Why, then, does the Gemara cite Rav Anan's statement in the first place? Rav Anan explains that the condition is valid only when the seller says that he is selling the item "on condition that you have no claim of Ona'ah against me for this sale.
The reason why the condition in the case of Shevi'is is not valid differs from the reason for why the condition in the case of Ona'ah is not valid, according to Rashi.
The answer to this question is that when a seller stipulates a condition, it is assumed that he makes the condition in order to benefit himself and not to benefit the buyer see Bava Metzia 66a. Therefore, when a person says, "I am lending money to you on condition that the Shemitah of the Torah will not take effect," it is considered as though he says, "I am lending to you on condition that something impossible will occur," and in such a case the law is that the condition is disregarded and the act the loan is upheld Bava Metzia 94a. When the buyer acknowledges that he is being overcharged and agrees to the sale despite the overcharge, the law of Ona'ah does not apply to the sale in the first place.
In the case of Shevi'is, the condition is not binding because it is an invalid condition that cannot take effect, and thus it is disregarded.
Rashi, in both explanations, says that this Halachah applies whether there are three or four witnesses. When there are two witnesses, this requires that one of the witnesses give his share of the payment to the second witness, and then the second witness hands it over, together with his own share, to the defendant.
Cloud, cloud, rain, sun, fog, cloud repeat. Therefore, it must be that the condition of "she'Ein Bo Ona'ah" is invalid for a different reason.
Adult kai lee free videos sex movies porn tube
Strapon femdom cartoon
This implies that a condition that a person makes which contravenes a law in the Torah is valid nevertheless.