Bava Metzia 98

Chapter 98

א אמרי ליה לא אמר לי ליהוו הנך זוזי בפקדון גבך דהא חשכה לי אמרי ליה הא ביתא קמך אותבינהו בביתא ואיגנוב אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה כל הא ביתא קמך לא מיבעיא שומר שכר דלא הוי אלא אפילו שומר חנם נמי לא הוי אמרי ליה והא אמרו [ליה] רבנן לרבא איבעי ליה לקבולי עליה מי שפרע ואמר לי לא היו דברים מעולם:
1 "No," I answered. "Then let me entrust this money to you," he replied, "as it is growing dark,"<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sabbath was about to commence. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> "The house lies before you." I replied; so he deposited it in the house, and it was stolen. When he came before Raba, he ruled: In every case of "The house lies before you," not only is one not a paid bailee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be responsible for theft. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב רבי שמעון אומר כל שהכסף בידו ידו על העליונה וכו': תניא אמר ר"ש אימתי בזמן שהכסף והפירות ביד מוכר אבל כסף ביד מוכר ופירות ביד לוקח אינו יכול לחזור בו מפני שכספו בידו בידו ביד מוכר הוא אלא מפני שדמי כספו בידו
2 he is not even a gratuitous trustee.' Thereupon I observed to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabina to the Rabbi who related this story. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> 'But the Rabbis protested to Raba: He would have to submit to [the curse] "He who punished";<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that a sale was in question. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג פשיטא אמר רבא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיתה עלייה של לוקח מושכרת ביד מוכר טעמא מאי תקינו רבנן משיכה גזירה שמא יאמר לו נשרפו חיטיך בעלייה הכא ברשותיה דלוקח נינהו אי נפלה דליקה באונס איהו טרח ומייתי לה
3 and he answered, "That is a pure fiction".'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the thing never happened'. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> R. SIMEON SAID: HE WHO HAS THE MONEY IN HIS HAND HAS THE ADVANTAGE. It has been taught: R. Simeon said: When is that?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one can withdraw. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד ההוא גברא דיהיב זוזי אחמרא לסוף שמע דקא בעי למנסביה דבי פרזק רופילא אמר ליה הב לי זוזי לא בעינא חמרא אתא לקמיה דרב חסדא אמר ליה כדרך שתיקנו משיכה במוכרין כך תיקנו משיכה בלקוחות:
4 If the vendor has both the money and the produce. But if the money is in the vendor's hand, and the goods in the vendee's, he [the vendee] cannot retract, since the money is in his hand. [You say,] 'in his hand'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which grammatically refers to the vendee. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> but it is in the vendor's! — Say then, because his money's worth is in his hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he has already received the goods. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האונאה ארבעה כסף מעשרים וארבעה כסף לסלע שתות למקח עד מתי מותר להחזיר עד כדי שיראה לתגר או לקרובו
5 But that is obvious!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the sale cannot be revoked once the purchaser has taken possession, and even the Rabbis admit it. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> — Said Raba: The circumstances here are, e.g., where the vendee's loft was rented to the vendor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the goods were stored therein. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו הורה רבי טרפון בלוד האונאה שמונה כסף מעשרים וארבע כסף לסלע שליש למקח ושמחו תגרי לוד אמר להם כל היום מותר לחזור אמרו לו יניח לנו רבי טרפון במקומינו וחזרו לדברי חכמים:
6 Now, why did the Rabbis institute <i>meshikah</i>? For fear lest he say to him, 'Your wheat was burnt in the loft'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 282, n. 7. This assumes that by Biblical law the delivery of money alone consummates the sale. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> But here it is [already] in the vendee's ownership; should fire accidentally break out, he will take the trouble to save it — 12
ז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אתמר רב אמר שתות מקח שנינו ושמואל אמר שתות מעות נמי שנינו שוי שיתא בחמשא שוי שיתא בשבעה כולי עלמא לא פליגי דבתר מקח אזלינן ואונאה הויא כי פליגי שוי חמשא בשיתא ושוי שבעה בשיתא
7 A certain man gave money [in advance payment] for wine. Subsequently he learnt that one of the men of the Field-marshal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Rufulus, a Persian high official; v. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 163 n. 7 and 301, n. 3.] ');"><sup>13</sup></span> Parzak intended to seize it — Thereupon he said to him, 'Return me my money:I do not want the wine' — So he went before R. Hisda, who said to him, Just as <i>meshikah</i> was instituted in favour of the vendor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he can withdraw before meshikah is performed. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ח לשמואל דאמר בתר מעות אזלינן אידי ואידי אונאה הוי לרב דאמר בתר מקח אזלינן שוי חמשא בשיתא ביטול מקח הויא שוי שבעה בשיתא מחילה הויא
8 so was it instituted in favour of the vendee too. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. FRAUD IS CONSTITUTED BY [AN OVERCHARGE OF] FOUR SILVER [<i>MA'AHS</i>] IN TWENTY FOUR. WHICH IS A <i>SELA'</i>, [HENCE] A SIXTH OF THE PURCHASE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the vendor overcharged by one sixth, he is considered to have defrauded the vendee, and the overcharge is recoverable; or the sale may be revoked. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ט ושמואל אמר כי אמרינן מחילה וביטול מקח היכא דליכא שתות משני צדדים אבל היכא דאיכא שתות מצד אחד אונאה הויא
9 UNTIL WHAT TIME IS ONE PERMITTED TO REVOKE [THE SALE]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of overcharge. Since he was imposed upon, the vendee is not only legally, but also morally entitled to cancel the bargain; hence the Mishnah states 'permitted'. Opposing views are expressed in the Talmud (infra 50b) whether the vendee can retract from the bargain even if the vendor is prepared to make a refund. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> UNTIL HE CAN SHEW [THE ARTICLE] TO A MERCHANT OR A RELATIVE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But after that the sale is absolute, notwithstanding the overcharge. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
י תנן האונאה ד' כסף מעשרים וארבעה כסף לסלע שתות למקח מאי לאו דזבין שוי עשרים בעשרין וארבעה ושמע מינה שתות מעות נמי שנינו לא דזבין שוי עשרים וארבעה בעשרים
10 R. TARFON RULED IN LYDDA THAT FRAUD IS CONSTITUTED BY EIGHT SILVER [<i>MA'AHS</i>] IN TWENTY-FOUR, WHICH IS A <i>SELA'</i>, [HENCE] A THIRD OF THE PURCHASE, WHEREAT THE LYDDAN MERCHANTS REJOICED. BUT, SAID HE TO THEM, ONE MAY RETRACT THE WHOLE DAY. THEN LET R. TARFON LEAVE US IN STATUS QUO, THEY REQUESTED; AND SO THEY REVERTED TO THE RULING OF THE SAGES. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It has been stated: Rab said: We learnt, A sixth of the [true] purchase price. Samuel said: A sixth of the money [actually] paid was also taught. Now, if that which is worth six [<i>ma'ahs</i>] was sold for five or seven, all agree that we follow the purchase price.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence there was overreaching by one-sixth, and the law of the Mishnah operates. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יא מי נתאנה מוכר אימא סיפא עד מתי מותר להחזיר בכדי שיראה לתגר או לקרובו ואמר רב נחמן לא שנו אלא לוקח אבל מוכר לעולם חוזר
11 Wherein do they differ? If something worth five or seven [<i>ma'ahs</i>] was sold for six. According to Samuel, who maintained that we follow the money paid [too], both cases constitute fraud. But according to Rab, viz., that we follow only the purchase price, if something worth five is sold for six, the sale is null;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the overreaching is more than one-sixth; in this case, the bargain is altogether null, and even if the vendor is prepared to make amends, the vendee is morally entitled to retract: even the defrauding party too can declare the sale null in these circumstances (infra 50b). ');"><sup>19</sup></span> but if what is worth seven is sold for six, it is renunciation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is only a seventh of the true purchase price, the vendor is regarded as having foregone part of his due. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יב אלא דזבין שוי עשרים וארבעה בעשרין ותמניא תנן הורה רבי טרפון בלוד האונאה שמונה כסף מעשרים וארבעה כסף לסלע שליש למקח מאי לאו דזבין שוי שיתסרי בעשרים וארבעה וש"מ שליש מעות נמי שנינו
12 But Samuel maintained: When do we say that there is renunciation or annulment of the sale? Only if there is not a sixth on either side;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether we regard the true purchase price or the money paid. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> but if there is a sixth on one side, it is fraud.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is returnable, whilst the sale is valid. ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
יג לא דזבין שוי עשרים וארבעה בשיתסר מי נתאנה מוכר אימא סיפא אמר להם כל היום מותר לחזור וא"ר נחמן לא שנו אלא לוקח אבל מוכר לעולם חוזר אלא דזבין שוי כ"ד בתלתין ותרין
13 We learnt: FRAUD IS CONSTITUTED BY [AN OVERCHARGE OF] FOUR SILVER [<i>MA'AHS</i>] IN TWENTY FOUR, WHICH IS A <i>SELA'</i>, [HENCE] A SIXTH OF THE PURCHASE. Surely that means that one sold something worth twenty [<i>ma'ahs</i>] for twenty-four. which proves that a sixth of the money paid was also taught? No; It means that twenty-four [<i>ma'ahs</i>] worth was sold for twenty. Then who was overreached? The vendor! But consider the second clause: UNTIL WHAT TIME IS ONE PERMITTED TO REVOKE [THE SALE]? UNTIL HE CAN SHEW [THE ARTICLE] TO A MERCHANT OR A RELATIVE. Now, R. Nahman observed [thereon]: This was taught only of the purchaser; the vendor, however, can always withdraw!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the article is no longer in his hand, he can retract whenever he finds that he was defrauded. This proves that the Mishnah treats of the vendee's being overreached. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> — But it means that one sold something worth twenty-four [<i>ma'ahs</i>] for twenty-eight.
יד תניא כוותיה דשמואל מי שהוטל עליו ידו על העליונה כיצד מכר לו שוה ה' בו' מי נתאנה לוקח יד לוקח על העליונה רצה אומר תן לי מעותי או תן לי מה שאוניתני מכר לו
14 We learnt: R. TARFON RULED IN LYDDA THAT FRAUD IS CONSTITUTED BY EIGHT SILVER [<i>MA'AHS</i>] IN TWENTY-FOUR, WHICH IS A <i>SELA'</i>, [HENCE] A THIRD OF THE PURCHASE. Surely that means that one sold something worth sixteen [<i>ma'ahs</i>] for twenty four, which proves that a third of the money paid was also taught?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the same applies to the definition of 'one-sixth', and thus refutes Rab. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> — No: it means that what was worth twenty-four was sold for sixteen. Then who was overreached? the vendor! But consider the next clause; BUT, SAID HE TO THEM, ONE MAY RETRACT THE WHOLE DAY, whereon R. Nahman observed: This was taught only of the purchaser; the vendor, however, can always withdraw! But it means that one sold the value of twenty-four [<i>ma'ahs</i>] for thirty-two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a sixth in the purchase price. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> It has been taught in accordance with Samuel: He who was deceived has the upper hand. E.g., if one sold an article worth five [<i>ma'ahs</i>] for six — who was defrauded? The vendee. Therefore the vendee has the upper hand, [and] he can demand of him [the vendor] either, 'Return me my money', or, 'Return me the overcharge'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what you deceived me.' ');"><sup>26</sup></span> If he sold him