אֵימָא סֵיפָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יָבוֹר;

say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: It is insufficient to merely reduce the quantity of seeds of a different kind; rather, one must pick out all the seeds of a different kind.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא כְּיוֹתֵר מֵרוֹבַע טִנּוֹפֶת דָּמֵי – בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: לָא קָנְסִינַן הֶתֵּירָא אַטּוּ אִיסּוּרָא, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: קָנְסִינַן; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ כְּרוֹבַע דָּמֵי, אַמַּאי יָבוֹר?

The Gemara explains the difficulty: Granted, if you say that a quarter- kav of seeds of a different kind per se’a with regard to diverse kinds is comparable to more than a quarter- kav of impurities per se’a with regard to a sale, then it is about this that they disagree: The first tanna holds that we do not penalize one by requiring him to remove that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited, and consequently it is sufficient to merely reduce the quantity of seeds of a different kind to an acceptable level, whereas Rabbi Yosei holds that we do penalize one by requiring him to remove that which is permitted due to that which is prohibited. But if you say that a quarter- kav of seeds of a different kind per se’a with regard to diverse kinds is comparable to a quarter- kav of impurities per se’a with regard to a sale, then why does Rabbi Yosei rule that one must pick out all the seeds of a different kind?

הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעֲמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, מִשּׁוּם דְּמֶיחֱזֵי כִּי מְקַיֵּים כִּלְאַיִם.

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to diverse kinds, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei: One must pick out all the seeds, because once he is purifying the admixture of seeds, if he deliberately leaves a quantity of seeds of a different kind mixed in, it appears as though he is intentionally planting and maintaining diverse kinds in his field.

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִפְקִידוּ אֵצֶל אֶחָד, זֶה מָנֶה וְזֶה מָאתַיִם, זֶה אוֹמֵר ״מָאתַיִם שֶׁלִּי״ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר ״מָאתַיִם שֶׁלִּי״ – נוֹתֵן לָזֶה מָנֶה וְלָזֶה מָנֶה, וְהַשְּׁאָר יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another challenge to Rav Huna’s ruling from a mishna (Bava Metzia 37a): In the case of two people who deposited money with one person, and this one deposited one hundred dinars and that one deposited two hundred dinars, and when they return to collect their deposits, this one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, and that one says: My deposit was two hundred dinars, the bailee gives one hundred dinars to this one and one hundred dinars to that one, and the rest of the money, i.e., the contested one hundred dinars, will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes and prophetically determines the truth. In this case, one of the parties is certainly lying, but nevertheless, the Sages did not penalize the parties by placing all of the money in a safe place. Similarly, in the case of a sale, where a seller deceitfully mixed additional impurities into the produce he sold, he should not be penalized and required to take back all of the impurities.

הָכִי הָשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם וַדַּאי מָנֶה לְמָר וּמָנֶה לְמָר, הָכָא מִי יֵימַר דְּלָאו כּוּלֵּיהּ עֲרוּבֵי עָרֵיב?

The Gemara rejects this challenge: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the deposits, it is certain that at least one hundred dinars belongs to this Master and one hundred dinars belongs to that Master. Here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in, who can say that the seller did not mix in the entire amount intentionally? Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אִם כֵּן מָה הִפְסִיד הָרַמַּאי? אֶלָּא הַכֹּל יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a support for Rav Huna’s ruling from the latter clause of that mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: If so, what did the swindler lose? He lost nothing by claiming the one hundred dinars that belongs to another, and he has no incentive to admit the truth. Rather, the entire deposit will be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes. Since through his lie the swindler risks losing even the one hundred dinars that he deposited, perhaps that will induce him to admit his deceit. According to Rabbi Yosei, the Sages did penalize one who acts deceitfully, which accords with Rav Huna’s ruling.

הָכִי הָשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם וַדַּאי אִיכָּא רַמַּאי, הָכָא מִי יֵימַר דַּעֲרוּבֵי עָרֵיב?

The Gemara rejects the proof: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the deposits, there is certainly a swindler, and it is reasonable to penalize both parties in order to induce the swindler to admit his deceit. Here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable level of impurities mixed in with the produce, who can say that the seller intentionally mixed in anything? Perhaps the impurities were inadvertently mixed in during the processing. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רִבִּית – קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה לֹא אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הָרִבִּית, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another support for Rav Huna’s ruling from a baraita: In the case of a promissory note in which the details of a loan with interest were written, penalizes the creditor, and he may collect neither the principal nor the interest; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages did penalize one who acts improperly, which accords with Rav Huna’s ruling.

הָכִי הָשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה הוּא דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ שׁוּמָא, הָכָא מִי יֵימַר דַּעֲרוּבֵי עָרֵיב?

The Gemara rejects the proof: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of a loan with interest, it is already at the time of the writing of the bill that the lender performed the transgression of placing interest upon the borrower. Since he certainly committed a transgression, it is reasonable that the Sages penalized him. But here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in with the produce, who can say that the seller intentionally mixed in anything? Perhaps the impurities were inadvertently mixed in during the processing. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the baraita.

תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶת הָרִבִּית!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a challenge to Rav Huna’s ruling from the latter clause of the baraita: But the Rabbis say: He may collect the principal but may not collect the interest. According to Rabbi Meir, the Sages did not penalize one who acts improperly, contrary to Rav Huna’s ruling.

הָכִי הָשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם וַדַּאי קַרְנָא דְּהֶתֵּירָא הוּא, הָכָא מִי יֵימַר דְּכוּלֵּיהּ לָא עֲרוּבֵי עָרֵיב.

The Gemara rejects this challenge: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of a loan with interest, according to strict halakha it is certainly permitted to collect the principal, so the Sages did not penalize him with regard to it. But here, in the case of a sale where there is an unacceptable proportion of impurities mixed in, who can say that the seller did not mix in the entire amount intentionally? Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רָבִין בַּר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא אֶת הַמּוֹתָר בִּלְבַד הוּא מַחֲזִיר, אֶלָּא מַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֶת כָּל הָרְבָעִין כּוּלָּן; אַלְמָא הֵיכָא דְּבָעֵי אַהֲדוּרֵי – כּוּלָּהּ מְהַדַּר!

Come and hear further support for Rav Huna’s ruling from that which Ravin bar Rav Naḥman teaches (104b). kav of seed per beit se’a of land, then the buyer need not return any land to the seller. If the proportion of extra land is larger than this, not only must the buyer return the extra land that is beyond the limit of a quarter- kav area per beit se’a, but he must also return to him every one of the extra quarter- kav areas of land that he received beyond the stated area of a beit kor. The Gemara infers: Apparently, when one is required to return part of a sale because of a discrepancy that is beyond the acceptable limit of deviation, then one is required to return the entire discrepancy and not just the amount that is beyond the acceptable limit. This supports Rav Huna’s ruling.

הָכִי הָשְׁתָּא?!

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared?