Bava Metzia

therefore they reverted. But if you say that the vendor is as the vendee, what difference did it make to them?  Just as the Rabbis  ameliorated [the position of] the vendee, so did they likewise that of the vendor! — The merchants of Lydda very seldom erred. Rami b. Hama's host  sold some wine,  and erred. Finding him depressed, he [Rami] asked him, 'Why are you sad?' 'I sold wine,' he replied, 'and erred.' 'Then go and retract,' he counselled. 'But I have tarried more time than is necessary to shew it to a dealer or a relative,' said he. Thereupon he sent him to R. Nahman, who said to him: This was taught only of the vendee; but the vendor can always retract. Why? The vendee has the purchase in his hand; wherever he goes he shews it and is told whether he erred or not. But the vendor, who has not the purchase in his hand, [must wait] until he comes across an article like his, and only then can he know whether he erred or not. A man had silk skeins  for sale. He demanded  Six [zuz], whilst they were worth five, yet if five and a half were offered, he would have accepted. Then a man came and said [to himself]. 'If I pay him five and a half, it is [immediate] renunciation;  therefore I will pay him six and then sue him at law.' When he went before Raba, he said to him: This was taught only of one who buys from a merchant; but when one buys from a private person,  he has no claim of fraud upon him. A man had jewellery for sale. He demanded sixty [zuz], whilst it was worth fifty; yet had he been offered fifty-five, he would have accepted. Then a man came and argued. 'If I give him fifty-five, it will constitute renunciation: therefore I will give him sixty and then sue him at law.' When he came before R. Hisda, he said to him: This was taught only of one who buys from a merchant; but when one buys from a Private individual, he has no claim of fraud against him. Said R. Dimi to him: 'Well spoken!'  and R. Eleazar said likewise, 'Well spoken!' But did we not learn, Just as the law of overreaching holds good in the case of a layman, so it holds good in the case of a merchant. Now, who is meant by 'a layman?' Surely a Private individual! — Said R. Hisda:  That applies to rough cloth garments..  But garments of personal use, which are dear to him, he would not sell but at an enhanced price. MISHNAH. BOTH THE VENDEE AND THE VENDOR CAN CLAIM FOR OVERREACHING. JUST AS THE LAW OF OVERREACHING HOLDS GOOD IN THE CASE OF A LAYMAN, SO IT HOLDS GOOD IN THE CASE OF A MERCHANT. R. JUDAH SAID: THERE IS NO OVERREACHING FOR A MERCHANT.  HE WHO WAS DECEIVED HAS THE UPPER HAND; IF HE WISHES, HE CAN EITHER SAY, GIVE ME BACK MY MONEY,' OR, 'RETURN WHAT YOU OVERCHARGED ME. GEMARA. Whence do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour … ye shall not deceive.  From this I know it  only if the purchaser was defrauded; how do I know it if the vendor was overreached? Because Scripture states,'…acquirest…ye shall not deceive' — Now, both vendee and vendor must be written, for had the Divine Law stated [the law only of] the vendor — that is because he knows his purchase;  but as for the purchaser, who is not experienced in the purchase,  I might think that the Divine Law did not apply the injunction of 'ye shall not defraud' to him. And had Scripture mentioned the vendee [only], that might be because he acquires [an article], for it is proverbial, 'When you buy, you gain'. But as for the vendor, who indeed loses thereby, as it is said, 'He who sells, loses,'  I might think that the Divine Law did not exhort him, 'ye shall not defraud;' hence both are necessary. R. JUDAH SAID, THERE IS NO OVERREACHING FOR A MERCHANT. Because he is a merchant, has he no claim for overreaching? — Said R. Nahman in Rab's name: This was taught of a speculator.  Why? Because he well knows the value of what he sells, but foregoes [part thereof] to him [the vendee], the reason that he sells thus [cheaply] being that he has chanced upon another purchase;  nevertheless now he wishes to retract.  R. Ashi said: What is meant by 'THERE IS NO OVERREACHING FOR A MERCHANT? He is not subject to the law of overreaching. i.e., he can withdraw even for less than the [recoverable] standard of overreaching. It has been taught in accordance with R. Nahman: R. Judah said: There is no overreaching for a merchant, because he is an expert. HE WHO WAS DECEIVED HAS THE UPPER HAND. Who is the authority of our Mishnah, [seeing that] it is neither R. Nathan nor R. Judah ha-Nasi? For if R. Nathan — our Mishnah teaches, IF HE WISHES,  whereas the Baraitha  does not state, If he wishes;  whilst if it is R. Judah — our Mishnah refers to the Vendee [only],  whereas the Baraitha refers to the Vendor.  (Mnemonic: ZaB RaSH.)  Said R. Eleazar: I do not know who taught this [Mishnah of] overreaching. Rabbah said: In truth, its authority is R. Nathan, but read in the Baraitha too, [If] he wishes [etc.]. Raba said: In truth, it is R. Judah ha-Nasi, but what the Mishnah omits is explained in the Baraitha.  Said R. Ashi: This too follows from the fact that it states. BOTH THE VENDEE AND THE VENDOR, yet proceeds to explain [the law of] the vendee [only]; this proves that the case of the vendor is merely left over. This proves it. It has been stated: If one says to his neighbour, 'I agree to this sale on condition that you have no claim of overreaching against me — Rab said: He [nevertheless] has a claim of overreaching against him. Whereas Samuel said: He has no claim of overreaching against him. Shall we say that Rab ruled in accordance with R. Meir, and Samuel in accordance with R. Judah? For it has been taught: If one says to a woman, 'Behold thou art betrothed  unto me on condition that thou hast no claims upon me of sustenance, raiment and conjugal rights' — she is betrothed, but the condition is null: this is R. Meir's view. But R. Judah said: In respect of civil matters, his condition is binding! — Rab can answer you: My ruling agrees even with R. Judah. R. Judah states his view there only in that case, because she knew [of her rights], and renounced them;