ב"ה
Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
Mechirah - Chapter 15
Mechirah - Chapter 15
1When a person sells an item to a colleague by measure, by weight or by number, and errs to the slightest degree, the colleague may seek redress1 at any time.2 The principles of ona’ah apply only with regard to an object’s value.אהַמּוֹכֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּמִדָּה, בְּמִשְׁקָל אוֹ בְּמִנְיָן, וְטָעָה בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא - חוֹזֵר לְעוֹלָם; שֶׁאֵין הוֹנָיָה אֶלָא בְּדָמִים.
An error in calculation, by contrast, is always reason to seek redress.3אֲבָל בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן, חוֹזֵר.
2What is implied? A person sold a colleague 100 nuts for a dinar, and then it was discovered that he gave him 101 or 99. The transaction is binding, and the extra or missing nut must be returned. This applies even if several years have passed.בכֵּיצַד? מָכַר לוֹ מֵאָה אֱגוֹזִים בְּדִּינָר, וְנִמְצְאוּ מֵאָה וְאֶחָד אוֹ תִּשְׁעָה וְתִשְׁעִים - נִקְנֶה הַמִקָּח וּמַחֲזִיר אֶת הַטָּעוּת, וְאַפִלּוּ לְאַחַר כַּמָּה שָׁנִים.
imilarly, if it is discovered that more or less money was given than the amount originally agreed upon the error should be corrected.4וְכֵן אִם נִמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת יָתֵר אוֹ חָסֵר מִן הַמִּנְיָן שֶׁפָּסְקוּ, חוֹזֵר.
This applies even if he performed a kinyan attesting to the fact that his colleague does not owe him anything. For the kinyan was performed under mistaken premises.וְאַפִלּוּ אַחַר שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאַר לוֹ אֵצֶל חֲבֵרוֹ כְּלוּם - חוֹזֵר, שֶׁקִּנְיָן בְּטָעוּת הוּא.
Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה.
3Similarly, when a person sells a colleague landed property, a servant, an animal or movable property, and there is a defect in the property that the purchaser was not aware of, he may return it,5 even though several years have passed.6 For the transaction was concluded under erroneous premises.גוְכֵן הַמּוֹכֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ קַרְקַע, אוֹ עֶבֶד, אוֹ בְּהֵמָה, אוֹ שְׁאָר מִטַּלְטְלִין, וְנִמְצָא בַּמִקָּח מוּם שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע בּוֹ הַלּוֹקֵחַ - מַחֲזִירוֹ אַפִלּוּ אַחַר כַּמָּה שָׁנִים, שֶׁזֶּה מֶקַּח טָעוּת הוּא.
The above applies provided he did not use the purchased article after he discovered the blemish.וְהוּא, שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּמִקָּח אַחַר שֶׁיָּדַע בַּמּוּם.
If, however, he made use of it after he discovered the blemish, he is considered to have forfeited his right to retract,7 and he may not return the article.אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַחַר שֶׁרָאָה הַמּוּם - הֲרֵי זֶה מָחַל, וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִיר.
4We do not evaluate the diminution in value caused by the blemish. Instead, even if one sold a colleague a utensil worth ten dinarim, and a blemish was discovered that reduced its value by an isar,8 the purchaser may return the utensil.9 The seller may not tell him: “Here is an isar, the decrease in value caused by the blemish.” For the purchaser may say: “I desire a perfect article.”דאֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין פְּחַת הַמּוּם. אַפִלּוּ מָכַר לוֹ כְּלִי שָׁוֶה עֲשָׂרָה דִּינָרִין, וְנִמְצָא בּוֹ מוּם הַמַּפְחִיתוֹ מִדָּמָיו אִיסָר - מַחֲזִיר אֶת הַכְּלִי, וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ 'הֵילָךְ אִיסָר פְּחַת הַמּוּם'; שֶׁהַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹמֵר 'בְּחֵפֶץ שָׁלֵם אֲנִי רוֹצֶה'.
Conversely, if the purchaser desires that the transaction stand, but seeks to be reimbursed for the diminution in value caused by the blemish, the option is given to the seller. He may tell him: “Either purchase the utensil as is for the full price, or take your money and depart.10וְכֵן אִם רָצָה הַלּוֹקֵחַ לִקַּח פְּחָת הַמּוּם, הָרְשׁוּת בְּיַד הַמּוֹכֵר; שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ 'אוֹ תִּקְנֶה אוֹתוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא, אוֹ טֹל דָּמִים שֶׁלְּךָ וְלֵךְ'.
5Whenever there is a blemish that the people of a city agree is serious enough to warrant the nullification of a transaction, the article should be returned. Whenever the people agree that a fault is not considered to be a blemish, the article should not be returned unless the purchaser explicitly stated that he refused to accept even the slightest blemish.הכָּל שֶׁהִסְכִּימוּ עָלָיו בְּנֵי הַמְּדִינָה שֶׁהוּא מוּם שֶׁמַחֲזִירין בּוֹ מִקָּח זֶה, מַחֲזִירין בּוֹ. וְכָל שֶׁהִסְכִּימוּ עָלָיו שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּם, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ מַחֲזִיר בּוֹ אֶלָא אִם פֵּרֵשׁ.
The rationale is that whenever a person conducts business without making any specific demands, it is assumed that he is following the prevailing customs of the community.11שֶׁכָּל הַנּוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן סְתָם, עַל מִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה הוּא סוֹמֵךְ.
6Whenever a person purchases an article without making any specific statements, it is assumed that he desired to purchase an article that is perfect, without any blemish.12וכָּל הַלּוֹקֵחַ סְתָם, אֵינוֹ לוֹקֵחַ אֶלָא דָּבָר הַשָּׁלֵם מִכָּל מוּם.
Even if the seller explicitly said: “This article is sold to you on the condition that you do not return it as blemished,” the purchaser may nevertheless return the article unless the purchaser says: “I accept any blemish that I will discover in this article although it causes it to be worth such and such less.”וְאִם פֵּרֵשׁ הַמּוֹכֵר וְאָמַר 'עַל מְנַת שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה חוֹזֵר עָלַי בְּמּוּם' - הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ הַמּוּם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִמְכָּרוֹ, וְיִמְחַל הַלּוֹקֵחַ, אוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ 'כָּל מוּם שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא בְּמִקָּח זֶה הַפּוֹחֵת דָּמָיו עַד כָּךְ וְכָּךְ, קִבַּלְתִּי אוֹתוֹ.
For when a person waives money that is due him, he must know how much he is waiving and make an explicit statement to that effect, as applies with regard to the laws of ona’ah.13שֶׁהַמּוֹחֵל צָרִיךְ לֵידַע הַדָּבָר שֶׁיִּמְחַל בּוֹ וִיפָרֵשׁ אוֹתוֹ, כְּמוֹ הַמְּפָרֵשׁ בְּהוֹנָיָה.
7When a person sells a cow to a colleague and states that it has some blemishes that are obvious and some blemishes that are not obvious, and the cow does not possess any of the blemishes that are obvious, but does possess one of the blemishes that are not obvious, the transaction is considered to have been concluded under erroneous premises. The cow may be returned although the blemish that was discovered was mentioned explicitly.זהַמּוֹכֵר פָּרָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וּמָנָה בָּהּ מוּמִין גְּלוּיִים וּמוּמִין שֶׁאֵינָן נִכָּרִין, וְלֹא הָיָה בָּהּ מוּם מֵאוֹתָן הַמּוּמִין הַגְּלוּיִין שֶׁמָּנָה, וְנִמְצָא בָּהּ מוּם מֵאוֹתָן שֶׁאֵינָן נִכָּרִין - הֲרֵי זֶה מֶקַּח טָעוּת וְחוֹזֵר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ הַמּוּם שֶׁנִּמְצָא.
The rationale is that the purchaser will say: “Since I saw that the cow did not possess any of the apparent blemishes that you mentioned, I said to myself: ‘In the same manner, it does not have any of the blemishes that are not apparent. Why did the seller mention them? To make me feel good about my purchase.’”14שֶׁהֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹמֵר 'כְּשֶׁרָאִיתִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אֵלּוּ הַמּוּמִין הַנִּרְאִין שֶׁמָּנָה, אָמַרְתִּי: כָּךְ אֵין בָּהּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן נִרְאִין שֶׁמָּנָה, וְאֵינוֹ מְפָרֵשׁ מוּמִין אֵלּוּ, אֶלָא כְּדֵי לְהַשְׁבִּיחַ דַּעְתִּי'.
8What is implied? The seller says: “This cow is blind; it is lame; it bites and it crouches suddenly,”15 and it is discovered that the cow only bites or only crouches suddenly, the transaction is considered to have been concluded under erroneous premises.חכֵּיצַד? 'פָּרָה זוֹ עִוֶּרֶת הִיא, חִגֶּרֶת הִיא, נַשְׁכָנִית הִיא, רַבְצָנִית הִיא', וְנִמְצֵאת נַשְׁכָנִית בִּלְבָד, אוֹ רַבְצָנִית - הֲרֵי זֶה מֶקַּח טָעוּת.
If the cow possesses all the blemishes the seller mentioned, the transaction is not considered to have been concluded under erroneous premises.16הָיוּ בָּהּ כָּל הַמּוּמִין שֶׁמָּנָה, אֵין זֶה מֶקַּח טָעוּת.
Similarly, if the cow is lame but not blind, and it is discovered that it bites, the transaction is not considered to have been concluded under erroneous premises.17וְכֵן אִם הָיְתָה חִגֶּרֶת, וְנִמְצֵאת נַשְׁכָנִית - אַף עַל פִּי שְׁאֵינָהּ עִוֶּרֶת, אֵין זֶה מֶקַּח טָעוּת.
9The following rule applies if the seller shows the purchaser a blemish that the cow possesses and tells him: “It has this blemish and also these other blemishes.’’18 Although the cow possesses all or several of the non-obvious19 blemishes that the seller mentioned, the transaction is not considered to have been conducted under false premises.20טהֶרְאָה לוֹ הַמּוּם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ, וְאָמַר לוֹ 'מוּם זֶה יֵשׁ בָּהּ וּמוּם פְּלוֹנִי וּמוּם פְּלוֹנִי' - אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאוֹתָן הַמּוּמִין שֶׁמָּנָה אֵינָן נִרְאִין, וְנִמְצְאוּ בָּהּ כֻּלָן אוֹ מִקְצָתָן, אֵין זֶה מֶקַּח טָעוּת.
10Similarly, if a person sells a maidservant to a colleague and says: “She has only one hand; she limps; she is blind; she is a maniac; she is an epileptic,” and she does not possess any of the blemishes21 the seller mentioned, but she is epileptic, the transaction is considered to have been conducted under false premises.22 The same principles apply in· all analogous situations.יוְכֵן הַמּוֹכֵר שִׁפְחָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ 'חִגֶּרֶת הִיא, גִּדֶּמֶת הִיא, סוֹמָא הִיא, שׁוֹטָה הִיא, נִכְפֵּית הִיא', וְלֹא הָיָה בָּהּ מוּם מֵאֵלּוּ הַמּוּמִין שֶׁמָּנָה, וְנִמְצֵאת נִכְפֵּית - הֲרֵי זֶה מֶקַּח טָעוּת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה.
11On this basis, I maintain that if a person sells an article to a person for 100 dinarim and tells him: “This article is not worth more than one zuz, and I am selling it to you on the condition that the laws of ona’ah do not apply to me,” the laws of ona’ah do apply. For the purchaser will say: “Since I saw the seller say that it was only worth a zuz,23 I realized that he was only trying to make me feel good about my purchase.”24יאמִכָּאן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר: שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר חֵפֶץ לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּמֵאָה דִּינָרִין, וְאָמַר לוֹ 'חֵפֶץ זֶה אֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה אֶלָא זוּז אֶחָד, עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לְךָ עָלַי אוֹנָאָה' - הֲרֵי זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו אוֹנָאָה; שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר 'כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאִיתִי שֶׁאָמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה אֶלָא זוּז, יָדַעְתִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּן אֶלָא לְהַשְׁבִּיחַ דַּעְתִּי'.
The above holds true until the seller explicitly mentions the amount of unfair gain involved in this purchase - or mentions a figure that is close to that, concerning which a person could possibly err.25 For then we know that the purchaser certainly waived his right to this money.26 It is fitting to rule according to this logic.עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ כְּדֵי הַהוֹנָיָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִקָּחוֹ בְּוַּדַּאי, אוֹ קָרוֹב לָהּ, בִּכְדֵי שֶׁהַדַּעַת נוֹטָה; שֶׁהֲרֵי יָדַע בְּוַּדַּאי הַדָּבָר שֶׁמָּחַל בּוֹ. וְכְזֶה רָאוּי לָדוּן.
12When a person sells a manservant or a maidservant, the purchaser may not return it because it possesses blemishes that do not prevent the man or woman from working. These blemishes are called simpon.יבהַמּוֹכֵר עֶבֶד אוֹ שִׁפְחָה - אֵין הַלּוֹקֵחַ יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִירוֹ מִפְּנֵי מוּמִין שֶׁאֵין מְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ, וְהֵן הַנִּקְרָאִין 'סִמְפּוֹן'.
If the simpon was evident, the purchaser saw it at the time of purchase.27 If it was not always28 evident - e.g., a mole in its flesh, a scar from a dog-bite or a foul odor coming from the mouth or the nose - he may not return it, for these blemishes do not prevent the servant from working. And servants are not for the purpose of physical intimacy, but to perform work.29שֶׁאִם הָיָה זֶה סִמְפּוֹן גָּלוּי, כְּבָר רָאָהוּ; וְאִם אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה, כְּגוֹן שׁוּמָא בַּבָּשָׂר, אוֹ נְשִׁיכַת כֶּלֶב, אוֹ רֵיחַ הַפֶּה אוֹ הַחֹטֶם, וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן - הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ מְבַטְּלוֹ מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ, אֵינוֹ מַחֲזִיר, שֶׁאֵין הָעֲבָדִים לְתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, אֶלָא לִמְלָאכָה.
13If the servant has extremely uncomfortable boils or a sickness that weakens his strength, or if he is epileptic or insane, it is considered to be a blemish, because this prevents him from working.30יגנִמְצָא בּוֹ שְׁחִין רָע, אוֹ חֹלִי הַמַּתִּישׁ אֶת כּוֹחוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה נִכְפֶּה, אוֹ מְשֻׁעֲמָם - הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּבַטְּלוֹ מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ.
Similarly, if he has tzara’at31 or other conditions that are revolting, it is considered to be a blemish, because a person is repelled by them, and therefore he will not use this servant to serve food or drink.32וְכֵן אִם נִמְצֵאת בּוֹ צָרַעַת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ מִדְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ הַמְּגֹאָלִים - הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם אוֹנֶנֶת מֵהֶם; וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְעַסֵּק לוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה.
Similarly, if he is discovered to be an armed robber, this is considered to be a blemish that destroys his entire worth.33 For the ruling authorities will seize him and execute him. Similarly, if he has been conscripted by the ruling authorities, this is considered to be a blemish for which the servant can be returned, for the king will seize him to work for him whenever he desires.34וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא לִסְטִיס מְזֻיָּן - הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם הַמְּאַבֵּד אֶת כֻּלּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמֶּלֶךְ תּוֹפֵס אוֹתוֹ וְהוֹרְגוֹ. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא מֻכְתָּב לַמַּלְכוּת - הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם וּמַחֲזִירוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמֶּלֶךְ תּוֹפְסוֹ לִמְלַאכְתּוֹ בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה.
If, however, the servant is discovered to be a thief, a pilferer, a kidnapper,35 one who constantly tries to escape, a glutton or the like, the purchaser may not return him unless he explicitly stated that he refused to accept a servant with any of these qualities. For all servants can be assumed to possess these undesirable attributes.אֲבָל אִם נִמְצָא גַּנָּב אוֹ חוֹטֵף אוֹ גּוֹנֵב נְפָשׁוֹת, אוֹ בּוֹרֵחַ תָּמִיד, אוֹ זוֹלֵל וְסוֹבֵא, וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ - אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִיר, שֶׁכָּל הָעֲבָדִים בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן כָּל הַדֵּעוֹת הָרָעוֹת. אֶלָא אִם כֵּן פֵּרֵשׁ.
Footnotes
1.
As implied by the following halachah, the Rambam’s intent is that the seller must provide the purchaser with the missing merchandise (Maggid Mishneh). Only when that is impossible (e.g., he sold him land), may the purchaser retract and nullify the agreement (Kessef Mishneh).
The Ra’avad differs with this ruling and maintains that if the purchaser was not aware that the seller was giving him a lesser amount than that to which he agreed, he may retract and nullify the transaction even when the seller wishes to add to the amount he gave and fulfill his original commitment. Only when the purchaser knew that he is receiving a lesser amount than was agreed to, is he bound to uphold the agreement.
In his Beit Yosef, Rav Yosef Karo supports the Ra’avad. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 232:1) he quotes the Rambam’s ruling. Significantly, although the Tur mentions the Ra’avad’s view, the Ramah does not comment on the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch. See Sefer Me’irat Einayim 232:4.
2.
It is as if the seller is holding property entrusted to him by the purchaser (Ri MiGash). Sefer Me’irat Einayim 232:3 explains that this resembles the return of a stolen article, which must be returned no matter how long a time has passed.
3.
Thus, even if the unfair gain the seller received because of the error was far less than one sixth - the measure of ona’ah - the purchaser has the option of seeking redress.
4.
Similarly, in this instance the Ra’avad maintains that the entire transaction can be nullified if the seller desires.
5.
As the Rambam proceeds to explain, the purchaser has not received the article that he desired to acquire, and he therefore has the right to retract.
6.
In contrast to the laws of ona’ah, regarding which limits are set on the time given for a purchaser to realize that the article he received is not worth the amount paid for it (see Chapter 12, Halachah 5), in this instance the person is given an unlimited amount of time to retract (Maggid Mishneh).
The following distinction can be made. The value of an article can be appreciated by an expert immediately. A blemish, by contrast, may not be noticed until a given situation arises. For that reason, if the blemish is readily apparent, and we can assume that the purchaser saw it, the purchaser does not have the right to retract.
7.
The fact that he continued using the article implies that he did not desire to retract.
8.
A coin of intermediate value, which was worth 1/24th the value of a dinar.
9.
Here also we see a contrast to the laws of ona’ah. With regard to ona’ah, if the difference in value was less than a sixth, the transaction is allowed to stand.
The distinction between the two cases can be explained as follows: With regard to ona’ah, the purchaser is receiving the article he desired; he has merely overpaid. And we assume that he is willing to forgo a difference up to one sixth the value of the article. In this instance, as the Rambam continues to explain, the purchaser is not receiving the object he desired, for he desired a perfect article. Therefore, the transaction is considered as having been concluded under an erroneous premise and is nullified (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 232:11).
10.
Since the transaction is considered to have been concluded under an erroneous premise, it is nullified, and the seller is under no obligation to the purchaser. Therefore, the seller may propose the choice mentioned by the Rambam.
11.
This is a general principle that governs many aspects of business dealings.
12.
As a source, the commentaries point to Ketubot 57b, which states that if a man consecrates a woman and then discovers that she has physical blemishes, the consecration is not binding. For we assume that he desires a woman without any blemishes.
13.
See Chapter 13, Halachot 3 and 4. The Kessef Mishneh also points to Chapter 11, Halachah 16, which states that when a person transfers ownership of an entity to a colleague, he must transfer a specific and defined entity. See Sefer Me’irat Einayim 232:16, which derives a difference in law between these two approaches.
14.
So that if it is later discovered that the cow is not as valuable as the purchaser thought originally, he could console himself by saying that the seller told him that it was much worse.
15.
The first two are considered to be obvious blemishes; the second two, blemishes that are not immediately evident.
16.
When the purchaser saw that the cow possessed those blemishes it was reputed to have, he should have taken the seller’s word seriously and assumed that it possessed all the blemishes he mentioned.
17.
Since the cow possessed some of the blemishes that were mentioned, the purchaser should have assumed that it possessed at least some of the others, and he should have taken the necessary precautions.
18.
Some of them being openly evident blemishes and others blemishes that are not openly evident.
19.
The standard text of the Mishneh Torah speaks of “plainly evident blemishes.” Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, as well as the quotation of the law in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Clzoshen Mislzpat 232:9).
20.
For the seller warned the purchaser of the blemishes the animal possessed. Note that Rashi (Bava Metzia 80a) offers a different understanding of this passage.
21.
I.e., the blemishes that are evident (Kessef Mislzneh).
22.
For having seen that she did not possess any of the obvious blemishes the seller mentioned, the purchaser assumed that she had no blemishes whatsoever.
23.
And it was obviously worth far more than that.
24.
The Rambam is saying that since the person knew that the amount of unfair gain mentioned by the seller was grossly exaggerated, he did not think that there was an unfair gain involved in the sale at all and did not willingly waive the money involved. (See Sefer Me’irat Einayim 227:41.)
25.
I.e., if the seller wanted to be on the safe side and therefore mildly exaggerated the amount of unfair gain involved in the purchase. See Chapter 27, Halachah 5.
26.
As mentioned previously, for a waiver of money to be binding the party involved must know how much he is waiving.
27.
The fact that he did not protest at that time indicates his acceptance.
28.
We have made this addition because if the blemish was never evident, it would not be of concern to the master.
29.
Blemishes of this nature make a person unattractive. Therefore, if a person were choosing a marriage partner, they would be considered significant. (Compare to Hilchot Ishut 7:7.) With regard to a servant, however, they are not of consequence.
30.
Even though some of these conditions do not totally prevent a servant from working - since his productivity will not equal that of an ordinary servant, the sale is considered to have been carried out under an erroneous conception.
31.
A Biblical illness that resembles, but is not identical with, leprosy.
32.
Thus, the blemish prevents him from working.
Kin’ at Eliyahu explains that tzara’at is likely to spread. We can thus assume that at the outset, the servant had only a small blemish, and therefore it was not noticed at the time of sale. Nevertheless, since the blemish will spread throughout his entire body and make him detestable, it causes the sale to be nullified.
33.
On the basis of Kiddushin 11a and Bava Batra 92b, the Ra’avad offers an alternative interpretation of this passage: If the servant was wanted as a criminal, the matter would be public knowledge. Therefore, the purchaser could be expected to have known this at the time of purchase. If he proceeded with the purchase regardless, he should suffer the loss himself.
The Maggid Mishneh, however, quotes the Tosefta (Bava Batra 4:4), which substantiates the Rambam’s interpretation. His interpretation is also quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 232:10) and the later authorities.
34.
The difference between these two examples and those that are mentioned in the following clause can be explained as follows. A master should expect to find unsavory qualities among his servants and must take responsibility for controlling them. Nevertheless, in this and the previous example, the difficulty with the servant is not one that the master can control, for the ruling authorities will have the servant either executed or conscripted for labor. There is nothing the master can do.
35.
This is the Rambam’s interpretation of the term kubiostos used in Bava Batra 92b. Others [Tur and Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 232:10)] interpret this term to refer to a gambler. According to that interpretation, if the servant is a kidnapper, he can be returned to the seller for he is liable to be executed by the court.
Rabbi Eliyahu Touger is a noted author and translator, widely published for his works on Chassidut and Maimonides.
Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
