## Bava Batra Daf 94b

###### Bava Batra 94b:1
[Bava Batra 94b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/94b:1)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יָבוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**say the latter clause** of the mishna: **Rabbi Yosei says:** It is insufficient to merely reduce the quantity of seeds of a different kind; rather, **one must pick out** all the seeds of a different kind.


###### Bava Batra 94b:2
[Bava Batra 94b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/94b:2)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא כְּיוֹתֵר מֵרוֹבַע טִנּוֹפֶת דָּמֵי, בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: לָא קָנְסִינַן הֶתֵּירָא אַטּוּ אִיסּוּרָא, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: קָנְסִינַן. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ כְּרוֹבַע דָּמֵי, אַמַּאי יָבוֹר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difficulty: **Granted, if you say** that a quarter-*kav* of seeds of a different kind per *se’a* with regard to diverse kinds **is comparable to more than a quarter-***kav* **of impurities** per *se’a* with regard to a sale, then it is **about this that they disagree: The first *tanna* holds that we do not penalize** one by requiring him to remove **that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited,** and consequently it is sufficient to merely reduce the quantity of seeds of a different kind to an acceptable level, **whereas Rabbi Yosei holds** that **we** do **penalize** one by requiring him to remove that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited. **But if you say** that a quarter-*kav* of seeds of a different kind per *se’a* with regard to diverse kinds **is comparable to a quarter-***kav* of impurities per *se’a* with regard to a sale, then **why** does Rabbi Yosei rule that **one must pick out** all the seeds of a different kind?


###### Bava Batra 94b:3
[Bava Batra 94b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/94b:3)

הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיחֲזֵי כִּי מְקַיֵּים כִּלְאַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** with regard to diverse kinds, **this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei:** One must pick out all the seeds, **because** once he is purifying the admixture of seeds, if he deliberately leaves a quantity of seeds of a different kind mixed in, **it appears as though he is** intentionally planting and **maintaining diverse kinds** in his field.


###### Bava Batra 94b:4
[Bava Batra 94b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/94b:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֵצֶל אֶחָד, זֶה מָנֶה וְזֶה מָאתַיִם; זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״מָאתַיִם שֶׁלִּי״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״מָאתַיִם שֶׁלִּי״ – נוֹתֵן לָזֶה מָנֶה וְלָזֶה מָנֶה, וְהַשְּׁאָר יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another challenge to Rav Huna’s ruling from a mishna (*Bava Metzia* 37a): In the case of **two** people **who deposited** money **with one** person, and **this** one deposited **one hundred dinars and that** one deposited **two hundred** dinars, and when they return to collect their deposits, **this** one **says: My** deposit was **two hundred** dinars, **and that** one **says: My** deposit was **two hundred** dinars, the bailee **gives one hundred dinars to this** one **and one hundred dinars to that** one, **and the rest** of the money, i.e., the contested one hundred dinars, **will be placed** in a safe place **until Elijah comes** and prophetically determines the truth. In this case, one of the parties is certainly lying, but nevertheless, the Sages did not penalize the parties by placing all of the money in a safe place. Similarly, in the case of a sale, where a seller deceitfully mixed additional impurities into the produce he sold, he should not be penalized and required to take back all of the impurities.


###### Bava Batra 94b:5
[Bava Batra 94b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/94b:5)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, וַדַּאי מָנֶה לְמָר וּמָנֶה לְמָר; הָכָא, מִי יֵימַר דְּלָאו כּוּלֵּיהּ עָרוֹבֵי עָרֵיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this challenge: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of the deposits, **it is certain** that at least **one hundred dinars** belongs **to** this **Master and one hundred dinars** belongs **to** that **Master. Here,** in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in, **who can say that** the seller **did not mix in the entire** amount intentionally? Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.


###### Bava Batra 94b:6
[Bava Batra 94b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/94b:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא – אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אִם כֵּן, מָה הִפְסִיד הָרַמַּאי? אֶלָּא הַכֹּל יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a support for Rav Huna’s ruling **from the latter clause** of that mishna: **Rabbi Yosei says: If so, what did the swindler lose?** He lost nothing by claiming the one hundred dinars that belongs to another, and he has no incentive to admit the truth. **Rather, the entire** deposit **will be placed** in a safe place **until Elijah comes.** Since through his lie the swindler risks losing even the one hundred dinars that he deposited, perhaps that will induce him to admit his deceit. According to Rabbi Yosei, the Sages did penalize one who acts deceitfully, which accords with Rav Huna’s ruling.


###### Bava Batra 94b:7
[Bava Batra 94b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/94b:7)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם וַדַּאי אִיכָּא רַמַּאי, הָכָא מִי יֵימַר דְּעָרוֹבֵי עָרֵיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the proof: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of the deposits, **there is certainly a swindler,** and it is reasonable to penalize both parties in order to induce the swindler to admit his deceit. **Here,** in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable level of impurities mixed in with the produce, **who can say that** the seller intentionally **mixed in** anything? Perhaps the impurities were inadvertently mixed in during the processing. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.


###### Bava Batra 94b:8
[Bava Batra 94b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/94b:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רִבִּית – קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה לֹא אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הָרִבִּית; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another support for Rav Huna’s ruling from a *baraita*: In the case of a promissory **note in which** the details of a loan with **interest** were written, the court **penalizes** the creditor, **and he may collect neither the principal nor the interest;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.** According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages did penalize one who acts improperly, which accords with Rav Huna’s ruling.


###### Bava Batra 94b:9
[Bava Batra 94b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/94b:9)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה הוּא דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ שׂוּמָא, הָכָא מִי יֵימַר דְּעָרוֹבֵי עָרֵיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the proof: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of a loan with interest, it is already **at the time of the writing** of the bill that the lender **performed the** transgression of **placing** interest upon the borrower. Since he certainly committed a transgression, it is reasonable that the Sages penalized him. But **here,** in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in with the produce, **who can say that** the seller intentionally **mixed in** anything? Perhaps the impurities were inadvertently mixed in during the processing. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the *baraita*.


###### Bava Batra 94b:10
[Bava Batra 94b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/94b:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא – וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן, וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶת הָרִבִּית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a challenge to Rav Huna’s ruling **from the latter clause** of the *baraita*: **But the Rabbis say: He may collect the principal but may not collect the interest.** According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages did not penalize one who acts improperly, contrary to Rav Huna’s ruling.


###### Bava Batra 94b:11
[Bava Batra 94b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/94b:11)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם וַדַּאי קַרְנָא דְּהֶתֵּירָא הוּא, הָכָא מִי יֵימַר דְּכוּלֵּיהּ לָא עָרוֹבֵי עָרֵיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this challenge: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of a loan with interest, according to strict *halakha* it **is certainly permitted** to collect **the principal,** so the Sages did not penalize him with regard to it. But **here,** in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in, **who can say that** the seller **did not mix in the entire** amount intentionally? Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.


###### Bava Batra 94b:12
[Bava Batra 94b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/94b:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רָבִין בַּר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא אֶת הַמּוֹתָר בִּלְבַד הוּא מַחֲזִיר, אֶלָּא מַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֶת כָּל הָרְבָעִין כּוּלָּן. אַלְמָא הֵיכָא דְּבָעֵי אַהְדּוֹרֵי – כּוּלַּהּ מַהְדַּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** further support for Rav Huna’s ruling from **that** which **Ravin bar Rav Naḥman teaches** (104b). Ravin bar Rav Naḥman’s statement is with regard to a situation when land that was sold is later found to be larger than stated at the time of the sale. If the deviation is not more than an area required to sow a quarter-*kav* of seed per *beit se’a* of land, then the buyer need not return any land to the seller. If the proportion of extra land is larger than this, **not only must** the buyer **return the extra** land that is beyond the limit of a quarter-*kav* area per *beit se’a*, **but he must** also **return to him every one of the** extra **quarter-***kav* areas of land that he received beyond the stated area of a *beit kor*. The Gemara infers: **Apparently, when one is required to return** part of a sale because of a discrepancy that is beyond the acceptable limit of deviation, then **one is required to return** the **entire** discrepancy and not just the amount that is beyond the acceptable limit. This supports Rav Huna’s ruling.


###### Bava Batra 94b:13
[Bava Batra 94b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/94b:13)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **How can** these cases **be compared?**