נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי זֶרַע, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הַרְבֵּה לוֹקְחִין אוֹתוֹ לִדְבָרִים אֲחֵרִים.

The seller gives back to the buyer the value of the seeds. Since the majority of flaxseeds are sold are for planting, it is a mistaken transaction. They said to him, i.e., to Rabbi Yosei: Many, i.e., a majority of people, purchase flaxseeds for purposes other than planting. Consequently, the sale stands.

מַאן תַּנָּאֵי? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְ״אָמְרוּ לוֹ״ – תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בָּתַר רוּבָּא אָזְלִי, מָר אָזֵיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דֶּאֱינָשֵׁי, וּמָר אָזֵיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דִּזְרִיעָה!

The Gemara asks: Who are the tanna’im in this baraita who have a dispute that parallels the dispute between Rav and Shmuel? If we say that they are Rabbi Yosei and the opinion cited as: They said to him, that is incorrect, as both of them hold that one follows the majority in monetary matters. Their dispute concerns only which majority to follow: One Sage, i.e., the opinion cited as: They said to him, follows the majority of people making purchases, and one Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, follows the majority of the volume of seeds that are sold overall. The disparity arises because the majority of sales are each made with a relatively small quantity of seeds that are purchased for purposes other than planting. The minority of sales involve large quantities of seeds that are purchased for planting. This means that the majority of the seeds sold overall are purchased for planting, but the majority of people purchasing seeds do so for purposes other than planting.

אֶלָּא, אִי תַּנָּא קַמָּא וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אִי תַּנָּא קַמָּא וְ״אָמְרוּ לוֹ״.

Rather, the dispute that parallels the dispute between Rav and Shmuel is either the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei, or the dispute between the first tanna and the opinion cited as: They said to him.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַהוּ נוֹתֵן לוֹ? דְּמֵי זֶרַע וְלֹא הוֹצָאָה, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף הוֹצָאָה.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: When the seller bears financial responsibility for selling seeds that did not sprout, what is he liable to give to the buyer? value of the seeds themselves, but not the expenses that the buyer incurred in planting them, e.g., the hire of laborers. And some say: He is liable to give him even the expenses that the buyer incurred.

מַאן ״יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים״? אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא.

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is cited as: Some say? Rav Ḥisda said that it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

הֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? אִילֵימָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְּמַתְנִיתִין, דִּתְנַן: הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵירוֹ וּזְרָעָן וְלֹא צָמְחוּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן; הָא זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין – חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן.

The Gemara clarifies: From which statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is it apparent that he holds the seller is liable for the buyer’s expenses? One possibility is if we say that the statement in question is that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the mishna, as we learned in the mishna: One who sells to another produce that is sometimes purchased for consumption and sometimes for planting, and the buyer planted it and it did not sprout, and even if he had sold flaxseeds, which are only occasionally eaten, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for them. The Gemara extrapolates: By inference, if this tanna holds that he had sold seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, then the seller bears financial responsibility to compensate the buyer for them.

אֵימָא סֵיפָא, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין – חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן; תַּנָּא קַמָּא נַמִי הָכִי קָאָמַר: זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, הָא זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין – חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן!

The Gemara continues: But accordingly, say the latter clause: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he had sold seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, then the seller bears financial responsibility for them. The Gemara asks: But according to the inference made from the first clause, the first tanna is also saying this, as he holds that it is only for the sale of flaxseeds that the seller does not bear financial responsibility to compensate the buyer for them, but with regard to the sale of seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, the seller bears financial responsibility for them. What, then, is the dispute between the first tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

אֶלָּא לָאו הוֹצָאָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, מָר סָבַר: דְּמֵי זֶרַע, וּמָר סָבַר: אַף הוֹצָאָה.

The Gemara therefore suggests: Rather, is it not that the differ-ence between them is whether the seller is liable for the buyer’s expenses? One Sage, i.e., the first tanna, holds that the seller is liable only for the value of the seeds, and the other Sage, i.e., Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the seller is liable even for the buyer’s expenses.

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא אִיפְּכָא! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּל תַּנָּא בַּתְרָא לִטְפוּיֵי מִילְּתָא קָא אָתֵי.

The Gemara asks: From where is it apparent that it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who holds that the seller is liable for the expenses? Perhaps it is the opposite, i.e., it is the first tanna who holds that the seller is liable for the expenses, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that he is liable only for the value of the seeds. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is not difficult, because the last tanna cited always comes to add something to the ruling of the first tanna, not to detract from it.

וְדִלְמָא כּוּלָּהּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, וְחַסּוּרֵי מִחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵירוֹ וּזְרָעָן וְלֹא צָמְחוּ, אֲפִילּוּ זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, הָא זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין – חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, שֶׁרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן, הָא זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין – חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן!

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps all of the mishna is stating the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: With regard to one who sells produce to another that is sometimes purchased for eating and sometimes for planting, and the buyer planted it and it did not sprout, and even if he had sold flaxseeds, which are only occasionally eaten, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for them. But if he sold seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, the seller bears financial responsibility for them. This is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that it is only for the sale of flaxseeds that the seller does not bear financial responsibility to compensate the buyer for them, but by inference, for the sale of seeds for garden plants, which are not eaten at all, the seller bears financial responsibility for them. Interpreted in this way, there is no evidence from the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the seller is liable for the expenses.

אֶלָּא הָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹלִיךְ חִטִּין לִטְחוֹן, וְלֹא לְתָתָן, וַעֲשָׂאָן סוּבִּין אוֹ מוּרְסָן. קֶמַח לַנַּחְתּוֹם, וַאֲפָאוֹ פַּת נִיפּוּלִין. בְּהֵמָה לַטַּבָּח, וְנִיבְּלָהּ – חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר;

Rather, the statement in question is this statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:9) In a case of one who brought wheat to a miller to grind, and the miller did not wet the grains sufficiently for the grinding to be performed effectively, and as a result he converted the grain into bran or coarse bran [mursan], or in a case of one who gave flour to the baker and the baker made it into bread that is underbaked and tends to crumble, or if one gave an animal to a butcher and the butcher killed it in a way that rendered it an unslaughtered animal carcass, in all these cases the worker is liable, because he is like a paid bailee.

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי בוֹשְׁתּוֹ וּדְמֵי בוֹשֶׁת אוֹרְחָיו. וְכֵן הָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מִנְהָג גָּדוֹל הָיָה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, הַמּוֹסֵר סְעוּדָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְקִלְקְלָהּ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי בָשְׁתּוֹ וּדְמֵי בוֹשֶׁת אוֹרְחָיו.

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the owner had invited guests to eat the food and due to the worker’s actions he was unable to serve them, then the worker must give him compensation for his humiliation and compensation for the humiliation of his guests. And similarly, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say: There was a great custom in Jerusalem that if one gives raw materials for a meal to another to prepare the meal for him, and that person spoils it, that person gives the former compensation for his humiliation and compensation for the humiliation of his guests.

עוֹד מִנְהָג גָּדוֹל הָיָה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, מַפָּה פְּרוּסָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַפֶּתַח, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁמַּפָּה פְּרוּסָה – אוֹרְחִין נִכְנָסִין, נִסְתַּלְּקָה הַמַּפָּה – אֵין הָאוֹרְחִין נִכְנָסִין.

The baraita continues: Another great custom that was followed in Jerusalem was that when one made a feast, there would be a cloth [mappa] spread over the entrance to the hall. As long as the cloth was spread, the guests would enter, as the presence of the cloth indicated that there was food for more guests. When the cloth was removed, the guests would not enter any more.

מתני׳ הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת לַחֲבֵירוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו רוֹבַע טִנּוֹפֶת לִסְאָה; תְּאֵנִים – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר מְתוּלָּעוֹת לְמֵאָה; מַרְתֵּף שֶׁל יַיִן – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר קוֹסְסוֹת לְמֵאָה; קַנְקַנִּים בַּשָּׁרוֹן – מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר פִּיטָסוֹת לְמֵאָה.

When selling a significant quantity of produce or a number of items, there is a possibility that there will be a certain proportion of impurities in it or that some of the product will be of substandard quality. The mishna delineates what proportion is considered acceptable, for which a buyer may not demand compensation. With regard to one who sells produce, i.e., grain, to another, this buyer accepts upon himself that up to a quarter- kav of impurities may be present in each se’a of produce purchased. When purchasing figs, he accepts upon himself that up to ten infested figs may be present in each hundred figs purchased. When purchasing a cellar containing barrels of wine, he accepts upon himself that up to ten barrels of souring wine in each hundred barrels purchased. When purchasing jugs of wine in the Sharon region, he accepts upon himself that up to ten inferior-quality jugs [pitasot] of wine may be present in each hundred jugs purchased.

גמ׳ תָּאנֵי רַב קְטִינָא: רוֹבַע קִטְנִית לִסְאָה. וְעַפְרוּרִית לָא? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר חִיָּיא קְטוֹסְפָאָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה: בּוֹרֵר צְרוֹר מִגָּרְנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ

Rav Ketina taught: When the mishna states that a buyer accepts upon himself that a quarter- kav of impurities per se’a may be present, that means only that he accepts upon himself the presence of a quarter- kav of legumes, but he does not accept upon himself the presence of a quarter- kav of dirt. The Gemara asks: And is it so that the buyer does not also accept upon himself that some quantity of dirt might be present in the produce? But doesn’t Rabba bar Ḥiyya Ketosfa’a say in the name of Rabba: One who picks out a pebble from the wheat on another’s threshing floor