What is the difference between the times that R. Nachman allowed a cheated seller and a cheated buyer to retract from a sale?
The seller may retract whenever he finds that he is cheated, for he no longer has the item to take it to someone to appraise, and immediately discover his mistake.
The seller may retract whenever he finds that he is cheated, for every sale is assumed to be on this condition.
The buyer may retract whenever he finds that he is cheated, for every purchase is assumed to be on this condition.
While the buyer may retract whenever he finds that he is cheated, the seller may never retract. The customer is always right!
The seller may retract as long as the buyer’s check hasn’t cleared. The buyer may not, however, for the check was already deposited.
Why is there is no Ona’ah by a private person selling personal effects?
Since he is not a businessman, we may assume that he did not know the Halachah, and someone buying from him should realize this.
The sentimental value of items he is selling makes them worth more to him, allowing him to take a higher price.
An antique dealer can sell these things for much more, essentially making them worth the higher price.
It’s a Gezeiras Hakusov.
He is probably selling off the books, so the customer can deduct the tax money which isn't being given.
What did R. Yehuda mean by “There is no Ona’ah by a Tagar (Middleman)”?
Undercharging a Tagar is not Assur. He just bought the item to resell, so he knows the real price. Any lesser price is intentional.
The usual exemption of Ona’ah does not apply to mischarging less than a sixth more does not apply when buying from a Tagar. Since buying and selling is his Parnassa, any mischarging must be paid.
The Gezeras Hakasov of “Oh Koneh Miyad Amisecha” implies only “Amisecha,” a private person, and not a wholesaler.
Machlokes between answers A and B.
Machlokes between answers B and C.
Can R. Yehuda, who says that a Kiddushin takes effect when done on condition that she forgives her financial benefits, agree that a condition that Ona’ah will not take effect on a deal is nevertheless invalid?
No, we see that R. Yehuda holds that stipulating against the Torah’s laws takes effect, when done in financial matters.
No. We are concerned that permitting this Ona’ah will ultimately lead to charging Ona’ah in other areas, which are not permitted.
Yes, by Kiddushin she knows what she is forgiving. By Ona’ah, he does not know whether or not he is being overcharged, to be able to forgive it.
Yes. It is easier to give slack to a (soon to be) spouse far sooner than it is easier to forgive another person.
Yes. It is easier to forgive any person, far sooner than it is to forgive a fraudulent businessman who cheated me in business.
Can R. Meir, who says that a Kiddushin does not take effect when done on condition that she forgives her financial benefits, agree to a condition stating that Ona’ah will not take effect on a deal?
No, we see that R. Yehuda holds that stipulating against the Torah’s laws does not take effect, even when done in financial matters.
Yes. By the Kiddushin we are concerned that if he makes a financial condition, he will ultimately make other, wrongful, conditions as well. This concern does not apply to Ona’ah.
Yes. It hard to forgive (even soon to be) family when they want to take advantage of someone. It is easier to forgive other people.
Yes. It is easier to forgive a person who overcharged me, because he was probably under pressure to make money to put food on his table for his family.
Yes. By the Kiddushin, Torah law is definitely being violated, thus invalidating the Kiddushin. Perhaps this the price being paid for this object is the correct price, and there is anyways no Ona’ah, even without the condition!