About drinks

Hello.
I think some line had to be drawn, and the sages found that the sixth is reasonable. It is true that it is an almost theoretical law. But it separates between a situation without fraud and a situation where the transaction is void.
And in more detail: Originally, they wanted to establish two situations in the law of buying and selling: Situation A – the transaction is void and the money is returned (when the mistake is major), and Situation B – the transaction is valid (small mistake). As stated, they decided that the dividing line would be one-sixth. Now the question arises, what will be the ruling when the mistake is exactly one-sixth between the two categories (although it is unlikely that this will happen except in rare cases)? And naturally, they determined that it would be a compromise ruling between the two original situations: a drunkard bought and a fraudulently returned.
According to my proposal, this is not a substantive law. The two important laws are on both sides of the line. The law on the line itself was established only to determine the dividing line.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
The problem with this answer is that it appears from the Shekla Vetriya that the Gemara discusses the dividing line (shetut) as a real possibility.
Do you mean that the Gemara seriously discussed the extreme and unlikely case only out of curiosity/interest? It is possible, perhaps. But perhaps the choice of shut is not accidental. Perhaps the merchants at the time chose shut as a target profit, and from that the Gemara’s discussion of shut is derived.
kid,
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
This is indeed a realistic possibility, but it is rare. There are quite a few halachic inquiries whose goal is to understand the matter and the halachah, not to apply it.
See David Assaf’s post here, and my response (and other responses) below:
http://onegshabbat.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/blog-post_6404.html