [etc.]? Surely R. Tarfon's ruling was more advantageous to them, since he declared overreaching [returnable] the whole day, but no more! — Annulment of sale is rare.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore they did not regard the shorter period of R. Tarfon as particularly advantageous to them, the more so since a whole day is ample time for the defrauded party to discover that he was overreached. On the other hand, in respect of overreaching as distinct from annulment the longer period given by R. Tarfon (a whole day, as against the Rabbis', 'within the time necessary to shew the purchase to a merchant') was definitely to their disadvantage, and therefore they reverted to the ruling of the Rabbis. ');">⁹</span>

עד מתי מותר להחזיר כו': אמר רב נחמן לא שנו אלא לוקח אבל מוכר לעולם חוזר נימא מסייע ליה חזרו לדברי חכמים אי אמרת בשלמא מוכר לעולם חוזר

Raba said: The law is: In the case of less than a sixth, the sale is valid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Immediately, and the defrauded party has no redress. ');">¹⁰</span> more than a sixth, it is null; [exactly] a sixth, it is valid, but the overcharge is returnable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus Raba disagrees with the view formerly stated that in the case of a sixth the defrauded party can either demand a refund or cancel the sale. ');">¹¹</span> and in both cases it is within the time necessary to shew [the purchase] to a merchant or a relative. It has been taught in support of Raba: In the case of overreaching of less than a sixth, the sale is valid; more than a sixth, the sale is null; [exactly] a sixth, he [the defrauded party] retains ownership whilst the overcharge must be refunded: this is R. Nathan's view. R. Judah ha-Nasi said: The vendor has the upper hand;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he was defrauded; of course, if the vendee was defrauded, he has the upper hand. ');">¹²</span> if he wishes he can say, 'Return me the Purchase,' or, 'Pay up the sum wherein you defrauded me.' And in both cases, it is within the time necessary to shew [the purchase] to a merchant or a relative.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Notwithstanding that the vendor no longer has the article. This is discussed below. ');">¹³</span> UNTIL WHAT TIME IS ONE PERMITTED TO REVOKE [THE SALE] etc. R. Nahman said: This was taught only of the purchaser; but the vendor can always retract.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he was defrauded, since he is no longer in possession of the article to be able to shew it to an expert, and he discovers the fraud only when he sees a similar article sold at a higher price; hence no limit can be set in his case, v. infra. ');">¹⁴</span> Shall we say that he is supported [by the Mishnah]? THEY REVERTED TO THE RULING OF THE SAGES. Now, if you agree that the vendor can always retract, it is well: