Bava Metzia - Daf 51
- מוכר לעולם חוזר
Rav Nachman said that the time limitation for retraction only applies to a defrauded buyer, אבל מוכר לעולם חוזר – but a defrauded seller can always retract, as will be explained. The Gemara attempts to prove this from the fact that the תגרי לוד returned to the Rabbonon’s opinion after hearing that Rebbe Tarfon allowed retraction for an entire day. If time limitations apply equally to the seller, then the extension benefits them as much as it harms them!? The Gemara answers that it is uncommon for the merchants of לוד to mistakenly undercharge for their merchandise. Rami bar Chama once found his landlord upset after undercharging for wine. He told him to retract the sale, but the landlord responded that the time limitation had already passed. Rami bar Chama sent him to Rav Nachman, who ruled that a seller can retract forever, and explained: the buyer has the merchandise with him and can show it to people wherever he goes and discover his error. The seller, who does not have the merchandise, עד דמיתרמי ליה זבינתא כזבינתיה – must wait until an item for sale similar to his sold item comes to him, and only then can determine if he erred.
- לוקח מן בעל הבית אין לו עליו אונאה
The Gemara relates an incident about someone selling silk ribbons which were worth five zuz for six but would accept five-and-a-half. A buyer realized that if he would give five-and-a-half, the overpayment would be less than a sixth and waived, so he paid him six in order to demand reimbursement of the overcharging of a sixth. However, Rava ruled that refunds only apply to a merchant, אבל בלוקח מן בעל הבית – but when buying from a homeowner, אין לו עליו אונאה – [the buyer] has no claim of אונאה against him. The Gemara records another incident in which Rav Chisda issued the same ruling, which was praised by other Amoraim. This ruling was challenged by the next Mishnah, which states that אונאה applies to a "הדיוט" – an ordinary person!? Rav Chisda explains that the Mishnah’s case is בצדרייתא – hemp garments, which were usually intended for sale, אבל מאני תשמישתיה דיקירי עליה – but regarding garments for one’s personal use, which are dear to him, he would only be willing to sell them for more than their value. Rashi explains that since homeowners usually overcharge for such items, it is tantamount to informing the buyer he is being overcharged, which is not subject to אונאה, as below.
- על מנת שאין לך עלי אונאה
The Gemara discusses one who says: על מנת שאין לך עלי אונאה – this sale is on condition that you have no claim of אונאה against me, Rav says the buyer still has a claim of אונאה against him, and the stipulation is ineffective, but Shmuel says he cannot claim אונאה against him. Rav Anan said that Shmuel clarified that only the formula “that you have no claim of אונאה against me” is effective, but if he said: על מנת שאין בו אונאה – on condition that there is no אונאה in [this sale], it is interpreted as a guarantee that he is not being overcharged, and since he is, the sale is void. The Gemara challenges Rav from a Baraisa which clearly teaches that if one says"על מנת שאין לך עלי אונאה", the buyer cannot claim אונאה against him!? Abaye says that Rav’s opinion is consistent with Rebbe Meir’s view, quoted above, and this Baraisa is Rebbe Yehudah, who disagrees. Rava answers that this Baraisa is במפרש – where [the seller] specifies that he is overcharging for the merchandise, in which case his condition is valid. A Baraisa proves this distinction.
