אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ! אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָא מַנִּי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא.

But this baraita is difficult according to Reish Lakish. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, not that of the Rabbis.

אֲבָל אָמְרוּ מִי שֶׁפָּרַע וְכוּ׳. אִיתְּמַר, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אוֹדוֹעֵי מוֹדְעִינַן לֵיהּ. רָבָא אָמַר: מֵילָט לָיְיטִינַן לֵיהּ.

§ The mishna teaches with regard to one who reneges on a transaction after the money was paid: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the generation of the dispersion, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute. Abaye said that we inform one who seeks to renege on a transaction: Be aware that this is the punishment of one who does not stand by his statement. Rava said that we curse him with that statement.

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אוֹדוֹעֵי מוֹדְעִינַן לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר״. רָבָא אָמַר: מֵילָט לָיְיטִינַן לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּעַמְּךָ״ – בְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה עַמְּךָ.

The Gemara elaborates: Abaye said that we inform him, as it is written: “Nor curse a ruler among your people” (Exodus 22:27), from which it is derived that it is prohibited to curse a ruler or any other member of the Jewish people. Rava said that we curse him, and the prohibition against cursing is not a concern, as it is written: “Among your people,” from which it is derived that the prohibition applies only with regard to one who performs an action befitting your people, not one who reneges on a transaction after the money is paid.

אָמַר רָבָא, מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף יְהַבוּ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי אַמִּלְחָא. לְסוֹף אִיַּיקַּר מִלְחָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל הַב לְהוּ, וְאִי לָא – קַבֵּיל עֲלָיךְ ״מִי שֶׁפָּרַע״. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אוֹדוֹעֵי מוֹדְעִינַן לֵיהּ, רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף בַּר אוֹדוֹעֵי הוּא. וְאֶלָּא מַאי – מֵילָט לָיְיטִינַן לֵיהּ? רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָתֵי לְקַבּוֹלֵי עֲלֵיהּ לָטוּתָא דְרַבָּנַן?!

Rava said: From where do I say this halakha? I learned it from the incident where buyers gave Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef money to purchase salt from him. Ultimately the price of salt increased, and Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef sought to renege on the deal. He came before Rabbi Yoḥanan to ask his opinion. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go and give them the salt, and if not, accept upon yourself: He Who exacted payment. And if you say we merely inform him of this punishment, is Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef one who must be informed? He knows the halakha. The Gemara rejects this proof: Rather, what is the alternative, that we curse him? Would Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef come to accept upon himself a curse of the Sages?

אֶלָּא רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף עֵרָבוֹן הוּא דְּיָהֲבִי לֵיהּ. הוּא סָבַר: כְּנֶגְדּוֹ הוּא קוֹנֶה. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלּוֹ הוּא קוֹנֶה.

Rather, the details of the incident were different. It is a down payment that buyers gave Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef. The money was paid merely to bolster the commitment to complete the transaction. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef held that the down payment effects acquisition of salt commensurate with its value, and therefore he wanted to give them only that portion of the salt. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The down payment effects acquisition of salt commensurate with the entire amount of the transaction.

אִתְּמַר: עֵרָבוֹן, רַב אוֹמֵר: כְּנֶגְדּוֹ הוּא קוֹנֶה, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלּוֹ הוּא קוֹנֶה.

§ It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a down payment. Rav says: A down payment effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with its value. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with the entire amount of the transaction.

מֵיתִיבִי: הַנּוֹתֵן עֵרָבוֹן לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״אִם אֲנִי חוֹזֵר בִּי – עֶרְבוֹנִי מָחוּל לָךְ״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״אִם אֲנִי אֶחְזוֹר בִּי, אֶכְפּוֹל לְךָ עֵרְבוֹנְךָ״ – נִתְקַיְּימוּ הַתְּנָאִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אַסְמַכְתָּא קָנְיָא.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to one who gives a down payment to another, and says to him: If I renege, my down payment is forfeited to you, and the other person says to him: If I renege, I will double your down payment for you, the conditions are in effect; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yosei conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: A transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta] effects acquisition. Even though it is a commitment that he undertook based on his certainty that he would never be forced to fulfill the condition, it is considered a full-fledged commitment.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: דַּיּוֹ שֶׁיִּקְנֶה כְּנֶגֶד עֵרְבוֹנוֹ. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ ״עֶרְבוֹנִי יִקּוֹן״. אֲבָל מָכַר לוֹ בַּיִת אוֹ שָׂדֶה בְּאֶלֶף זוּז, וּפָרַע לוֹ מֵהֶם חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת זוּז – קָנָה, וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁאָר אֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר כַּמָּה שָׁנִים. מַאי לָאו הוּא הַדִּין לְמִטַּלְטְלִין, (בְּדִסְתָמָא) [דְּבִסְתָמָא] קָנֵי לְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ!

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: It is sufficient that the down payment effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with the amount of his down payment. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? It is when the buyer said to the seller: My down payment will effect acquisition of the merchandise. But if one sold another a house or a field for one thousand dinars, and the buyer paid him five hundred dinars of that sum, he has acquired the entire house, and he returns the rest of the money to the seller even after several years have passed. The Gemara asks: What, is it not that the same is true with regard to movable property as well, and in a case where the agreement is unspecified, the buyer acquires the entire item, not merely commensurate with the down payment?

לָא, מִטַּלְטְלִין בִּסְתָמָא לָא קָנֵי. וּמַאי שְׁנָא קַרְקַע, דִּבְכַסְפָּא קָנֵי לֵיהּ מַמָּשׁ – קָנֵי לֵיהּ לְכוּלַּהּ. מִטַּלְטְלֵי דְּלָא קָנֵי אֶלָּא לְקַבּוֹלֵי ״מִי שֶׁפָּרַע״ – לָא קָנֵי לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ.

The Gemara rejects that comparison: No, with regard to movable property in a case where the agreement is unspecified, the buyer does not acquire the entire item. The Gemara asks: And in what way is movable property different from land? The Gemara explains: In the case of land, which with the payment of money one genuinely acquires it in a legal sense, the buyer acquires the entire tract of land with a down payment. In the case of movable property, which with the payment of money one acquires it only in the sense that if he reneges he will have to receive the curse: He Who exacted payment, the buyer does not acquire the entire item with a down payment.

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, וְנִכְנְסָה הַשְּׁמִיטָּה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה אֶלָּא פְּלָג – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט, דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיָה מַשְׁכּוֹן כְּנֶגֶד הַלְוָאָתוֹ – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט, וְאִם לָאו – מְשַׁמֵּט.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this amoraic dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who lends money to another on the basis of collateral, and the Sabbatical Year commenced, even if the collateral is worth only half the sum of the loan, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan; this is the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If the value of the collateral was commensurate with the sum of his loan, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan, but if it was not commensurate with the sum of his loan, the Sabbatical Year abrogates the loan.

מַאי ״אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט״ דְּקָאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? אִילֵּימָא כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא סָבַר: לְהָךְ פַּלְגָא נָמֵי מְשַׁמֵּט!

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement: The Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is saying? If we say it means that the Sabbatical Year does not cancel that part of the loan commensurate with the collateral, but it does cancel the rest, this indicates by inference that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the Sabbatical Year also abrogates that half as well. That is difficult, as is there not collateral commensurate with that half?