## Bava Metzia Daf 51a

###### Bava Metzia 51a:1
[Bava Metzia 51a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:1)

מִשּׁוּם הָכִי חָזְרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
it is **due to this** reason that **they reverted** to following the statement of the Rabbis, as the sellers were in any event able to renege at any point, while Rabbi Tarfon extended the period during which the buyers could renege on the transaction.


###### Bava Metzia 51a:2
[Bava Metzia 51a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:2)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מוֹכֵר נָמֵי כְּלוֹקֵחַ דָּמֵי, מַאי נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִינַּהּ? כִּי הֵיכִי דְּעָבְדִי לַיהּ רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא לְלוֹקֵחַ, הָכִי נָמֵי עָבְדִי לַיהּ רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא לְמוֹכֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** that the legal status of **a seller is also** limited **like** that of **a buyer** in terms of the period of time during which he may renege, **what difference is** there **to** the merchants? **Just as the Sages instituted an ordinance on behalf of a buyer** enabling him to renege on the transaction, **so too, the Sages instituted an ordinance on behalf of a seller.** If the time afforded to the seller is equal to the time afforded to the buyer, the fact that Rabbi Tarfon extended this time would not be a reason for the merchants to revert to following the opinion of the Rabbis, as there is a benefit and a loss for the merchants according to both opinions.


###### Bava Metzia 51a:3
[Bava Metzia 51a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:3)

תַּגָּרֵי לוֹד לָא שְׁכִיחַ דְּטָעוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: With regard to **the merchants of Lod, it is rare for them to err,** and therefore they preferred limiting the period during which the buyer could renege over extending the period during which they themselves could renege.


###### Bava Metzia 51a:4
[Bava Metzia 51a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:4)

אוּשְׁפִּיזְכָנֵיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא זַבֵּין חֲמָרָא וּטְעָה. אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה עֲצִיב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי עֲצִיבַתְּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זַבֵּינִי חֲמָרָא וּטְעַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל הֲדַר בָּךְ. אָמַר לֵיהּ: הָא שְׁהַאי לִי יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי שֶׁאַרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבִי! שַׁדְּרֵיהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לוֹקֵחַ, אֲבָל מוֹכֵר – לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **The landlord of Rami bar Ḥama sold a donkey and erred** in fixing its price. Rami bar Ḥama **encountered him** and noticed **that he was sad.** Rami bar Ḥama **said to him: Why are you sad?** The landlord **said to him: I sold a donkey and I erred** in fixing its price. Rami bar Ḥama **said to him: Go** and **renege** on the transaction. The landlord **said to him: I have waited more than the period** of time **that** it takes for **me to show** the merchandise **to a merchant or to my relative.** Rami bar Ḥama **sent** the landlord **before Rav Naḥman** for a ruling and Rav Naḥman **said to him:** The Sages **taught** this *halakha* **only** with regard to **a buyer, but a seller may always renege** on a transaction.


###### Bava Metzia 51a:5
[Bava Metzia 51a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:5)

מַאי טַעְמָא? לוֹקֵחַ מִקָּחוֹ בְּיָדוֹ, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאָזֵיל מַחְוִי לֵיהּ וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ אִי טְעָה, אִי לָא טְעָה. מוֹכֵר דְּלָא נָקֵט מִקָּחֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ עַד דְּמִיתְרְמֵי לֵיהּ זְבִינְתָּא כִּזְבִינְתֵּיהּ, וְיָדַע אִי טְעָה וְאִי לָא טְעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? The Gemara explains: **A buyer** has **his merchandise in his possession;** therefore, **anywhere that he goes he shows it** to those familiar with the market price **and they tell him whether he erred** or **whether he did not err. A seller, who does not have his merchandise in his possession,** can ascertain the market price **only** when **merchandise like his merchandise happens to** come before **him, and** only then **will he know whether he erred or whether he did not err.**


###### Bava Metzia 51a:6
[Bava Metzia 51a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:6)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה נָקֵט וַרְשְׁכֵי לְזַבּוֹנֵי, קָרֵי שִׁיתָּא וְשָׁוְיָא חַמְשָׁא, וְאִי הֲווֹ יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ חַמְשָׁא וּפַלְגָא הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל. אֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא וְאָמַר: אִי יָהֵיבְנָא לֵיהּ חַמְשָׁא וּפַלְגָא הָוְיָא מְחִילָה. אֶתֵּן לֵיהּ שִׁיתָּא וְאֶתְבְּעֵיהּ לְדִינָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַתַּגָּר, אֲבָל בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת – אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אוֹנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There was **a certain man who had silk strips [*varshekhei*] to sell. He announced** that he was selling them for **six** *ma’a*, **and** they were **worth five** *ma’a*, **and if they would give him five and a half** *ma’a*, **he would take** it and sell the silk. **This man,** i.e., a potential buyer, **came and said** to himself: **If I give him five and a half** *ma’a*, it **is** a case of **a waiver,** and I will not be entitled to recover the difference. **I will give him six** *ma’a* **and claim** from **him by law** the return of the sum gained by the exploitation. He did so. The case **came before Rava,** who **said to him:** The Sages **taught** this *halakha* of exploitation **only with regard to one who buys** merchandise **from a merchant, but one who buys** merchandise **from** a regular **homeowner does not have** a claim of **exploitation against him.**


###### Bava Metzia 51a:7
[Bava Metzia 51a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:7)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה נָקֵיט כִּיפֵּי לְזַבּוֹנֵי קָרֵי שִׁתִּין וְשָׁוֵי חַמְשִׁין, וְאִי הֲווֹ יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ חַמְשִׁין וְחַמְשָׁא הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל. אֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא וְאָמַר: אִי יָהֵיבְנָא לֵיהּ חַמְשִׁין וְחַמְשָׁא הָוְיָא מְחִילָה, אֶתֵּן לֵיהּ שִׁיתִּין וְאֶתְבְּעֵיהּ לְדִינָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַתַּגָּר, אֲבָל בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אוֹנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was **a certain man who was holding jewelry to sell. He announced** that he was selling it for **sixty** *ma’a*, **and** it was **worth fifty** *ma’a*, **and if they would give him fifty-five** *ma’a*, **he would take** it and sell the jewels. **This man,** i.e., a potential buyer, **came and said** to himself: **If I give him fifty-five** *ma’a*, it **is** a case of **a waiver,** and I will not be entitled to recover the difference. **I will give him sixty** *ma’a* **and claim** from **him by law** the return of the sum gained by the exploitation. He did so. The case **came before Rav Ḥisda,** who **said to him:** The Sages **taught** this *halakha* of exploitation **only with regard to one who buys** merchandise **from a merchant, but one who buys** merchandise **from** a regular **homeowner does not have** a claim of **exploitation against him.**


###### Bava Metzia 51a:8
[Bava Metzia 51a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב דִּימִי: יִשַׁר. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: יִשַׁר. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאוֹנָאָה לְהֶדְיוֹט כָּךְ אוֹנָאָה לַתַּגָּר. מַאן הֶדְיוֹט, לָאו בַּעַל הַבַּיִת? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּצַדְרְיָיתָא. אֲבָל מָאנֵי תַשְׁמִישְׁתֵּיהּ, דְּיַקִּירִי עֲלֵיהּ, לָא מְזַבֵּין לְהוּ אִי לָאו בִּדְמֵי יַתִּירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Dimi said to** Rav Ḥisda: The ruling is **correct. And likewise, Rabbi Elazar said:** The ruling is **correct.** The Gemara asks: **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna that follows: **Just as** the *halakhot* of **exploitation** apply **to a layman [*lahedyot*], so** do the *halakhot* of **exploitation** apply **to a merchant? Who is** the **layman** to whom the mishna is referring? Is he **not a** regular **homeowner** as opposed to a merchant? **Rav Ḥisda said:** That mishna is referring **to simple linen garments [*tzadriyyata*],** which the homeowner crafts expressly for sale. **But** with regard to **vessels** and garments designed for the personal **use** of a homeowner, **which are important to him, he sells them only to** receive **extra money,** as people are generally hesitant to part with their belongings. Therefore, when purchasing an item from a homeowner, a buyer must consider the likelihood that his asking price is greater than the item’s actual worth.


###### Bava Metzia 51a:9
[Bava Metzia 51a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֶחָד הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְאֶחָד הַמּוֹכֵר יֵשׁ לָהֶן אוֹנָאָה. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאוֹנָאָה לַהֶדְיוֹט כָּךְ אוֹנָאָה לַתַּגָּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין אוֹנָאָה לַתַּגָּר. מִי שֶׁהוּטַּל עָלָיו – יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, רָצָה אוֹמֵר לוֹ: תֵּן לִי מְעוֹתַי, אוֹ תֵּן לִי מַה שֶּׁאֹנֵיתַנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Both the buyer and the seller are** subject to the *halakhot* of **exploitation. Just as** the *halakhot* of **exploitation** apply **to a layman, so** do the *halakhot* of **exploitation** apply **to a merchant. Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no exploitation for a merchant,** as he is an expert in the market price of merchandise. **The one upon whom** the exploitation **was imposed has the advantage.** If he **wishes,** he can **say to** the other: **Give me** back **my money** and nullify the transaction, **or** he can say: **Give me** back the sum **that you** gained by **exploiting me.**


###### Bava Metzia 51a:10
[Bava Metzia 51a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:10)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ ... אַל תּוֹנוּ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְאַנָּה לוֹקֵחַ, נִתְאַנָּה מוֹכֵר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ קָנֹה ... אַל תּוֹנוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived, that both the buyer and the seller are subject to the *halakha* of exploitation? **As the Sages taught** concerning the verse: **“And if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold,** or acquire from your colleague’s hand, **you shall not exploit** his brother” (Leviticus 25:14). **I have** derived **only** a case **where a buyer was exploited. From where** do I derive that the *halakha* is the same in a case where the **seller was exploited? The** same **verse states:** “Or acquire from your colleague’s hand, **you shall not exploit** his brother.”


###### Bava Metzia 51a:11
[Bava Metzia 51a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:11)

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב לוֹקֵחַ וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב מוֹכֵר, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא מוֹכֵר – מִשּׁוּם דְּקִים לֵיהּ בִּזְבִינְתֵּיהּ, אֲבָל לוֹקֵחַ – דְּלָא קִים לֵיהּ בִּזְבִינְתֵּיהּ, אֵימָא לָא אַזְהֲרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בְּ״לֹא תּוֹנוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And it was necessary to write** the prohibition against exploitation with regard to **a buyer, and it was necessary to write** the prohibition against exploitation with regard to **a seller. As, had the Merciful One written** this prohibition only with regard to **a seller,** one would conclude that it is prohibited for him **because he is certain of** the value of **his merchandise, but** with regard to **a buyer, who is not certain of** the value of the seller’s **merchandise, say** that **the Merciful One did not render** it **prohibited** for **him** to engage in exploitation **with** the verse **“You shall not exploit.”**


###### Bava Metzia 51a:12
[Bava Metzia 51a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:12)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא לוֹקֵחַ – מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא קָנֵי, דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: זְבַנְתְּ קְנֵית. אֲבָל מוֹכֵר דְּאֹבוֹדֵי קָא מוֹבֵיד, דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: זַבֵּין אוֹבֵיד, אֵימָא לָא אַזְהֲרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בְּ״לֹא תּוֹנוּ״, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had the Merciful One written** this prohibition only with regard to **a buyer,** one would conclude that it is prohibited for him **because he acquires** the item and he benefits from his purchase, **as people say:** If **you purchased** an item, **you acquired** a durable item for yourself. **But** with regard to **a seller, who loses** from the sale, **as people say:** One who **sells** an item **loses, say** that **the Merciful One did not render** it **prohibited** for **him** to engage in exploitation **with** the verse **“You shall not exploit.”** Therefore, it was **necessary** for the Torah to write this prohibition with regard to both parties to the transaction.


###### Bava Metzia 51a:13
[Bava Metzia 51a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:13)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין אוֹנָאָה לַתַּגָּר. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא תַּגָּר אֵין לוֹ אוֹנָאָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no exploitation for a merchant.** The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: **Due to** the fact **that he is a merchant, he is not** subject to the *halakhot* of **exploitation?** Anyone could arrive at a mistaken assessment of the value of merchandise.


###### Bava Metzia 51a:14
[Bava Metzia 51a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:14)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: בְּתַגָּר סַפְסָר שָׁנוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא – מִידָּע יָדַע זְבִינְתֵּיהּ כַּמָּה שָׁוְיָא, וְאַחוֹלֵי אַחֵיל גַּבֵּיהּ. וְהַאי דְּזַבְּנַהּ הָכִי – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִתְרַמְיָא לֵיהּ זְבִינְתָּא אַחֲרִיתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says** that **Rav says:** It is **with regard to a merchant** who is **a trader,** who buys and sells merchandise, that **they taught** the *halakha*. **What is the reason** that he is not subject to the *halakhot* of exploitation according to Rabbi Yehuda? **He knows how much his merchandise is worth, and he waives** the sum of the disparity between the value and the price **for** the buyer. **And** the reason why **he sells** the merchandise in **that** manner, knowing that he is selling it for less than its value, is **due to** the fact **that other merchandise happens to** become available **to him** and he needs the money to purchase that item.


###### Bava Metzia 51a:15
[Bava Metzia 51a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:15)

וְהַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא קָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ! רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מַאי אֵין לַתַּגָּר אוֹנָאָה – אֵינוֹ בְּתוֹרַת אוֹנָאָה, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי אוֹנָאָה חוֹזֵר. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, תַּגָּר אֵין לוֹ אוֹנָאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בָּקִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But now, in any event, he retracts** from the transaction, indicating that he did not waive the sum of the disparity. **Rav Ashi said: What** is the meaning of: **There is no exploitation for a merchant? He is not subject to the principles of exploitation** at all, **as even** if the disparity is **less than the measure of exploitation,** i.e., less than one-sixth, **he may renege** on the transaction. Since his entire livelihood is based on the slight profit margin that he earns from each transaction, he does not waive even that sum. The Gemara comments: **It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Naḥman: Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no exploitation for a merchant, because he is expert** in these matters.


###### Bava Metzia 51a:16
[Bava Metzia 51a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:16)

מִי שֶׁהוּטַּל עָלָיו יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה וְכוּ׳. מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא רַבִּי נָתָן וְלָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **The one upon whom** the exploitation **was imposed has the advantage.** If he wishes, he can say to the other: Give me back my money and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum that you gained by exploiting me. The Gemara asks: **Whose** opinion is expressed in **the mishna?** It is **neither** the opinion of **Rabbi Natan nor** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.**


###### Bava Metzia 51a:17
[Bava Metzia 51a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:17)

אִי רַבִּי נָתָן – מַתְנִיתִין קָתָנֵי ״רָצָה״, וּבָרַיְיתָא לָא קָתָנֵי ״רָצָה״. אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא – מַתְנִיתִין קָתָנֵי ״לוֹקֵחַ״, בָּרַיְיתָא קָתָנֵי ״מוֹכֵר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If** it is the opinion of **Rabbi Natan,** in **the mishna** the *tanna* **teaches:** If he **wishes,** he can say: Give me back my money and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum that you gained by exploiting me. **And** in **the *baraita*** (50b) Rabbi Natan **does not teach:** If he **wishes,** indicating that the transaction takes effect regardless of his wishes. And **if** it is the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi,** in **the mishna** the *tanna* **teaches** the *halakha* with regard to the **buyer,** and in **the *baraita*** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **teaches:** In a case where the seller was exploited, the **seller** is at an advantage, apparently to the exclusion of the buyer.


###### Bava Metzia 51a:18
[Bava Metzia 51a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:18)

(סִימָן זָב רָשׁ)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents **a mnemonic** device for the Sages who discussed this difficulty: ***Zayin*,** referring to Rabbi Elazar; ***beit*,** referring to Rabba; ***reish*,** referring to Rava; ***shin*,** referring to Rav Ashi.


###### Bava Metzia 51a:19
[Bava Metzia 51a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:19)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אוֹנָאָה זוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִי שְׁנָאָהּ. רַבָּה אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי נָתָן הִיא, וּתְנִי נָמֵי בְּבָרַיְיתָא ״רָצָה״. רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא הִיא, וּמַאי דְּשַׁיַּיר בְּמַתְנִיתִין קָא מְפָרֵישׁ בְּבָרַיְיתָא. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״אֶחָד הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְאֶחָד הַמּוֹכֵר״, וּמְפָרֵשׁ לֵיהּ לְלוֹקֵחַ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שַׁיּוֹרֵיה שַׁיְּירֵיהּ לְמוֹכֵר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar says:** Concerning **this** *halakha* of **exploitation** in the mishna, **I do not know who taught it,** as it does not correspond to the opinion of any of the Sages. **Rabba said: Actually,** the mishna **is** the opinion of **Rabbi Natan,** and emend **and teach** that Rabbi Natan stated **in the *baraita* as well:** If he **wishes. Rava said: Actually,** the mishna **is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and** the ruling **that** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **omits in the mishna** he **explicates in the *baraita*.** The mishna and the *baraita* are complementary. **Rav Ashi said:** The language of the mishna **is also precise, as** the *tanna* **teaches: Both the buyer and the seller, and** then he proceeds to **elucidate** the *halakha* **of the buyer. Learn from it** that the *tanna* indeed **omitted** the *halakha* **of the seller,** but he did not exclude the seller from the *halakha*. The Gemara affirms: **Learn from it** that this is the case.


###### Bava Metzia 51a:20
[Bava Metzia 51a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:20)

אִיתְּמַר: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לְךָ עָלַי אוֹנָאָה. רַב אָמַר: יֵשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו אוֹנָאָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אוֹנָאָה. לֵימָא רַב דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that there is a dispute among *amora’im*. With regard to **one who says to another:** I will be party to this sale **on the condition that you have no** claim of **exploitation against me,** even if you are exploited, **Rav says:** The exploited party **has** a claim of **exploitation against him, and Shmuel says: He does not have** a claim of **exploitation against him.** The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that **Rav stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, and Shmuel stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Bava Metzia 51a:21
[Bava Metzia 51a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:21)

דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לְךָ עָלַי שְׁאֵר כְּסוּת וְעוֹנָה – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וּתְנָאוֹ בָּטֵל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּדָבָר שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן – תְּנָאוֹ קַיָּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that you do not have** a claim **against me** for **food, clothing, and conjugal rights** that a husband is obligated to provide his wife by Torah law, **she is betrothed** to him **and his condition is void;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir,** who maintains that a person cannot stipulate a condition that negates obligations by Torah law. **And Rabbi Yehuda says: In monetary matters,** as opposed to personal obligations, one’s **condition is in effect.**


###### Bava Metzia 51a:22
[Bava Metzia 51a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/51a:22)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּיָדְעָה וְקָא מָחֲלָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this parallel. **Rav** could have **said to you: I stated** my opinion **even in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** as **Rabbi Yehuda states** his opinion that a stipulation is valid in monetary matters **only there, where** a woman **knows** that she is entitled to food and clothing **but waives** her rights to them.