תלמוד בבלי מסכת פסחים דף ל עמוד א

תלמוד בבלי מסכת פסחים דף ל עמוד א
אמר רב קדירות בפסח ישברו
ואמאי לשהינהו אחר הפסח וליעבד בהו שלא במינן גזירה דילמא אתו למיעבד בהו במינו
ושמואל אמר לא ישברו אבל משהי להו לאחר זמנו ועביד בהו בין במינו בין שלא במינו
ואזדא שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל להנהו דמזבני כנדי אשוו זביני אכנדיכי ואי לא דרשינא
לכו כרבי שמעון ולידרוש להו דהא שמואל כרבי שמעון סבירא ליה אתריה דרב
הוה

a loose translation:

Rav said: (chametzdik) pots on passover should be broken (ie,
destroyed).
-Why [destroy them]? People should leave them until after passover and
use them not with their own type [of food] *
-It is a prohibition (gezerah) [for the reason that] perhaps they will come
to use them with their own type.
And Shmuel said, they should not be broken.
-but one can leave [their pot] until after its time and use it, whether with
its type or not with its type.

And [this opinion of] Shmuel follows his [previously established] position,
as Shmuel said to those who sell pots, 'keep your prices even (rather than
inflating the price after pesach becasue everyone needs to buy new pots), and if
not, I will expound to you like Rabbi Shimon (who allows old pots, so no one
will need to buy new pots).'
-And let him expound to them! - for behold, Shmuel agrees with Rabbi
Shimon!
-It was Rav's place. (So Shmuel did not want to go against Rav's
ruling as long as the financial loss invovled was not egregious)

*Rashi explains that Rav agrees that chametz is nullified in non-minan situations if there is only a tiny ammount/mashehu of chametz, but Rav believes that mashehu is enough to prohibit a mixture of the same type, so that case still remains forbidden.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 - i imagine others have had something to say about this. if you know who/what they are, please let me know.

2 -
first, how did Shmuel decide that the regular price of pots was a "fair" financial price to pay for following the local authority, but the inflated price of pots posed too much of a burden and thus would warrant overriding that ruling? Or, was the point more rhetorical and from the perspective of the sellers - they should be "fair" or else suffer consequences?

also, in general, what are the implications re: market prices, etc. is the attempt to regulate prices an acknowledgement that in a system of religious obligation consumer choice is itself limited in freedom or rationality?