seller

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If somebody sold a flock to another person, when [the seller] delivered the maškokît, [the buyer] took possession. What is maškokît? Some say, the shepherd’s staff. But some say, a whistle. And some say, the bell-wether.

Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.”

“By money.” Rebbi Abba was of the opinion, by money if there was no intention to write a deed. But if money was given with the intention to write a deed for him, possession was transferred only when the deed was written. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose disagree. It follows that Rebbi Abba parallels Samuel and Rav Huna Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Abba parallels Samuel. Samuel asked Rav Ḥuna: He was slaughtering sacrifices while being occupied? He answered, “for your intention,” this excludes one otherwise occupied. If one wrote a gift in the language of a sale? He answered, he made it ride on two racing horses; Rebbi Abba said this; Samuel did not accept it. What means “he made it ride on two shining racing horses”? They wanted to say, one brings two crazy horses and makes it ride on both. One goes in one direction and the other in another; he has nothing in his hand. Rebbi Yose from Mamelia said, he doubly empowered him, for there is a title guarantee in a sale but none for a gift; the seller did not sell everything but the giver of a gift gave everything. And Rav Ḥuna parallels Rebbi Joḥanan. A person, when he lay dying, said: my property should be given to X. Afterwards he said: write and deliver. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim brought the case before Rebbi Joḥanan who said: If he said to transfer to him, everybody agrees that he entered into possession. If the transfer was to be in writing, everybody agrees that nobody transfers rights in writing after his death. Who would notify the greatness? Explain it if witnesses know. Think of it, if no witnesses know it? Rebbi Yose said, the field remains in the hand of its proprietors; the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Matton asked: If somebody redeems a string of dry figs from the Temple treasurer, does it become ṭevel for tithes? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Did we not state about him who “stole, dedicated it, and afterwards slaughtered or sold”? As you say there, the one who dedicates is not like a seller, so one who redeems is not like a buyer. The word of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish implies that selling is like redeeming. They said, he has the choice of redeeming and eating it.

There is a rule about the slaughterer which does not apply to the seller and to the seller which does not apply to the slaughterer, for he who slaughters on the Sabbath is criminally liable but he who sells on the Sabbath cannot be prosecuted. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said, we find a case of sale for which one is criminally liable on the Sabbath. Think of it, if somebody said to another: tear something off from this ground to acquire, did he not acquire? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the tearing makes him liable, not the sale.

There is a rule about the slaughterer which does not apply to the seller and to the seller which does not apply to the slaughterer, for he who slaughters on the Sabbath is criminally liable but he who sells on the Sabbath cannot be prosecuted. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said, we find a case of sale for which one is criminally liable on the Sabbath. Think of it, if somebody said to another: tear something off from this ground to acquire, did he not acquire? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the tearing makes him liable, not the sale.

It was stated: One gives money to another to buy wheat for him, but the man bought barley. If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him. We stated otherwise: “If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them.” [He who said if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him, is Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer. But he who said, if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them, is Rebbi Jehudah.] What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. Why does he (not) split with him? Because it is forbidden to take advantage of another person. Then even if one gave him money to buy wheat and he bought wheat? [Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had given money to buy wheat and he bought wheat,] the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. If he had given money to buy wheat and he bought barley, the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer, who is stuck with what he has on his hands. Rebbi Nasa said, if he was true to his agency, did the seller not intend to transfer ownership to the owner of the money? If he was not true to his agency, he intended to transfer ownership to the buyer. Then why does he split with him? He said, because he realizes a profit by means of the other man’s money, he splits with him.

It was stated: One gives money to another to buy wheat for him, but the man bought barley. If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him. We stated otherwise: “If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them.” [He who said if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him, is Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer. But he who said, if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them, is Rebbi Jehudah.] What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. Why does he (not) split with him? Because it is forbidden to take advantage of another person. Then even if one gave him money to buy wheat and he bought wheat? [Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had given money to buy wheat and he bought wheat,] the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. If he had given money to buy wheat and he bought barley, the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer, who is stuck with what he has on his hands. Rebbi Nasa said, if he was true to his agency, did the seller not intend to transfer ownership to the owner of the money? If he was not true to his agency, he intended to transfer ownership to the buyer. Then why does he split with him? He said, because he realizes a profit by means of the other man’s money, he splits with him.

It was stated: One gives money to another to buy wheat for him, but the man bought barley. If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him. We stated otherwise: “If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them.” [He who said if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him, is Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer. But he who said, if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them, is Rebbi Jehudah.] What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. Why does he (not) split with him? Because it is forbidden to take advantage of another person. Then even if one gave him money to buy wheat and he bought wheat? [Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had given money to buy wheat and he bought wheat,] the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. If he had given money to buy wheat and he bought barley, the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer, who is stuck with what he has on his hands. Rebbi Nasa said, if he was true to his agency, did the seller not intend to transfer ownership to the owner of the money? If he was not true to his agency, he intended to transfer ownership to the buyer. Then why does he split with him? He said, because he realizes a profit by means of the other man’s money, he splits with him.

It was stated: One gives money to another to buy wheat for him, but the man bought barley. If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him. We stated otherwise: “If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them.” [He who said if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him, is Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer. But he who said, if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them, is Rebbi Jehudah.] What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. Why does he (not) split with him? Because it is forbidden to take advantage of another person. Then even if one gave him money to buy wheat and he bought wheat? [Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had given money to buy wheat and he bought wheat,] the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. If he had given money to buy wheat and he bought barley, the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer, who is stuck with what he has on his hands. Rebbi Nasa said, if he was true to his agency, did the seller not intend to transfer ownership to the owner of the money? If he was not true to his agency, he intended to transfer ownership to the buyer. Then why does he split with him? He said, because he realizes a profit by means of the other man’s money, he splits with him.

It was stated: One gives money to another to buy wheat for him, but the man bought barley. If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him. We stated otherwise: “If it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them.” [He who said if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for him, is Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer. But he who said, if it went down in price, it went down in price for him; if it rose in price, it rose for both of them, is Rebbi Jehudah.] What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Because the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. Why does he (not) split with him? Because it is forbidden to take advantage of another person. Then even if one gave him money to buy wheat and he bought wheat? [Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had given money to buy wheat and he bought wheat,] the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the owner of the money. If he had given money to buy wheat and he bought barley, the seller intended to transfer ownership only to the buyer, who is stuck with what he has on his hands. Rebbi Nasa said, if he was true to his agency, did the seller not intend to transfer ownership to the owner of the money? If he was not true to his agency, he intended to transfer ownership to the buyer. Then why does he split with him? He said, because he realizes a profit by means of the other man’s money, he splits with him.

Alexander the Macedonian went to the king of Cassia. He saw that he had much gold, much silver. He told him, I do not need your gold nor your silver; I came only so see your practice, how you are dealing, how you are judging. While he was still discussing with him, there came a man having a dispute with another, for he bought (a plot, entered it) [a garbage heap, dug in it] and found a treasure trove of denars. The buyer said, I bought a garbage heap, I did not buy a treasure. The seller said, I sold a garbage heap and all it contains. While they still were arguing with one another, the king asked one of them, do you have a male son? He answered, yes. He asked the other one, do you have a female daughter? He answered, yes. He told them, marry them to each other and the treasure should belong to both. He started to laugh. He asked him, why are you laughing? Did I not judge correctly? He asked him, if the case came before you, how would you have judged? He told him, one kills both of them and the treasure falls to the king. He told him, do you love gold so much? He made him a meal and brought before him golden meat, golden chicken. He asked him, can I eat gold? He told him, the spirit of this person should be wiped out. You cannot eat gold, why do you love gold so much? He asked him, does the sun shine upon you? He answered, yes. Does rain fall on you? He answered, yes. He asked him, do you have small animals? He answered, yes. The spirit of this person should be wiped out; you live only by the merit of the small animals, as it is written: “Man and animal You are saving, o Eternal!”

Rebbi Joḥanan gave denars to a relative of his for oil. The oil rose in price. He went and asked Rebbi Yannai who told him, by Torah standards money acquires, but why did they say it does not acquire? Lest [the seller] tell him, your wheat was burned in the storage room. Rebbi Samuel ben Sosartai in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: If [the seller] told him, your wheat was burned in the storage room, he is trustworthy. Rebbi Isaac objected: Where do we hold? If his money had acquired for him, his property would have been burned. But if his money had not acquired for him, the other’s property was burned.

Rebbi Joḥanan gave denars to a relative of his for oil. The oil rose in price. He went and asked Rebbi Yannai who told him, by Torah standards money acquires, but why did they say it does not acquire? Lest [the seller] tell him, your wheat was burned in the storage room. Rebbi Samuel ben Sosartai in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: If [the seller] told him, your wheat was burned in the storage room, he is trustworthy. Rebbi Isaac objected: Where do we hold? If his money had acquired for him, his property would have been burned. But if his money had not acquired for him, the other’s property was burned.

Cahana asked before Rav: If the seller is being cheated, he is cheated up to a fifth; if the buyer is being cheated, he is cheated up to a sixth! He answered him, it and the amount of cheating add up to a sixth. If he sold him what was worth five for six, can [the seller] not say, you were taken in for a denar, take your denar! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the other can say to him, it is not to my honor that people say, this one was made a laughing stock. Some say, he can say to him, it is not to my honor to wear a garment of five denars. Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Hoshaia say, what is that Tanna’s reason? “I know that my merchandise was worth only five denars, but because he needed it, I gave it to him for six. Take yours and return mine.”

Cahana asked before Rav: If the seller is being cheated, he is cheated up to a fifth; if the buyer is being cheated, he is cheated up to a sixth! He answered him, it and the amount of cheating add up to a sixth. If he sold him what was worth five for six, can [the seller] not say, you were taken in for a denar, take your denar! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the other can say to him, it is not to my honor that people say, this one was made a laughing stock. Some say, he can say to him, it is not to my honor to wear a garment of five denars. Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Hoshaia say, what is that Tanna’s reason? “I know that my merchandise was worth only five denars, but because he needed it, I gave it to him for six. Take yours and return mine.”

If he sold him what was worth five for six; [the buyer] did not have time to ask around until it appreciated to be worth seven. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Since the sale is annulled for one, it also is annulled for the other. There, we have stated: “Four situations in sales. If he sold him high quality wheat and it turned out to be low quality, the buyer can annul the transaction. Low quality and it turned out to be high quality, the seller can annul the transaction.” [Therefore, the buyer cannot annul the transaction.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows this Tanna: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”.

“One bought wheat from another.” Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the rate which is valid for everybody. Less than that, woe to the seller; more than that, woe to the buyer!

MISHNAH: One may increase rental fees but not sale price. How is this? He leased a courtyard saying to him, if [you pay] now it is yours for ten tetradrachmas a year but if paid monthly it is a tetradrachma per month; this is permitted. He sold his field and said to him, if [you pay] now it is yours for 1’000 zuz, but if after the threshing floor it is twelve mina; this is forbidden. If one sold his field, [the buyer] made a partial payment and [the seller] said, anytime you wish bring the remainder and take yours; this is forbidden. If one lent money on a field and said, if you do not repay me in three years from now, it will be mine, it is his; Boethos ben Zenon acted thus following the Sages.

HALAKHAH: “One may increase rental fees,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody sells a field to another and stipulates, on condition that I shall work it as a sharecropper, on condition that I shall be part owner, on condition that the tithes shall be mine, on condition that if you sell it, you will sell it only to me, that anytime I want I may pay you back and take it; this is permitted.” “If he owed him money and wrote his field over to him as a sale, any time the seller eats the yield it is permitted; any time the buyer eats the yield, it is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah says, in any case it is permitted. Rebbi Jehudah said, that is what Boethos ben Zenon did following the Sages. They said to him, is that a proof? The seller was eating the yield.” Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jehudah learned from the houses of walled cities. As it was stated: The year mentioned in the Torah regarding walled cities is like interest but it is not interest. Another Tanna stated: This is interest but the Torah permitted it. He who said, it is like interest but it is not interest, Rebbi Meïr. He who said, this is interest but the Torah permitted it, Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Idi said, when I came from the Diaspora, I found that a case was before Rebbi Immi of “it is like interest but it is not interest.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that “this is interest but the Torah permitted it.” There, the Torah permitted it, therefore not in any other case. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi did not consider it, for he said: a house dwells with its inhabitants.

HALAKHAH: “One may increase rental fees,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody sells a field to another and stipulates, on condition that I shall work it as a sharecropper, on condition that I shall be part owner, on condition that the tithes shall be mine, on condition that if you sell it, you will sell it only to me, that anytime I want I may pay you back and take it; this is permitted.” “If he owed him money and wrote his field over to him as a sale, any time the seller eats the yield it is permitted; any time the buyer eats the yield, it is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah says, in any case it is permitted. Rebbi Jehudah said, that is what Boethos ben Zenon did following the Sages. They said to him, is that a proof? The seller was eating the yield.” Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jehudah learned from the houses of walled cities. As it was stated: The year mentioned in the Torah regarding walled cities is like interest but it is not interest. Another Tanna stated: This is interest but the Torah permitted it. He who said, it is like interest but it is not interest, Rebbi Meïr. He who said, this is interest but the Torah permitted it, Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Idi said, when I came from the Diaspora, I found that a case was before Rebbi Immi of “it is like interest but it is not interest.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that “this is interest but the Torah permitted it.” There, the Torah permitted it, therefore not in any other case. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi did not consider it, for he said: a house dwells with its inhabitants.

MISHNAH: Somebody exchanged a cow for a donkey and it gave birth, or he sold his slave girl and she gave birth. If one said, [it happened] before I sold, the other said, after I bought, they shall split. If he had two slaves, one adult and one young, or two fields, one large and one small. The buyer says, I bought the large one, and the seller says, I do not know: he acquired the large one. The seller says, I sold the small and the other party says, I do not know: he has only the small one. If one says the large one and the other says the small, let the seller swear that he sold the small one. If both say, I do not know, they shall split.

MISHNAH: Somebody exchanged a cow for a donkey and it gave birth, or he sold his slave girl and she gave birth. If one said, [it happened] before I sold, the other said, after I bought, they shall split. If he had two slaves, one adult and one young, or two fields, one large and one small. The buyer says, I bought the large one, and the seller says, I do not know: he acquired the large one. The seller says, I sold the small and the other party says, I do not know: he has only the small one. If one says the large one and the other says the small, let the seller swear that he sold the small one. If both say, I do not know, they shall split.

MISHNAH: Somebody exchanged a cow for a donkey and it gave birth, or he sold his slave girl and she gave birth. If one said, [it happened] before I sold, the other said, after I bought, they shall split. If he had two slaves, one adult and one young, or two fields, one large and one small. The buyer says, I bought the large one, and the seller says, I do not know: he acquired the large one. The seller says, I sold the small and the other party says, I do not know: he has only the small one. If one says the large one and the other says the small, let the seller swear that he sold the small one. If both say, I do not know, they shall split.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If someboldy is selling a house to another, when he delivered the key [the buyer] took possession. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody is selling a house to another, when [the buyer] stored produce there, he took possession. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, only produce usually stored. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If somebody is selling a cistern to another, when he handed over its pails [the buyer] took possession. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If somebody sold a flock to another person, when [the seller] delivered the maškokît, [the buyer] took possession. What is maškokît? Some say, the shepherd’s staff. But some say, a pandura. And some say, the bell-wether. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: If somebody is selling a burial chamber to another, when that one buried there one dead it is confirmation of claim for the entire chamber. When he buried three dead in three chambers, it is confirmation of claim for the entire burial cavern.

As we have stated: If somebody sells a field to another but the buyer was lazy and did not enter into possession when the seller went and legally took possession, the taking possession invalidates the sale or the gift.

MISHNAH: He who sells a field sold the stones which are needed for it, and the posts in a vineyard which are needed for it, and grain standing on the ground, and a reed fence taking up less than a bet rova‘, and a watchman’s hut not made with mortar, and a carob tree not yet grafted, and a virgin sycamore tree. But he sold neither the stones which are not needed for it, nor the posts in a vineyard which are not needed for it, nor grain harvested from the ground. But if he said to him, “it and all it contains,” all is sold. In no case did he sell either a reed fence taking up more than a bet rova‘, or a watchman’s hut made with mortar, or a grafted carob tree, or an anvil sycamore tree. Neither the cistern, nor the wine press, nor a dovecote whether deserted or intact; and he has to buy himself access, the words of Rebbi Aqiba; but the Sages say that he does not not have to buy himself access. Rebbi Aqiba agrees that if he said “except these”, he does not not have to buy himself access. If he sold them to another person, Rebbi Aqiba said, he does not have to buy access, but the Sages say, he does have to buy access. When has this been said? For the seller. But one who gives a gift, gives everything. Brothers who divided [an inheritance]: if one acquired a field he acquired everything. Somebody taking possession of a proselyte’s property: if he took possession of a field, he took possession of everything. If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple, he dedicated everything; Rebbi Simeon says that he who dedicated a field to the Temple only dedicated a grafted carob tree and an anvil sycamore tree.

“When has this been said? For the seller. But one who gives a gift gives everything.” What is the difference between a seller and the giver of a gift? Rebbi Abba bar Ṭebelai in the name of Rav: Because the giver of a gift usually is magnanimous. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because buyers care about minutiae. What is the difference between these opinions? A dedication to the Temple. He who says, because the giver of a gift usually is magnanimous, also the person vowing to the Temple usually is magnanimous. But he who says, because buyers care about minutiae, what does he say about a dedication to the Temple? Let us hear from the following: “Brothers who divided [an inheritance], if one acquired a field he acquired everything. Somebody taking possession of the property of a convert aquired it; if he took possession of a field, he took possession of everything. If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple, he dedicated everything. Rebbi Simeon says that he who dedicated a field to the Temple, only dedicated a grafted carob tree and an old sycamore tree.” Because they nurse from Temple property. Because he reserved access to himself? If he had not reserved access for himself, would they not feed from Temple property?

“When has this been said? For the seller. But one who gives a gift gives everything.” What is the difference between a seller and the giver of a gift? Rebbi Abba bar Ṭebelai in the name of Rav: Because the giver of a gift usually is magnanimous. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because buyers care about minutiae. What is the difference between these opinions? A dedication to the Temple. He who says, because the giver of a gift usually is magnanimous, also the person vowing to the Temple usually is magnanimous. But he who says, because buyers care about minutiae, what does he say about a dedication to the Temple? Let us hear from the following: “Brothers who divided [an inheritance], if one acquired a field he acquired everything. Somebody taking possession of the property of a convert aquired it; if he took possession of a field, he took possession of everything. If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple, he dedicated everything. Rebbi Simeon says that he who dedicated a field to the Temple, only dedicated a grafted carob tree and an old sycamore tree.” Because they nurse from Temple property. Because he reserved access to himself? If he had not reserved access for himself, would they not feed from Temple property?

MISHNAH: Four situations for sellers. If one contracted to sell high quality wheat and it turned out to be low quality, the buyer may annul the contract. Low quality and it turned out to be high quality, the seller may annul the contract. Low quality and it turned out to be low quality, high quality and it turned out to be high quality, neither of them may annul the contract. Brown grain and it turned out to be white grain, white grain and it turned out to be brown grain, olive wood and it turned out to be sycamore wood, sycamore wood and it turned out to be olive wood, wine and it turned out to be vinegar, vinegar and it turned out to be wine, either of them may annul the contract. If somebody sold produce to another and this one moved it without measuring, he took possession. If he was measuring without moving, he did not take possession. If he is intelligent, he rents its place. If somebody buys flax from another he he did not take possession until he moved it from place to place; but if it still was standing on the ground and he plucked anything, he took possession. If somebody sold wine or oil to another and it rose or fell in price, if it was before the measure was filled it is for the seller, after the measure was filled for the buyer. If a broker was involved and the amphora broke, it broke for the broker. He is obligated to let it drip three drops. If he tilted and emptied it, [the remainder] is for the seller. The grocer does not have to let it drip three drops. Rebbi Jehudah says, Friday evenings close to sundown he is not liable.

MISHNAH: Four situations for sellers. If one contracted to sell high quality wheat and it turned out to be low quality, the buyer may annul the contract. Low quality and it turned out to be high quality, the seller may annul the contract. Low quality and it turned out to be low quality, high quality and it turned out to be high quality, neither of them may annul the contract. Brown grain and it turned out to be white grain, white grain and it turned out to be brown grain, olive wood and it turned out to be sycamore wood, sycamore wood and it turned out to be olive wood, wine and it turned out to be vinegar, vinegar and it turned out to be wine, either of them may annul the contract. If somebody sold produce to another and this one moved it without measuring, he took possession. If he was measuring without moving, he did not take possession. If he is intelligent, he rents its place. If somebody buys flax from another he he did not take possession until he moved it from place to place; but if it still was standing on the ground and he plucked anything, he took possession. If somebody sold wine or oil to another and it rose or fell in price, if it was before the measure was filled it is for the seller, after the measure was filled for the buyer. If a broker was involved and the amphora broke, it broke for the broker. He is obligated to let it drip three drops. If he tilted and emptied it, [the remainder] is for the seller. The grocer does not have to let it drip three drops. Rebbi Jehudah says, Friday evenings close to sundown he is not liable.

MISHNAH: Four situations for sellers. If one contracted to sell high quality wheat and it turned out to be low quality, the buyer may annul the contract. Low quality and it turned out to be high quality, the seller may annul the contract. Low quality and it turned out to be low quality, high quality and it turned out to be high quality, neither of them may annul the contract. Brown grain and it turned out to be white grain, white grain and it turned out to be brown grain, olive wood and it turned out to be sycamore wood, sycamore wood and it turned out to be olive wood, wine and it turned out to be vinegar, vinegar and it turned out to be wine, either of them may annul the contract. If somebody sold produce to another and this one moved it without measuring, he took possession. If he was measuring without moving, he did not take possession. If he is intelligent, he rents its place. If somebody buys flax from another he he did not take possession until he moved it from place to place; but if it still was standing on the ground and he plucked anything, he took possession. If somebody sold wine or oil to another and it rose or fell in price, if it was before the measure was filled it is for the seller, after the measure was filled for the buyer. If a broker was involved and the amphora broke, it broke for the broker. He is obligated to let it drip three drops. If he tilted and emptied it, [the remainder] is for the seller. The grocer does not have to let it drip three drops. Rebbi Jehudah says, Friday evenings close to sundown he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “Four situations for sellers.,” etc. How is this? If the measuring vessel belonged to the seller, he has the property rights, if to the buyer, he has the property rights. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi La in the name of the Great Rebbi Jehudah, so is the Mishnah: If the measuring vessel belonged to a third person. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, Friday evenings close to sundown he is not liable since he has permission, but the Sages say, in any case he is liable. What is the reason for what Rebbi Jehudah said? “If he is hired, it is paid for by his wages.”

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: One se’ah of wheat which fell into one hundred of barley, do the Cohen and the Israel split the increase in value? Rebbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: One se’ah of heave which fell into one hundred of profane grain, do the seller and the buyer split the remainder? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: He who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s heap has to give him good grain in their stead.

MISHNAH: “I am selling you a bet kor of dust measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape,” if a little bit be missing, he deducts, if it be a little more, he has to refund. If he said “more or less,” even if it was deficient by a quarter [qab] per se’ah or redundant by a quarter [qab] per se’ah, he received it. For more than that one makes a computation. What does he return? Money. But if he agreed, he returns land to him. Then why did they say, he returns money to him? To empower the seller, for if this one retained for himself a space for nine qab, or in a vegetable garden the space for half a qab (or following Rebbi Aqiba a bet rova‘) he returns land to him. Not only the quarter [qab] he has to return but all the excess.

MISHNAH: One writes a bill of divorce for a man even though his wife not be present, and a receipt for the wife even though he husband not be present on condition that he know her. The husband pays the fee. One writes a document of indebtedness for the borrower even though the creditor not be present, but one does not write a document of indebtedness for the creditor if the borrower not be present. The borrower pays the fee. One writes a sale contract for the seller even though the buyer not be present, but one does not write a sale contract for the buyer if the seller not be present. The buyer pays the fee. Documents of preliminary and definitive marriage one only writes on the orders of both parties; the groom pays the fee. Documents of share-cropping and leases one only writes on the orders of both parties; the tenant pays the fee. Documents of arbitration and court decisions one only writes on the orders of both parties; both of them pay the fee. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one writes them in duplicate, one for each party.

MISHNAH: One writes a bill of divorce for a man even though his wife not be present, and a receipt for the wife even though he husband not be present on condition that he know her. The husband pays the fee. One writes a document of indebtedness for the borrower even though the creditor not be present, but one does not write a document of indebtedness for the creditor if the borrower not be present. The borrower pays the fee. One writes a sale contract for the seller even though the buyer not be present, but one does not write a sale contract for the buyer if the seller not be present. The buyer pays the fee. Documents of preliminary and definitive marriage one only writes on the orders of both parties; the groom pays the fee. Documents of share-cropping and leases one only writes on the orders of both parties; the tenant pays the fee. Documents of arbitration and court decisions one only writes on the orders of both parties; both of them pay the fee. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one writes them in duplicate, one for each party.

“One writes a sale contract for the seller,” etc. Rebbi Uqba said, it was stated in Ketubot of the school of Levi: If one said, my document was lost, the court writes him a confirmation. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, even for documents of arbitration one writes him a confirmation.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥanina said, One says, a large candelabra, but the other says, a small candelabra; he is liable since we have stated: “One swears only on matters of measure, or weight, or count.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if it was a candelabra composed of sections. One says, a large belt; the other says, a small belt. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated something but we do not know what he stated. If you say “liable”, a Mishnah disagrees, as we have stated: “One swears only on matters of measure, or weight, or count.” If you say “not liable”, a Mishnah disagrees, as we have stated: “If one says the adult one and the other says the underage one, let the seller swear that he sold the underage one. If both say that they do not know, they shall split.”

MISHNAH: If a baker works in impurity one does not knead with him nor form the bread with him, but one may bring bread to the seller with him.

Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The buyer has the same status as the seller. It was stated thus: Whether the seller or the buyer [stores] on the Gentile’s property. If the wine is the Jew’s and a Jew lives there it is permitted on condition that in his hand are key and seal. If the wine is the Gentile’s and a Jew lives there it is permitted on condition that in his hand are key and seal; but if no Jew lives there it is forbidden even if key and seal are in his hand.

Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The buyer has the same status as the seller. It was stated thus: Whether the seller or the buyer [stores] on the Gentile’s property. If the wine is the Jew’s and a Jew lives there it is permitted on condition that in his hand are key and seal. If the wine is the Gentile’s and a Jew lives there it is permitted on condition that in his hand are key and seal; but if no Jew lives there it is forbidden even if key and seal are in his hand.

R. Zera (another version : R. Hannina b. Pappa) said : Come and see that the attribute of a human being differs from that of the Holy One, blessed be He. What is the attribute of a human being ? When a man sells a valued article to his fellow, the seller grieves and the purchaser rejoices. But with the Holy One, blessed be He, it is not so. He gave the Torah to Israel and rejoiced; as it is said, "For I give you good doctrine ; forsake ye not My teaching."

Bar Kappara used to sell proverbs for denarii : "While thou art hungry, eat ; while thou art thirsty, drink ; while the cauldron is still hot, pour out." "When the horn is sounded in [the market of] Rome, O son of a fig-seller, sell thy father's figs."

Meremar expounded: The bundles of [twigs] made in Sura are valid as skhakh. Although [the seller] binds them together he does so merely to facilitate their counting.

R. Yohanan said Jeremiah was not there, as he had gone to bring back the ten tribes. From where do we know that they returned? Because it is written, “For the seller shall not return to that which is sold” (Ezekiel 7:13). Now is it possible that after the Jubilee had already ceased the prophet should prophesy that it will cease? The fact is that it teaches that Jeremiah brought them back. Josiah the son of Amon ruled over them,

as it has been taught: ‘If a man lent another a man a 100 zuz and the latter made a [conditional] sale to him of his field, if the seller takes the produce, this is permitted, but if the purchaser takes the produce, it is forbidden.

Judah said: Even if the purchaser takes the produce it is permitted. Judah further said: It happened once that Baitus b. Zunin made a sale of his field with the permission of R. Elazar b. Azariah, and the purchaser took the produce. They said to him: Do you cite that as a proof? It was in fact the seller who took the produce and not the purchaser.