Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 20, 2017 | 讻状讚 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 88

The gemara聽brings another two possibilities of how to understand the mishna and concludes that the last one is correct – that it is a case where the store owner used the father’s flask for measuring for others and he became a borrower who borrows without asking permission from the owner. 聽The debate in the mishna is – do we view this kind of borrower as a borrower (who does not assume responsibility once the item is return to the place it was borrowed from) or do we treat him like a thief who is responsible until the item is returned to the original owner (or to a safe place). 聽The gemara聽explains more in details Shmuel’s law that one who picks up an item to purchase is responsible for accidental damages. 聽How often does one need to clean his measuring cups? 聽It depends if he is the wholesaler, a homeowner, or a storekeeper. 聽Details regarding a storekeeper and his weights are discussed – there is a law based on a verse from the Torah that one needs to side a bit on the side of the buyer (and add a bit extra that then exact measurement). 聽How much does one need to add? 聽How much does it depend on the prevalent custom in that area? 聽A discussion of measuring the seriousness of the laws of weights and measurements is discussed as the gemara compares it to illicit relations.

讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 诇诪讜讚 讘讛 讜讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讬砖讛 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讛

The mishna is referring to a case where the storekeeper took the jug from the child in order to measure with it for him, and because he took it in his hands, he is liable in the event of an accident, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba. As Rabba says: With regard to the obligation to return lost animals, even in a case where the finder is exempt from caring for the animal and returning it to its owner, e.g., if he is an elderly person and it is beneath his dignity, if he struck the animal in order to lead it, then he becomes obligated to return it. Likewise, the Rabbis here maintain that the storekeeper鈥檚 action renders him liable for the jug.

讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讚讗谞拽讟讬谞讛讜 谞讬讙专讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara asks: You can say that Rabba says his statement with regard to animals, as the finder taught them to take steps away, i.e., he worsened the situation, as he causes them to stray even further from their owner. Nevertheless, in a case like this, where the storekeeper took the jug from the child, did Rabba say that the storekeeper is liable? The storekeeper鈥檚 action does not make it any more likely that the jug will break.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗谞讬 讜讗专讬 砖讘讞讘讜专讛 转专讙讬诪谞讜讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 诇诪讜讚 讘讛 诇讗讞专讬诐

Rather, Rava said: I and the lion of the group explained it. And who is this great Sage, referred to as a lion? It is Rabbi Zeira, and the explanation is as follows: Here we are dealing with a case where the storekeeper took the jug from the child in order to measure with it for others, without the knowledge of the father.

讜讘砖讜讗诇 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 砖讜讗诇 讛讜讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬

And the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to a borrower who takes an item without the owner鈥檚 knowledge. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the storekeeper is considered like any other borrower and once he returns the jug to the child, he is no longer responsible for it. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that someone who borrows without the owner鈥檚 knowledge is a robber and is obligated to return the item to its owner. Therefore, the storekeeper must pay for the jug that the child broke before it reached the father.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛谞讜讟诇 讻诇讬 诪谉 讛讗讜诪谉 诇讘拽专讜 讜谞讗谞住 讘讬讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讬爪讬 讚诪讬讛

The Gemara returns to the matter itself. Shmuel says: With regard to one who takes a vessel from a craftsman in order to examine it, and an accident occurred while it was in his possession and it broke, he is liable to pay restitution for the vessel. The Gemara explains: And this statement applies only in a case where the monetary value of the vessel is fixed, because he examines the vessel merely to ensure there is nothing wrong with it, and it is assumed that if he finds no defect he will buy it.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚注诇 诇讘讬 讟讘讞讗 讗讙讘讛 讗讟诪讗 讚讘讬砖专讗 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗 讗讙讘讛 讗转讗 驻专砖讗 诪专诪讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬诪专 讞讬讬讘讬讛 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讚诪讬讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讬爪讬 讚诪讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who entered a butcher shop and lifted a thigh of meat to examine it. While he was lifting it, a horseman came and seized it from him. The buyer came before Rav Yeimar, who deemed him liable to pay its monetary value to the seller, because it was seized from him after he had lifted it. The Gemara again notes: And this matter, i.e., halakha, applies only in a place where the monetary value of the item is fixed, and therefore lifting it is equivalent to finalizing the sale.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讬讬转讬 拽讗专讬 诇驻讜诐 谞讛专讗 讗转讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖拽讜诇 拽专讗 拽专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛专讬 讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诇砖诪讬诐

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain man who brought pumpkins to the city of Pum Nahara. Everyone came and took a pumpkin with the intention of buying it, but had yet to pay for it. The seller was angry, and since he did not know from whom to demand payment, he said to them: The pumpkins are hereby consecrated to Heaven.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽讚讬砖 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讬爪讬 讚诪讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 拽讬爪讬 讚诪讬讬讛讜 讘专砖讜转 诪专讬讬讛讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讜砖驻讬专 讗拽讚讬砖

They came before Rav Kahana to inquire about the halakhic status of the pumpkins. Rav Kahana said to them: This statement has no effect, as a person cannot consecrate an item that is not his, and since the buyers had lifted the pumpkins, they no longer belonged to the seller. Once again the Gemara points out: And this matter, i.e., halakha, applies only in a place where the item鈥檚 monetary value is fixed, and therefore lifting it is akin to finalizing the sale. But if the item鈥檚 monetary value is not fixed, it remains in the jurisdiction of its owner, and the seller did well, i.e., was successful, in that he consecrated it.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讬专拽 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讜讘讬专专 讜讛谞讬讞 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专

The Sages taught: In the case of one who wishes to buy vegetables from the market and the seller is an am ha鈥檃retz, i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to tithes, in which case the buyer is required to separate tithes after his purchase, and he selected superior-quality vegetables from inferior-quality vegetables and placed them to the side, as he was considering purchasing them, even if he did this all day, if he does not decide to buy the vegetables he does not acquire them and does not become obligated in separating tithes.

讙诪专 讘诇讘讜 诇拽谞讜转讜 拽谞讛 讜谞转讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专 诇讛讞讝讬专讜 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专 讜诇注砖专讜 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讻讘专 诪驻讞讬转谉 讘讚诪讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪注砖专讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 诪注砖专

If he had determined to buy the vegetables he selected, he acquires them and becomes obligated in separating tithes. In such a case, it is not possible for him to decide to not buy the vegetables and to return them to the seller in their present state, as they have already became obligated in tithes, and, likewise, it is not possible to tithe them and return them to the seller, as he would then lower their monetary value. How should he proceed? He should tithe the produce, give the tithes to an appropriate recipient, and give the seller money in exchange for the tithes that he separated from it.

讗讟讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讙诪专 讘诇讘讜 诇拽谞讜转 拽谞讛 讜谞转讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛讻讗 讘讬专讗 砖诪讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 专讘 住驻专讗 讚拽讬讬诐 讘谞驻砖讬讛 讜讚讘专 讗诪转 讘诇讘讘讜

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that because one determined to buy the produce, even though he says nothing and performs no act of acquisition, he acquires the produce and becomes obligated in tithes? Rav Hoshaya said: Here, we are dealing with a buyer who is God-fearing, such as Rav Safra, who himself fulfilled the verse: 鈥淎nd speaks truth in his heart鈥 (Psalms 15:2). With regard to business matters Rav Safra considered himself bound by his thoughts at the time of negotiations, even if he did not express them verbally or perform any action (see Makkot 24a). A person on the ethical level of Rav Safra acquires the produce and becomes obligated to separate tithes from the moment that he decides to buy it.

诪转谞讬壮 讛住讬讟讜谉 诪拽谞讞 诪讚讜转讬讜 讗讞讚 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讞讚 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞讬诇讜祝 讛讚讘专讬诐

MISHNA: A wholesaler [hassiton] must clean his measuring vessels, which are used for measuring liquids such as oil and wine, once every thirty days, because the residue of the liquids sticks to the measure and reduces its capacity. And a homeowner who sells his goods must clean his measuring vessels only once every twelve months. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The matters are reversed. In the case of one who is constantly using his vessels for selling merchandise the residue does not adhere to the measuring vessel, and therefore a wholesaler must clean his measures only once a year. But in the case of a homeowner, who does not sell as often, the residue adheres to the measuring vessel; therefore, he must clean them every thirty days.

讞谞讜讜谞讬 诪拽谞讞 诪讚讜转讬讜 驻注诪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜诪诪讞讛 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖讘转 讜诪拽谞讞 诪讗讝谞讬诐 注诇 讻诇 诪砖拽诇 讜诪砖拽诇 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诇讞 讗讘诇 讘讬讘砖 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

A storekeeper, who constantly sells merchandise in small quantities, cleans his measuring vessels twice a week and cleans his weights once a week; and he cleans the pans of his scales after each and every weighing, to ensure that no merchandise has adhered to the pans, thereby increasing their weight. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement, that it is necessary to clean a measuring vessel, said? With regard to moist items, which are likely to adhere to the measuring vessels. But with regard to dry goods, which do not adhere to the measuring vessels, one does not need to clean his measuring vessels.

讜讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬注 诇讜 讟驻讞 讛讬讛 砖讜拽诇 诇讜 注讬谉 讘注讬谉 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讙讬专讜诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诇注砖专讛 讘诇讞 讜讗讞讚 诇注砖专讬诐 讘讬讘砖

And before adding the weights and merchandise the seller is obligated to let the pans of the scale that will hold the merchandise tilt an extra handbreadth for the buyer by adding a weight to that side. If the seller weighed for him exactly, i.e., with the scales equally balanced initially, instead of allowing the scales to tilt an extra handbreadth, he must give the buyer additional amounts [geirumin], an additional one-tenth in the case of liquids sold by weight, and an additional one-twentieth in the case of dry goods.

诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇诪讜讚 讘讚拽讛 诇讗 讬诪讜讚 讘讙住讛 讘讙住讛 诇讗 讬诪讜讚 讘讚拽讛 诇诪讞讜拽 诇讗 讬讙讚讜砖 诇讙讚讜砖 诇讗 讬诪讞讜拽

The mishna continues to discuss the correct method of weighing: In a place where they were accustomed to measure merchandise in several stages with a small measuring vessel, one may not measure all the items at once with a single large measuring vessel. In a place where they measure with one large measuring vessel, one may not measure with several small measuring vessels. In a place where the custom is to level the top of the measuring vessel to remove substances heaped above its edges, one may not heap it, and where the custom is to heap it, one may not level it.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讘谉 砖诇诪讛 讜爪讚拽 爪讚拽 诪砖诇讱 讜转谉 诇讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讬讛 砖讜拽诇 诇讜 注讬谉 讘注讬谉 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讙讬专讜诪讬谉 讜讗讬 讛讻专注讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讻讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 注讬谉 讘注讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that the seller must initially let the scales tilt an extra handbreadth, derived? Reish Lakish said: The source is that the verse states that one should have: 鈥淎 perfect and just [tzedek] weight鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:15), which is interpreted as an instruction to the seller: Be righteous [tzaddek] with that which is yours and give it to the buyer. The Gemara asks: If that is so, say the latter clause: If the seller weighed for him exactly, he gives the buyer additional amounts. But if letting the scales tilt is obligatory by Torah law, how can he originally give him by weighing exactly?

讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗住讬驻讗 讗讬转诪专 讛讬讛 砖讜拽诇 诇讜 注讬谉 讘注讬谉 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讙讬专讜诪讬谉 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜爪讚拽 爪讚拽 诪砖诇讱 讜转谉 诇讜 讜讻诪讛 讙讬专讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讛 讘诇讬讟专讗 讘诇讞 诇注砖专讛 诇讬讟专讬谉

Rather, it is not obligatory to let the scales tilt, and the first clause is referring to a place where they are accustomed to let the scales tilt an extra handbreadth. And if the statement of Reish Lakish was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause: If the seller weighed for him exactly, he gives the buyer additional amounts. From where is this matter derived? Reish Lakish said that this is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd just [tzedek],鈥 which indicates: Be righteous [tzaddek] with that which is yours and give it to the buyer. The Gemara asks: And how much are the additional amounts that are given? Rabbi Abba bar Memel says that Rav says: In the case of liquids, one-tenth of a litra for every ten litra, i.e., one-hundredth.

讗讞讚 诇注砖专讛 讘诇讞 讜讗讞讚 诇注砖专讬诐 讘讬讘砖 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讛 讘诇讞 诇注砖专讛 讚诇讞 讜讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 讘讬讘砖 诇注砖专讬诐 讚讬讘砖 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讛 诇注砖专讛 讚诇讞 讜诇注砖专讬诐 讚讬讘砖 转讬拽讜

The mishna teaches that the seller adds one-tenth in the case of liquids, and one-twentieth for dry goods. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is the tanna of the mishna speaking? Does he mean one-tenth in the case of liquids for every ten units of liquid, and similarly one-twentieth in the case of dry goods for every twenty units of dry goods, i.e., one four-hundredth? Or perhaps, he means one-tenth for every ten units of liquid, and similarly one-tenth for every twenty units of dry goods, i.e., one two- hundredth? The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 拽砖讛 注讜谞砖谉 砖诇 诪讚讜转 讬讜转专 诪注讜谞砖谉 砖诇 注专讬讜转 砖讝讛 谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 讗诇 讜讝讛 谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 讗诇讛 讜诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讗诇 拽砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讗讬诇讬 讛讗专抓 诇拽讞

Rabbi Levi says: The punishment for using false measures is more severe than the punishment for transgressing the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations. As in that case, forbidden relations, it is stated with regard to them a shortened term for the word 鈥渢hese鈥: El,鈥 in the verse: 鈥淔or all these [el ] abominations鈥 (Leviticus 18:27). And in this case, false measures, it is stated an expanded term for the word 鈥渢hese鈥: Elleh,鈥 in the verse: 鈥淔or all that do these [elleh] things, even all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:16). And from where may it be inferred that this expression el indicates that the prohibition is severe, based on which it is understood that the form this word takes indicates a level of severity? As it is written: 鈥淎nd the mighty [eilei] of the land he took away鈥 (Ezekiel 17:13).

讙讘讬 注专讬讜转 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讗诇讛 讛讛讜讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讚讜转 诪讻专转

The Gemara asks: But with regard to forbidden relations isn鈥檛 it also written: 鈥淔or whosoever shall do any of these [elleh] abominations鈥 (Leviticus 18:29)? If so, why is the punishment for using false measures considered harsher? The Gemara answers: That expression of 鈥elleh鈥 (Leviticus 18:29) in the context of forbidden relations does not serve to emphasize its severity. Rather, it serves to exclude one who uses deception in measures from the penalty of excision from the World-to-Come [karet].

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 注讜讚驻讬讬讛讜 讚讛转诐 讗驻砖专 讘转砖讜讘讛 讜讛讻讗 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讘转砖讜讘讛

The Gemara asks: But if the punishment is in fact less severe, what is the advantage, i.e., the greater severity, in the case of false measures? The Gemara answers that there, in the case of one who engages in forbidden relations, he has the possibility of repentance. But here, in the case of one who uses false measures, there is no possibility of repentance because he has no way of knowing whom he cheated, and is therefore unable to return the stolen money.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 拽砖讛 讙讝诇 讛讚讬讜讟 讬讜转专 诪讙讝诇 讙讘讜讛 砖讝讛 讛拽讚讬诐 讞讟讗 诇诪注讬诇讛 讜讝讛 讛拽讚讬诐 诪注讬诇讛 诇讞讟讗

And Rabbi Levi says: Robbing an ordinary person is more severe than robbing the Most High, i.e., taking consecrated property. As with regard to this regular robber, the verse states 鈥渟in鈥 before 鈥me鈥檌la鈥: 鈥淚f any one sin, and commit a trespass [me鈥檌la] against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbor鈥 (Leviticus 5:21). And with regard to that one who misuses consecrated items, the verse states me鈥檌la before sin: 鈥淚f any one engages in misuse [timol ma鈥檃l] and sins unwittingly鈥 (Leviticus 5:15).

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 讘讜讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻诪讚转 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讚转 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘专讱 讬砖专讗诇 讘注砖专讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 讜拽诇诇谉 讘砖诪谞讛 讘专讻谉 讘注砖专讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 诪讗诐 讘讞拽转讬 注讚 拽讜诪诪讬讜转

And Rabbi Levi says: Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The Holy One, Blessed be He, blessed the Jewish people with twenty-two, and cursed them with only eight. Rabbi Levi explains: He blessed them with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, from the first letter, alef, that begins the verse: 鈥淚f [im] you walk in My statutes鈥 (Leviticus 26:3), until 鈥渦pright [komemiyyut]鈥 (Leviticus 26:13), which ends with the letter tav, the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

讜拽诇诇谉 讘砖诪讜谞讛 诪讜讗诐 讘讞拽转讬 转诪讗住讜 注讚 讜讗转 讞拽转讬 讙注诇讛 谞驻砖诐

And He cursed them with eight letters, from the letter vav that begins the verse: 鈥淎nd if [ve鈥檌m] you shall reject My statutes鈥 (Leviticus 26:15), until: 鈥淎nd My statutes were abhorred by their soul [nafsham]鈥 (Leviticus 26:43), which ends with the letter mem. There are eight letters in the Hebrew alphabet from the letter vav to the letter mem, inclusive.

讜讗讬诇讜 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 讘专讻谉 讘砖诪讜谞讛 讜拽诇诇谉 讘注砖专讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 讘专讻谉 讘砖诪讜谞讛

And yet Moses, our teacher, who is flesh and blood, blessed them with eight letters, and cursed them with twenty-two. He blessed them with eight letters,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 88

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 88

讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 诇诪讜讚 讘讛 讜讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讬砖讛 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讛

The mishna is referring to a case where the storekeeper took the jug from the child in order to measure with it for him, and because he took it in his hands, he is liable in the event of an accident, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba. As Rabba says: With regard to the obligation to return lost animals, even in a case where the finder is exempt from caring for the animal and returning it to its owner, e.g., if he is an elderly person and it is beneath his dignity, if he struck the animal in order to lead it, then he becomes obligated to return it. Likewise, the Rabbis here maintain that the storekeeper鈥檚 action renders him liable for the jug.

讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讚讗谞拽讟讬谞讛讜 谞讬讙专讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara asks: You can say that Rabba says his statement with regard to animals, as the finder taught them to take steps away, i.e., he worsened the situation, as he causes them to stray even further from their owner. Nevertheless, in a case like this, where the storekeeper took the jug from the child, did Rabba say that the storekeeper is liable? The storekeeper鈥檚 action does not make it any more likely that the jug will break.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗谞讬 讜讗专讬 砖讘讞讘讜专讛 转专讙讬诪谞讜讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 诇诪讜讚 讘讛 诇讗讞专讬诐

Rather, Rava said: I and the lion of the group explained it. And who is this great Sage, referred to as a lion? It is Rabbi Zeira, and the explanation is as follows: Here we are dealing with a case where the storekeeper took the jug from the child in order to measure with it for others, without the knowledge of the father.

讜讘砖讜讗诇 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 砖讜讗诇 讛讜讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讙讝诇谉 讛讜讬

And the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to a borrower who takes an item without the owner鈥檚 knowledge. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the storekeeper is considered like any other borrower and once he returns the jug to the child, he is no longer responsible for it. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that someone who borrows without the owner鈥檚 knowledge is a robber and is obligated to return the item to its owner. Therefore, the storekeeper must pay for the jug that the child broke before it reached the father.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛谞讜讟诇 讻诇讬 诪谉 讛讗讜诪谉 诇讘拽专讜 讜谞讗谞住 讘讬讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讬爪讬 讚诪讬讛

The Gemara returns to the matter itself. Shmuel says: With regard to one who takes a vessel from a craftsman in order to examine it, and an accident occurred while it was in his possession and it broke, he is liable to pay restitution for the vessel. The Gemara explains: And this statement applies only in a case where the monetary value of the vessel is fixed, because he examines the vessel merely to ensure there is nothing wrong with it, and it is assumed that if he finds no defect he will buy it.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚注诇 诇讘讬 讟讘讞讗 讗讙讘讛 讗讟诪讗 讚讘讬砖专讗 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗 讗讙讘讛 讗转讗 驻专砖讗 诪专诪讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬诪专 讞讬讬讘讬讛 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讚诪讬讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讬爪讬 讚诪讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who entered a butcher shop and lifted a thigh of meat to examine it. While he was lifting it, a horseman came and seized it from him. The buyer came before Rav Yeimar, who deemed him liable to pay its monetary value to the seller, because it was seized from him after he had lifted it. The Gemara again notes: And this matter, i.e., halakha, applies only in a place where the monetary value of the item is fixed, and therefore lifting it is equivalent to finalizing the sale.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讬讬转讬 拽讗专讬 诇驻讜诐 谞讛专讗 讗转讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖拽讜诇 拽专讗 拽专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛专讬 讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诇砖诪讬诐

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain man who brought pumpkins to the city of Pum Nahara. Everyone came and took a pumpkin with the intention of buying it, but had yet to pay for it. The seller was angry, and since he did not know from whom to demand payment, he said to them: The pumpkins are hereby consecrated to Heaven.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽讚讬砖 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讬爪讬 讚诪讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 拽讬爪讬 讚诪讬讬讛讜 讘专砖讜转 诪专讬讬讛讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讜砖驻讬专 讗拽讚讬砖

They came before Rav Kahana to inquire about the halakhic status of the pumpkins. Rav Kahana said to them: This statement has no effect, as a person cannot consecrate an item that is not his, and since the buyers had lifted the pumpkins, they no longer belonged to the seller. Once again the Gemara points out: And this matter, i.e., halakha, applies only in a place where the item鈥檚 monetary value is fixed, and therefore lifting it is akin to finalizing the sale. But if the item鈥檚 monetary value is not fixed, it remains in the jurisdiction of its owner, and the seller did well, i.e., was successful, in that he consecrated it.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讬专拽 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讜讘讬专专 讜讛谞讬讞 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专

The Sages taught: In the case of one who wishes to buy vegetables from the market and the seller is an am ha鈥檃retz, i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to tithes, in which case the buyer is required to separate tithes after his purchase, and he selected superior-quality vegetables from inferior-quality vegetables and placed them to the side, as he was considering purchasing them, even if he did this all day, if he does not decide to buy the vegetables he does not acquire them and does not become obligated in separating tithes.

讙诪专 讘诇讘讜 诇拽谞讜转讜 拽谞讛 讜谞转讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专 诇讛讞讝讬专讜 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专 讜诇注砖专讜 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讻讘专 诪驻讞讬转谉 讘讚诪讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪注砖专讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 诪注砖专

If he had determined to buy the vegetables he selected, he acquires them and becomes obligated in separating tithes. In such a case, it is not possible for him to decide to not buy the vegetables and to return them to the seller in their present state, as they have already became obligated in tithes, and, likewise, it is not possible to tithe them and return them to the seller, as he would then lower their monetary value. How should he proceed? He should tithe the produce, give the tithes to an appropriate recipient, and give the seller money in exchange for the tithes that he separated from it.

讗讟讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讙诪专 讘诇讘讜 诇拽谞讜转 拽谞讛 讜谞转讞讬讬讘 讘诪注砖专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讛讻讗 讘讬专讗 砖诪讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 专讘 住驻专讗 讚拽讬讬诐 讘谞驻砖讬讛 讜讚讘专 讗诪转 讘诇讘讘讜

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that because one determined to buy the produce, even though he says nothing and performs no act of acquisition, he acquires the produce and becomes obligated in tithes? Rav Hoshaya said: Here, we are dealing with a buyer who is God-fearing, such as Rav Safra, who himself fulfilled the verse: 鈥淎nd speaks truth in his heart鈥 (Psalms 15:2). With regard to business matters Rav Safra considered himself bound by his thoughts at the time of negotiations, even if he did not express them verbally or perform any action (see Makkot 24a). A person on the ethical level of Rav Safra acquires the produce and becomes obligated to separate tithes from the moment that he decides to buy it.

诪转谞讬壮 讛住讬讟讜谉 诪拽谞讞 诪讚讜转讬讜 讗讞讚 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讞讚 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞讬诇讜祝 讛讚讘专讬诐

MISHNA: A wholesaler [hassiton] must clean his measuring vessels, which are used for measuring liquids such as oil and wine, once every thirty days, because the residue of the liquids sticks to the measure and reduces its capacity. And a homeowner who sells his goods must clean his measuring vessels only once every twelve months. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The matters are reversed. In the case of one who is constantly using his vessels for selling merchandise the residue does not adhere to the measuring vessel, and therefore a wholesaler must clean his measures only once a year. But in the case of a homeowner, who does not sell as often, the residue adheres to the measuring vessel; therefore, he must clean them every thirty days.

讞谞讜讜谞讬 诪拽谞讞 诪讚讜转讬讜 驻注诪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜诪诪讞讛 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖讘转 讜诪拽谞讞 诪讗讝谞讬诐 注诇 讻诇 诪砖拽诇 讜诪砖拽诇 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诇讞 讗讘诇 讘讬讘砖 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

A storekeeper, who constantly sells merchandise in small quantities, cleans his measuring vessels twice a week and cleans his weights once a week; and he cleans the pans of his scales after each and every weighing, to ensure that no merchandise has adhered to the pans, thereby increasing their weight. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement, that it is necessary to clean a measuring vessel, said? With regard to moist items, which are likely to adhere to the measuring vessels. But with regard to dry goods, which do not adhere to the measuring vessels, one does not need to clean his measuring vessels.

讜讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬注 诇讜 讟驻讞 讛讬讛 砖讜拽诇 诇讜 注讬谉 讘注讬谉 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讙讬专讜诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诇注砖专讛 讘诇讞 讜讗讞讚 诇注砖专讬诐 讘讬讘砖

And before adding the weights and merchandise the seller is obligated to let the pans of the scale that will hold the merchandise tilt an extra handbreadth for the buyer by adding a weight to that side. If the seller weighed for him exactly, i.e., with the scales equally balanced initially, instead of allowing the scales to tilt an extra handbreadth, he must give the buyer additional amounts [geirumin], an additional one-tenth in the case of liquids sold by weight, and an additional one-twentieth in the case of dry goods.

诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇诪讜讚 讘讚拽讛 诇讗 讬诪讜讚 讘讙住讛 讘讙住讛 诇讗 讬诪讜讚 讘讚拽讛 诇诪讞讜拽 诇讗 讬讙讚讜砖 诇讙讚讜砖 诇讗 讬诪讞讜拽

The mishna continues to discuss the correct method of weighing: In a place where they were accustomed to measure merchandise in several stages with a small measuring vessel, one may not measure all the items at once with a single large measuring vessel. In a place where they measure with one large measuring vessel, one may not measure with several small measuring vessels. In a place where the custom is to level the top of the measuring vessel to remove substances heaped above its edges, one may not heap it, and where the custom is to heap it, one may not level it.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讘谉 砖诇诪讛 讜爪讚拽 爪讚拽 诪砖诇讱 讜转谉 诇讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讬讛 砖讜拽诇 诇讜 注讬谉 讘注讬谉 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讙讬专讜诪讬谉 讜讗讬 讛讻专注讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讻讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 注讬谉 讘注讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that the seller must initially let the scales tilt an extra handbreadth, derived? Reish Lakish said: The source is that the verse states that one should have: 鈥淎 perfect and just [tzedek] weight鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:15), which is interpreted as an instruction to the seller: Be righteous [tzaddek] with that which is yours and give it to the buyer. The Gemara asks: If that is so, say the latter clause: If the seller weighed for him exactly, he gives the buyer additional amounts. But if letting the scales tilt is obligatory by Torah law, how can he originally give him by weighing exactly?

讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗住讬驻讗 讗讬转诪专 讛讬讛 砖讜拽诇 诇讜 注讬谉 讘注讬谉 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讙讬专讜诪讬谉 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜爪讚拽 爪讚拽 诪砖诇讱 讜转谉 诇讜 讜讻诪讛 讙讬专讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讛 讘诇讬讟专讗 讘诇讞 诇注砖专讛 诇讬讟专讬谉

Rather, it is not obligatory to let the scales tilt, and the first clause is referring to a place where they are accustomed to let the scales tilt an extra handbreadth. And if the statement of Reish Lakish was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause: If the seller weighed for him exactly, he gives the buyer additional amounts. From where is this matter derived? Reish Lakish said that this is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd just [tzedek],鈥 which indicates: Be righteous [tzaddek] with that which is yours and give it to the buyer. The Gemara asks: And how much are the additional amounts that are given? Rabbi Abba bar Memel says that Rav says: In the case of liquids, one-tenth of a litra for every ten litra, i.e., one-hundredth.

讗讞讚 诇注砖专讛 讘诇讞 讜讗讞讚 诇注砖专讬诐 讘讬讘砖 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讛 讘诇讞 诇注砖专讛 讚诇讞 讜讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 讘讬讘砖 诇注砖专讬诐 讚讬讘砖 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讛 诇注砖专讛 讚诇讞 讜诇注砖专讬诐 讚讬讘砖 转讬拽讜

The mishna teaches that the seller adds one-tenth in the case of liquids, and one-twentieth for dry goods. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is the tanna of the mishna speaking? Does he mean one-tenth in the case of liquids for every ten units of liquid, and similarly one-twentieth in the case of dry goods for every twenty units of dry goods, i.e., one four-hundredth? Or perhaps, he means one-tenth for every ten units of liquid, and similarly one-tenth for every twenty units of dry goods, i.e., one two- hundredth? The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 拽砖讛 注讜谞砖谉 砖诇 诪讚讜转 讬讜转专 诪注讜谞砖谉 砖诇 注专讬讜转 砖讝讛 谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 讗诇 讜讝讛 谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 讗诇讛 讜诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讗诇 拽砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讗讬诇讬 讛讗专抓 诇拽讞

Rabbi Levi says: The punishment for using false measures is more severe than the punishment for transgressing the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations. As in that case, forbidden relations, it is stated with regard to them a shortened term for the word 鈥渢hese鈥: El,鈥 in the verse: 鈥淔or all these [el ] abominations鈥 (Leviticus 18:27). And in this case, false measures, it is stated an expanded term for the word 鈥渢hese鈥: Elleh,鈥 in the verse: 鈥淔or all that do these [elleh] things, even all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:16). And from where may it be inferred that this expression el indicates that the prohibition is severe, based on which it is understood that the form this word takes indicates a level of severity? As it is written: 鈥淎nd the mighty [eilei] of the land he took away鈥 (Ezekiel 17:13).

讙讘讬 注专讬讜转 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讗诇讛 讛讛讜讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讚讜转 诪讻专转

The Gemara asks: But with regard to forbidden relations isn鈥檛 it also written: 鈥淔or whosoever shall do any of these [elleh] abominations鈥 (Leviticus 18:29)? If so, why is the punishment for using false measures considered harsher? The Gemara answers: That expression of 鈥elleh鈥 (Leviticus 18:29) in the context of forbidden relations does not serve to emphasize its severity. Rather, it serves to exclude one who uses deception in measures from the penalty of excision from the World-to-Come [karet].

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 注讜讚驻讬讬讛讜 讚讛转诐 讗驻砖专 讘转砖讜讘讛 讜讛讻讗 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讘转砖讜讘讛

The Gemara asks: But if the punishment is in fact less severe, what is the advantage, i.e., the greater severity, in the case of false measures? The Gemara answers that there, in the case of one who engages in forbidden relations, he has the possibility of repentance. But here, in the case of one who uses false measures, there is no possibility of repentance because he has no way of knowing whom he cheated, and is therefore unable to return the stolen money.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 拽砖讛 讙讝诇 讛讚讬讜讟 讬讜转专 诪讙讝诇 讙讘讜讛 砖讝讛 讛拽讚讬诐 讞讟讗 诇诪注讬诇讛 讜讝讛 讛拽讚讬诐 诪注讬诇讛 诇讞讟讗

And Rabbi Levi says: Robbing an ordinary person is more severe than robbing the Most High, i.e., taking consecrated property. As with regard to this regular robber, the verse states 鈥渟in鈥 before 鈥me鈥檌la鈥: 鈥淚f any one sin, and commit a trespass [me鈥檌la] against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbor鈥 (Leviticus 5:21). And with regard to that one who misuses consecrated items, the verse states me鈥檌la before sin: 鈥淚f any one engages in misuse [timol ma鈥檃l] and sins unwittingly鈥 (Leviticus 5:15).

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 讘讜讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻诪讚转 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讚转 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘专讱 讬砖专讗诇 讘注砖专讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 讜拽诇诇谉 讘砖诪谞讛 讘专讻谉 讘注砖专讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 诪讗诐 讘讞拽转讬 注讚 拽讜诪诪讬讜转

And Rabbi Levi says: Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The Holy One, Blessed be He, blessed the Jewish people with twenty-two, and cursed them with only eight. Rabbi Levi explains: He blessed them with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, from the first letter, alef, that begins the verse: 鈥淚f [im] you walk in My statutes鈥 (Leviticus 26:3), until 鈥渦pright [komemiyyut]鈥 (Leviticus 26:13), which ends with the letter tav, the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

讜拽诇诇谉 讘砖诪讜谞讛 诪讜讗诐 讘讞拽转讬 转诪讗住讜 注讚 讜讗转 讞拽转讬 讙注诇讛 谞驻砖诐

And He cursed them with eight letters, from the letter vav that begins the verse: 鈥淎nd if [ve鈥檌m] you shall reject My statutes鈥 (Leviticus 26:15), until: 鈥淎nd My statutes were abhorred by their soul [nafsham]鈥 (Leviticus 26:43), which ends with the letter mem. There are eight letters in the Hebrew alphabet from the letter vav to the letter mem, inclusive.

讜讗讬诇讜 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 讘专讻谉 讘砖诪讜谞讛 讜拽诇诇谉 讘注砖专讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 讘专讻谉 讘砖诪讜谞讛

And yet Moses, our teacher, who is flesh and blood, blessed them with eight letters, and cursed them with twenty-two. He blessed them with eight letters,

Scroll To Top