Explanation: This teaches unlike R. Yehudah, who says that Ona'ah does not apply to a wholesaler when he sold cheaply, for he is expert, and he pardoned him;

The reason he sold [cheaply] like this is because he had opportunity for another sale, like it says below.

Support: According to this, it is a proper question. You are forced to say that we discuss a commoner seller, since it attributes the [reason for Ona'ah regarding a] wholesaler to a commoner. The reason "he knew and pardoned" applies only to a seller.

Question: What is the source that we discuss a commoner who sells expensively, and the buyer was afflicted? Perhaps we discuss a commoner who sells cheaply, and he was afflicted! Now, this resembles a wholesaler!

Answer: "Ona'ah" connotes in every case, whether he afflicted or was afflicted.

Implied question: [If one wrote to his wife 'I have no claim or dealings in your property... and after your death',] Rav (Kesuvos 84a) ruled that if she died, he does not inherit her.

Note: The Gemara there says that Rav rules like R. Shimon ben Gamliel (83a), that he inherits her, but for a different reason. Rav holds that a Tenai against Torah law is valid, but inheriting one's wife is mid'Rabanan, and Chachamim strengthened their words more than Torah law.

Citation (84a): Does Rav hold that his Tenai is valid [for Torah laws]? Rav taught that [if one says 'I sell this to you on condition that you cannot claim Ona'ah'], he can claim Ona'ah!

Answer: Also there, he does not know that his wife will die before he dies. (Therefore, if he held that a husband inherits mid'Oraisa, he would say that the Tenai is Batel, for he does not know to pardon.)

Question: In Kesuvos (56a) it asks "the reason [that R. Yehudah holds that partial pardon of her Kesuvah helps] is because it was written. Verbally, she cannot pardon her Kesuvah", and it asks "R. Yehudah holds that monetary stipulations work"!

We should answer that she does not know to pardon the Kesuvah, for perhaps she will die first (and never collect it)!

Answer #1: There we challenge Shmuel, who does not distinguish (based on whether or not the person knows to pardon).

Answer #2: We ask according to Abaye, who says below "clearly, Rav holds like R. Meir."

Answer #3: Since it is light in his eyes to divorce her, she knows and pardons. (Maharsha, according to R. Akiva Eiger - through her pardon, she knows that he is likely to divorce her. It seems that R. Akiva Eiger understood that she knows that she loses her right not to be divorced for free. He asks why Tosfos did not say that she could have sold her Kesuvah, and she Vadai loses this!)

Implied question: In Makos (3b) we challenge Shmuel from Ona'ah to Shevi'is (a Tenai that the borrower will not cancel the loan when Shemitah comes. There is different, for Shemitah will surely come!)

Answer: Also in Shevi'is, he does not know that he uproots. Perhaps he will pay before Shemitah!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [If he said] "I promise you that there is no Ona'ah", and there is Ona'ah, it is also a Mekach Ta'os.

Question: In Makos (3b) we compare this to "on condition that Shemitah not cancel my loan"; Shemitah cancels his loan.

There, this reason does not apply! Rather, the reason is that he has no power to stipulate that Shemitah not take effect on the loan.

Answer: The only comparison is that just like regarding Ona'ah we distinguish between "there is not on him [a claim of Ona'ah]" and "there is not in it (the sale)", similarly regarding Shemitah we distinguish between this expression and this expression.

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): "On condition that there is not in it Ona'ah" connotes on condition that the Isur "Lo Sonu" will not take effect on the sale, and Bal Korcho (against his will) it takes effect.

Consequence: This is just like Shemitah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He trusts him that he will sell it for what he can. He has no claim of Ona'ah against him, and the profit or loss belongs to the Meshale'ach.

Question #1: The expression "Ona'ah" does not apply to this!

Question #2: If the Shali'ach did not accept Achrayus (responsibility), obviously the profit or loss belongs to the Meshale'ach;

If the Shali'ach accepted Achrayus and the loss, if so he has a claim of Ona'ah against him!

Explanation #2: "One who buys and sells be'Emanah" means that he trusts him for how much he bought, and he gives to him this amount and slightly more.

Support: Now, "he has no claim of Ona'ah against him" properly applies.

Pesak: R. Chananel rules like Rav, for the Halachah follows Rav (when he argues with Shmuel) regarding Isurim.

Question: They do not argue about whether or not it is permitted to do so. They argue about whether or not one must return the Ona'ah, and the Halachah follows Shmuel in monetary matters!

Support for Pesak: The She'altos of Rav Achai in Parshas Behar rules like Rav because the Beraisa is like him, which distinguishes between Stam and specifying.

According to Rav, the Beraisa is like R. Yehudah, but according to Shmuel, we cannot establish it like R. Meir, and not like R. Yehudah!

Rejection #1 (of support - Rivan): Shmuel can explain the Beraisa as follows. What is the case? It is Stam, i.e. he did not say "on condition that";

However, if he said "on condition that you have claim of Ona'ah against me", it is as if he said "I know that this is not worth..." This is like R. Yehudah.

Rejection #2 (of support): Alternatively, he can explain that the Beraisa discusses a common case. One who says "on condition that you have claim of Ona'ah against me" usually says "I know that it is not worth...", even though he does not know whether he says the truth;

It is even like R. Meir, for he does not know that he uproots.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He gives to him bad [merchandise], and trusts him that when he sells in a store for what he can, he will pay him for it;

And he gives to him the good for what it is worth now to sell it immediately, and he lets him keep the money for the good until he will sell the bad;

[He lets him keep the money] as compensation for toiling for him to sell the bad in the store little by little. This is Ribis.

Question #1: This should have been brought below (65a), in the Perek of Ribis, and not here!

Question #2: This [Beraisa] is taught in the Tosefta (3:23) regarding Ona'ah!

Question #3: "He already gave his wage" connotes that he received his wage beforehand!

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): He bought 10 items for 10 Dinarim. Five of them were good; each was worth one and a half Dinarim. Five of them were bad; each was worth only half a Dinar.

[The Meshale'ach] tells him "I believe you how much you spent for them, and I will give to you a little more to profit";

[The Shali'ach] does not count the bad ones for a Dinar each, like he bought them, and the good ones for one and a half Dinarim each, like they are worth, for [the seller] gave to him the bad ones for a Dinar each only because he also gave to him good ones for a Dinar each, and this is Ona'ah;

Rather, either both of them [he counts] be'Emanah, i.e. if he sells them all together, he counts all of them for a Dinar each...

Or, both of them [he counts] for their value. If he sells only bad, he counts each for half a Dinar. If he sells only good, he counts each for one and a half Dinarim.

He also counts wages for carrying them... He does not take wages for himself, for he already gave his wage, i.e. the first seller from whom he bought initially [gave to him extra, like Rav Papa explains].

Question: Rava said (below, 56b) that everything sold by measure, number or weight, even less than the Shi'ur of Ona'ah, (if it was not the full amount) it is returned!

Answer: Here he gave it like a coin, and not due to its weight. (If it is lacking less than an Isar per Dinar, it is a valid coin.)

Implied question: Why didn't [R. Shimon] say "a Ma'ah per Dinar"?

Answer: Because R. Yehudah mentioned a Pundiyon, he said two Pundiyonim.

Question: This is difficult for Rav, who says that the Mishnah teaches [that Ona'ah is] a sixth of the Mekach, and not a sixth of the price;

Here, according to R. Shimon, if one sold a Sela worth 20 Ma'os for 24, it is Ona'ah. This is like something worth five for six, which is Bitul Mekach according to Rav. In the Gemara, we establish our Mishnah above (that Rav taught about) like R. Shimon!

Strengthening of question: And even according to Shmuel, who says that that the Mishnah teaches a sixth of the price, this is difficult. He agrees that also a sixth of the Mekach is Ona'ah;

Here we say that two Pundiyonim to a Dinar is Ona'ah, but two Pundiyonim less a Perutah is pardoned, even though it is [more than] a sixth of the Mekach!

Answer: The case is, he sold to him a Talis worth 24 Ma'os for a Sela, and he gave to him a Sela lacking four Ma'os, which is a sixth of the Mekach.

Question: However, above I explained the reason for the opinion that [Ona'ah] is a sixth of the Mekach, because the Ona'ah and error depend on the object, which needs to be estimated, but coins need not [be estimated]. Here, the error and Ona'ah are in the Sela!