## Bava Metzia Daf 50b

###### Bava Metzia 50b:1
[Bava Metzia 50b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/50b:1)

וּלְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן נָמֵי לְאַלְתַּר הָוְיָא מְחִילָה, אַמַּאי חָזְרוּ? בִּדְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן נִיחָא לְהוּ טְפֵי, דְּמַאי דְּרַבָּנַן קָא מְשַׁוֵּי לְהוּ אוֹנָאָה לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן הָוְיָא מְחִילָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and according to Rabbi Tarfon too,** there **is a waiver** of the disparity of less than one-third and the transaction is finalized **immediately, why did they revert** to following the statement of the Rabbis? **In** that case, the ruling **of Rabbi Tarfon** would be **preferable for them, as that which the Rabbis deem exploitation,** i.e., a discrepancy of one-sixth, **is waived according to Rabbi Tarfon.**


###### Bava Metzia 50b:2
[Bava Metzia 50b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/50b:2)

מִי סָבְרַתְּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלִישׁ לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן כְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁתוּת לְרַבָּנַן דָּמֵי? לָא, מִשְּׁתוּת וְעַד שְׁלִישׁ לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן כִּשְׁתוּת עַצְמָהּ לְרַבָּנַן דָּמֵי. אִי הָכִי, בְּמַאי שָׂמְחוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **Do you maintain** that the legal status of a disparity of **less than one-third according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon is like** the legal status of a disparity of **less than one-sixth according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis? No,** the legal status of a disparity ranging **from one-sixth until one-third according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon is like** the legal status of a disparity of **one-sixth itself according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** and the exploited party receives the sum of the exploitation in return. The Gemara asks: **If so, for what** reason **did** the merchants of Lod **rejoice initially?** They gained nothing relative to the ruling of the Rabbis.


###### Bava Metzia 50b:3
[Bava Metzia 50b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/50b:3)

תִּפְשׁוֹט דְּבִטּוּל מִקָּח לְרַבָּנַן לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר, דְּכֵיוָן דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן הָוְיָא אוֹנָאָה – שָׂמְחוּ, כִּי אֲמַר לְהוּ כׇּל הַיּוֹם – חָזְרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Resolve,** based on this difficulty, the dilemma raised below, and conclude **that** in cases of **nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis, one may always renege** on the transaction. Therefore, the reaction of the merchants of Lod is understandable, **as, since Rabbi Tarfon said to them** that a disparity between one-sixth and one-third **is** merely **exploitation, they rejoiced,** as this would mean that the buyer has only the time it takes to show the merchandise to a merchant or a relative to renege. **When he said to them** that the exploited person can renege on the transaction for **the entire day, they reverted** to following the statement of the Rabbis.


###### Bava Metzia 50b:4
[Bava Metzia 50b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/50b:4)

דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּבִטּוּל מִקָּח לְרַבָּנַן בִּכְדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ, בְּמַאי שָׂמְחוּ? שָׂמְחוּ בְּשֶׁתּוּת עַצְמָהּ, דִּלְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן מְחִילָה, וּלְרַבָּנַן אוֹנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why the dilemma is resolved: **As, if it enters your mind** to say **that nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis** is limited to only **within the time that** it takes for the buyer **to show** the merchandise **to a merchant or to his relative, for what** reason **did they rejoice** over the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon? His ruling did not enable them to sell the merchandise at a higher price than the ruling of the Rabbis did. The Gemara rejects this proof: **They** initially **rejoiced over the** case of a disparity of **one-sixth itself, as according to Rabbi Tarfon** there is **a waiver** of the disparity, **and according to the Rabbis** it is **exploitation.**


###### Bava Metzia 50b:5
[Bava Metzia 50b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/50b:5)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בִּטּוּל מִקָּח לְרַבָּנַן, לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר, אוֹ דִלְמָא בִּכְדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ? וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר בִּכְדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ, מָה אִיכָּא בֵּין שְׁתוּת לְיָתֵר עַל שְׁתוּת? אִיכָּא: דְּאִילּוּ שְׁתוּת – מִי שֶׁנִּתְאַנָּה חוֹזֵר, וְאִילּוּ יָתֵר עַל שְׁתוּת – שְׁנֵיהֶם חוֹזְרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites the dilemma referenced above. **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: With regard to **nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis,** may one **always renege** on the transaction? **Or perhaps** he can renege only **within the time that** it takes him **to show** the merchandise **to a merchant or to his relative. And if you say** that the transaction is nullified only **within the time that** it takes him **to show** the merchandise **to a merchant or to his relative, what** difference **is there between** a disparity of **one-sixth and** a disparity of **greater than one-sixth?** The Gemara answers: **There is** a difference, **as** in the case of a disparity of **one-sixth,** only the one **who was exploited can renege** on the transaction, **while** in the case where the disparity is **greater than one-sixth, both can renege** on the transaction.


###### Bava Metzia 50b:6
[Bava Metzia 50b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/50b:6)

מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, חָזְרוּ לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּטּוּל מִקָּח לְרַבָּנַן בִּכְדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ, וּלְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן כׇּל הַיּוֹם – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי חָזְרוּ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּטּוּל מִקָּח לְרַבָּנַן לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר, אַמַּאי חָזְרוּ? בִּדְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן נִיחָא לְהוּ טְפֵי, דְּקָא מְשַׁוֵּי לְהוּ אוֹנָאָה כׇּל הַיּוֹם וְתוּ לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to discuss the dilemma: **What** is the *halakha*? The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution of the dilemma from the mishna: The merchants of Lod **reverted to** following **the statement of the Rabbis. Granted, if you say** that one can claim **nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis** only **within the time that** it takes the buyer **to show** the merchandise **to a merchant or to his relative, and according to Rabbi Tarfon** one can do so for **the entire day,** it is **due to that** reason that **they reverted** to following the statement of the Rabbis. **But if you say** that one can claim **nullification of the transaction according to the Rabbis** and **always renege** on the transaction, **why** did **they revert** to following the statement of the Rabbis? **In** that case, the ruling **of Rabbi Tarfon** is **preferable for them, as he deems** such a disparity **exploitation** and rules that one can claim nullification of the transaction for **the entire day and no more,** which is more beneficial to the merchant.


###### Bava Metzia 50b:7
[Bava Metzia 50b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/50b:7)

בִּטּוּל מִקָּח לָא שְׁכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Nullification of the transaction is uncommon,** and therefore the merchants of Lod did not take that into consideration when calculating which ruling was most advantageous.


###### Bava Metzia 50b:8
[Bava Metzia 50b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/50b:8)

אָמַר רָבָא, הִלְכְתָא: פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁתוּת – נִקְנֶה מִקָּח, יוֹתֵר עַל שְׁתוּת – בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח, שְׁתוּת – קָנָה וּמַחְזִיר אוֹנָאָה, וְזֶה וָזֶה – בִּכְדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the halakhic resolutions of these dilemmas. **Rava said:** The ***halakha*** is that if the disparity is **less than one-sixth,** the **merchandise is acquired** immediately. If the disparity is **greater than one-sixth,** either party can demand **nullification of the transaction.** If the disparity is precisely **one-sixth,** the buyer has **acquired** the merchandise, **and** the one who benefited from the exploitation **returns** the sum gained by the **exploitation. And** one may claim both **this,** nullification of the transaction, **and that,** return of the sum gained, only **within the time that** it takes **to show** the merchandise **to a merchant or to his relative.**


###### Bava Metzia 50b:9
[Bava Metzia 50b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/50b:9)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: אוֹנָאָה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁתוּת – נִקְנֶה מִקָּח. יָתֵר עַל שְׁתוּת – בָּטֵל מִקָּח. שְׁתוּת – קָנָה וּמַחְזִיר אוֹנָאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי נָתָן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא אוֹמֵר: יָד מוֹכֵר עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, רוֹצֶה – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״תֵּן לִי מִקָּחִי״, אוֹ ״תֵּן לִי מַה שֶּׁאֹנֵיתַנִי״. וְזֶה וָזֶה בִּכְדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rava:** In cases of **exploitation,** if the disparity is **less than one-sixth,** the **merchandise is acquired** immediately. If the disparity is **greater than one-sixth, the transaction is nullified.** If the disparity is precisely **one-sixth,** the buyer has **acquired** the merchandise, **and** the one who benefited from the exploitation **returns** the sum gained by the **exploitation.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says:** In a case where the seller was exploited, the **seller is at an advantage.** If he **wishes,** he reneges on the transaction and **says to** the buyer: **Give me my merchandise, or** he can say: **Give me** the sum **that you** gained by **exploiting me. And** one may claim both **this,** nullification of the transaction, **and that,** return of the sum gained, only **within the time that** it takes **to show** the merchandise **to a merchant or to his relative.**


###### Bava Metzia 50b:10
[Bava Metzia 50b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/50b:10)

עַד מָתַי מוּתָּר לְהַחֲזִיר כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לוֹקֵחַ, אֲבָל מוֹכֵר – לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר. נֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: חָזְרוּ לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מוֹכֵר לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **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. **Rav Naḥman says:** The Sages **taught** this *halakha* **only** with regard to **a buyer, but a seller may always renege** on the transaction. The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the mishna **supports his** opinion, as the merchants of Lod **reverted to** following **the statement of the Rabbis. Granted, if you say** that **a seller may always renege** on a transaction,