1)

(a)We ask whether less than a sixth according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Tarfon is considered Mechilah immediately or only after he has had time to show the article to a merchant. If it is not then he can still retract within the specified time; If it is then he can't.

(b)We try to prove that it must be considered Mechilah immediately, because if it was only after he has had time to show the article to a merchant there would be no difference between less than a sixth and a sixth.

(c)We refute this proof however, by establishing the difference between the two as being that, by a sixth, he has the option of demanding his money back, whereas by less that a sixth, he does not (even if both parties can retract up to the specified time limit).

2)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that when the merchants of Lud heard that Rebbi Tarfon gave the purchaser all day to retract, they relented and reverted to the opinion of the Rabanan. When we suggest that less than a third according to Rebbi Tarfon, is presumably equivalent to less than a sixth according to the Rabanan, we mean that it is considered Mechilah (and not Ona'ah).

(b)We try to prove from here that the Mechilah must take place only after the time it takes to show the article to a merchant ... because then they would stand to lose by all cases of up to a third, where according to the Rabanan, the purchasers would have the specified time to retract, whereas Rebbi Tarfon gives them all day to do so.

(c)But if the Mechilah is immediate according to the Rabanan up to a sixth, and according to Rebbi Tarfon, up to a third, why did they retract?

(d)We answer this Kashya by reestablishing the amount between a sixth and a third according to Rebbi Tarfon like a sixth (rather than less than a sixth) according to the Rabanan. He then argues with them inasmuch as, according to them, more than a sixth is Bitul Mekach (and both parties may retract), whereas according to him, it is Ona'ah (and it is only the purchaser who is permitted to retract [which is the reason that they went back to the Rabanan]).

3)

(a)If as we just concluded, Rebbi Tarfon only argues with the Rabanan in that they consider between a sixth and a third Bitul Mekach and he considers it Ona'ah then why were the merchants of Lud initially happy?

(b)We are about to ask what the Shi'ur of Bitul Mekach regarding the purchaser, according to the Rabanan whether it is the time he needs to ask a merchant ... , or whether he can retract forever.

(c)We try to resolve the She'eilah and answer the Kashya simultaneously by attributing the merchants' happiness to the fact that according to the Rabanan, by more than a sixth, the purchaser can retract forever, and according to Rebbi Tarfon, only up to the time prescribed by the Tana in the case of Ona'ah.

(d)And the reason that the merchants of Lud reverted to the Chachamim when Rebbi Tarfon told them the purchaser had all day to retract (besides the fact that his Shiur is not then really that different from the Rabanan's to make it an advantage [as we will explain shortly]) is because Ona'ah of more than a sixth is not common (and is therefore offset by Rebbi Tarfon's prolonged Shi'ur for retracting in the case of Ona'ah).

4)

(a)We refute the proof that the Rabanan's Shi'ur of Bitul Mekach must be forever (explaining the merchants happiness even if the Rabanan gave Bitul Mekach the same Shi'ur as Ona'ah) by establishing their Machlokes by exactly a sixth which Rebbi Tarfon considers Mechilah (where the purchaser cannot retract), and the Rabanan, Ona'ah (where he can).

5)

(a)We ask what the Shi'ur of Bitul Mekach is according to the Rabanan. Assuming that it is the same as that of Ona'ah, the difference between Ona'ah and Bitul Mekach will be the fact that by Ona'ah, it is only the person who has been cheated who may retract, whereas by Bitul Mekach, either party may.

(b)We try to resolve the She'eilah from the fact that the merchants of Lud reverted to the Chachamim when Rebbi Tarfon told them the purchaser had all day to retract which would be fine as long as the Rabanan's Shi'ur by Bitul Mekach is the same as that of Ona'ah. But if it was forever (like the other side of the She'eilah), why would they have retracted (seeing as Bitul Mekach would then be to their advantage, according to Rebbi Tarfon)?

(c)Even assuming that the Rabanan's Shi'ur by Bitul Mekach is the same as that of Ona'ah, the merchants chose to revert to the Rabanan, seeing as they still had the advantage of a sixth according to Rebbi Tarfon (which is Mechilah, as we explained above) because that is a minor advantage (compared to the shorter time-limit by Ona'ah), since it is relatively easy to keep their profits at just under a sixth.

(d)We reject the above resolution on the grounds that a. Bitul Mekach is uncommon (in which case the advantage of a sixth (which is Mechilah according to Rebbi Tarfon, but Ona'ah according to the Rabanan, as we explained earlier), and b. the advantage of a day over forever is minimal, since most people find out the price within the day anyway.

6)

(a)Rava issues a final ruling regarding all three Dinim. The Shi'ur that he gives regarding ...

1. ... less than a sixth is straightway.

2. ... a sixth or to ...

3. ... more than a sixth the time it takes to show the object to a merchant or to a family member.

(b)Rava presents the basic Halachah of Ona'ah as 'Koneh u'Machzir Ona'ah'.

(c)He cites the Halachah differently than the Beraisa that we quoted above because it is the opinion of Rebbi Nasan, about whom Chazal have said 'Dayan Hu ve'Nachis le'Umka de'Dina' (intimating that the Halachah is always like him).

(d)This is the opinion of Rebbi Nasan in the Beraisa that follows. The Tana who argues with him (giving him the option of retracting completely from the deal) is Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah permits the purchaser to retract up to the time that he could show the object to a merchant ... . Rav Nachman comments on this that the time-limit imposed by the Mishnah is confined to the purchaser, but the seller may retract forever.

(b)The grounds on which he draws such a distinction are that (unlike the purchaser) the seller has nothing to show a merchant.

(c)We try to support Rav Nachman from the fact that the merchants of Lud reverted to the opinion of the Rabanan when they heard Rebbi Tarfon give the Shiur as the whole day in which case, assuming that they could retract forever, it is only the purchasers who would gain from Rebbi Tarfon's extended Shi'ur. But if the seller had the same Shi'ur as the purchaser, then why did they revert to the Rabanan, seeing as Rebbi Tarfon's extension granted them the same advantage as the purchasers.

(d)We refute this proof however by bearing in mind that the merchants of Lud were astute businessmen, who rarely needed to retract. Consequently, the extended time-limit gave the purchasers an advantage which they did not share.