Explanation: [Granted, if Rabanan allow retracting within the time to show,] initially [the merchants of Lud] were happy with R. Tarfon's opinion, because Rabanan hold that regarding a sixth, he (the afflicted party) has the upper hand, and also above a sixth, he can retract within the time to show;

According to R. Tarfon, regarding any [error] less than a third, he acquired Bal Korcho. The merchants of Lud did not want the sale to be Batel;

All the more so, if Bitul Mekach according to Rabanan is always returned, they were happy with R. Tarfon's opinion, that after the time to show [the Ona'ah] is pardoned.

When he told them that the entire day [it can be returned], they reverted [to rule like Rabanan]. They preferred Rabanan's opinion, who say that an error of less than a sixth, a sixth, or more than a sixth, it is pardoned after the time to show. According to R. Tarfon, it is not until after the entire day.

Implied question: [They should prefer R. Tarfon, for] according to Rabanan, a sixth or more than a sixth can be returned within the time to show, and according to R. Tarfon, he acquired Bal Korcho!

Answer: They preferred that one may return within the time to show, and if he did not come within the time to show, it is pardoned, than that he acquired Bal Korcho, and the Ona'ah is returned the entire day.

However, if Bitul Mekach according to Rabanan is always returned, they reverted only due to less than a sixth and a sixth.

Implied question: Regarding more than a sixth, they preferred R. Tarfon's opinion that he acquired Bal Korcho, and after the entire day it is pardoned, for according to Rabanan he can always retract!

Answer: They were happier with the gain in the cases of less than a sixth and a sixth, for Bitul Mekach (more than a sixth) is not so common;

And even if it were common, they gain more through a sixth and less than a sixth, which is pardoned after the time to show, and according to R. Tarfon it is after the entire day...

This is more than what they lose through in this case of more than a sixth, for it is a small difference between acquiring and returning the Ona'ah, or retracting [the sale].

Implied question: After the entire day, according to R. Tarfon it is pardoned, and according to Rabanan he always retracts!

Answer: Also this is not such a big difference, for usually, one who retracts, retracts the same day, and one who does not retract the entire day, he will never retract.

Explanation (cont.): However, if you will say that immediately it is pardoned, why did they revert? R. Tarfon's opinion is better for them, for R. Tarfon said the entire day [only] for [overcharging at least] a third!

Suggestion: They reverted because Bitul Mekach of Rabanan is within the time to show. It is better for them regarding a third and more than a third with Rabanan's opinion, for Rabanan hold that after [the time to] show it, it is pardoned, and according to R. Tarfon, it is after the entire day;

Rejection: Surely this is not common at all. They would be careful [not to overcharge] Ona'ah of a third, and everything will be pardoned immediately!

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara answers] do you think [less than a third according to R. Tarfon is pardoned, like less than a sixth according to Rabanan]? No. Rather, between a sixth and a third, including a sixth itself according to R. Tarfon, is like a sixth itself according to Rabanan;

He argues with Rabanan only regarding their Bitul Mekach. [R. Tarfon] considers it Ona'ah.

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara asks] if so, that R. Tarfon argues only about Bitul Mekach, why were they happy initially?

Inference: Since they were happy, we infer that according to Rabanan, he can always retract. Therefore, they were happy, for according to R. Tarfon, it is pardoned after the time to show. Regarding a sixth and less than a sixth, they are the same.

When he told them "the entire day", they reverted [to rule like Rabanan], for a sixth is pardoned after the time to show according to Rabanan, and according to R. Tarfon, it is after the entire day;

Also regarding more than a sixth, Rabanan's opinion is better for them, for both of them (the afflicter and the afflicted party) have equal rights to retract, and according to R. Tarfon's opinion, [the afflicted party] has the upper hand, like the law of a sixth.

Implied question: According to Rabanan he can always retract, and according to R. Tarfon he has only the entire day, but no longer!

Answer: There is not [much] difference between retracting the entire day, or forever (like Tosfos explained above (e)).

Culmination of Inference: If you would say that [that according to Rabanan, he can retract only] within the time to show, why were they happy? All agree that less than a sixth is pardoned immediately, and a sixth and more than a sixth are pardoned after the time to show;

Just the contrary, Rabanan's opinion was better for them, for they say that more than a sixth, both of them can retract. [This is better for them] than R. Tarfon's opinion, that [the afflicted party] has the upper hand [since the merchants were usually the afflicters].

Explanation (cont.): We answer that they were happy about a sixth itself. I.e. do not say that a sixth itself is Ona'ah according to R. Tarfon, like it is for Rabanan, like we said until now;

Rather, from a sixth and above according to R. Tarfon is like a sixth for Rabanan. However, a sixth itself according to R. Tarfon is like less than a sixth, and it is pardoned immediately;

This is why they were happy, for according to Rabanan, [a sixth itself can be retracted] within the time to show, and [the afflicted party] has the upper hand. They preferred this profit (according to R. Tarfon's opinion) more than the profit (according to Rabanan) of more than a sixth. Rabanan say that both can retract, and R. Tarfon holds that [the afflicted party] has the upper hand;

When [R. Tarfon] said that [he can retract] the entire day, they reverted [to Rabanan's opinion], for the profit of more than a sixth, which is pardoned after the time to show, and according to R. Tarfon it is after the entire day;

They prefer this more than the profit of a sixth itself, which is immediately pardoned according to R. Tarfon, for it is a very limited case.

Explanation #1: According to this, it seems that the text says "for they asked", for it refers to the conclusion that we establish between a third and a sixth according to R. Tarfon like a sixth itself according to Rabanan (Ona'ah), and a sixth itself [according to R. Tarfon] is like less than a sixth;

[They] asked whether Bitul Mekach can always retract, or within the time to show.

The Gemara brings a proof from "[the merchants] retracted." Granted, if Bitul Mekach is within the time to show, this is why they reverted [to follow Rabanan];

Initially, they were happy due to a sixth itself, which R. Tarfon says is pardoned immediately;

When he told them [that he can retract] the entire day, they reverted due to more than a sixth, which is immediately pardoned according to Rabanan after the time to show, like we explained regarding their joy due to a sixth itself;

However, if you will say that Bitul Mekach can always retract, why did they revert? A sixth according to R. Tarfon is immediate pardon, and also more than a sixth is pardoned after the entire day, [whereas] according to Rabanan he can always retract!

Explanation #2 (Rashi): When he said that Bitul Mekach can always retract, a sixth itself is Ona'ah according to R. Tarfon, just like according to Rabanan, and even so [the Gemara] asked why they reverted [to follow Rabanan], like Rashi explained (50b DH Ela).

Objection: This is difficult. Above, when he said that according to Rabanan Bitul Mekach can always retract, he understood why they reverted! Rather, it seems like I explained.

Citation (50b) Answer: [They reverted because] Bitul Mekach is not common.

Explanation: We had said that according to R. Tarfon, a sixth itself is like less than a sixth. This is a poor answer. Rather, a sixth and more than a sixth are like a sixth itself according to Rabanan;

Therefore, initially they were happy, because more than a sixth according to R. Tarfon is pardoned after the time to show, and according to Rabanan it is always returned;

When he told them [that it is returned] the entire day, they reverted [to follow Rabanan], because a sixth itself according to R. Tarfon is [returned] the entire day, and according to Rabanan it is within the time to show;

Also more than a sixth [they preferred Rabanan for] according to Rabanan both can retract, and according to R. Tarfon, [the afflicted party] has the upper hand.

Implied question: According to Rabanan, he can always retract, and R. Tarfon allows the entire day, but no longer!

Answer: Bitul Mekach is not common, and even if it were common, there is not a [big] difference between retracting the entire day or forever. So the Sugya appears according to Rashi.

Question: Initially, when he said "do you think...", a sixth according to R. Tarfon was like according to Rabanan;

When he said they were happy about a sixth itself, he retracted from his reasoning, and holds that a sixth according to R. Tarfon is like less than a sixth, and so holds the second question;

In the conclusion, when he answers "Bitul Mekach is not common", he retracts from his initial reasoning that a sixth according to R. Tarfon is like according to Rabanan.

The Gemara should have said "do you think that a sixth according to R. Tarfon is like according to Rabanan? No, a sixth according to R. Tarfon is like less than a sixth!

Answer: Also initially, when he said "do you think...", he meant that from a sixth until a third, but not a sixth itself, is like a sixth according to Rabanan, but a sixth is immediately pardoned;

The Gemara was not concerned to explain this. Since what is Bitul Mekach according to Rabanan, i.e. until a third, is Ona'ah according to R. Tarfon, it is logical that [R. Tarfon] holds that there is Ona'ah only in a place that is Bitul Mekach according to Rabanan, but not a sixth;

If so, why were they happy? We may resolve that Bitul Mekach always retracts [according to Rabanan], and initially they were happy for the following reason:

A sixth is pardoned immediately according to R. Tarfon, and more than a sixth is pardoned after the time to show, and according to Rabanan, a sixth is [pardoned] after the time to show, and more than a sixth can always retract;

When he told them [that it is returned] the entire day, they reverted [to follow Rabanan], because a sixth itself, which is pardoned immediately according to R. Tarfon, is a limited case, and it is not common;

And more than a sixth, which returns forever according to Rabanan and the entire day but no longer according to R. Tarfon, there is no difference between returning the entire day or forever;

They preferred to follow Rabanan, who say that more than a sixth both of them have equal rights to retract, over R. Tarfon's opinion that [the afflicted party] has the upper hand.

If we would say that Bitul Mekach is within the time to show, why were they [initially] happy? Regarding more than a sixth, they prefer Rabanan's opinion, who say that both of them can retract, over R. Tarfon's opinion that [the afflicted party] has the upper hand!

Regarding a sixth itself, which is a limited case, there is not so much advantage that it is pardoned immediately according to R. Tarfon!

Explanation (cont.): We answer that they were happy about a sixth itself, which is pardoned immediately according to R. Tarfon, and they preferred this, even though it is limited, over the advantage of more than a sixth, in which both can retract according to Rabanan.

[The Gemara then] asked does Bitul Mekach always return, according to Rabanan? Let us learn from "they reverted to Chachamim's words";

Explanation: Now he holds that less than a third according to R. Tarfon is [pardoned] like a sixth according to Rabanan, and he also holds that less than a sixth according to Rabanan and less than a third according to R. Tarfon is returned within the time to show, and it is not pardoned immediately.

Source: The simple reading of the Mishnah connotes more like this.

Note: Maharam says that the next few lines, until "ul'Hachi Pashit", is a comment on our Tosfos that became incorporated into the text.

Comment: Also, if from a third until a sixth were Ona'ah according to R. Tarfon, it would be fine that they were happy and [later] reverted, whether Bitul Mekach according to Rabanan is returned forever, or within the time to show, like the Gemara said above!

Note: On Amud B, just before this question of whether Rabanan always allow return of Bitul Mekach, the Gemara said that really, between a sixth and a third is Ona'ah according to R. Tarfon. It tried to prove that Rabanan hold that Bitul Mekach is returned forever, but rejected this, for even if it is only within the time to show, we can explain why they were happy and later reverted. This comment proves that now we do not hold that R. Tarfon considers this Ona'ah. If we did, how did our Gemara try to derive from our Mishnah how long Rabanan allow to return Bitul Mekach? Either way they hold, our Mishnah is fine!

Due to this question (if the Gemara now holds like it said above, we cannot bring a proof from our Mishnah, like I explained in the note above), Rashi had to give a poor answer that initially, it said that from a third until a sixth is Ona'ah, and a sixth is included;

According to this, [above] we questioned the Mishnah only if you will say that Bitul Mekach is within the time to show, but if he can always retract, we were not meticulous [to explain] why they reverted.

Note: It seems that this comment asks as follows. Above, we assumed that R. Tarfon holds that from a third until a sixth is Ona'ah, and a sixth is included. We tried to prove that Chachamim permit returning forever, for then we understand their Simchah and their reverse afterwards. However, if they permit only within the time to show, why were they happy? To reject this proof, we said that R. Tarfon holds that a sixth is pardoned. In the current question, we hold like this, that R. Tarfon holds that from a third until a sixth is Ona'ah, but a sixth is pardoned. If Chachamim permit returning within the time to show, we understand [their Simchah and] their reverse afterwards. However, if they permit returning forever, why did they revert? Above, after we said that R. Tarfon holds that a sixth is pardoned, we never explained why they reverted, if Chachamim allow returning forever. This ends the comment. The rest is Tosfos himself.

Therefore, we resolve properly from our Mishnah. Granted, if you will say that Bitul Mekach is within the time to show, therefore they reverted. Initially they were happy, for a sixth, and more than a sixth until a third, the sale is acquired according to R. Tarfon, and according to Rabanan he can retract;

When he said [that it maybe returned] the entire day, they reverted, for according to R. Tarfon until a third there is no pardon until after the entire day, and according to Rabanan it is until after the time to show.

However, if Bitul Mekach returns forever, why did they revert? According to R. Tarfon, after the entire day it is pardoned up to a third, and according to Rabanan it returns forever!

We answer that Bitul Mekach is not common. There is more gain in less than a sixth and a sixth, which is pardoned according to Rabanan after the time to show, and according to R. Tarfon [after] the entire day, than the gain [according to R. Tarfon] of more than a sixth, which is not common, and there is no [significant] difference between returning the entire day or forever.

Question: According to this Perush, the Gemara's wording is difficult. When it said that Ona'ah is the entire day and no more, we must say that "Ona'ah" is when he acquired and the Ona'ah is returned;

Above, it said that when he told them that it is Ona'ah, they were happy, it calls Ona'ah when [the afflicted party] has the upper hand;

According to Rashi, this is fine. Also in this Ona'ah (here), he has the upper hand.

Question: In Bava Basra (83b), Rav Chisda taught that if one sold something worth five for six, and it rose in price to eight, the buyer can retract, but the seller cannot;

The buyer tells him "had you not deceived me, you could not have retracted. Now that you deceived me, may you retract?!"

Also here, why can the afflicter retract? Also [here] the afflicted party should tell him "had you not deceived me..."!

Answer #1: Here, since it is more than a sixth, it is too far from [the value of] the Mekach. It is as if he did not sell at all.

It is like [one who sold] wine and it was found to be vinegar, or vinegar and it was found to be wine. Both of them can retract (83b).

Answer #2 (Rivam): There, when the buyer does not demand [to get back] his Ona'ah, the seller cannot retract;

However, here we discuss when the afflicted party demands his Ona'ah, therefore the afflicter can nullify the sale.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He acquired Bal Korcho, like R. Nasan teaches below.

Consequence: Less than a sixth is pardoned immediately.

Explanation: This is the difference between a sixth and less than a sixth.

Support: Below (51a), regarding the man selling silk bands. [Ploni] reasoned "if I pay five and a half, it will be pardoned." (Rather, he paid six, in order to be able to claim the Ona'ah.) This connotes that pardon is immediate. (If not, he could have paid five and a half and claimed the Ona'ah immediately!)

Implied question: It says "this and this are within the time to show"!

Answer: This refers to more than a sixth and a sixth, but not to less than a sixth.

Assertion: Rava can properly hold like Rav Chisda, who taught (Bava Basra 83b) that if one sold something worth five for six, and it rose in price to eight, the buyer can retract, but the seller cannot;

Since it rose in price within the time to show, which is the time when the buyer can claim his Ona'ah, and it rose in price to/more than Bitul Mekach, therefore the buyer can retract;

Support: This is why it says that the price became eight, and it did not say that it became seven, for this is not Bitul Mekach.

Question #1 (R. Tam): Does Rava argue with our Stam Mishnah (below, 51a) which says that the afflicted party has the upper hand?

Question #2: The Halachah follows Rebbi against his colleague (R. Nasan)!

Question #3: Rava himself establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi, and not like R. Nasan. This connotes that he holds like him (Rebbi)!

Question #4: It is not appropriate to say "a Beraisa supports him" in a matter that Tana'im argue about in the Beraisa!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Rava said that [Ona'ah of] a sixth acquires, i.e. if [the afflicted party] wants, like R. Yehudah (51a);

He was not concerned to explicitly specify, for he refers to our Mishnah.

We bring a Beraisa like him, because the Beraisa teaches "this and this are within the time to show", like Rava [taught this amount of time];

We do not bring [a support for Rava's teaching that the afflicted party has the upper hand] from Rebbi, who says "if he wants, he tells him..." Just the contrary! [If we wanted to support this ruling,] he should have brought the Mishnah.

Implied question: Below (51a), we ask properly 'our Mishnah cannot be like R. Nasan. Our Mishnah says "if he wants [the sale to be valid]." The Beraisa did not teach "if he wants"!'

Answer: This is because R. Nasan does not discuss our Mishnah, so he should have specified. Rava discusses our Mishnah, so he did not need to specify.

Observation: Even though Rava adopted the wording of R. Nasan, "he acquired" here (in Rava's words means "if he wants") is unlike "he acquired" of R. Nasan.

Implied question: Also the the merchants of Lud used to buy, and [according to Rabanan] they could not retract!

Answer: Even so, the merchants of Lud reverted [to follow Rabanan] because they used to sell constantly little by little, and they bought at once (so they could be careful not to overpay).