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.
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.
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.
Similarly, in this instance the Ra’avad maintains that the entire transaction can be nullified if the seller desires.
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.
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.
The fact that he continued using the article implies that he did not desire to retract.
A coin of intermediate value, which was worth 1/24th the value of a dinar.
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).
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.
This is a general principle that governs many aspects of business dealings.
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.
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.
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.
The first two are considered to be obvious blemishes; the second two, blemishes that are not immediately evident.
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.
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.
Some of them being openly evident blemishes and others blemishes that are not openly evident.
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).
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.
I.e., the blemishes that are evident (Kessef Mislzneh).
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.
And it was obviously worth far more than that.
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.)
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.
As mentioned previously, for a waiver of money to be binding the party involved must know how much he is waiving.
The fact that he did not protest at that time indicates his acceptance.
We have made this addition because if the blemish was never evident, it would not be of concern to the master.
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.
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.
A Biblical illness that resembles, but is not identical with, leprosy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
