Today's Daf Yomi
April 19, 2017 | 讻状讙 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝
-
This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Bava Batra 87
Rav and Shmuel discuss the differences in when the merchandise is acquired if you say I am buying all of it for one price or if you specify聽how much each measurement (for ex. each se’ah) will cost (even though you are buying many se’ah). 聽Two sources are brought to contradict聽their opinion but are resolved. 聽The next mishna discusses 3 different halachot – one pertaining to at what point of measuring is neither side allowed to change their mind, the next pertained to a middleman – and is he responsible if the vessel breaks and the merchandise is lost (wine or oil) (exactly what the case is is debatable), and what is the status of drops left in the jug after if it measured out and poured into the buyers utensils? 聽 Details of these cases are discussed int he gemara. 聽The next mishna聽is a case where a father sends a son to the store to buy oil and the utensil breaks, the oil is lost, as is the change that the son received. 聽There is a debate about who is responsible. 聽Based on details in the mishna, the gemara grapples to understand what exactly is the case in the mishna聽and what is the source of the debate.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
讜诇讙讜专谉 讬驻讛 住诇注 讗住讜专 诇讛谞讜转 讛讬诪谞讜 讗讘诇 讗诐 砖讻专讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讘讚讬谞专 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讙讜专谉 讬驻讛 住诇注 诪讜转专
and a day of a laborer鈥檚 work during the harvest is worth a sela, the equivalent of four silver dinars, for each day, it is prohibited to derive benefit from him, i.e., one may not employ the laborer under these conditions. The reason is that this is akin to taking interest, as the laborer works and receives less than he is entitled to in exchange for early payment. But if one hires him already from now to work for one dinar a day for an extended period of time, including the harvest season, and the work of a laborer during the harvest is worth a sela, this is permitted.
讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讜专 讘砖诇砖讬诐 住讗讛 讘住诇注 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 拽诪讗 拽诪讗 诪讬驻住拽 驻住拽 讜讗住讜专 诇讛谞讜转 讛讬诪谞讜 诪讚讬谞专 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讙讜专谉 讬驻讛 住诇注 诪讜转专 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 讗讙专 谞讟专 诇讬 讛讜讗
And if it enters your mind, as Rav and Shmuel claim, that if a seller said: I am selling you one kor for thirty sela, each se鈥檃 for one sela, he cannot fully renege on the sale in the middle of the transaction, as the buyer acquires each se鈥檃 one by one as it is measured, then the halakha in this case should be different. Here too, as he does not agree to one large sum but fixes a price for each day, one by one, it is akin to taking interest, as the laborer works and receives less than he is entitled to in exchange for early payment. And therefore, it should be prohibited to derive benefit from him. Whereas the baraita states: If one hires him from now to work for one dinar a day over an extended period of time, including the harvest, and one day of a laborer鈥檚 work during the harvest is worth one sela, this is permitted. Why is it permitted? But isn鈥檛 it payment for waiting, i.e., for advancing the money to the laborer?
讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘砖讻讬专讜转 诪讬 讗住讬专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗
Rava said: And how can you understand the baraita in that manner? Is it prohibited for one to lower his hiring price and receive lower wages in order to ensure that he is employed? This arrangement is not a form of interest and violates no prohibition. The Gemara asks: If this is not considered taking interest, then what is different in the first clause, where the laborer is not employed immediately and this arrangement is prohibited, and what is different in the latter clause, where it is permitted?
专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讘讛讚讬讛 诪讛砖转讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻讬 讗讙专 谞讟专 诇讬 住讬驻讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 讘讛讚讬讛 诪讛砖转讗 诇讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻讬 讗讙专 谞讟专 诇讬:
The Gemara explains: In the first clause, as the laborer does not work with him from now, it has the appearance of payment for waiting, i.e., advancing the money to the laborer. In the latter clause, as the laborer works with him from now, it does not have the appearance of payment for waiting.
讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讞讜讘专 讘拽专拽注 讜转诇砖 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 拽谞讛: 诪砖讜诐 讚转诇砖 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讬驻讛 诇讱 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜拽谞讬 讻诇 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛:
搂 The mishna teaches: And if the flax was attached to the ground and he detached any amount, he has acquired it. The Gemara asks: Is it correct to say that due to the fact that he detached any amount, he acquired it? If he does not perform an act of acquisition with all of the flax, how can he acquire all of it? Rav Sheshet said: Here we are dealing with a case where the seller said to him: Go and clear for yourself any amount of land, and thereby acquire everything that is on it. When the buyer clears the land by detaching the flax from the ground, he is considered to be renting the land and thereby acquires all the flax that grows on it.
诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讜拽专讜 讗讜 砖讛讜讝诇讜 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转诪诇讗转 讛诪讚讛 诇诪讜讻专 诪砖谞转诪诇讗转 讛诪讚讛 诇诇讜拽讞 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 住专住讜专 讘讬谞讬讛谉 谞砖讘专讛 讛讞讘讬转 谞砖讘专讛 诇住专住讜专
MISHNA: With regard to one who sells food or drink that has an established price, such as wine and oil, to another, and the price rises or falls and the buyer or the seller wishes to renege on the sale, if the price changed before the measuring vessel is filled, the merchandise still belongs to the seller and he can cancel the sale. Once the measuring vessel is filled the merchandise belongs to the buyer, and the seller can no longer cancel the sale. And if there was a middleman [sarsur] between them and the barrel belonging to the middleman, being used to measure the merchandise, broke during the transaction and the merchandise is ruined, it broke for the middleman, i.e., he is responsible for the ruined merchandise.
讜讞讬讬讘 诇讛讟讬祝 诇讜 砖诇砖 讟讬驻讬谉 讛专讻讬谞讛 讜诪讬爪讬转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 诪讜讻专 讜讛讞谞讜讜谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讟讬祝 砖诇砖 讟讬驻讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 驻讟讜专:
The mishna teaches an additional halakha with regard to sales: And anyone who sells wine, oil, or similar liquids is obligated, after he transfers the liquid into the buyer鈥檚 vessel, to drip for him three extra drops from the measure. After he drips those three drops, if he turned the barrel on its side and drained out the last bits of liquid that it contained, this belongs to the seller and he is not required to give these last drops to the buyer. And a storekeeper is not obligated to drip three drops, because he is too busy to do this constantly. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the sale occurs on Shabbat eve as nightfall arrives, one is exempt from dripping these three drops, as there is a need to complete the transaction before Shabbat begins.
讙诪壮 讛讗 诪讚讛 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讛 讚诇讜拽讞 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转诪诇讗转 诪讚讛 诇诪讜讻专 诪讚讛 讚诇讜拽讞 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讗 诪讚讛 讚诪讜讻专 诪砖谞转诪诇讗转 诪讚讛 诇诇讜拽讞 诪讚讛 讚诪讜讻专 讛讬讗
GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the mishna鈥檚 statement that the sale occurs once the measuring vessel is filled. This measuring vessel, to whom does it belong? If we say that the measuring vessel belongs to the buyer, why does the mishna teach that before the measuring vessel is filled the merchandise still belongs to the seller? Since it is the measuring vessel of the buyer, he should acquire everything that is placed in his vessel, whether or not it is filled. But if we say that the measuring vessel belongs to the seller, why does the mishna teach that once the measuring vessel is filled the merchandise belongs to the buyer? Since it is the measuring vessel of the seller, the merchandise has yet to enter the possession of the buyer.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讘诪讚转 住专住讜专 讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 住专住讜专 讘讬谞讬讛诐 谞砖讘专讛 讛讞讘讬转 谞砖讘专讛 诇住专住讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讘住专住讜专 注住拽讬谞谉 专讬砖讗 诪讚讛 讘诇讗 住专住讜专 住讬驻讗 讘住专住讜专 注爪诪讜:
Rabbi Ela says: The mishna is referring to a case where the measuring vessel belongs to the middleman. The middleman lends it to the seller, and once it is filled it is loaned to the buyer so that he can transfer its contents into his vessels. The Gemara asks: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: And if there was a middleman between them and the barrel broke, it broke for the middleman, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with a middleman. The Gemara answers: The first clause addresses a measuring vessel belonging to a middleman without the presence of the middleman at the transaction, whereas the latter clause is concerned with a middleman himself, who is present at the sale and therefore accepts responsibility for the barrel and its contents.
讛专讻讬谞讛 讜诪讬爪讬转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 诪讜讻专: 讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讻讗谉 转谞讗 讚讗转谞讬讬讛 专讘 诪讚讜转 讗讞讜讬讬讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讚转谞谉 讛专讻讬谞讛 讜诪讬爪讬转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 诪讜讻专
搂 The mishna teaches that if he turned the barrel on its side and drained out the last bits of liquid within it, this liquid belongs to the seller. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Elazar ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Ze鈥檈iri and said to him: Who here is the tanna to whom Rav taught this halakha with regard to measures? Ze鈥檈iri showed him Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi. Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said to Rabbi Elazar: What is it about this halakha that poses a difficulty for you? Rabbi Elazar said to him that the problem is that we learned in the mishna: If he turned the barrel on its side and drained out the last bits of liquid within it, that liquid belongs to the seller.
讜讛转谞谉 讛专讻讬谞讛 讜诪讬爪讛 讛专讬 讝讜 转专讜诪讛
But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Terumot 11:8): If one poured oil or wine of teruma from one vessel to another and turned the vessel on its side and drained out the last bits of liquid inside, this is teruma and must be given to the priest? This indicates that the last remnants of the liquid in the vessel belong to the one who receives the oil or wine, not the owner, i.e., the seller. Why, then, does the mishna here teach that the last remnants belong to the seller?
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讬讗讜砖 讘注诇讬诐 谞讙注讜 讘讛:
Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said to Rabbi Elazar: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Abbahu says: Due to of the despair of the owner, who relinquishes his right to such a small amount of wine or oil, the Sages touched upon it and ruled that any remnants extracted from the vessel belong to the seller? By contrast, with regard to teruma, which is forbidden to non-priests, the despair of the buyer is irrelevant, and therefore anything that remains in the vessels is teruma.
讜讛讞谞讜讜谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讟讬祝 讜讻讜壮: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜诇拽讜诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讞讜诪专讗
搂 The mishna teaches: And a storekeeper is not obligated to drip three drops. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the sale occurs on Shabbat eve as nightfall arrives, one is exempt from dripping these three drops. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yehuda referring to the first clause of the mishna, and if so his ruling is lenient, as the mishna states that one must drip three drops and he states that on Shabbat eve one is exempt from doing so? Or perhaps he is referring to the latter clause and is stringent, as the mishna teaches that a storekeeper is always exempt, whereas Rabbi Yehuda rules that this is the halakha only on Shabbat eve?
转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讞谞讜讜谞讬 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讞谞讜讜谞讬 讟专讜讚:
The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: On Shabbat eve at nightfall a storekeeper is exempt because the storekeeper is busy. This proves that Rabbi Yehuda was referring to the latter clause of the mishna, i.e., he exempts the storekeeper from dripping the drops only on Shabbat eve.
诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜诇讞 讗转 讘谞讜 讗爪诇 讞谞讜讜谞讬 讜驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 讘讬讚讜 讜诪讚讚 诇讜 讘讗讬住专 砖诪谉 讜谞转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讗讬住专 砖讘专 讗转 讛爪诇讜讞讬转 讜讗讘讚 讗转 讛讗讬住专 讞谞讜讜谞讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 砖诇讞讜 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛爪诇讜讞讬转 讘讬讚 讛转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讚讚 讞谞讜讜谞讬 诇转讜讻讛 砖讞谞讜讜谞讬 驻讟讜专:
MISHNA: With regard to one who sends his son to a storekeeper with a pundeyon, a coin worth two issar, in his hand, and the storekeeper measured oil for him for one issar and gave him the second issar as change, and the son broke the jug and lost the issar, the storekeeper must compensate the father, as he gave the jug and coin to one who is not halakhically competent. Rabbi Yehuda exempts him from liability, as he holds that the father sent his son in order to do this, i.e., to bring back the jug and coin. And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to a case when the jug is in the hand of the child and the storekeeper measured the oil into it that the storekeeper is exempt if the child breaks the jug.
讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讗讬住专 讜砖诪谉 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗讜讚讜注讬 砖讚专讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇砖讚讜专讬 诇讬讛 砖讚专讬讛 讗诇讗 砖讘专 爪诇讜讞讬转 讗讘讚讛 诪讚注转 讛讬讗
GEMARA: Granted, with regard to the issar and the oil, one can explain that they disagree over this matter: As the Rabbis hold that the father sent his son to inform the storekeeper that he needed oil but did not intend for the storekeeper to send the oil with the boy. For this reason, if the storekeeper gave the child the oil he is liable for its loss. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that he sent his son so that the storekeeper would send him back with the oil, and therefore the storekeeper is exempt from liability. But if the child broke the jug, why do the Rabbis hold that the storekeeper is responsible for it? It is a deliberate loss on the part of the father, as he entrusted the jug to his young son, who is not responsible enough to care for it.
讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛讻讗 讘讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讜讻专 爪诇讜讞讬讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 讞谞讜讜谞讬 注诇 诪谞转 诇讘拽专讛 讜讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛谞讜讟诇 讻诇讬 诪谉 讛讗讜诪谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇讘拽专讜 讜谞讗谞住 讘讬讚讜 讞讬讬讘
Rav Hoshaya said: Here we are dealing with a proprietor who sells jugs, and the father sent his son with a jug in case the store owner might want to buy it. And this is a case where the storekeeper took the jug in order to examine it, and the ruling is in accordance with a statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: With regard to one who takes a vessel from a craftsman in order to examine it and buy it if he chooses, and an accident occurred while it was in his possession and it broke, he is liable to pay restitution for the vessel. He has the halakhic status of a borrower, and therefore he bears financial responsibility for the loss.
诇讬诪讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 讘讞谞讜讜谞讬 诪讜讻专 爪诇讜讞讬讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜
The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the opinion of Shmuel is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? Since Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis, his opinion evidently differs from that of Shmuel. Rather, Rabba and Rav Yosef both say that the disagreement in the mishna should be explained as follows: Here, we are dealing with a storekeeper who sells jugs, and the father sent his son to buy from him a jug filled with oil. And Rabbi Yehuda follows his line of reasoning, as explained above, that the father sent his son to bring back the merchandise, and the Rabbis follow their line of reasoning, that the father sent the son to inform the storekeeper what he needed, but not to carry it back.
讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛爪诇讜讞讬转 讘讬讚 讛转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讚讚 讞谞讜讜谞讬 诇转讜讻讛 砖讞谞讜讜谞讬 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 诇讗讜讚讜注讬 砖讚专讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉
The Gemara asks: If that is so, say the last clause: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda in a case when the jug was in the hand of the child, and the storekeeper measured the oil into it, that the storekeeper is exempt. Why would the Rabbis rule that the storekeeper is exempt? But you said that the father sent his son only to inform the storekeeper of his order, but he did not intend for the storekeeper to give anything to his son. Rather, Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi 岣nina bar Avin both say that the disagreement in the mishna should be explained as follows: With what are we dealing here?
-
This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Bava Batra 87
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讜诇讙讜专谉 讬驻讛 住诇注 讗住讜专 诇讛谞讜转 讛讬诪谞讜 讗讘诇 讗诐 砖讻专讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讘讚讬谞专 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讙讜专谉 讬驻讛 住诇注 诪讜转专
and a day of a laborer鈥檚 work during the harvest is worth a sela, the equivalent of four silver dinars, for each day, it is prohibited to derive benefit from him, i.e., one may not employ the laborer under these conditions. The reason is that this is akin to taking interest, as the laborer works and receives less than he is entitled to in exchange for early payment. But if one hires him already from now to work for one dinar a day for an extended period of time, including the harvest season, and the work of a laborer during the harvest is worth a sela, this is permitted.
讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讜专 讘砖诇砖讬诐 住讗讛 讘住诇注 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 拽诪讗 拽诪讗 诪讬驻住拽 驻住拽 讜讗住讜专 诇讛谞讜转 讛讬诪谞讜 诪讚讬谞专 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讙讜专谉 讬驻讛 住诇注 诪讜转专 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 讗讙专 谞讟专 诇讬 讛讜讗
And if it enters your mind, as Rav and Shmuel claim, that if a seller said: I am selling you one kor for thirty sela, each se鈥檃 for one sela, he cannot fully renege on the sale in the middle of the transaction, as the buyer acquires each se鈥檃 one by one as it is measured, then the halakha in this case should be different. Here too, as he does not agree to one large sum but fixes a price for each day, one by one, it is akin to taking interest, as the laborer works and receives less than he is entitled to in exchange for early payment. And therefore, it should be prohibited to derive benefit from him. Whereas the baraita states: If one hires him from now to work for one dinar a day over an extended period of time, including the harvest, and one day of a laborer鈥檚 work during the harvest is worth one sela, this is permitted. Why is it permitted? But isn鈥檛 it payment for waiting, i.e., for advancing the money to the laborer?
讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘砖讻讬专讜转 诪讬 讗住讬专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗
Rava said: And how can you understand the baraita in that manner? Is it prohibited for one to lower his hiring price and receive lower wages in order to ensure that he is employed? This arrangement is not a form of interest and violates no prohibition. The Gemara asks: If this is not considered taking interest, then what is different in the first clause, where the laborer is not employed immediately and this arrangement is prohibited, and what is different in the latter clause, where it is permitted?
专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讘讛讚讬讛 诪讛砖转讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻讬 讗讙专 谞讟专 诇讬 住讬驻讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 讘讛讚讬讛 诪讛砖转讗 诇讗 诪讬讞讝讬 讻讬 讗讙专 谞讟专 诇讬:
The Gemara explains: In the first clause, as the laborer does not work with him from now, it has the appearance of payment for waiting, i.e., advancing the money to the laborer. In the latter clause, as the laborer works with him from now, it does not have the appearance of payment for waiting.
讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讞讜讘专 讘拽专拽注 讜转诇砖 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 拽谞讛: 诪砖讜诐 讚转诇砖 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讬驻讛 诇讱 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜拽谞讬 讻诇 诪讛 砖注诇讬讛:
搂 The mishna teaches: And if the flax was attached to the ground and he detached any amount, he has acquired it. The Gemara asks: Is it correct to say that due to the fact that he detached any amount, he acquired it? If he does not perform an act of acquisition with all of the flax, how can he acquire all of it? Rav Sheshet said: Here we are dealing with a case where the seller said to him: Go and clear for yourself any amount of land, and thereby acquire everything that is on it. When the buyer clears the land by detaching the flax from the ground, he is considered to be renting the land and thereby acquires all the flax that grows on it.
诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讜拽专讜 讗讜 砖讛讜讝诇讜 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转诪诇讗转 讛诪讚讛 诇诪讜讻专 诪砖谞转诪诇讗转 讛诪讚讛 诇诇讜拽讞 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 住专住讜专 讘讬谞讬讛谉 谞砖讘专讛 讛讞讘讬转 谞砖讘专讛 诇住专住讜专
MISHNA: With regard to one who sells food or drink that has an established price, such as wine and oil, to another, and the price rises or falls and the buyer or the seller wishes to renege on the sale, if the price changed before the measuring vessel is filled, the merchandise still belongs to the seller and he can cancel the sale. Once the measuring vessel is filled the merchandise belongs to the buyer, and the seller can no longer cancel the sale. And if there was a middleman [sarsur] between them and the barrel belonging to the middleman, being used to measure the merchandise, broke during the transaction and the merchandise is ruined, it broke for the middleman, i.e., he is responsible for the ruined merchandise.
讜讞讬讬讘 诇讛讟讬祝 诇讜 砖诇砖 讟讬驻讬谉 讛专讻讬谞讛 讜诪讬爪讬转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 诪讜讻专 讜讛讞谞讜讜谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讟讬祝 砖诇砖 讟讬驻讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 驻讟讜专:
The mishna teaches an additional halakha with regard to sales: And anyone who sells wine, oil, or similar liquids is obligated, after he transfers the liquid into the buyer鈥檚 vessel, to drip for him three extra drops from the measure. After he drips those three drops, if he turned the barrel on its side and drained out the last bits of liquid that it contained, this belongs to the seller and he is not required to give these last drops to the buyer. And a storekeeper is not obligated to drip three drops, because he is too busy to do this constantly. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the sale occurs on Shabbat eve as nightfall arrives, one is exempt from dripping these three drops, as there is a need to complete the transaction before Shabbat begins.
讙诪壮 讛讗 诪讚讛 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讛 讚诇讜拽讞 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转诪诇讗转 诪讚讛 诇诪讜讻专 诪讚讛 讚诇讜拽讞 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讗 诪讚讛 讚诪讜讻专 诪砖谞转诪诇讗转 诪讚讛 诇诇讜拽讞 诪讚讛 讚诪讜讻专 讛讬讗
GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the mishna鈥檚 statement that the sale occurs once the measuring vessel is filled. This measuring vessel, to whom does it belong? If we say that the measuring vessel belongs to the buyer, why does the mishna teach that before the measuring vessel is filled the merchandise still belongs to the seller? Since it is the measuring vessel of the buyer, he should acquire everything that is placed in his vessel, whether or not it is filled. But if we say that the measuring vessel belongs to the seller, why does the mishna teach that once the measuring vessel is filled the merchandise belongs to the buyer? Since it is the measuring vessel of the seller, the merchandise has yet to enter the possession of the buyer.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讘诪讚转 住专住讜专 讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 住专住讜专 讘讬谞讬讛诐 谞砖讘专讛 讛讞讘讬转 谞砖讘专讛 诇住专住讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讘住专住讜专 注住拽讬谞谉 专讬砖讗 诪讚讛 讘诇讗 住专住讜专 住讬驻讗 讘住专住讜专 注爪诪讜:
Rabbi Ela says: The mishna is referring to a case where the measuring vessel belongs to the middleman. The middleman lends it to the seller, and once it is filled it is loaned to the buyer so that he can transfer its contents into his vessels. The Gemara asks: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: And if there was a middleman between them and the barrel broke, it broke for the middleman, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with a middleman. The Gemara answers: The first clause addresses a measuring vessel belonging to a middleman without the presence of the middleman at the transaction, whereas the latter clause is concerned with a middleman himself, who is present at the sale and therefore accepts responsibility for the barrel and its contents.
讛专讻讬谞讛 讜诪讬爪讬转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 诪讜讻专: 讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讻讗谉 转谞讗 讚讗转谞讬讬讛 专讘 诪讚讜转 讗讞讜讬讬讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讚转谞谉 讛专讻讬谞讛 讜诪讬爪讬转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 诪讜讻专
搂 The mishna teaches that if he turned the barrel on its side and drained out the last bits of liquid within it, this liquid belongs to the seller. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Elazar ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Ze鈥檈iri and said to him: Who here is the tanna to whom Rav taught this halakha with regard to measures? Ze鈥檈iri showed him Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi. Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said to Rabbi Elazar: What is it about this halakha that poses a difficulty for you? Rabbi Elazar said to him that the problem is that we learned in the mishna: If he turned the barrel on its side and drained out the last bits of liquid within it, that liquid belongs to the seller.
讜讛转谞谉 讛专讻讬谞讛 讜诪讬爪讛 讛专讬 讝讜 转专讜诪讛
But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Terumot 11:8): If one poured oil or wine of teruma from one vessel to another and turned the vessel on its side and drained out the last bits of liquid inside, this is teruma and must be given to the priest? This indicates that the last remnants of the liquid in the vessel belong to the one who receives the oil or wine, not the owner, i.e., the seller. Why, then, does the mishna here teach that the last remnants belong to the seller?
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讬讗讜砖 讘注诇讬诐 谞讙注讜 讘讛:
Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said to Rabbi Elazar: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Abbahu says: Due to of the despair of the owner, who relinquishes his right to such a small amount of wine or oil, the Sages touched upon it and ruled that any remnants extracted from the vessel belong to the seller? By contrast, with regard to teruma, which is forbidden to non-priests, the despair of the buyer is irrelevant, and therefore anything that remains in the vessels is teruma.
讜讛讞谞讜讜谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讟讬祝 讜讻讜壮: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜诇拽讜诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讞讜诪专讗
搂 The mishna teaches: And a storekeeper is not obligated to drip three drops. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the sale occurs on Shabbat eve as nightfall arrives, one is exempt from dripping these three drops. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yehuda referring to the first clause of the mishna, and if so his ruling is lenient, as the mishna states that one must drip three drops and he states that on Shabbat eve one is exempt from doing so? Or perhaps he is referring to the latter clause and is stringent, as the mishna teaches that a storekeeper is always exempt, whereas Rabbi Yehuda rules that this is the halakha only on Shabbat eve?
转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 讞谞讜讜谞讬 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讞谞讜讜谞讬 讟专讜讚:
The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: On Shabbat eve at nightfall a storekeeper is exempt because the storekeeper is busy. This proves that Rabbi Yehuda was referring to the latter clause of the mishna, i.e., he exempts the storekeeper from dripping the drops only on Shabbat eve.
诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜诇讞 讗转 讘谞讜 讗爪诇 讞谞讜讜谞讬 讜驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 讘讬讚讜 讜诪讚讚 诇讜 讘讗讬住专 砖诪谉 讜谞转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讗讬住专 砖讘专 讗转 讛爪诇讜讞讬转 讜讗讘讚 讗转 讛讗讬住专 讞谞讜讜谞讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 砖诇讞讜 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛爪诇讜讞讬转 讘讬讚 讛转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讚讚 讞谞讜讜谞讬 诇转讜讻讛 砖讞谞讜讜谞讬 驻讟讜专:
MISHNA: With regard to one who sends his son to a storekeeper with a pundeyon, a coin worth two issar, in his hand, and the storekeeper measured oil for him for one issar and gave him the second issar as change, and the son broke the jug and lost the issar, the storekeeper must compensate the father, as he gave the jug and coin to one who is not halakhically competent. Rabbi Yehuda exempts him from liability, as he holds that the father sent his son in order to do this, i.e., to bring back the jug and coin. And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to a case when the jug is in the hand of the child and the storekeeper measured the oil into it that the storekeeper is exempt if the child breaks the jug.
讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讗讬住专 讜砖诪谉 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗讜讚讜注讬 砖讚专讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇砖讚讜专讬 诇讬讛 砖讚专讬讛 讗诇讗 砖讘专 爪诇讜讞讬转 讗讘讚讛 诪讚注转 讛讬讗
GEMARA: Granted, with regard to the issar and the oil, one can explain that they disagree over this matter: As the Rabbis hold that the father sent his son to inform the storekeeper that he needed oil but did not intend for the storekeeper to send the oil with the boy. For this reason, if the storekeeper gave the child the oil he is liable for its loss. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that he sent his son so that the storekeeper would send him back with the oil, and therefore the storekeeper is exempt from liability. But if the child broke the jug, why do the Rabbis hold that the storekeeper is responsible for it? It is a deliberate loss on the part of the father, as he entrusted the jug to his young son, who is not responsible enough to care for it.
讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛讻讗 讘讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讜讻专 爪诇讜讞讬讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 讞谞讜讜谞讬 注诇 诪谞转 诇讘拽专讛 讜讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛谞讜讟诇 讻诇讬 诪谉 讛讗讜诪谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇讘拽专讜 讜谞讗谞住 讘讬讚讜 讞讬讬讘
Rav Hoshaya said: Here we are dealing with a proprietor who sells jugs, and the father sent his son with a jug in case the store owner might want to buy it. And this is a case where the storekeeper took the jug in order to examine it, and the ruling is in accordance with a statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: With regard to one who takes a vessel from a craftsman in order to examine it and buy it if he chooses, and an accident occurred while it was in his possession and it broke, he is liable to pay restitution for the vessel. He has the halakhic status of a borrower, and therefore he bears financial responsibility for the loss.
诇讬诪讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 讘讞谞讜讜谞讬 诪讜讻专 爪诇讜讞讬讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜
The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the opinion of Shmuel is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? Since Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis, his opinion evidently differs from that of Shmuel. Rather, Rabba and Rav Yosef both say that the disagreement in the mishna should be explained as follows: Here, we are dealing with a storekeeper who sells jugs, and the father sent his son to buy from him a jug filled with oil. And Rabbi Yehuda follows his line of reasoning, as explained above, that the father sent his son to bring back the merchandise, and the Rabbis follow their line of reasoning, that the father sent the son to inform the storekeeper what he needed, but not to carry it back.
讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛爪诇讜讞讬转 讘讬讚 讛转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讚讚 讞谞讜讜谞讬 诇转讜讻讛 砖讞谞讜讜谞讬 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 诇讗讜讚讜注讬 砖讚专讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉
The Gemara asks: If that is so, say the last clause: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda in a case when the jug was in the hand of the child, and the storekeeper measured the oil into it, that the storekeeper is exempt. Why would the Rabbis rule that the storekeeper is exempt? But you said that the father sent his son only to inform the storekeeper of his order, but he did not intend for the storekeeper to give anything to his son. Rather, Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi 岣nina bar Avin both say that the disagreement in the mishna should be explained as follows: With what are we dealing here?
