Talmud - Bava Metzia 74b בבא מציעא ע״ד ב׳

The practical difference between them is with regard to the rainy season. According to the first tanna one may set a price for the future delivery of manure at any point in the year, including the rainy season, but according to the Rabbis one may not arrange for the delivery during the rainy season, because manure is not commonly available then.

§ The mishna teaches: One may set a price at the highest rate, meaning he may set a price for the future delivery of produce and stipulate that if the market rate falls below the agreed-upon price, he will purchase the product according to the lowest price in effect in the market at any point during the year, which is the price that will provide the highest amount of merchandise for the amount he agreed to pay.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who gave money to sellers to buy jewelry for his betrothed’s dowry [linduneya] on behalf of his father-in-law, as his intended father-in-law made him an agent to buy the jewelry for part of the dowry. The betrothed man stipulated with the sellers that they would provide the jewelry in time for the wedding. Ultimately, the jewelry for the dowry became less expensive, as the price fell. The betrothed man wanted to retract his commitment to buy the jewelry at the higher price. The parties came before Rav Pappa for a ruling. Rav Pappa said to the betrothed man: If you set a price with the seller to buy the jewelry at the highest rate, i.e., the largest amount of jewelry for the price you are willing to pay, then take the jewelry at the present price. But if not, take it at the price that you set initially.

The Sages said to Rav Pappa: And if he did not set a price at the highest rate, must he take the merchandise at the price he set initially? This is a case where he paid money, and giving money alone does not effect acquisition. Rav Pappa said to them: I did not mean that it was an actual acquisition; rather, I also agree that giving money does not effect acquisition. What I said was with regard to accepting upon himself the curse: He Who exacted payment. If the betrothed man set a price at the highest rate the buyer is in the right, and if so, the seller is the one who retracted, and therefore the seller accepts upon himself the curse: He Who exacted payment. But if the betrothed man did not set a price at the highest rate, then the betrothed man, i.e., the buyer, is the one who retracted, and therefore the buyer accepts upon himself the curse: He Who exacted payment.

Ravina said to Rav Pappa: From where do you know that the ruling of the mishna, i.e., that if he did not set a price according to the highest rate he must acquire the merchandise at the price he set initially, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and who say that giving money does not effect acquisition? And even so, they hold that if he set a price at the highest rate, he takes it at the current price, and if he did not set a price at the highest rate, he takes it at the price he set initially.

Perhaps the ruling of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that giving money effects acquisition, and therefore if he set a price at the highest rate, he takes it at the current price, and if he did not set a price at the highest rate, he takes it at the price he set initially, since giving money effects acquisition. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, whether he set a price at the highest rate or did not set a price at the highest rate, he takes it at the current price, because a person’s intention is always to acquire merchandise at the least expensive price.

Rav Pappa said to him: Say that Rabbi Shimon said his ruling that giving money effects acquisition in a case where there was one price, i.e., the price did not change in the meantime. Did he say his ruling where there were two prices? Certainly Rabbi Shimon will concede that the buyer can withdraw from the sale if the market price changes. As, if you do not say so, then the curse: He Who exacted payment, will not apply to the buyer under any circumstances according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

And if you would say: Indeed, the curse: He Who exacted payment, never applies to a buyer according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Even though the Sages said that when one party takes possession of a garment, the other party acquires a gold dinar, but when one party takes possession of a gold dinar, the other party does not acquire a garment, in any case, that is what the halakha would be. But the Sages said with regard to one who withdraws from a transaction where one party performed an act of acquisition by pulling the gold dinar into his possession: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, and from the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from the Egyptians in the Red Sea, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement.

Rav Pappa clarifies: What is the meaning of: In any case? Does it not mean that there is no difference whether it is the buyer and there is no difference whether it is the seller who withdraws from the sale, that either way he accepts upon himself the curse: He Who exacted payment? Rather, it must be that when Rabbi Shimon is saying that giving money effects acquisition, he is referring to a case where there was one price, but in a case where there were two prices he did not say it.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But let Rav Pappa derive this halakha in the case of the dowry employing a more straightforward reasoning: The father-in-law initially made the betrothed man an agent, and since he was an agent, the father-in-law could say to him: I sent you to act for my benefit, not to my detriment. Purchasing the jewels at a more expensive price is to the detriment of the father-in-law, and therefore the agency and the sale itself are nullified. Rav Ashi said to him: It is speaking here about a case where the father-in-law did not actually make him an agent. Rather, the betrothed man was a merchant who buys and sells merchandise. The father-in-law understands that he engages in commerce and that he will not always profit from his trading.

MISHNA: A person may lend wheat to his sharecroppers in exchange for wheat, for the purpose of seeding, meaning that he may lend them a quantity of wheat with which to seed the field, and at harvest time the sharecropper will add the amount of grain that he borrowed to the landowner’s portion of the yield. But he may not lend wheat for the sharecroppers to eat and be paid back with an equivalent quantity because this creates a concern about interest, as the price of wheat may rise. As Rabban Gamliel would lend wheat to his sharecroppers in exchange for wheat, for purposes of seeding, and if he lent it at a high price and the price then fell, or if he lent it at an inexpensive price and the price subsequently rose, in all cases he would take it back from them at the inexpensive price. But this was not because this is the halakha; rather, he wanted to be stringent with himself.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may lend wheat to his sharecroppers in exchange for wheat, for the purpose of seeding. In what case is this statement said? It is said when the sharecropper has not yet gone down into the field to begin to work, but if he had already gone down into the field to begin to work, lending him wheat under these terms is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is different about the tanna of our mishna, who does not differentiate between whether the sharecropper went down or did not go down, and what is different about the tanna of the baraita, who does differentiate between whether he went down or he did not go down?

Rava said: Rabbi Idi explained the matter to me: In the locale of the tanna of our mishna, the local custom was that the sharecropper would provide the seeds, and therefore, whether he went down or did not go down, as long as the sharecropper has not put the seeds into the field the landowner can remove him from the field. Consequently, in a case where the landowner gives the sharecropper the seeds, he sets the terms of the sharecropping tenancy, and when the sharecropper goes down into the field, he goes down into the field for less than this, under the agreement that he will reduce his share of the crop in order to return the seed to the landowner.

By contrast, in the locale of the tanna of the baraita, the landowner is the one who would provide the seeds, so if he has not yet gone down into the field the landowner can remove him, and therefore, when he goes down into the field, he goes down for less than this. But if he went down, and therefore the landowner can no longer remove him, lending him wheat under these terms is prohibited, because he took upon himself in advance to work the field without receiving seeds from the owner of the field. Consequently, these seeds that he then receives are like a loan and the prohibition of interest applies.

§ The Sages taught: A person may say to another:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

BavaMetzia 74b explores rules for pricing future manure deliveries and dowry jewelry purchases, including a case debated before Rav Pappa.