## Bava Metzia Daf 49b

###### Bava Metzia 49b:1
[Bava Metzia 49b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:1)

אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: לָא. אֲמַר לִי: לֶיהְווֹ הָנָךְ זוּזֵי בְּפִקָּדוֹן גַּבָּךְ, דְּהָא חֲשַׁכָה לִי. אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: הָא בֵּיתָא קַמָּךְ. אוֹתְבִינְהוּ בְּבֵיתָא וְאִיגְּנוּב. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל ״הָא בֵּיתָא קַמָּךְ״ לָא מִיבַּעְיָא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר דְּלָא הָוֵי, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי. אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: וְהָא אֲמַרוּ [לֵיהּ] רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְקַבּוֹלֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״מִי שֶׁפָּרַע״. וַאֲמַר לִי: לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I said to him: No. He said to me: Let these dinars** remain **as a deposit with you, as** the day **has grown dark for me** and I am unable to reach home before Shabbat. **I said to him: This house is before you. He placed them in the house and** the dinars **were stolen.** That man **came** to have his case judged **before Rava,** demanding his money. Rava **said to him:** With regard to **anyone** who states: **This house is before you, it is not necessary** to say **that he is not a paid bailee, but he is not even an unpaid bailee.** Ravina **said to** Rav Tavot: **But didn’t the Sages say to Rava:** The sesame merchant **is required to accept upon himself** the curse: **He Who exacted payment? And** Rav Tavot **said to me:** There **were never** such **matters;** that incident never occurred.


###### Bava Metzia 49b:2
[Bava Metzia 49b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:2)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁהַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדוֹ – יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַכֶּסֶף וְהַפֵּירוֹת בְּיַד מוֹכֵר. אֲבָל כֶּסֶף בְּיַד מוֹכֵר וּפֵירוֹת בְּיַד לוֹקֵחַ – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכַּסְפּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ. ״בְּיָדוֹ״?! בְּיַד מוֹכֵר הוּא. אֶלָּא – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדְּמֵי כַסְפּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Shimon says: Anyone who has the money in his possession has the advantage. It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon says: When** does the one with the money in his possession have the advantage? It is **when** both **the money and the produce are in the possession of** the **seller. But** if the **money** is **in the possession of** the **seller and the produce** is **in the possession of** the **buyer,** the seller **cannot renege, because his money is in his possession.** The Gemara understood this to mean that the buyer still had the money in his possession, and asks: **In his,** i.e., the buyer’s, **possession? Isn’t it in the possession of** the **seller? Rather,** emend the text: **Because the value of his,** i.e., the buyer’s, **money is in his,** i.e., the buyer’s, **possession.**


###### Bava Metzia 49b:3
[Bava Metzia 49b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:3)

פְּשִׁיטָא! אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה עֲלִיָּיה שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ מוּשְׂכֶּרֶת בְּיַד מוֹכֵר. טַעְמָא מַאי תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן מְשִׁיכָה – גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר לוֹ נִשְׂרְפוּ חִטֶּיךָ בַּעֲלִיָּיה. הָכָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דְּלוֹקֵחַ נִינְהוּ, אִי נָפְלָה דְּלֵיקָה בְּאוֹנֶס – אִיהוּ טָרַח וּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious** that the seller cannot renege, as the buyer acquired the produce through the transaction of pulling? **Rava said: With what are we dealing here?** It is a case **where the upper story of** the house belonging to the **buyer,** where the produce was stored, **was rented to** the **seller.** The Gemara elaborates: **What is the reason the Sages instituted** that **pulling,** and not payment of money, effects acquisition? It is a rabbinic **decree, lest** a seller **say to** the buyer: **Your wheat burned in the upper story** after you paid. **Here,** the produce **is in the domain of** the **buyer.** Therefore, **if a fire is ignited due to circumstances beyond his control,** the buyer **will exert himself and bring** the produce from the upper story.


###### Bava Metzia 49b:4
[Bava Metzia 49b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:4)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּיהַיב זוּזֵי אַחַמְרָא. לְסוֹף שְׁמַע דְּקָא בָעֵי לְמִנְסְבֵיהּ דְּבֵי פַּרְזַק רוּפִילָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי זוּזַי, לָא בָּעֵינָא חַמְרָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתִּיקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּמּוֹכְרִין כָּךְ תִּיקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּלָּקוֹחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain man who gave money** in exchange **for wine. Ultimately he heard that** men **from the house of Parzak the vizier [*rufila*] sought to appropriate** the wine. The buyer **said to** the seller: **Give me my money,** as **I do not want** the **wine.** The case **came before Rav Ḥisda,** who **said to him: Just as** the Sages **instituted pulling with regard to sellers, so did they institute pulling with regard to buyers.** Since the buyer had yet to pull the wine into his possession, he can renege on the transaction.


###### Bava Metzia 49b:5
[Bava Metzia 49b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹנָאָה, אַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁתוּת לְמִקָּח. עַד מָתַי מוּתָּר לְהַחְזִיר? עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The** measure of **exploitation** for which one can claim that he was exploited is **four silver** *ma’a* **from** the **twenty-four silver** *ma’a* **in a *sela*,** or **one-sixth of the transaction. Until when** is it **permitted** for the buyer **to return** the item? He may return it only **until a period** of time has passed **that** would allow him to **show** the merchandise **to a merchant or to his relative** who is more familiar with the market price of merchandise. If more time has elapsed he can no longer return the item, as the assumption is that he waived his right to receive the sum of the disparity.


###### Bava Metzia 49b:6
[Bava Metzia 49b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:6)

הוֹרָה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בְּלוֹד: הָאוֹנָאָה שְׁמוֹנָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁלִישׁ לְמִקָּח. וְשָׂמְחוּ תַּגָּרֵי לוֹד. אָמַר לָהֶם: כׇּל הַיּוֹם מוּתָּר לַחְזוֹר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ יַנִּיחַ לָנוּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בִּמְקוֹמֵינוּ, וְחָזְרוּ לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation** is a measure of **eight silver** *ma’a* **from** the **twenty-four silver** *ma’a* **of a *sela*, one-third of the transaction. And the merchants of Lod rejoiced,** as this ruling allowed them a greater profit margin and rendered the nullification of a transaction less likely. Rabbi Tarfon **said to them:** Throughout **the entire day** it is permitted **to renege** on the transaction and not merely for the period of time it takes to show the purchase item to a merchant or a relative. The merchants of Lod **said to him: Let Rabbi Tarfon leave us as we were,** with the previous ruling, **and they reverted to** following **the statement of the Rabbis** in the mishna with regard to both rulings.


###### Bava Metzia 49b:7
[Bava Metzia 49b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:7)

**גְּמָ׳** אִתְּמַר: רַב אָמַר: שְׁתוּת מִקָּח שָׁנִינוּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שְׁתוּת מָעוֹת נָמֵי שָׁנִינוּ. שָׁוֵי שִׁיתָּא בְּחַמְשָׁא, שָׁוֵי שִׁיתָּא בְּשִׁבְעָה – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָתַר מִקָּח אָזְלִינַן וְאוֹנָאָה הָוְיָא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי שָׁוֵי חַמְשָׁא בְּשִׁיתָּא וְשָׁוֵי שִׁבְעָה בְּשִׁיתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It was stated** that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to exploitation. **Rav says: We learned** that exploitation is determined by **one-sixth of** the **transaction,** i.e., one-sixth of the purchase item, not one-sixth of the money paid. **And Shmuel says: We learned** that exploitation is **also** determined by **one-sixth of** the **money** paid. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to an item **worth six** *ma’a* that was sold **for five** *ma’a*, or an item **worth six** *ma’a* that was sold **for seven** *ma’a*, **everyone agrees** that **we follow** the **transaction,** i.e., the fraction of the variation in price is determined relative to the market value of the item sold, **and it is exploitation. Where** Rav and Shmuel **disagree** is in the case of an item **worth five** *ma’a* sold **for six** *ma’a*, **or** an item **worth seven** *ma’a* sold **for six** *ma’a*.


###### Bava Metzia 49b:8
[Bava Metzia 49b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:8)

לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר: בָּתַר מָעוֹת אָזְלִינַן, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי אוֹנָאָה הָוֵי. לְרַב דְּאָמַר: בָּתַר מִקָּח אָזְלִינַן, שָׁוֵי חַמְשָׁא בְּשִׁיתָּא בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח הָוְיָא. שָׁוֵי שִׁבְעָה בְּשִׁיתָּא, מְחִילָה הָוְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to Shmuel, who says** that **we** also **follow** the fraction of the variation in price as determined by the **money** paid, both **this** case **and that** case **are exploitation,** as there is a disparity of one-sixth between the price paid and the value of the item. **According to Rav, who says** that **we follow** the **transaction,** when an item **worth five** *ma’a* sells **for six** *ma’a*, the *halakha* is that there **is a nullification of the transaction,** as the disparity between the value of the item and the price paid is greater than one-sixth. When an item **worth seven** *ma’a* sells **for six** *ma’a*, the *halakha* is that there **is a waiver** of the sum of the disparity, as the disparity between the value of the item and the price paid is less than one-sixth.


###### Bava Metzia 49b:9
[Bava Metzia 49b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:9)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כִּי אָמְרִינַן מְחִילָה וּבִיטּוּל מִקָּח – הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא שְׁתוּת מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִים. אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא שְׁתוּת מִצַּד אֶחָד – אוֹנָאָה הָוְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel says: When we say** that there is **a waiver or a nullification of the transaction,** it is in a case **where there is not** a disparity of **one-sixth from both aspects,** i.e., both in terms of the money paid and in terms of the value of the item. **But** in a case **where there is** a disparity of **one-sixth from one aspect,** either in terms of the money paid or the value of the item, **it is exploitation.**


###### Bava Metzia 49b:10
[Bava Metzia 49b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:10)

תְּנַן: הָאוֹנָאָה אַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁתוּת לְמִקָּח. מַאי לָאו, דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים בְּעֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבְּעָה, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׁתוּת מָעוֹת נָמֵי שָׁנִינוּ! לָא, דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה בְּעֶשְׂרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites proof for the opinions of Rav and Shmuel. **We learned** in the mishna: The measure of **exploitation** for which one can claim that he was exploited is **four silver** *ma’a* **from** the **twenty-four silver** *ma’a* **in a *sela*,** which is **one-sixth of the transaction. What, is it not** a case **where he bought** an item **worth twenty** *ma’a* **for twenty-four** *ma’a*? **And** accordingly, one can **conclude from** the mishna that **we learned** that exploitation is **also** determined by **one-sixth of** the **money** paid, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects this proof: **No,** it is a case **where he sold** an item **worth twenty-four** *ma’a* **for twenty** *ma’a*.


###### Bava Metzia 49b:11
[Bava Metzia 49b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:11)

מִי נִתְאַנָּה – מוֹכֵר. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עַד מָתַי מוּתָּר לְהַחְזִיר – בִּכְדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לוֹקֵחַ, אֲבָל מוֹכֵר – לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **who was exploited** in this transaction? It is the **seller. Say the latter clause** of the mishna: **Until when** is it **permitted** for the buyer **to return** the item? **In the time that** it takes the buyer **to show** the merchandise **to a merchant or to his relative. And Rav Naḥman said:** The Rabbis **taught** this *halakha* **only** with regard to **a buyer,** who is in possession of the item and can show it to a merchant immediately. **But a seller may always renege** on the transaction. Since the purchase item is not in his possession, he can determine its market price only if he happens to encounter a similar item, and there is no time frame within which this will certainly occur.


###### Bava Metzia 49b:12
[Bava Metzia 49b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:12)

אֶלָּא דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה בְּעֶשְׂרִין וּתְמָנְיָא. תְּנַן, הוֹרָה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בְּלוֹד: הָאוֹנָאָה שְׁמוֹנָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁלִישׁ לְמִקָּח. מַאי לָאו, דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי שִׁיתַּסְרֵי בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה? וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שְׁלִישׁ מָעוֹת נָמֵי שָׁנִינוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is a case **where he sold** an item **worth twenty-four** *ma’a* **for twenty-eight** *ma’a*. **We learned** in the mishna that **Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation** is a measure of **eight silver** *ma’a* **from** the **twenty-four silver** *ma’a* **of a *sela*, one-third of the transaction. What, is it not** a case **where he bought** an item **worth sixteen** *ma’a* **for twenty-four** *ma’a*? **And** accordingly, one can **conclude from** the mishna that **we learned** that exploitation is **also** determined by **one-third of** the **money** paid, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.


###### Bava Metzia 49b:13
[Bava Metzia 49b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:13)

לָא: דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה בְּשִׁיתְּסַר. מִי נִתְאַנָּה מוֹכֵר, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אָמַר לָהֶם – כׇּל הַיּוֹם מוּתָּר לַחְזוֹר. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לוֹקֵחַ, אֲבָל מוֹכֵר לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר. אֶלָּא דְּזַבֵּין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה בִּתְלָתִין וּתְרֵין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **No,** it is a case **where he sold** an item **worth twenty-four** *ma’a* **for sixteen** *ma’a*. The Gemara asks: If so, **who was exploited** in this transaction? It is the **seller. Say the latter clause** of the mishna: Rabbi Tarfon **said to them:** Throughout **the entire day** it is **permitted to renege** on the transaction. **And Rav Naḥman says: They taught** this *halakha* **only** with regard to **a buyer, but a seller may always renege** on the transaction. **Rather,** it is a case **where he sold** an item **worth twenty-four** *ma’a* **for thirty-two** *ma’a*.


###### Bava Metzia 49b:14
[Bava Metzia 49b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/49b:14)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: מִי שֶׁהוּטַּל עָלָיו יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. כֵּיצַד? מָכַר לוֹ שָׁוֶה חֲמִשָּׁה בְּשִׁשָּׁה, מִי נִתְאַנָּה – לוֹקֵחַ, יָד לוֹקֵחַ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, רָצָה אוֹמֵר: תֵּן לִי מְעוֹתַי, אוֹ תֵּן לִי מָה שֶׁאוֹנֵיתַנִי. מָכַר לוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Shmuel: The one upon whom** the exploitation **was imposed has the advantage. How so?** In a case where one **sold him** an item **worth five** *ma’a* **for six** *ma’a*, **who was exploited?** It is the **buyer.** Therefore, the **buyer is at an advantage.** If he **wishes,** he can **say** to the seller: **Give me** back **my money** and nullify the transaction, **or** he can say: **Give me** back the sum **which you** received by engaging in **exploitation** of **me.** In a case where one **sold him**