Question: Regarding [Ona'ah] more than a sixth, we hold that there is Bitul Mekach, and even the afflicter can retract. Why don't we say also there "had you not afflicted me [you could not retract. Also now that you afflicted me, you cannot retract!]", like we say regarding a sixth?

Answer #1: It is because the price is too far from the value. It is as if he did not sell at all. A sale like this is not proper to stand.

Answer #2 (Rivam): Even more than a sixth, the afflicter can retract only when the victim claims [return of] the Ona'ah;

Since he claims more than a sixth, which is Bitul Mekach, it is a Mekach Ta'os, and also the afflicter can retract;

However, if the victim does not claim his Ona'ah, and wants to keep the sale item like he bought, there is no reason why the afflicter can retract;

[The victim] can say to him "had you not afflicted me...", like we say regarding a sixth.

Explanation: This refers to when they were worth [the price].

Question: What is the Chidush that the buyer can retract, and not the seller? This is obvious!

Answer: The Chidush is that even if they became more expensive afterwards, the seller cannot retract.

Implied question: He could have said [that the price declined to] four. Also this is Bitul Mekach!

Answer: Since above he mentioned that the price rose two [more than initially, in order that the Ona'ah will be more than a sixth], he mentioned also declining two.

Explanation: You are forced to say that our Mishnah comes to teach this. If not, what is the Chidush?!

Suggestion: Even though it does not teach anything, the Mishnah should teach it, just like it taught "good, and they were found to be good";

Even if the price increased or decreased 1000 times, it increased or decreased in the buyer's Reshus, for the sale was totally established immediately.

Answer: If the Reisha were a Chidush, it would be fine what the Seifa taught, even though it is obvious, in order to list the four cases;

However, if also in the Reisha there is no Chidush, the Mishnah mentioned the entire law of good and bad needlessly!

Explanation #1: [I would think that either can retract] when the price increased or decreased;

The reason why the Mishnah says that when [the sale was for] good and they were found to be bad, the buyer can retract and not the seller, even if the price rose, because if the seller comes to retract, the buyer says "I was not deceived";

Even though you (the seller) said that they are good, I knew that they are bad, for the seller always claims that they are good.

However, [I would think that] when he sold something worth five for six, and the price rose, i.e. Rav Chisda's case, we cannot say so (the buyer did not know that there is Ona'ah), and therefore even the seller can retract.

Implied question: In the Seifa of our Mishnah, in which [the sale was for] bad and they were found to be good, why can the seller retract, and not the buyer, even if the price decreased?

Answer: It is because the seller can say "I was not deceived. I knew that they are good, even though you said that they are bad, for the buyer always claims that they are bad.

However, [I would think that] when he sold something worth six for five, and the price declined, even the buyer can retract, for [the seller] cannot say so (that he knew that there is Ona'ah). So the Rashbam explained in the name of Rashi.

Explanation #2 (Ri): In Rav Chisda's case, [one might have thought that] both of them can retract, for we cannot learn anything from our Mishnah. Perhaps our Mishnah discusses when the price did not increase or decrease!

Question: [If so,] what is the Chidush?

Answer: It is needed. One might have thought that regarding good and they were found to be bad, even the buyer cannot retract, for he knows that they are bad, even though the seller said that they are good, for the seller always claims that they are good;

We can establish the Seifa similarly.

Explanation (R. Menachem): This affects one who vowed [not to benefit from anything] red.

Inference: Gan Eden is in the east. And even according to the version that says oppositely (in the evening the sun's rays pass through the roses of Gan Eden, and in the morning, they pass through the entrance of Gehinom), Gan Eden is in the east, like the Rashbam explained.

Support: Also the Midrash connotes like this, that the land of Kush is in the east of the world, and it says "Hu ha'Sovev Es Kol Eretz Kush." This is the river that comes out of Eden. If so, presumably, it is in the east.

Implied question: It says in Bereishis Rabah (21) that the eastern direction absorbs (sinners);

Citation (21): It absorbed Adam ha'Rishon, like it says "va'Ygaresh Es ha'Adam va'Yishkon mi'Kedem l'Gan Eden." It absorbed Kayin, like it says "va'Yeshev b'Eretz Nud Kidmas Eden";

Inference: Adam ha'Rishon and Kayin were in the east of Gan Eden, and there we stand\?xpl. If so, Gan Eden was in the west of the world!

Answer: We must say that "east" in the verse means the east of the world by Gan Eden, I.e. Kidmas Eden is the east of the world, by Gan Eden.

Implied question: It says in Bereishis Rabah that the eastern direction absorbs!

Answer: This refers to the east of the world, and not [east] of Gan Eden.

Question: It says below (96a) that one who checks a barrel to separate Terumah from it, and afterwards it was found to be vinegar, the first three days it is Vadai Terumah. Past this, it is a Safek;

Explanation: [It is a Safek, i.e.] perhaps the Terumah is not Terumah [for it was vinegar when he declared it to be Terumah to exempt other barrels of wine].

What is the reason? Rabanan say that [wine and vinegar] are one species!

Answer: There, it is because he intended to separate only wine, and it was found to be vinegar, which is a mistake. However, if he intended to separate vinegar, it is Terumah.

Support: The Tosefta (Terumos 4) connotes like this.

Question: It says in Yevamos (89a) that if one separated a gourd to be Terumah, and it was found to be bitter, it is Terumah, and he separates Terumah again;

Similarly, if one separated Tamei Peros to be Terumah on Tahor, it says there that if he was Shogeg, the Terumah is valid, even though he erred!

Answer: There, I explained (DH Kishus. Even though wine and vinegar are one species, they are two different names. Therefore, this is a big mistake, and it is not Terumah. However, a gourd that was found to be bitter, or from Tamei on Tahor is not such a big mistake. He tithed the species that he intended for.)

Explanation: We discuss when the seller measures.

Implied question: Meshichah of the seller does not help the buyer!

Answer: Here is different, when he measures and puts on the Simta.

Distinction: If the buyer measures, obviously [he acquires]. R. Zeira would not have thought "perhaps Rebbi (Rav Asi) heard only about when he measured into his box, but on the ground, no?"

Implied question: Meshichah helps in a Simta, as if he does Meshichah in his Reshus! (Shalmei Todah - therefore, when the seller puts on the Simta, the buyer should acquire, just like he acquires through his Chatzer.)

Answer: Without Meshichah, one does not acquire in a Simta. (It is not totally like the buyer's Reshus.)

Inference: The words connote that the Chatzer acquires without his Kelim acquiring, and it connotes to [R. Zeira] that he acquires even without Meshichah.

Explanation: This is difficult for Rav Asi.

Question: Perhaps we discuss the seller's Kelim, and he did not put on the Simta, and therefore [the buyer] did not acquire!

Implied question: If it is the seller's Kelim, how does Meshichah help?

Answer: Surely it helps, like I will explain below!

Answer: Since it mentions that he measured and did not do Meshichah, this implies that only Meshichah helps, since it did not teach "he measured and did not put on the land or do Meshichah."

Distinction: However, in a Simta, he can rent from the people of that Mavuy that is open to the Simta.

Implied question: We could have established everything in the owner's Reshus, and explain that he did Meshichah from the owner's Reshus to a Simta!

Answer: The expression "Mashach" would not apply. It should have said "he removed it from the owner's Reshus."

Question: If so (they discuss only a Simta), why does it say "even"?

Answer: They mean, not only in their joint Chatzer. Rather, even in a Simta, he acquired.