אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: לָא. אֲמַר לִי: לֶיהֱווּ הָנָךְ זוּזֵי בְּפִקָּדוֹן גַּבָּךְ, דְּהָא חָשְׁכָה לִי. אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: הָא בֵּיתָא קַמָּךְ. אוֹתְבִינְהוּ בְּבֵיתָא, וְאִיגְנוּב. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כָּל הָא בֵּיתָא קַמָּךְ, לָא מִיבָּעֲיָא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר דְּלָא הָוֵי – אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נַמִי לָא הָוֵי. אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: וְהָא אֲמַרוּ [לֵיהּ] רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: אִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְקַבּוּלֵי עֲלֵיהּ מִי שֶׁפָּרַע! וַאֲמַר לִי: לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם.

I said to him: No. He said to me: Let these dinars remain as a deposit with you, as the day has grown dark for me and I am unable to reach home before Shabbat. I said to him: This house is before you. He placed them in the house and the dinars were stolen. That man came to have his case judged before Rava, demanding his money. Rava said to him: With regard to anyone who states: This house is before you, it is not necessary to say that he is not a paid bailee, but he is not even an unpaid bailee. Ravina said to Rav Tavot: But didn’t the Sages say to Rava: The sesame merchant is required to accept upon himself the curse: He Who exacted payment? And Rav Tavot said to me: There were never such matters; that incident never occurred.

״רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּל שֶׁהַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדוֹ יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה״ וכו׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַכֶּסֶף וְהַפֵּירוֹת בְּיַד מוֹכֵר, אֲבָל כֶּסֶף בְּיַד מוֹכֵר וּפֵירוֹת בְּיַד לוֹקֵחַ – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכַּסְפּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ. בְּיָדוֹ? בְּיַד מוֹכֵר הוּא! אֶלָּא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדְּמֵי כַסְפּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Anyone who has the money in his possession has the advantage. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: When does the one with the money in his possession have the advantage? It is when both the money and the produce are in the possession of the seller. But if the money is in the possession of the seller and the produce is in the possession of the buyer, the seller cannot renege, because his money is in his possession. The Gemara understood this to mean that the buyer still had the money in his possession, and asks: In his, i.e., the buyer’s, possession? Isn’t it in the possession of the seller? Rather, emend the text: Because the value of his, i.e., the buyer’s, money is in his, i.e., the buyer’s, possession.

פְּשִׁיטָא! אֲמַר רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה עֲלִיָּיה שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ מוּשְׂכֶּרֶת בְּיַד מוֹכֵר. טַעְמָא מַאי תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן מְשִׁיכָה – גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר לוֹ נִשְׂרְפוּ חִטֶּיךָ בַּעֲלִיָּיה, הָכָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דְּלוֹקֵחַ נִינְהוּ. אִי נָפְלָה דְּלֵיקָה בְּאוֹנֶס – אִיהוּ טָרַח וּמַיְיתִי לָהּ.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that the seller cannot renege, as the buyer acquired the produce through the transaction of pulling? Rava said: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the upper story of the house belonging to the buyer, where the produce was stored, was rented to the seller. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason the Sages instituted that pulling, and not payment of money, effects acquisition? It is a rabbinic decree, lest a seller say to the buyer: Your wheat burned in the upper story after you paid. Here, the produce is in the domain of the buyer. Therefore, if a fire is ignited due to circumstances beyond his control, the buyer will exert himself and bring the produce from the upper story.

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּיָהֵיב זוּזֵי אַחֲמָרָא, לְסוֹף שְׁמַע דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִנְסְבֵיהּ דְּבֵי פַּרְזָק רוּפִילָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי זוּזֵי, לָא בָּעֵינָא חֲמָרָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁתִּיקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּמּוֹכְרִין, כָּךְ תִּיקְּנוּ מְשִׁיכָה בַּלָּקוֹחוֹת.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who gave money in exchange for wine. Ultimately he heard that men from the house of Parzak the vizier [rufila] sought to appropriate the wine. The buyer said to the seller: Give me my money, as I do not want the wine. The case came before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Just as the Sages instituted pulling with regard to sellers, so did they institute pulling with regard to buyers. Since the buyer had yet to pull the wine into his possession, he can renege on the transaction.

מתני׳ הָאוֹנָאָה אַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁתוּת לַמִּקָּח. עַד מָתַי מוּתָּר לְהַחֲזִיר? עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ.

The measure of exploitation for which one can claim that he was exploited is four silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a in a sela, or one-sixth of the transaction. Until when is it permitted for the buyer to return the item? until a period of time has passed that would allow him to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative who is more familiar with the market price of merchandise. If more time has elapsed he can no longer return the item, as the assumption is that he waived his right to receive the sum of the disparity.

הוֹרָה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בְּלוֹד: הָאוֹנָאָה שְׁמוֹנָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁלִישׁ לַמִּקָּח, וְשָׂמְחוּ תַּגָּרֵי לוֹד. אָמַר לָהֶם: כָּל הַיּוֹם מוּתָּר לַחֲזוֹר, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: יַנִּיחַ לָנוּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בִּמְקוֹמֵינוּ, וְחָזְרוּ לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.

The mishna continues: Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation is a measure of eight silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a of a sela, one-third of the transaction. And the merchants of Lod rejoiced, as this ruling allowed them a greater profit margin and rendered the nullification of a transaction less likely. Rabbi Tarfon said to them: Throughout the entire day it is permitted to renege on the transaction and not merely for the period of time it takes to show the purchase item to a merchant or a relative. The merchants of Lod said to him: Let Rabbi Tarfon leave us as we were, with the previous ruling, and they reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna with regard to both rulings.

גמ׳ אִתְּמַר, רַב אָמַר: שְׁתוּת מִקָּח שָׁנִינוּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שְׁתוּת מָעוֹת נַמִי שָׁנִינוּ. שָׁוֵי שִׁיתָּא בְּחַמְשָׂא, שָׁוֵי שִׁיתָּא בְּשִׁבְעָה – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָתַר מִקָּח אָזְלִינַן, וְאוֹנָאָה הָוְיָא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – שָׁוֵי חַמְשָׁא בְּשִׁיתָּא, וְשָׁוֵי שִׁבְעָה בְּשִׁיתָּא.

It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to exploitation. Rav says: We learned that exploitation is determined by one-sixth of the transaction, i.e., one-sixth of the purchase item, not one-sixth of the money paid. And Shmuel says: We learned that exploitation is also determined by one-sixth of the money paid. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to an item worth six ma’a that was sold for five ma’a, or an item worth six ma’a that was sold for seven ma’a, everyone agrees that we follow the transaction, i.e., the fraction of the variation in price is determined relative to the market value of the item sold, and it is exploitation. Where Rav and Shmuel disagree is in the case of an item worth five ma’a sold for six ma’a, or an item worth seven ma’a sold for six ma’a.

לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר בָּתַר מָעוֹת אָזְלִינַן – אִידִי וְאִידִי אוֹנָאָה הָוֵי, לְרַב דְּאָמַר בָּתַר מִקָּח אָזְלִינַן – שָׁוֵי חַמְשָׁא בְּשִׁיתָּא בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח הָוְיָא, שָׁוֵי שִׁבְעָה בְּשִׁיתָּא – מְחִילָה הָוְיָא.

According to Shmuel, who says that we also follow the fraction of the variation in price as determined by the money paid, both this case and that case are exploitation, as there is a disparity of one-sixth between the price paid and the value of the item. According to Rav, who says that we follow the transaction, when an item worth five ma’a sells for six ma’a, the halakha is that there is a nullification of the transaction, as the disparity between the value of the item and the price paid is greater than one-sixth. When an item worth seven ma’a sells for six ma’a, the halakha is that there is a waiver of the sum of the disparity, as the disparity between the value of the item and the price paid is less than one-sixth.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כִּי אָמְרִינַן מְחִילָה וּבִיטּוּל מִקָּח – הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא שְׁתוּת מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִים, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא שְׁתוּת מִצַּד אֶחָד – אוֹנָאָה הָוְיָא.

And Shmuel says: When we say that there is a waiver or a nullification of the transaction, it is in a case where there is not a disparity of one-sixth from both aspects, i.e., both in terms of the money paid and in terms of the value of the item. But in a case where there is a disparity of one-sixth from one aspect, either in terms of the money paid or the value of the item, it is exploitation.

תְּנַן: הָאוֹנָאָה אַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁתוּת לַמִּקָּח. מַאי לָאו – דִּזְבֵין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים בְּעֶשְׂרִין וְאַרְבָּעָה, וּשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ שְׁתוּת מָעוֹת נַמִי שָׁנִינוּ! לָא, דִּזְבֵין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה בְּעֶשְׂרִים.

The Gemara cites proof for the opinions of Rav and Shmuel. We learned in the mishna: The measure of exploitation for which one can claim that he was exploited is four silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a in a sela, which is one-sixth of the transaction. What, is it not a case where he bought an item worth twenty ma’a for twenty-four ma’a? And accordingly, one can conclude from the mishna that we learned that exploitation is also determined by one-sixth of the money paid, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma’a for twenty ma’a.

מִי נִתְאַנָּה – מוֹכֵר. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עַד מָתַי מוּתָּר לְהַחֲזִיר – בִּכְדֵי שֶׁיַּרְאֶה לַתַּגָּר אוֹ לִקְרוֹבוֹ. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לוֹקֵחַ, אֲבָל מוֹכֵר – לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר.

The Gemara asks: If so, who was exploited in this transaction? It is the seller. Say the latter clause of the mishna: Until when is it permitted for the buyer to return the item? In the time that it takes the buyer to show the merchandise to a merchant or to his relative. And Rav Naḥman said: The Rabbis taught this halakha only with regard to a buyer, who is in possession of the item and can show it to a merchant immediately. But a seller may always renege on the transaction. Since the purchase item is not in his possession, he can determine its market price only if he happens to encounter a similar item, and there is no time frame within which this will certainly occur.

אֶלָּא דִּזְבֵין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה בְּעֶשְׂרִין וּתְמַנְיָא. תְּנַן: הוֹרָה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בְּלוֹד: הָאוֹנָאָה שְׁמוֹנָה כֶּסֶף מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה כֶּסֶף לַסֶּלַע, שְׁלִישׁ לַמִּקָּח. מַאי לָאו – דִּזְבֵין שָׁוֵי שִׁיתְּסְרֵי בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה, וּשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ שְׁלִישׁ מָעוֹת נַמִי שָׁנִינוּ!

Rather, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma’a for twenty-eight ma’a. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation is a measure of eight silver ma’a from the twenty-four silver ma’a of a sela, one-third of the transaction. What, is it not a case where he bought an item worth sixteen ma’a for twenty-four ma’a? And accordingly, one can conclude from the mishna that we learned that exploitation is also determined by one-third of the money paid, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

לָא, דִּזְבֵין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה בְּשִׁיתְּסַר. מִי נִתְאַנָּה – מוֹכֵר. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אָמַר לָהֶם כָּל הַיּוֹם מוּתָּר לַחֲזוֹר, וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לוֹקֵחַ, אֲבָל מוֹכֵר לְעוֹלָם חוֹזֵר! אֶלָּא דִּזְבֵין שָׁוֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה בִּתְלָתִין וּתְרֵין.

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma’a for sixteen ma’a. The Gemara asks: If so, who was exploited in this transaction? It is the seller. Say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Tarfon said to them: Throughout the entire day it is permitted to renege on the transaction. And Rav Naḥman says: They taught this halakha only with regard to a buyer, but a seller may always renege on the transaction. Rather, it is a case where he sold an item worth twenty-four ma’a for thirty-two ma’a.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: מִי שֶׁהוּטַל עָלָיו יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. כֵּיצַד? מָכַר לוֹ שָׁוֶה חֲמִשָּׁה בְּשִׁשָּׁה, מִי נִתְאַנָּה – לוֹקֵחַ, יַד לוֹקֵחַ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, רָצָה – אוֹמֵר תֵּן לִי מְעוֹתַי, אוֹ תֵּן לִי מַה שֶּׁאוֹנִיתָנִי. מָכַר לוֹ

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: The one upon whom the exploitation was imposed has the advantage. How so? In a case where one sold him an item worth five ma’a for six ma’a, who was exploited? It is the buyer. Therefore, the buyer is at an advantage. If he wishes, he can say to the seller: Give me back my money and nullify the transaction, or he can say: Give me back the sum which you received by engaging in exploitation of me. In a case where one sold him