My son is learning Kiddushin and is familar with the rule of "ain ona'ah l'karka'os", there is no issur ona'ah by a sale of land. I asked him on Shabbos how this makes sense when the issur ona'ah appears in the Torah davka in the context of selling land - the Torah tells us that the buyer and seller must calculate the number of years until shemita to determine the fair price of land and avoid ona'ah.
The Ramban on that pasuk offers a few approaches to resolve this question. When buying and selling metaltilin, if the discreprency between what was charged/paid is too egregious, the buyer or seller has a right to rescind the sale. "Ain ona'ah l'karka'os" may simply mean that the buyer and seller may not rescind the sale, but the issur of ona'ah still applies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
there is a similar discussion by gezeilah for karka'os -- whether the miut from gezeilah is only from the din or also from the issur. Rashi al hatorah on the pasuk of lo sasig gevul reacha implies that the lav of gezeilah applies to karka -- it is just a miut in the din. My recollection is that other rishonim disagree with that point.
ReplyDeleteis it possible that "ain ona'ah l'karka'os" applies davka when shmita is not noheg, and the land will not be returned?
ReplyDeleteChaim, thank you for writing this blog!
ReplyDelete>>>is it possible that "ain ona'ah l'karka'os" applies davka when shmita is not noheg, and the land will not be returned?
ReplyDeleteInteresting idea, but how would that work if ain ona'ah l'karkao'os is a din d'oraysa? The derasha doesn't seem to have a time exclusion.
Also, shemita is just an example. Even if shemita was not in effect, what about ona'ah in the form of simple overcharging?