Bava Metzia 148

ימות הגשמים איכא בינייהו:

They differ with respect to winter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When very little dried manure for fertilising is available. The first Tanna permits a contract even for winter ('FOR THE WHOLE YEAR'); but the Sages, who permit the transaction because even if one has none another may have it, refer only to summer, when it is plentiful, but not to winter, when there may be a shortage amongst all merchants. ');">¹</span>

ופוסק עמו כשער הגבוה:

AND ONE MAY ALSO BARGAIN FOR THE LOWEST PRICE. A man once paid money [in advance] for his father-in-law's dowry,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the father in-law was to provide, the father-in-law having made him his agent. ');">²</span>

ההוא גברא דיהיב זוזי לנדוניא דבי חמוה לסוף זל נדוניא אתו לקמיה דרב פפא אמר ליה אי פסקת עמו כשער הגבוה שקיל כהשתא ואי לא שקיל כי מעיקרא

[i.e., the trousseau comprised therein.] Subsequently the dowry fell in price.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before delivery. ');">³</span>

אמרו ליה רבנן לרב פפא ואי לא פסק שקיל כמעיקרא מעות נינהו ומעות לא קנו אמר להו אנא נמי לקבולי עליה מי שפרע קא אמינא אי פסק כשער הגבוה מוכר קא הדר ביה מקבל עליה מוכר מי שפרע אי לא פסק לוקח קא הדר ביה מקבל עליה לוקח מי שפרע

So they came before R. Papa. Said he to him [the purchaser]: If you have contracted for the lowest price, you can take at present prices; if not, you must accept at the original price. But the Rabbis protested to R. Papa: Yet if he did not stipulate [thus], must he accept at previous prices? Surely it is only money [that has passed between them], and money gives no title! — He replied: I too spoke only with reference to submission to the curse. If he stipulated for the lowest price, and the vendor wishes to retract, the vendor must submit to the curse; if no stipulation has been made, and the purchaser wishes to retract, the purchaser must submit to the curse. Rabina said to R. Papa: Whence do you know that it [our Mishnah under discussion] accords even with the Rabbis who disagree with R. Simeon and maintain that money does not effect possession;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of both the vendor and purchaser; v. supra 44a. ');">⁴</span>

אמר ליה רבינא לרב פפא וממאי דרבנן היא דפליגי עליה דרבי שמעון דאמרי מעות לא קנו ואפילו הכי אי פסק כשער הגבוה שקיל כדהשתא אי לא פסק שקיל כדמעיקרא

and yet even so, [only] if he stipulated for the lowest price does he receive at the present value, but if not, he must accept it at the previous price?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or rescind the sale only on submission to a curse. ');">⁵</span>

דלמא ר' שמעון היא דאמר מעות קונות וכי פסק כשער הגבוה שקיל כי השתא אי לא פסק שקיל כמעיקרא משום דקני להו זוזי אבל לרבנן בין פסק בין לא פסק שקיל כי השתא דדעתיה דאיניש אתרעא זילא

Perhaps it accords [only] with R. Simeon, who maintained that money effects possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of the purchaser, viz., that he cannot rescind the bargain at all, even on pain of submission to the curse. ');">⁶</span>

אמר ליה אימור דאמר רבי שמעון בחד תרעא בתרי תרעי מי אמר דאי לא תימא הכי מי שפרע בלוקח לרבי שמעון לית ליה

so that, if he stipulated for the lowest price, he receives it at current values, but if not, he must accept it at previous prices, because his money has effected possession for him; whereas in the opinion of the Rabbis, whether he stipulated or not, he can take it at present prices, for a man's intention is for the lowest price?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Rabbis maintain that the vendee may rescind the sale even without a drop in price, but that he is subject to the curse, it may be that if the price falls, he is even morally entitled to retract, for a 'most favoured-sale' is implicit in every such transaction. ');">⁷</span>

וכי תימא הכי נמי והתניא מכל מקום כך הלכה אבל אמרו חכמים מי שפרע כו'

— He replied: You must assume that R. Simeon ruled [that the purchaser is morally in possession after paying money] only if the price remained uniform; but did he rule thus when there were two prices?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the price fell. ');">⁸</span>

מאי מכל מקום לאו דלא שנא לוקח ולא שנא מוכר מקבל עליה מי שפרע אלא כי קאמר רבי שמעון בחד תרעא בתרי תרעי לא אמר

For should you not admit this, does R. Simeon maintain that the provision of the curse never applies to the purchaser?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if the sale is always legally binding upon the purchaser there is no possibility of his ever having to submit to the curse. ');">⁹</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ותיפוק ליה דשליח שוייה מעיקרא א"ל בתגרא דזבין ומזבין:

And should you rejoin, That indeed is so — surely it has been taught: At all events, such is [merely] the <i>halachah</i>; but the Sages said, He who punished etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 48a; this was said by R. Simeon. ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מלוה אדם את אריסיו חטין בחטין לזרע אבל לא לאכול שהיה רבן גמליאל מלוה את אריסיו חטין בחטין לזרע ביוקר והוזלו או בזול והוקרו נוטל מהן כשער הזול ולא מפני שהלכה כן אלא שרצה להחמיר על עצמו:

What is meant by 'at all events'? Surely that it matters not whether the vendor or the purchaser [retracts], he must submit to the curse? Hence R. Simeon gave his ruling [that the vendee cannot legally cancel the sale] only if the price remained uniform, but if not there were two prices.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן מלוה אדם את אריסיו חטים בחטים לזרע בד"א שלא ירד אבל ירד אסור מאי שנא תנא דידן דלא קא מפליג בין ירד ובין לא ירד ומאי שנא תנא ברא דקא מפליג בין ירד ובין לא ירד

R. Aha, the son of Raba, said to Raba: But does it not follow [that there is no curse in the case under discussion], since in the first place he [the father-in-law] had only appointed him [the son-in-law] as his agent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the father-in-law provides the dowry, the son-in-law merely acted on his behalf in placing the order. The latter is not subject to the curse, since he does not retract, whilst the former may repudiate his agent for not having fulfilled his task in a proper manner by making the necessary stipulation. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבא ר' אידי אסברה ניהלי באתרא דתנא דידן אריסא יהיב ביזרא בין ירד ובין לא ירד כמה דלא יהיב ביזרא מצי מסליק ליה וכי קא נחית לבציר מהכי קא נחית

— He replied: This refers to a merchant who buys and sells.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The son-in-law did not act as an agent, but bought on his own account, to sell to his father-in-law. ');">¹²</span>

באתרא דתנא ברא מרי ארעא יהיב ביזרא אי לא ירד דמצי מסליק ליה כי קא נחית לבציר מהכי קא נחית אי ירד דלא מצי מסליק ליה אסור

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A MAN MAY LEND HIS TENANTS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Aris, a tenant who pays a percentage of the crops as rent. ');">¹³</span>

תנו רבנן אומר אדם לחבירו

GRAIN FOR [AN EQUAL QUANTITY OF] GRAIN [TO BE RETURNED] FOR SOWING PURPOSES, BUT NOT FOR FOOD. FOR RABBAN GAMALIEL USED TO LEND HIS FARMER-TENANTS GRAIN FOR GRAIN FOR SOWING; AND IF IT WAS DEAR AND BECAME CHEAP, OR CHEAP AND BECAME DEAR, HE WOULD ACCEPT [A RETURN] ONLY AT THE LOWER PRICE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he lent them grain when it was cheap, and then it advanced, he would only accept current value, hence a smaller quantity. ');">¹⁴</span> NOT BECAUSE THE <i>HALACHAH</i> IS SO, BUT BECAUSE RABBAN GAMALIEL DESIRED TO SUBMIT HIMSELF TO GREATER STRINGENCY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the Tanna finds it necessary to state the true halachah. ');">¹⁵</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: A MAN MAY LEND HIS TENANTS GRAIN FOR GRAIN FOR SOWING. That is only if he [the tenant] has not entered therein;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., has not commenced any work in the field. ');">¹⁶</span> but if he has entered therein, it is forbidden. Why does our Tanna draw no distinction whether he has entered therein or not, whereas the Tanna of the Baraitha does?Raba replied: R. Idi explained the matter to me: In the locality of our Tanna the <i>aris</i> provided the seed, and whether he has yet entered therein or not, as long as he has not provided the seed he [the landlord] can make him quit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he has ploughed the field, he can be forced to quit. ');">¹⁷</span> hence, when he enters therein [and the owner provided the seed] it is [straightway] for a lower return.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he could have been forced to leave the field altogether, the seed which the owner provides is not regarded as a loan but as an addition, as it were, to the land he leases him; and in consideration thereof the aris is to pay him the same quantity over and above what he would otherwise have to pay him. Therefore, even if the seed advances in price, there is no interest on a loan. ');">¹⁸</span> But in the locality of the Tanna of the Baraitha the landowner provided the seed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., normally; but in this case, owing to the superior quality of the soil, the owner had stipulated that the aris was to provide it. ');">¹⁹</span> hence, if he [the <i>aris</i>] has not yet entered therein, so that he [the landlord] can make him quit, when he does enter, it is for a lower return; but if he has already<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And then agreed to provide the seed himself, contrary to local usage, and then the owner advanced it, the same quantity to be repaid later. ');">²⁰</span> entered, so that he cannot force him to quit, it is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in that case, the land already having been leased, it cannot be maintained that the seed advanced is an addition to the field. ');">²¹</span> Our Rabbis taught: A man may propose to his neighbour,