Bava Metzia

"No," I answered. "Then let me entrust this money to you," he replied, "as it is growing dark,"  "The house lies before you." I replied; so he deposited it in the house, and it was stolen. When he came before Raba, he ruled: In every case of "The house lies before you," not only is one not a paid bailee,  he is not even a gratuitous trustee.' Thereupon I observed to him,  'But the Rabbis protested to Raba: He would have to submit to [the curse] "He who punished";  and he answered, "That is a pure fiction".' R. SIMEON SAID: HE WHO HAS THE MONEY IN HIS HAND HAS THE ADVANTAGE. It has been taught: R. Simeon said: When is that?  If the vendor has both the money and the produce. But if the money is in the vendor's hand, and the goods in the vendee's, he [the vendee] cannot retract, since the money is in his hand. [You say,] 'in his hand'!  but it is in the vendor's! — Say then, because his money's worth is in his hand.  But that is obvious!  — Said Raba: The circumstances here are, e.g., where the vendee's loft was rented to the vendor.  Now, why did the Rabbis institute meshikah? For fear lest he say to him, 'Your wheat was burnt in the loft'.  But here it is [already] in the vendee's ownership; should fire accidentally break out, he will take the trouble to save it — 12 A certain man gave money [in advance payment] for wine. Subsequently he learnt that one of the men of the Field-marshal  Parzak intended to seize it — Thereupon he said to him, 'Return me my money:I do not want the wine' — So he went before R. Hisda, who said to him, Just as meshikah was instituted in favour of the vendor,  so was it instituted in favour of the vendee too. MISHNAH. FRAUD IS CONSTITUTED BY [AN OVERCHARGE OF] FOUR SILVER [MA'AHS] IN TWENTY FOUR. WHICH IS A SELA', [HENCE] A SIXTH OF THE PURCHASE.  UNTIL WHAT TIME IS ONE PERMITTED TO REVOKE [THE SALE]?  UNTIL HE CAN SHEW [THE ARTICLE] TO A MERCHANT OR A RELATIVE.  R. TARFON RULED IN LYDDA THAT FRAUD IS CONSTITUTED BY EIGHT SILVER [MA'AHS] IN TWENTY-FOUR, WHICH IS A SELA', [HENCE] A THIRD OF THE PURCHASE, WHEREAT THE LYDDAN MERCHANTS REJOICED. BUT, SAID HE TO THEM, ONE MAY RETRACT THE WHOLE DAY. THEN LET R. TARFON LEAVE US IN STATUS QUO, THEY REQUESTED; AND SO THEY REVERTED TO THE RULING OF THE SAGES. GEMARA. It has been stated: Rab said: We learnt, A sixth of the [true] purchase price. Samuel said: A sixth of the money [actually] paid was also taught. Now, if that which is worth six [ma'ahs] was sold for five or seven, all agree that we follow the purchase price.  Wherein do they differ? If something worth five or seven [ma'ahs] was sold for six. According to Samuel, who maintained that we follow the money paid [too], both cases constitute fraud. But according to Rab, viz., that we follow only the purchase price, if something worth five is sold for six, the sale is null;  but if what is worth seven is sold for six, it is renunciation.  But Samuel maintained: When do we say that there is renunciation or annulment of the sale? Only if there is not a sixth on either side;  but if there is a sixth on one side, it is fraud. We learnt: FRAUD IS CONSTITUTED BY [AN OVERCHARGE OF] FOUR SILVER [MA'AHS] IN TWENTY FOUR, WHICH IS A SELA', [HENCE] A SIXTH OF THE PURCHASE. Surely that means that one sold something worth twenty [ma'ahs] for twenty-four. which proves that a sixth of the money paid was also taught? No; It means that twenty-four [ma'ahs] worth was sold for twenty. Then who was overreached? The vendor! But consider the second clause: UNTIL WHAT TIME IS ONE PERMITTED TO REVOKE [THE SALE]? UNTIL HE CAN SHEW [THE ARTICLE] TO A MERCHANT OR A RELATIVE. Now, R. Nahman observed [thereon]: This was taught only of the purchaser; the vendor, however, can always withdraw!  — But it means that one sold something worth twenty-four [ma'ahs] for twenty-eight. We learnt: R. TARFON RULED IN LYDDA THAT FRAUD IS CONSTITUTED BY EIGHT SILVER [MA'AHS] IN TWENTY-FOUR, WHICH IS A SELA', [HENCE] A THIRD OF THE PURCHASE. Surely that means that one sold something worth sixteen [ma'ahs] for twenty four, which proves that a third of the money paid was also taught?  — No: it means that what was worth twenty-four was sold for sixteen. Then who was overreached? the vendor! But consider the next clause; BUT, SAID HE TO THEM, ONE MAY RETRACT THE WHOLE DAY, whereon R. Nahman observed: This was taught only of the purchaser; the vendor, however, can always withdraw! But it means that one sold the value of twenty-four [ma'ahs] for thirty-two. It has been taught in accordance with Samuel: He who was deceived has the upper hand. E.g., if one sold an article worth five [ma'ahs] for six — who was defrauded? The vendee. Therefore the vendee has the upper hand, [and] he can demand of him [the vendor] either, 'Return me my money', or, 'Return me the overcharge'.  If he sold him