|
daf@dafyomi.co.il http://www.dafyomi.co.il
1) AN AGREEMENT WITH UNSPECIFIED TERMS
The RAMBAN questions the ruling of the Gemara here from the Tosefta. The Tosefta in Kidushin (2:11) discusses a case in which a seller wants 200 Zuz for a certain object, and a buyer is willing to pay only 100 Zuz for it. They part company without coming to any agreement. They later meet again and conduct the sale without explicit agreement on a price. The Halachah is that the price that the buyer must pay depends on who approached the other and initiated the final transaction. The one who initiated the final transaction is assumed to have acquiesced to the price of the other party. This contradicts the ruling of the Gemara. In the Gemara's case, the employer approached the workers and asked them to remain in his employ, and yet it is not assumed that the employer acquiesced to pay the new, higher wage of workers. According to the ruling of the Tosefta, the employer should be obligated to pay the higher wage; since he approached the workers, it is assumed that he acceded to their terms. Why does the employer pay only the original wage?
ANSWERS:
(b) In his second answer, the RAMBAN explains that even if the workers did mention the new, higher wage at the time that they quit, they still are not entitled to receive that wage from their employer when he persuades them to continue working for him. The reason for this is as follows. If the workers quit before they completed the job, and thereby breached their agreement, the employer is entitled to have complaints ("Ta'arumos") against them. Thus, when the employer approached them and persuaded them to continue working, we may assume that they agreed to continue working for the lower wage in order to avoid being the subject of "Ta'arumos." In contrast, in the case of the Tosefta, the seller and buyer never entered into any agreement previously and thus neither is entitled to have "Ta'arumos" against the other. (This answer is cited by the REMA in Shulchan Aruch CM 221.) (Y. Marcus)
2) OUTSTANDING DEBT OWED FOR PARTIAL PAYMENT OF A PURCHASED OBJECT
The Gemara infers that only when the outstanding amount was explicitly converted into a loan is the sale final, but when it was not explicitly converted into a loan the sale is not final. The Gemara asks that this contradicts a different Beraisa in which Raban Shimon ben Gamliel states that the outstanding amount becomes a loan -- and the sale is final -- even without an explicit stipulation to that effect.
The Gemara answers that when the seller is not pressing the buyer for payment, it is assumed that he agrees that the outstanding amount should be converted to a loan, and the sale is final. When, however, he is pressing the buyer for payment, it is clear that he is in need of cash and he wants the sale to take effect only if he receives all of the money. If he receives only a partial payment, the sale is not valid since he had no intention that the sale should take effect unless he would receive all of the money.
This answer of the Gemara contradicts a ruling of the Gemara in Kidushin. The Gemara in Kidushin (26a) teaches that the giving of a bill of sale for the purchase of a field does not effect the Kinyan until the buyer pays the full amount that was agreed upon by the two parties. The Gemara there refers even to a case in which the seller is not pressing the buyer for payment. If the seller is not demanding payment, why does the buyer not acquire the field (and owe the money to the seller as a loan), as the Gemara here rules?
ANSWER: The RAN in Kidushin (10b of the pages of the Rif) explains that the buyer does not acquire the field until he pays the full amount only when the Kinyan being used is a Kinyan other than Kinyan Kesef, such as a Kinyan Shtar. When the giving of money is not the means of the Kinyan, but rather it is just restitution for the field, full payment is necessary in order to ensure the absolute agreement of the seller. In contrast, when the money is being used as the means of the Kinyan (such as in the case of the Gemara here), if the seller agrees to accept partial payment, the Kinyan is complete with partial payment, and the outstanding amount is considered a loan that is owed. (Y. Marcus)
|
