Bava Basra, Chapter 6, Mishnah 1. The next three Mishnayos deal with purchasing goods and meeting the reasonable expectations of the buyer. Our Mishnah deals with the sale of seeds.
Seeds such as kernels of wheat or barley are used for two purposes: they can be cooked and eaten, or they can be planted in a garden or field to grow new plants from them. In the times of the Mishnah, this was very common, and people grew barley in their backyard and in the field. Thus, one who buys barley, beans, peas, or grain, might be purchasing them for eating or for planting.
From the wording of the Mishnah, it implies that it does not make a difference which of the uses is more common. The point is that all of those seeds, grains, and cereals, even though they are fit for eating, are not guaranteed to successfully sprout. The question before us is: A person who bought grain or legumes and did not specify that he wanted to plant them in his field, and he planted them and they did not sprout - and this is not due to a lack of rain or another external cause, since his neighbor's field and even the other parts of his own field did sprout - it is therefore proven that the seller provided him with defective seeds. Is the buyer allowed to demand his money back?
The wording of the Mishnah:
"Hamocher peiros lachaveiro velo tzamchu" - Reuven sold to Shimon seeds that are fit for eating, and Shimon planted them in his courtyard and they did not grow.
"Afilu zera pishtan" - And even if it was flaxseed.
"Eino chayav beacharayusan" - It is not Reuven's responsibility to compensate Shimon for the seeds that did not grow, as he can say to him: You did not inform me that you wanted to plant them, and the commodities I provided you were perfectly fit for eating.
The seller's claim is: You asked for wheat, and I assumed that your intention was to eat it, and therefore I provided you with wheat for eating; you did not ask for wheat meant for sprouting.
Why the Mishnah specified "afilu zera pishtan":
Even though flaxseeds are fit for eating and one can produce oil from them, in most cases, someone who buys flaxseed intends to grow flax plants from them and ultimately produce fibers and cloth. This is the regular use, and the vast majority of buyers do not intend to eat them but rather to plant them. Nevertheless, the Mishnah states that since the buyer did not specify his intention at the time of the purchase, the seller is allowed to say: I assumed you wanted the flaxseeds for eating or for producing oil, and you cannot demand a refund from me.
The novel teaching: We do not follow the majority in monetary laws:
We have a rule that when there is uncertainty on how to act, we follow the majority, and this is the case in matters of prohibition and permission. One who finds food and does not know if it is kosher must decide according to the majority: if most of the bakeries, butcher shops, or production houses are kosher - it is permitted to eat, and if not - it is forbidden.
However, in monetary laws and financial claims, the law is different, as here the rule is "the burden of proof is on the one seeking to extract from his fellow". Shimon, who wishes to extract money from Reuven, bears the burden of proof that he was indeed sold defective merchandise.
And if Shimon argues: Ninety-nine out of a hundred people who buy flaxseeds do not intend to eat them but rather to plant them, and why did you assume that I am an exception to the rule? - This is not a proof. Even though most people do not act this way, there are some who do, and Reuven can say: I assumed that you are counted among them, and the existence of a majority is irrelevant. This is the novel teaching of the Mishnah: the majority does not determine or decide as proof for extracting money from one's fellow.
"Zironei ginah she'einan ne'echalin":
The Mishnah continues: "Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel omer" - Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says. It seems there is no dispute here at all, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is the Tanna of the entire Mishnah, even though his statement sounds like someone disagreeing.
This refers to seeds designated solely for planting, such as those planted in a vegetable patch, which are not normally eaten at all. Someone who wants to plant a tomato patch buys tomato seeds, and no one buys tomato seeds for eating. Because of this, the seller cannot claim he thought the buyer wanted them for food, since they are not edible.
Therefore, with garden seeds - "she'einan ne'echalin" - which are not suitable for eating - "chayav be'acharayoson" - he bears responsibility: the seller is responsible for compensating the buyer if the seeds he provided did not sprout due to a defect. Obviously, this does not apply in a case where the fault lies with the buyer, who did not water them properly and the like; but when this is not the case, and the seeds were indeed defective or presumed defective, the seller must fully compensate the buyer and refund him the cost of the seeds.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned that if a person sells seeds that are suitable for eating, and the buyer planted them and they did not sprout, he is exempt from responsibility, since the buyer did not specify that he wanted to plant them - and this is true even for flaxseed, where the majority of buyers intend to plant them. The novelty is that we do not follow the majority to extract money, because of the rule "the burden of proof rests on the one who seeks to extract money from his fellow". In contrast, with garden seeds that are not eaten at all, where the seller has no claim that they were bought for eating, he bears responsibility for them and must refund their cost.
In the following Mishnayos we will continue to discuss the purchase of merchandise and the reasonable expectations of the buyer.