he [the buyer] can say unto him: If you had not imposed upon me, you would have had no right to withdraw; can you have the right to withdraw now that you have imposed upon me? And the Tanna [of our Mishnah, who taught that 'if wheat was sold as] GOOD AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE BAD, THE BUYER MAY WITHDRAW,' but not [inferentially] the seller,1 confirms [what has just been said].
R. Hisda further stated: [If] one has sold to another what was worth six for five and the price fell2 to three, the seller, since he has been imposed upon, may withdraw, but not [so] the buyer; because [the seller] can say unto him: If you had not imposed upon me you would have had no right to withdraw; can you have the right to withdraw now? And the Tanna [of our Mishnah, who taught that 'if wheat was sold as] BAD AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE GOOD, THE SELLER MAY WITHDRAW,' but not [inferentially] the buyer,3 confirms [this statement].
What does he4 come to teach us? [Surely] this [statement of his may be inferred from] our Mishnah! — If5 [it had to be inferred] from our Mishnah, it could have been said that [in the cases dealt with in the statement] of R. Hisda, both6 may perhaps withdraw; and [that the first clause of] our Mishnah comes to teach us that7 the buyer may withdraw;8 for [without this Mishnah] it might have been said that [he cannot], because it is written: 'It is bad, it is bad', saith the buyer.9
[IF ONE HAS SOLD WHEAT AS] DARK-COLOURED AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE WHITE, etc. R. Papa said: Since white is given [as the contrast of the other colour]10 it may be inferred that the sun is dark-red.11 This can be proved [from the fact] that the sun is red at sunrise and at sunset. The reason why we do not see it [red] all day, is [because] our eyesight is not strong [enough].12 An objection was raised: And the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin,13 [that means], like the appearance of sunlight [which is] deeper than the shadow.14 Surely there15 [the appearance] was white,16 [how, then, could the sun be said to be red]?17 — Like the appearance of the sun [in one respect], and not like the appearance of the sun [in another respect]. Like the appearance of the sun, [in] that it is deeper than the shadow; and not like the appearance of the sun [in another respect], for there,18 it is white and here19 it is red. But according to our previous assumption,20 is not the sun red at sunrise and at sunset?21 — [It is red] at sunrise, because it passes by the roses of the Garden of Eden;22 at sunset, because it passes the gate of Gehenna.23 Others reverse [the answer].24
[IF LIQUID HAS BEEN SOLD AS] WINE, AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE VINEGAR … BOTH MAY WITHDRAW. Must it be said that our Mishnah is [in agreement with] Rabbi and not [with] the Rabbis?25 For it has been taught:
Baba Bathra 84b
Wine and vinegar are the same1 in kind. Rabbi says: [They are regarded as] two [different] kinds.2 — It may be said [to be in agreement] even [with] the Rabbis. They dispute with Rabbi only in the case of tithe and heave-offering [for they are of the same opinion as] R. Elai. For R. Elai said: Whence [is it inferred] that, if one separates a heave-offering from an inferior quality for the [redemption of] a superior quality, his offering is valid, for it is said: And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that ye have set apart from it the best thereof,3 [but, it is to be inferred, if you do not set apart from the best, but of the worst, you shall bear sin]; if, [however, the inferior quality] does not become consecrated, why [should there be any] bearing of sin?4 Hence [it may be inferred] that if one separates a heave-offering from an inferior quality for [the redemption of] a superior quality, his offering is valid.5 As regards commercial transactions, however, all [are of the opinion that wine and vinegar are not of the same kind] because some one may like wine and not vinegar while another may like vinegar and not wine.6 nbsp;
MISHNAH. IF ONE HAS SOLD FRUIT TO ANOTHER7 [AND THE BUYER] HAS PULLED8 [THEM]. THOUGH THEY HAVE NOT [YET] BEEN MEASURED,9 OWNERSHIP IS ACQUIRED. [IF HOWEVER] THEY HAVE BEEN MEASURED10 BUT [THE BUYER] HAS NOT PULLED [THEM], OWNERSHIP IS NOT ACQUIRED. IF [THE BUYER] IS PRUDENT, HE HIRES THE PLACE WHERE THEY ARE KEPT.11 IF ONE BUYS FLAX FROM ANOTHER, HE DOES NOT ACQUIRE OWNERSHIP UNTIL HE MOVES IT FROM PLACE TO PLACE. AND IF IT WAS ATTACHED TO THE GROUND AND HE PLUCKED [OF IT] ANY QUANTITY, HE ACQUIRES OWNERSHIP.
GEMARA. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: [If the buyer] has measured [with the seller's instruments] and has put [them] in an alley, he acquires possession.12 R. Zera said to R. Assi: Is it not possible that my master13 has heard [this statement]14 only in [the case where the buyer] has measured into his [own] basket?15 He replied unto him: This young Rabbi seems to think that people do not correctly memorise what they hear. [If the buyer had] measured it into his [own] basket, would there have been any need to tell [that ownership is acquired]?16 Did he17 accept it from him18 or not? — Come and hear what R. Jannai said in the name of Rabbi: [In the case of] a courtyard in partnership, [the partners] may acquire possession [of objects they buy] from one another. Does not this [refer to the case where the objects bought lie] on the [bare] ground?19 — No; [this refers to the case when they were put] into his basket. This can also be supported by argument. For R. Jacob said in the name of R. Johanan: [If the buyer] measures and puts [them] in an alley. he does not acquire possession. Are not these20 contradictory? But surely it must be concluded [that] one21 [case refers to one] who measures into his basket, the other22 [case, to one] who measures upon the [bare] ground. This is conclusive.23
Come and hear: [IF HOWEVER] THEY HAVE BEEN MEASURED BUT [THE BUYER] HAS NOT PULLED [THEM]. OWNERSHIP IS NOT ACQUIRED. Does not this refer to an alley!24 — No; [this refers] to reshuth harabbim.25 If so, explain the first clause, [IF HE] HAS PULLED [THEM] THOUGH THEY HAVE NOT [YET] BEEN MEASURED, OWNERSHIP IS ACQUIRED. Does 'pulling' acquire possession in a reshuth harabbim? — Surely both Abaye and Raba have stated:26 Mesirah27 confers legal ownership in reshuth harabbim28 or in a yard which belongs to neither of them;29 Meshikah30 confers ownership in an alley31 or in a yard owned by both of them; and 'lifting'32 confers ownership everywhere.33 'Pulling' mentioned [in our Mishnah] also means from the reshuth harabbim to an alley. If so, explain the next clause of our Mishnah, IF [THE BUYER] IS PRUDENT, HE HIRES THE PLACE WHERE THEY ARE KEPT. [Now], if [the object is] in reshuth harabbim, from whom could he hire? — This is what [the Mishnah] means: And if [the object] is in the domain of the owner,34 IF [THE BUYER] IS PRUDENT, HE HIRES THE PLACE WHERE THEY ARE KEPT.
Both Rab and Samuel have stated:
- To Next Folio -