he must pay him [for it] the price1 of wheat!2 — [Of] pulse. a quarter3 [of a kab must be accepted; of] sandy matter less4 than a quarter. And [need he] not [accept] a [full] quarter [of a kab of] sandy matter? Surely it has been taught: [If] one sells fruit to another, [the buyer] must accept, [in the case of] wheat, a quarter [of a Lab of] pulse5 for [each] se'ah; [in the case of] barley, he must accept a quarter [of a kab of] chaff6 for [each] se'ah; [in the case of] lentils, he must accept a quarter [of a kab of] sandy matter7 for [each] se'ah. Now, may it not be assumed that the same law8 [applies not only to lentils but also] to wheat and to barley?9 Lentils are different [from wheat and barley], because they are usually plucked.10 But [since] the reason why lentils [are allowed a full quarter of a kab of sandy matter is] because they are usually plucked while wheat and barley [are] not, infer [then] from this, [that in the case of] wheat and barley [the buyer need] not accept [a full quarter of a kab] of sandy matter!11 — [It may be retorted that a buyer], in fact, must accept [a full quarter of a kab of] sandy matter [in the case also of] wheat and barley12 lentils, [however,] had to be [specifically mentioned].13 Because it might have been thought that, since they are usually plucked, [the buyer] must accept even more than a quarter [of a kab], [the quantity], therefore, had to be [specifically] stated.
R. Huna said: If [the buyer] wishes to sift14 [and, on sifting, the quantity of the refuse is found to be more than what is permitted]. he may sift all of it [and the seller must compensate him for all the refuse, even for the permitted quantities]. Some say, [this is the] law; and others say, [this is a] penalty. Some say [this is the] law, [because] whoever pays money. pays it for good fruit,15 but a person does not take the trouble [to sift, if the refuse only amounts to] a quarter [of a kab for every se'ah;16 if] more than a quarter, a person does take the trouble; and, since he takes the trouble [to start sifting], he takes [a little more] trouble with all of it.17 And others say, [this is a] penalty,18 [because] it is usual [only for] a quarter [of a kab of refuse] to be found [in each se'ah];19 more is not usual; he himself [therefore must have] mixed it. and since he has mixed [at least some of] it, the Rabbis have imposed upon him the penalty [of paying] for all.20
(Mnemonic: Every two bills of Rabin son of R. Nahman [are] overcharge and undertaking.)21
An objection was raised.22 [It has been taught:]23 Every se'ah [of produce] which contains a quarter [of a kab] of another kind shall be reduced24 [in order that it be permitted to be sown].25 Now, it has been assumed that the quarter [in the case] of kilayim26 is [in the same category] as [the quantity of] more than a quarter here,27 and yet it has [only] been taught. 'it shall be reduced',28 [while the rest may be sown. Why, then, in the case of a purchase,29 must compensation be paid for all the refuse]? — No; a quarter [in the case] of kilayim is [in] the same [category] as a quarter here.30 If so,31 why should it be reduced? — On account of the restrictions of the law of kilayim.32 If so,33
Baba Bathra 94b
explain the last clause [of the Mishnah quoted, which reads]. R. Jose says: He shall pick out [all]. This would be correct if you assumed [that a quarter of a kab in kilayim is] like [a quantity of] more than a quarter [of a kab] of refuse. For their1 dispute could [then be said to] depend on [the following principles]. The first Tanna might hold the opinion that a penalty is not imposed on a permitted thing for the sake of a prohibited one, and R. Jose might hold the opinion that a penalty may thus be imposed.2 But if it is said that [a quarter of a kab of kilayim is] like a quarter [of refuse], why should he pick?3 This is the reason of R. Jose. there: Because4 it seems as if he was retaining5 kilayim.
Come and hear! [It has been taught]:6 If two [persons] deposited [money] with one [man], one of them7 a maneh8 and the other7 two hundred zuz, and the one7 says. 'the two hundred zuz are mine', and the other7 [also] says, 'the two hundred zuz are mine one maneh is given to the one,7 and one maneh to the other,7 and the remainder must lie until [the prophet] Elijah comes.9 [Does not this show that one is not penalised by being made to lose the whole10 for the sake of a part?]11 — What a comparison!12 In that case,13 one maneh certainly belongs to the one, and one maneh to the other,14 [but in] this [case],15 who can say that he has not [himself] put it all in?16 Come and hear [a confirmation]17 from the last [clause of the quoted Baraitha which reads]: R. Jose said, 'If so,18 what has the knave lost?19 But all20 must be kept over until Elijah comes. What a comparison!21 In that case22 there is certainly [one] knave [at least].23 but in this case,24 who can say that he has put it in at all?25
Come and hear! [It has been taught]: [If] a bill [of debt] contains [an undertaking to pay] usury, a penalty is imposed [on the lender], and he receives neither the principal nor the interest; these are the words of R. Meir.26 [Does not this prove that a penalty may be imposed on the whole for the sake of its part?] — What a comparison!27 In that case,28 [the lender] had committed the transgression29 from the moment of the writing.30 but in this case,31 who can say that he has put it in at all?32
Come and hear! [an objection] from the last [clause of the quoted Baraitha]: And the Sages say. '[the lender] receives the principal but not the interest'. [Does not this show that a penalty on the whole is not imposed on account of its part]?33 — What a comparison!34 In that case,35 the principal [at least] is certainly a permitted sum; but here, who can say that all has not been put in by him36
Come and hear what Rabin son of R. Nahman learned:37 [In case of the sale of a piece of ground, under certain conditions, though it was found to be bigger than arranged. by an area equal to that of a quarter of a kab per se'ah, the sale is valid; if, however, the difference is greater. then] not only must the surplus38 be returned but all the quarters39 also must be returned. This shows clearly that whenever [a part] has to be returned, all must be returned!40 — What a comparison!
- To Next Folio -