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

Daf Yomi

April 8, 2024 | 讻状讟 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Bava Metzia 40

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of the engagement of Sara鈥檚 daughter, Estie Brauner, to Tina Lamm鈥檚 nephew, Jason Ast. May we have many more Hadran family smachot!

After Mari bar Isak’s ‘brother’ brought witnesses, Rav Chisda ruled that the brother could receive his portion. Rav Chisda also ruled that the brother could receive 50% of the profits from Mari’s investment in the land after the father’s death, based on a Mishna in Bava Batra 143b. Abaye and Rabbi Ami raised difficulties with the latter’s ruling. Rav Chisda responds and answers Rabbi Ami’s question. If one gives a shomer produce to watch, the shomer can deduct a certain amount when returning the produce as one can assume that mice ate some or that some was lost over time. What percentage? The calculation is based on the item in question, the amount of time it was being watched, and the quantity. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds that quantity is not a factor as mice eat the same amount regardless of how much is in the pile. The Tosefta limits these laws to a case when the shomer mixed the produce with his/her produce. Rabbi Yehuda holds that if the shomer watched a large measure of produce, the depreciation would be offset by the expansion of the grains. Based on an alternate reading of a braita, Rav Nachman limits this to a particular case where the grains were given to be watched in the summer and returned in the winter. How much deduction is there for oil and wine? On what point does Rabbi Yehuda disagree with the rabbis regarding deducting the sediment in oil? What is the basis of their debate? The Gemara brings two different suggestions.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛砖讘讬讞讜 诇讗诪爪注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讙讘讬 拽讟谞讬诐 讬讚注讬 讜拽讗 诪讞诇讬 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讚注 讚诇讬讞讬诇


And likewise, Rabba says: They enhanced the property, and the profit goes to the middle. Abaye said to him: Are these matters comparable? There, in the case that the adult and minor brothers were together, the adults are aware that the minors exist and forgo payment for their effort on behalf of their younger brothers. Here, in the case of Mari bar Isak, was the older brother aware of the existence of the younger brother so that he could forgo payment for his labor?


讗讙诇讙诇 诪诇转讗 讜诪讟讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜 讗诪专讜 砖诪讬谉 诇讛诐 讻讗专讬住 讛砖转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛


The matter continued to develop and came before Rabbi Ami. He said to those who reported Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling: The Sages stated a more far-reaching halakha than that: In the case of relatives who tend to the property of a captive, the court appraises their work as one would appraise the work of a sharecropper. Although the property they tended did not belong to them at all, they receive wages for their labor. Why, then, is the ruling now, in the case of Mari bar Isak, that payment for labor on property that is his, we do not give him? Mari bar Isak should be reimbursed for his expenditures.


讗讛讚专讜讛 讛讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讘专砖讜转 谞讞讬转 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 讘专砖讜转 谞讞讬转 讜注讜讚 拽讟谉 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 拽讟谉


They returned and related this matter before Rav 岣sda. Rav 岣sda said to them: Are these matters comparable? There, in the case of the captive鈥檚 property, it was with authorization from the court that the relative descended to tend to the property. Here, it was without authorization that Mari bar Isak descended to tend to the property of his brother. And furthermore, Mari bar Isak鈥檚 brother was a minor when Mari inherited the property, and the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a minor.


讗讛讚专讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 住讬讬诪讜讛 拽诪讬 讚拽讟谉 讛讜讗


They returned and related this response before Rabbi Ami. Rabbi Ami said to them: They did not complete conveying all the details of the case before me, and I was unaware that Mari鈥檚 brother was a minor. Rav 岣sda is correct.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讞住专讜谞讜转 诇讞讟讬诐 讜诇讗讜专讝 转砖注讛 讞爪讗讬 拽讘讬谉 诇讻讜专 诇砖注讜专讬谉 讜诇讚讜讞谉 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讻讜专 诇讻讜住诪讬谉 讜诇讝专注 驻砖转谉 砖诇砖 住讗讬谉 诇讻讜专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛诪讚讛 讜讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛讝诪谉


MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, and the bailee provides him with different produce in return, that bailee deducts from the produce that he returns an amount equal to the standard decrease of the produce. The decrease is calculated according to this formula: For wheat and for rice, he deducts nine half-kav per kor, which is 180 kav; for barley and millet, he deducts nine kav per kor; for spelt and flaxseed, he deducts three se鈥檃, which total eighteen kav, per kor. The entire calculation is according to the measure, and the entire calculation is according to the time elapsed. This is the amount of produce that the bailee deducts per one kor of produce over the course of one year.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜讻讬 诪讛 讗讻驻转 诇讛谉 诇注讻讘专讬谉 讜讛诇讗 讗讜讻诇讜转 讘讬谉 诪讛专讘讛 讜讘讬谉 诪拽诪注讛 讗诇讗 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讞住专讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 诇讻讜专 讗讞讚 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讚讛 诪专讜讘讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讞住专讜谞讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讜转讬专讜转


Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said: And what do the mice care how much produce the bailee is safeguarding? Don鈥檛 they eat the same amount whether it is from much produce and whether it is from little produce? Rather, he deducts an amount equal to the standard decrease of just one kor of produce. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the deposit was a large measure, the bailee does not deduct the decrease from it, due to the fact that for different reasons it increases. Therefore, he returns the measure of produce that was deposited with him, because the increase offsets the decrease.


讙诪壮 讗讜专讝 讟讜讘讗 讞住专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讗讜专讝 拽诇讜祝 砖谞讜 诇讻讜住诪讬谉 讜诇讝专注 驻砖转谉 砖诇砖讛 住讗讬谉 诇讻讜专 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讝专注 驻砖转谉 讘讙讘注讜诇讬谉 砖谞讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诇讻讜住诪讬谉 讜诇讝专注 驻砖转谉 讘讙讘注讜诇讬谉 讜诇讗讜专讝 砖讗讬谞讜 拽诇讜祝 砖诇砖讛 住讗讬谉 诇讻讜专


GEMARA: The Gemara challenges: After decrease, rice is lacking a greater amount than what is recorded in the mishna. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is with regard to shelled rice that the tanna鈥檌m taught the mishna. The mishna teaches: For spelt and flaxseed, he deducts three se鈥檃 per kor. Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi 岣yya says: It is with regard to flaxseed on its stalks that the tanna鈥檌m taught the mishna, and that is why the rate of decrease is so great. The Gemara comments: That is also taught in a baraita: For spelt and for flaxseed on its stalks and for unshelled rice, he deducts three se鈥檃 per kor.


讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛诪讚讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讻谉 诇讻诇 讻讜专 讜讻讜专 讜讻谉 诇讻诇 砖谞讛 讜砖谞讛


The mishna teaches: The entire calculation is according to the measure, and the entire calculation is according to the time elapsed. It is taught in a baraita: That is the measure of decrease for each and every kor, and that is the measure of decrease for each and every year.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讘讛 讗讜讘讚讜转 诪讛谉 讛专讘讛 诪转驻讝专讜转 诪讛谉


The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said: And what do the mice care how much produce the bailee is safeguarding? It is taught in a baraita that the Sages said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: The reduction is due not only to mice eating the produce. Much of the produce is lost, and much of the produce is scattered.


转谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖注讬专讘谉 注诐 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讗讘诇 讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱


It is taught: In what cases is this statement said, that the bailee deducts these measures for the decrease? It is in a case where the bailee mixed the produce that he is safeguarding with his own produce, and he is unable to distinguish between them. But if he designated a corner for the produce that he is safeguarding, the bailee says to the owner of the produce: That which is yours is before you, and he does not calculate the decrease.


讜讻讬 注讬专讘谉 注诐 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 诇诇讬讞讝讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讻诪讛 讛讜讬讬谉 讘诪住转驻拽 诪讛诐


The Gemara asks: And when he mixed the produce that he is safeguarding with his own produce, what of it? Why must he calculate the decrease? Let him see how much his produce was, add the amount that was deposited with him, and calculate how much the produce diminished over time. He can then divide the loss proportionately between his produce and the deposited produce. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the bailee took supplies from that produce, and therefore it is impossible to ascertain the rate of decrease.


讜诇讬讞讝讬 讻诪讛 讗住转驻拽 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 讻诪讛 讗住转驻拽


The Gemara asks: And let him see how much produce he took as supplies and include this in his calculation. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the bailee does not know with how much he took as supplies, and therefore he must calculate the decrease based on the measures enumerated in the mishna.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讜讻讜壮 讻诪讛 诪讚讛 诪专讜讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖专讛 讻讜专讬谉 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻诪讛 诪讚讛 诪专讜讘讛 注砖专讛 讻讜专讬谉


The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: If the deposit was a large measure, the bailee does not deduct the decrease from it. The Gemara asks: How much is a large measure? Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is ten kor. This is also taught in a baraita: How much is a large measure? It is ten kor.


转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诪讚讚 诇讜 诪转讜讱 讙讜专谞讜 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 诪转讜讱 讙讜专谞讜 讗讘诇 诪讚讚 诇讜 诪转讜讱 讙讜专谞讜 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讞住专讜谞讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讜转讬专讜转


The tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot taught before Rav Na岣an: In what case is this statement said, that the bailee deducts the decrease from the produce he returns? It is in a case where the owner of the produce measured the produce for the bailee from his own threshing floor, and the bailee returned the produce to him from his own threshing floor. The measures used in all threshing floors were equal, and tended to err on the side of increasing the amount measured. But in a case where the owner measured the produce for the bailee from his own threshing floor and the bailee returned the produce to him as measured by a measure from his own house, which were more precise than those used on the threshing floor, he does not deduct the decrease when returning the produce. This is because the produce the owner deposited was measured with the increased measure of the threshing floor, and that offsets the decrease.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 讘砖讜驻讟谞讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讬讛讘讬 讘讻讬讬诇讗 专讘讗 讜砖拽诇讬 讘讻讬讬诇讗 讝讜讟讗 讚诇诪讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙讜专谉 拽讗诪专转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诪讚讚 诇讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙讜专谉 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙讜专谉 讗讘诇 诪讚讚 诇讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙讜专谉 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讞住专讜谉 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讜转讬专讜转


Rav Na岣an said to him: And are we dealing with fools, who give the deposit with a large measure and take the produce back with a small measure? Clearly, the same measure was used in both cases. Perhaps you are stating a ruling about the season of the threshing floor, and this is what it means: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where he measured the produce for the bailee during the season of the threshing floor and the bailee returned the produce to him during the season of the threshing floor, i.e., in the same period. But in a case where he measured the produce for the bailee during the season of the threshing floor and the bailee returned the produce to him during the rainy season, he does not deduct the decrease when returning the produce, because the produce that he received absorbed moisture and expanded, so that he ultimately returns the same measure.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诐 讻谉 诇驻拽注 讻讚讗 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜驻拽注 讻讚讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬爪爪讗


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, if the volume of the grain expands during the rainy season, the jug in which the grain is placed should burst due to that expansion. The Gemara relates: There was an incident and the jug burst. If you wish, say instead that the volume contracted due to compression. When the produce was deposited it was loose and had greater volume. When the bailee returned it, the produce was tightly packed in the jug, resulting in lesser volume.


诪转谞讬壮 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 砖转讜转 诇讬讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜诪砖 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 砖诪谉 诇诪讗讛 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 砖诪专讬诐 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 讘诇注 讗诐 讛讬讛 砖诪谉 诪讝讜拽拽 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 砖诪专讬诐 讗诐 讛讬讜 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讬砖谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讘诇注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讜讻专 砖诪谉 诪讝讜拽拽 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 砖诪专讬诐 诇诪讗讛


MISHNA: When the bailee returns liquids that were deposited with him, he deducts one-sixth of the amount for wine, to offset the decrease in volume due to absorption into the cask and evaporation. Rabbi Yehuda says: He deducts one-fifth. He deducts three log of oil for one hundred log: A log and a half for sediment that sinks to the bottom of the cask, and a log and a half for absorption into the cask. If it was refined oil, he does not deduct any of the oil for sediment because it was filtered. If the oil was stored in old casks that are already saturated, he does not deduct any of the oil for absorption. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in a case of one who sells refined oil to another all the days of the year, this buyer accepts upon himself that the seller will deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundred log, as that is the standard measure of sediment.


讙诪壮 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讘讗转专讬讛 讚诪专 讞驻讜 讘拽讬专讗 讜诇讗 诪讬讬抓 讟驻讬 讘讗转专讬讛 讚诪专 讞驻讜 讘讻讜驻专讗 讜诪讬讬抓 讟驻讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙专讙讬砖转讗 讛讗 诪讬讬爪讗 讟驻讬 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪讬讬爪讗 讟驻讬


GEMARA: The Gemara comments: And the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda do not disagree with regard to the halakha. Rather, this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale, and this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale. In the place of one Sage, i.e., the first tanna, they coat the casks with wax [bekira] and it does not absorb much. In the place of the other Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, they coat the casks with pitch and it absorbs much. If you wish, say instead that it is due to the quality of earth [gargishta] from which they make the casks. Barrels made from this earth absorb much, and barrels made from that earth do not absorb much.


讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 专诪讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讜转诪谞讬 讻讜讝讬 讘讚谞讗 讗讝讬诇 讚谞讗 讘砖讬转讗 讝讜讝讬 驻专讬住 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬转讗 砖讬转讗 讘讝讜讝讗


The Gemara relates: In Rav Yehuda鈥檚 place they would place the contents of forty-eight pitchers of oil into a barrel, as that was the standard size of barrels there. The barrel went for six dinars, and Rav Yehuda divided the oil and sold it at six pitchersful for one dinar.


讚诇 转诇转讬谉 讜砖讬转讗 讘砖讬转讗 驻砖讜 诇讬讛 转专讬住专 讚诇 转诪谞讬讗 砖转讜转讬 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 讗专讘注讛


The Gemara now analyzes Rav Yehuda鈥檚 calculation: Subtract thirty-six pitchersful that were sold for six dinars each, with which he recoups the purchase price of the barrel. Twelve pitchersful remained for him. Subtract eight pitchers full, which is one-sixth of the total amount, as that is the measure absorbed in the barrels. Four pitchersful remained as profit for Rav Yehuda.


讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪砖转讻专 讗诇 讬砖转讻专 讬讜转专 注诇 砖转讜转


The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say that one who profits from the sale of matters related to one鈥檚 existence may not profit more than one-sixth? One can infer that it is permitted for one to profit up to one-sixth. But according to the calculation, Rav Yehuda鈥檚 profit was much lower. Why did he not sell the oil at a higher price?


讗讬讻讗 讙讜诇驻讬 讜砖诪专讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞驻讬砖 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 诪砖转讜转 讗讬讻讗 讟专讞讬讛 讜讚诪讬 讘专讝谞讬讬转讗


The Gemara answers: There are the barrel and the sediment to account for. These remain in his possession, as he purchased the barrel and all its contents for six dinars, and they supplement the profit. The Gemara challenges: If so, once the barrel and sediment are taken into account, the profit is greater than one-sixth. How did Rav Yehuda profit beyond the permitted amount? The Gemara answers: There is the payment for his exertion, as he sold the oil, and there is the payment for tapping, as a craftsman is needed to install a tap in the barrel. When those payments are included in the calculation, the profit is precisely one-sixth.


讗诐 讛讬讛 砖诪谉 诪讝讜拽拽 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 砖诪专讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 讘诇注 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘诪讝讜驻驻讬谉 砖谞讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讘诪讝讜驻驻讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讟注讜谉 讟注讜谉


搂 The mishna teaches: If it was refined oil, he does not deduct any of the oil for sediment. If they were stored in old casks that are already saturated, he does not deduct any of the oil for absorption. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it impossible that the cask did not absorb any oil at all, even if it was saturated? Rav Na岣an says: It is with regard to casks coated with pitch that the tanna鈥檌m taught the mishna, and if the cask is old and coated with pitch it does not absorb anything. Abaye said: Even if you say that the mishna is not referring to casks coated with pitch, once they are saturated they are saturated, and no more oil is absorbed.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讜讻专 砖诪谉 诪讝讜拽拽 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 砖诪专讬诐 诇诪讗讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜转专 诇注专讘 砖诪专讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗住讜专 诇注专讘 砖诪专讬诐


The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in the case of one who sells refined oil to another all the days of the year, this buyer accepts upon himself that the seller will deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundred log, as that is the standard measure of sediment. Abaye said: When you analyze the matter, you will find it necessary to say that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is permitted to mix sediment that settled at the bottom of the barrel with the clear oil and sell the mixture. And according to the statement of the Rabbis, it is prohibited to mix sediment with the clear oil.


诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜转专 诇注专讘 砖诪专讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪拽讘诇 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬 诇注专讜讘讬 诇讱 诪讬 诇讗 注专讘讬 诇讱 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 拽讘讬诇


The Gemara elaborates. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is permitted to mix sediment, and that is the reason that the buyer accepts upon himself that the seller will deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundred log, as the seller says to him: If I wished to mix sediment and sell it to you, couldn鈥檛 I mix it and sell it to you? Now too, accept upon yourself the deduction due to sediment.


讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 注专讘转 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诪讝讚讘谉 诇讬 讛砖转讗 诪讗讬 讗注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诇讗 诪讝讚讘谉 诇讬 讘讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘爪讬诇讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讚诇讗 注专讘讬转 诇讬 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞诇转 诇讬


The Gemara asks: And let the buyer say to him: If you had mixed sediment into the oil, it could have been sold for me to another. Now what will I do with it? The sediment cannot be sold on its own, and I will suffer a loss. The Gemara answers: We are dealing with a buyer who is a homeowner, not a merchant. He needs oil for his own use, and filtered oil is preferable for him, as his use of the oil is facilitated by removal of the sediment. The Gemara asks: And let the buyer say to him: From the fact that you did not mix the sediment with the oil for me, it is an indication that you renounced your rights to it to me.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讞讬诇讛 讚转谞谉 诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛爪诪讚 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛讘拽专 诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛讘拽专 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛爪诪讚


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he is not of the opinion that one can presume renunciation, and therefore the buyer cannot presume that the seller renounced his right to receive the standard price, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 77b): If one sold the yoke [tzemed] to another, he did not sell the cattle to him. Literally, tzemed means the yoke that holds the animals together [tzamud] while plowing. It can be understood as referring to the two animals held together by the yoke. If one sold the cattle to another, he did not sell the yoke to him. The sale is limited to the literal meaning of what he said.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讚诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬注讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讻讜专 诇讬 爪诪讚讱 讘诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讛讚讘专 讬讚讜注 砖讗讬谉 讛爪诪讚 讘诪讗转讬讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讚诪讬诐 专讗讬讛


The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: The money informs the scope of the sale. Based on the price, one can determine what is included in the sale. How so? If the buyer said to the seller: Sell me your tzemed for two hundred dinars, the matter is well-known that a yoke does not cost two hundred dinars, and he certainly meant the cattle. And the Rabbis say: The money is not a proof, as it is possible that one of the parties renounced part of the sale price.


诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗住讜专 诇注专讘 砖诪专讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬转 诇注专讜讘讬 诪讬 讛讜讛 砖专讬 诇讱 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪拽讘讬诇谞讗


The Gemara concludes its elaboration of the statement of Abaye: According to the statement of the Rabbis, it is prohibited to mix sediment, and this is the reason that the buyer does not accept that the seller deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundred log, as the buyer says to him: If you wished to mix sediment and sell it, would it be permitted for you to do so? Now too, I do not accept that deduction.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜转专 诇注专讘 砖诪专讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚诇讗 注专讘转 诇讬 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞诇讬转 诇讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗住讜专 诇注专讘 砖诪专讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪拽讘诇 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬 诇注专讜讘讬 诇讗 砖专讬 诇讬 诇注专讜讘讬 诇讱 拽讘讜诇讬 诇讗 诪拽讘诇转 讝讘讜谉 讜讝讘讬谉 转讙专讗 讗讬拽专讬


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: On the contrary, the opposite is reasonable. According to the statement of the Rabbis, it is permitted to mix sediment. And this is the reason that the buyer does not accept the deduction, as the buyer said to the seller: From the fact that you did not mix the sediment for me, apparently you renounced that sum to me. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is prohibited to mix sediment. And this is the reason that the buyer accepts the deduction, as the seller says to him: If I wished to mix sediment, it is prohibited for me to mix it for you, and if you do not accept the deduction, I earn nothing from this sale. That is unacceptable according to the maxim: One who buys and sells at the same price, is he called a merchant?


转谞讗 讗讞讚 讛诇讜拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讛诪驻拽讬讚 诇驻拽讟讬诐 诪讗讬 诇驻拽讟讬诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讜拽讞 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 驻拽讟讬诐 诪驻拽讬讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 驻拽讟讬诐 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 驻拽讟讱 诪讗讬 讗讬注讘讬讚 诇讛讜


It is taught: The legal status of both one who buys and one who deposits oil with regard to residue [piktim], e.g., olive pits floating on the oil, is the same. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: With regard to residue? If we say that this is teaching: Just as the buyer does not accept upon himself a deduction in the quantity of oil to account for the residue, so too, the one who deposits the oil does not accept upon himself a deduction in the quantity of oil to account for the residue when he returns the oil and is required to return the full amount deposited with him, this is difficult. But let the bailee say to the owner: What shall I do with your residue?


讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪驻拽讬讚 诪拽讘诇 驻拽讟讬诐 诇讜拽讞 谞诪讬 诪拽讘诇 驻拽讟讬诐 讜诪讬 诪拽讘诇 诇讜拽讞 驻拽讟讬诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 砖诪谉 注讻讜专 讗诇讗 诇诪讜讻专 讘诇讘讚 砖讛专讬 诇讜拽讞 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 砖诪专讬诐 讘诇讗 驻拽讟讬诐


Rather, it is teaching: Just as the one who deposits the oil accepts the residue when his oil is returned to him, so too, the buyer accepts the residue with the oil he purchases. The Gemara asks: And does the buyer accept upon himself a deduction for residue? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages stated that the loss for murky oil is only for the seller, as the buyer accepts upon himself a deduction for a log and a half of sediment without residue?


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘转砖专讬 讜拽讗 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讘谞讬住谉 讻讬 诪讚讛 讚转砖专讬 讛讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘谞讬住谉 讜拽讗 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讘谞讬住谉 讻讬 诪讚讛 讚谞讬住谉


The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this baraita, in which it is taught that the buyer accepts residue, is referring to a case where the buyer gave the seller money in Tishrei, when olives are harvested, and he takes the oil from him in Nisan according to the measure of Tishrei. In Tishrei, due to the substantial supply, the price is lower, and immediately after the harvest the oil is murky. That baraita, in which it is taught that the loss for murky oil is only for the seller, is referring to a case where the buyer gave the seller money in Nisan, and he takes the oil from him in Nisan according to the measure of Nisan, as in Nisan both the buyer and the seller assume that the oil is refined.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讞讘讬转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 讬讞讚讜 诇讛 讘注诇讬诐 诪拽讜诐 讜讟诇讟诇讛 讜谞砖转讘专讛 讗诐 诪转讜讱 讬讚讜 谞砖讘专讛 诇爪讜专讻讜 讞讬讬讘 诇爪讜专讻讛 驻讟讜专 讗诐 诪砖讛谞讬讞讛 谞砖讘专讛 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讻讜 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讻讛 驻讟讜专 讬讞讚讜 诇讛 讛讘注诇讬诐 诪拽讜诐 讜讟诇讟诇讛 讜谞砖讘专讛 讘讬谉 诪转讜讱 讬讚讜 讜讘讬谉 诪砖讛谞讬讞讛 诇爪讜专讻讜 讞讬讬讘 诇爪讜专讻讛 驻讟讜专


MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits a barrel with another, and the owners did not designate a specific place for the barrel to be stored in the bailee鈥檚 house, and the bailee moved it and it broke, if it broke while still in his hand, there is a distinction: If he moved the barrel for his purposes, he is liable to pay for the damage. If he moved the barrel for its own purposes, to prevent it from being damaged, he is exempt. If, after he replaced the barrel it broke, whether he initially moved it for his purposes or whether he moved it for its own purposes, he is exempt. But if the owners designated a specific place for the barrel, and the bailee moved it and it broke, whether it broke while still in his hand or whether it broke after he replaced the barrel, if he moved it for his purposes he is liable to pay, and if he moved it for its own purposes, he is exempt.


讙诪壮 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 讘注诇讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讜谞讘 讟诇讛 诪谉 讛注讚专 讜住诇注 诪谉 讛讻讬住 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讙谞讘 讬讞讝讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专


GEMARA: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: When a thief returns an item that he stole, we do not require the knowledge of the owner for the item to be considered returned, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case of one who steals a lamb from the flock or a sela from the purse, he should return it to the place from which he stole it, and it is unnecessary to inform the owner; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says:


  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Metzia: 36-42 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn how a person needs to guard an item that was deposited by him for safekeeping....
talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 40: Shrinking Produce

Two mishnahs detail how a shomer may deduct from the quantity of produce or liquids left with the shomer when...

Bava Metzia 40

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 40

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛砖讘讬讞讜 诇讗诪爪注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讙讘讬 拽讟谞讬诐 讬讚注讬 讜拽讗 诪讞诇讬 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讚注 讚诇讬讞讬诇


And likewise, Rabba says: They enhanced the property, and the profit goes to the middle. Abaye said to him: Are these matters comparable? There, in the case that the adult and minor brothers were together, the adults are aware that the minors exist and forgo payment for their effort on behalf of their younger brothers. Here, in the case of Mari bar Isak, was the older brother aware of the existence of the younger brother so that he could forgo payment for his labor?


讗讙诇讙诇 诪诇转讗 讜诪讟讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜 讗诪专讜 砖诪讬谉 诇讛诐 讻讗专讬住 讛砖转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛


The matter continued to develop and came before Rabbi Ami. He said to those who reported Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling: The Sages stated a more far-reaching halakha than that: In the case of relatives who tend to the property of a captive, the court appraises their work as one would appraise the work of a sharecropper. Although the property they tended did not belong to them at all, they receive wages for their labor. Why, then, is the ruling now, in the case of Mari bar Isak, that payment for labor on property that is his, we do not give him? Mari bar Isak should be reimbursed for his expenditures.


讗讛讚专讜讛 讛讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讘专砖讜转 谞讞讬转 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 讘专砖讜转 谞讞讬转 讜注讜讚 拽讟谉 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 拽讟谉


They returned and related this matter before Rav 岣sda. Rav 岣sda said to them: Are these matters comparable? There, in the case of the captive鈥檚 property, it was with authorization from the court that the relative descended to tend to the property. Here, it was without authorization that Mari bar Isak descended to tend to the property of his brother. And furthermore, Mari bar Isak鈥檚 brother was a minor when Mari inherited the property, and the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a minor.


讗讛讚专讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 住讬讬诪讜讛 拽诪讬 讚拽讟谉 讛讜讗


They returned and related this response before Rabbi Ami. Rabbi Ami said to them: They did not complete conveying all the details of the case before me, and I was unaware that Mari鈥檚 brother was a minor. Rav 岣sda is correct.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻拽讬讚 驻讬专讜转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讞住专讜谞讜转 诇讞讟讬诐 讜诇讗讜专讝 转砖注讛 讞爪讗讬 拽讘讬谉 诇讻讜专 诇砖注讜专讬谉 讜诇讚讜讞谉 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讻讜专 诇讻讜住诪讬谉 讜诇讝专注 驻砖转谉 砖诇砖 住讗讬谉 诇讻讜专 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛诪讚讛 讜讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛讝诪谉


MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, and the bailee provides him with different produce in return, that bailee deducts from the produce that he returns an amount equal to the standard decrease of the produce. The decrease is calculated according to this formula: For wheat and for rice, he deducts nine half-kav per kor, which is 180 kav; for barley and millet, he deducts nine kav per kor; for spelt and flaxseed, he deducts three se鈥檃, which total eighteen kav, per kor. The entire calculation is according to the measure, and the entire calculation is according to the time elapsed. This is the amount of produce that the bailee deducts per one kor of produce over the course of one year.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜讻讬 诪讛 讗讻驻转 诇讛谉 诇注讻讘专讬谉 讜讛诇讗 讗讜讻诇讜转 讘讬谉 诪讛专讘讛 讜讘讬谉 诪拽诪注讛 讗诇讗 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讞住专讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 诇讻讜专 讗讞讚 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讚讛 诪专讜讘讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讞住专讜谞讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讜转讬专讜转


Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said: And what do the mice care how much produce the bailee is safeguarding? Don鈥檛 they eat the same amount whether it is from much produce and whether it is from little produce? Rather, he deducts an amount equal to the standard decrease of just one kor of produce. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the deposit was a large measure, the bailee does not deduct the decrease from it, due to the fact that for different reasons it increases. Therefore, he returns the measure of produce that was deposited with him, because the increase offsets the decrease.


讙诪壮 讗讜专讝 讟讜讘讗 讞住专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讗讜专讝 拽诇讜祝 砖谞讜 诇讻讜住诪讬谉 讜诇讝专注 驻砖转谉 砖诇砖讛 住讗讬谉 诇讻讜专 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讝专注 驻砖转谉 讘讙讘注讜诇讬谉 砖谞讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诇讻讜住诪讬谉 讜诇讝专注 驻砖转谉 讘讙讘注讜诇讬谉 讜诇讗讜专讝 砖讗讬谞讜 拽诇讜祝 砖诇砖讛 住讗讬谉 诇讻讜专


GEMARA: The Gemara challenges: After decrease, rice is lacking a greater amount than what is recorded in the mishna. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is with regard to shelled rice that the tanna鈥檌m taught the mishna. The mishna teaches: For spelt and flaxseed, he deducts three se鈥檃 per kor. Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi 岣yya says: It is with regard to flaxseed on its stalks that the tanna鈥檌m taught the mishna, and that is why the rate of decrease is so great. The Gemara comments: That is also taught in a baraita: For spelt and for flaxseed on its stalks and for unshelled rice, he deducts three se鈥檃 per kor.


讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛诪讚讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讻谉 诇讻诇 讻讜专 讜讻讜专 讜讻谉 诇讻诇 砖谞讛 讜砖谞讛


The mishna teaches: The entire calculation is according to the measure, and the entire calculation is according to the time elapsed. It is taught in a baraita: That is the measure of decrease for each and every kor, and that is the measure of decrease for each and every year.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讘讛 讗讜讘讚讜转 诪讛谉 讛专讘讛 诪转驻讝专讜转 诪讛谉


The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said: And what do the mice care how much produce the bailee is safeguarding? It is taught in a baraita that the Sages said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: The reduction is due not only to mice eating the produce. Much of the produce is lost, and much of the produce is scattered.


转谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖注讬专讘谉 注诐 驻讬专讜转讬讜 讗讘诇 讬讞讚 诇讜 拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱


It is taught: In what cases is this statement said, that the bailee deducts these measures for the decrease? It is in a case where the bailee mixed the produce that he is safeguarding with his own produce, and he is unable to distinguish between them. But if he designated a corner for the produce that he is safeguarding, the bailee says to the owner of the produce: That which is yours is before you, and he does not calculate the decrease.


讜讻讬 注讬专讘谉 注诐 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 诇诇讬讞讝讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讻诪讛 讛讜讬讬谉 讘诪住转驻拽 诪讛诐


The Gemara asks: And when he mixed the produce that he is safeguarding with his own produce, what of it? Why must he calculate the decrease? Let him see how much his produce was, add the amount that was deposited with him, and calculate how much the produce diminished over time. He can then divide the loss proportionately between his produce and the deposited produce. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the bailee took supplies from that produce, and therefore it is impossible to ascertain the rate of decrease.


讜诇讬讞讝讬 讻诪讛 讗住转驻拽 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 讻诪讛 讗住转驻拽


The Gemara asks: And let him see how much produce he took as supplies and include this in his calculation. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the bailee does not know with how much he took as supplies, and therefore he must calculate the decrease based on the measures enumerated in the mishna.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讜讻讜壮 讻诪讛 诪讚讛 诪专讜讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖专讛 讻讜专讬谉 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻诪讛 诪讚讛 诪专讜讘讛 注砖专讛 讻讜专讬谉


The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: If the deposit was a large measure, the bailee does not deduct the decrease from it. The Gemara asks: How much is a large measure? Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is ten kor. This is also taught in a baraita: How much is a large measure? It is ten kor.


转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诪讚讚 诇讜 诪转讜讱 讙讜专谞讜 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 诪转讜讱 讙讜专谞讜 讗讘诇 诪讚讚 诇讜 诪转讜讱 讙讜专谞讜 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讞住专讜谞讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讜转讬专讜转


The tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot taught before Rav Na岣an: In what case is this statement said, that the bailee deducts the decrease from the produce he returns? It is in a case where the owner of the produce measured the produce for the bailee from his own threshing floor, and the bailee returned the produce to him from his own threshing floor. The measures used in all threshing floors were equal, and tended to err on the side of increasing the amount measured. But in a case where the owner measured the produce for the bailee from his own threshing floor and the bailee returned the produce to him as measured by a measure from his own house, which were more precise than those used on the threshing floor, he does not deduct the decrease when returning the produce. This is because the produce the owner deposited was measured with the increased measure of the threshing floor, and that offsets the decrease.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 讘砖讜驻讟谞讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讬讛讘讬 讘讻讬讬诇讗 专讘讗 讜砖拽诇讬 讘讻讬讬诇讗 讝讜讟讗 讚诇诪讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙讜专谉 拽讗诪专转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诪讚讚 诇讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙讜专谉 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙讜专谉 讗讘诇 诪讚讚 诇讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙讜专谉 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讞住专讜谉 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讜转讬专讜转


Rav Na岣an said to him: And are we dealing with fools, who give the deposit with a large measure and take the produce back with a small measure? Clearly, the same measure was used in both cases. Perhaps you are stating a ruling about the season of the threshing floor, and this is what it means: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where he measured the produce for the bailee during the season of the threshing floor and the bailee returned the produce to him during the season of the threshing floor, i.e., in the same period. But in a case where he measured the produce for the bailee during the season of the threshing floor and the bailee returned the produce to him during the rainy season, he does not deduct the decrease when returning the produce, because the produce that he received absorbed moisture and expanded, so that he ultimately returns the same measure.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诐 讻谉 诇驻拽注 讻讚讗 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜驻拽注 讻讚讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬爪爪讗


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, if the volume of the grain expands during the rainy season, the jug in which the grain is placed should burst due to that expansion. The Gemara relates: There was an incident and the jug burst. If you wish, say instead that the volume contracted due to compression. When the produce was deposited it was loose and had greater volume. When the bailee returned it, the produce was tightly packed in the jug, resulting in lesser volume.


诪转谞讬壮 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 砖转讜转 诇讬讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜诪砖 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 砖诪谉 诇诪讗讛 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 砖诪专讬诐 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 讘诇注 讗诐 讛讬讛 砖诪谉 诪讝讜拽拽 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 砖诪专讬诐 讗诐 讛讬讜 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讬砖谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讘诇注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讜讻专 砖诪谉 诪讝讜拽拽 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 砖诪专讬诐 诇诪讗讛


MISHNA: When the bailee returns liquids that were deposited with him, he deducts one-sixth of the amount for wine, to offset the decrease in volume due to absorption into the cask and evaporation. Rabbi Yehuda says: He deducts one-fifth. He deducts three log of oil for one hundred log: A log and a half for sediment that sinks to the bottom of the cask, and a log and a half for absorption into the cask. If it was refined oil, he does not deduct any of the oil for sediment because it was filtered. If the oil was stored in old casks that are already saturated, he does not deduct any of the oil for absorption. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in a case of one who sells refined oil to another all the days of the year, this buyer accepts upon himself that the seller will deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundred log, as that is the standard measure of sediment.


讙诪壮 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讘讗转专讬讛 讚诪专 讞驻讜 讘拽讬专讗 讜诇讗 诪讬讬抓 讟驻讬 讘讗转专讬讛 讚诪专 讞驻讜 讘讻讜驻专讗 讜诪讬讬抓 讟驻讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙专讙讬砖转讗 讛讗 诪讬讬爪讗 讟驻讬 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪讬讬爪讗 讟驻讬


GEMARA: The Gemara comments: And the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda do not disagree with regard to the halakha. Rather, this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale, and this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale. In the place of one Sage, i.e., the first tanna, they coat the casks with wax [bekira] and it does not absorb much. In the place of the other Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, they coat the casks with pitch and it absorbs much. If you wish, say instead that it is due to the quality of earth [gargishta] from which they make the casks. Barrels made from this earth absorb much, and barrels made from that earth do not absorb much.


讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 专诪讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讜转诪谞讬 讻讜讝讬 讘讚谞讗 讗讝讬诇 讚谞讗 讘砖讬转讗 讝讜讝讬 驻专讬住 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬转讗 砖讬转讗 讘讝讜讝讗


The Gemara relates: In Rav Yehuda鈥檚 place they would place the contents of forty-eight pitchers of oil into a barrel, as that was the standard size of barrels there. The barrel went for six dinars, and Rav Yehuda divided the oil and sold it at six pitchersful for one dinar.


讚诇 转诇转讬谉 讜砖讬转讗 讘砖讬转讗 驻砖讜 诇讬讛 转专讬住专 讚诇 转诪谞讬讗 砖转讜转讬 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 讗专讘注讛


The Gemara now analyzes Rav Yehuda鈥檚 calculation: Subtract thirty-six pitchersful that were sold for six dinars each, with which he recoups the purchase price of the barrel. Twelve pitchersful remained for him. Subtract eight pitchers full, which is one-sixth of the total amount, as that is the measure absorbed in the barrels. Four pitchersful remained as profit for Rav Yehuda.


讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪砖转讻专 讗诇 讬砖转讻专 讬讜转专 注诇 砖转讜转


The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Shmuel say that one who profits from the sale of matters related to one鈥檚 existence may not profit more than one-sixth? One can infer that it is permitted for one to profit up to one-sixth. But according to the calculation, Rav Yehuda鈥檚 profit was much lower. Why did he not sell the oil at a higher price?


讗讬讻讗 讙讜诇驻讬 讜砖诪专讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞驻讬砖 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 诪砖转讜转 讗讬讻讗 讟专讞讬讛 讜讚诪讬 讘专讝谞讬讬转讗


The Gemara answers: There are the barrel and the sediment to account for. These remain in his possession, as he purchased the barrel and all its contents for six dinars, and they supplement the profit. The Gemara challenges: If so, once the barrel and sediment are taken into account, the profit is greater than one-sixth. How did Rav Yehuda profit beyond the permitted amount? The Gemara answers: There is the payment for his exertion, as he sold the oil, and there is the payment for tapping, as a craftsman is needed to install a tap in the barrel. When those payments are included in the calculation, the profit is precisely one-sixth.


讗诐 讛讬讛 砖诪谉 诪讝讜拽拽 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讜 砖诪专讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 讘诇注 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘诪讝讜驻驻讬谉 砖谞讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讘诪讝讜驻驻讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讟注讜谉 讟注讜谉


搂 The mishna teaches: If it was refined oil, he does not deduct any of the oil for sediment. If they were stored in old casks that are already saturated, he does not deduct any of the oil for absorption. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it impossible that the cask did not absorb any oil at all, even if it was saturated? Rav Na岣an says: It is with regard to casks coated with pitch that the tanna鈥檌m taught the mishna, and if the cask is old and coated with pitch it does not absorb anything. Abaye said: Even if you say that the mishna is not referring to casks coated with pitch, once they are saturated they are saturated, and no more oil is absorbed.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讜讻专 砖诪谉 诪讝讜拽拽 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 砖诪专讬诐 诇诪讗讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜转专 诇注专讘 砖诪专讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗住讜专 诇注专讘 砖诪专讬诐


The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in the case of one who sells refined oil to another all the days of the year, this buyer accepts upon himself that the seller will deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundred log, as that is the standard measure of sediment. Abaye said: When you analyze the matter, you will find it necessary to say that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is permitted to mix sediment that settled at the bottom of the barrel with the clear oil and sell the mixture. And according to the statement of the Rabbis, it is prohibited to mix sediment with the clear oil.


诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜转专 诇注专讘 砖诪专讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪拽讘诇 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬 诇注专讜讘讬 诇讱 诪讬 诇讗 注专讘讬 诇讱 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 拽讘讬诇


The Gemara elaborates. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is permitted to mix sediment, and that is the reason that the buyer accepts upon himself that the seller will deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundred log, as the seller says to him: If I wished to mix sediment and sell it to you, couldn鈥檛 I mix it and sell it to you? Now too, accept upon yourself the deduction due to sediment.


讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 注专讘转 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诪讝讚讘谉 诇讬 讛砖转讗 诪讗讬 讗注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诇讗 诪讝讚讘谉 诇讬 讘讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注住拽讬谞谉 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘爪讬诇讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讚诇讗 注专讘讬转 诇讬 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞诇转 诇讬


The Gemara asks: And let the buyer say to him: If you had mixed sediment into the oil, it could have been sold for me to another. Now what will I do with it? The sediment cannot be sold on its own, and I will suffer a loss. The Gemara answers: We are dealing with a buyer who is a homeowner, not a merchant. He needs oil for his own use, and filtered oil is preferable for him, as his use of the oil is facilitated by removal of the sediment. The Gemara asks: And let the buyer say to him: From the fact that you did not mix the sediment with the oil for me, it is an indication that you renounced your rights to it to me.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讞讬诇讛 讚转谞谉 诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛爪诪讚 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛讘拽专 诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛讘拽专 诇讗 诪讻专 诇讜 讗转 讛爪诪讚


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he is not of the opinion that one can presume renunciation, and therefore the buyer cannot presume that the seller renounced his right to receive the standard price, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 77b): If one sold the yoke [tzemed] to another, he did not sell the cattle to him. Literally, tzemed means the yoke that holds the animals together [tzamud] while plowing. It can be understood as referring to the two animals held together by the yoke. If one sold the cattle to another, he did not sell the yoke to him. The sale is limited to the literal meaning of what he said.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讚诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬注讬谉 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讻讜专 诇讬 爪诪讚讱 讘诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讛讚讘专 讬讚讜注 砖讗讬谉 讛爪诪讚 讘诪讗转讬讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讚诪讬诐 专讗讬讛


The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: The money informs the scope of the sale. Based on the price, one can determine what is included in the sale. How so? If the buyer said to the seller: Sell me your tzemed for two hundred dinars, the matter is well-known that a yoke does not cost two hundred dinars, and he certainly meant the cattle. And the Rabbis say: The money is not a proof, as it is possible that one of the parties renounced part of the sale price.


诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗住讜专 诇注专讘 砖诪专讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬转 诇注专讜讘讬 诪讬 讛讜讛 砖专讬 诇讱 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪拽讘讬诇谞讗


The Gemara concludes its elaboration of the statement of Abaye: According to the statement of the Rabbis, it is prohibited to mix sediment, and this is the reason that the buyer does not accept that the seller deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundred log, as the buyer says to him: If you wished to mix sediment and sell it, would it be permitted for you to do so? Now too, I do not accept that deduction.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜转专 诇注专讘 砖诪专讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚诇讗 注专讘转 诇讬 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞诇讬转 诇讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗住讜专 诇注专讘 砖诪专讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪拽讘诇 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬 诇注专讜讘讬 诇讗 砖专讬 诇讬 诇注专讜讘讬 诇讱 拽讘讜诇讬 诇讗 诪拽讘诇转 讝讘讜谉 讜讝讘讬谉 转讙专讗 讗讬拽专讬


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: On the contrary, the opposite is reasonable. According to the statement of the Rabbis, it is permitted to mix sediment. And this is the reason that the buyer does not accept the deduction, as the buyer said to the seller: From the fact that you did not mix the sediment for me, apparently you renounced that sum to me. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is prohibited to mix sediment. And this is the reason that the buyer accepts the deduction, as the seller says to him: If I wished to mix sediment, it is prohibited for me to mix it for you, and if you do not accept the deduction, I earn nothing from this sale. That is unacceptable according to the maxim: One who buys and sells at the same price, is he called a merchant?


转谞讗 讗讞讚 讛诇讜拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讛诪驻拽讬讚 诇驻拽讟讬诐 诪讗讬 诇驻拽讟讬诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讜拽讞 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 驻拽讟讬诐 诪驻拽讬讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 驻拽讟讬诐 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 驻拽讟讱 诪讗讬 讗讬注讘讬讚 诇讛讜


It is taught: The legal status of both one who buys and one who deposits oil with regard to residue [piktim], e.g., olive pits floating on the oil, is the same. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: With regard to residue? If we say that this is teaching: Just as the buyer does not accept upon himself a deduction in the quantity of oil to account for the residue, so too, the one who deposits the oil does not accept upon himself a deduction in the quantity of oil to account for the residue when he returns the oil and is required to return the full amount deposited with him, this is difficult. But let the bailee say to the owner: What shall I do with your residue?


讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪驻拽讬讚 诪拽讘诇 驻拽讟讬诐 诇讜拽讞 谞诪讬 诪拽讘诇 驻拽讟讬诐 讜诪讬 诪拽讘诇 诇讜拽讞 驻拽讟讬诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 砖诪谉 注讻讜专 讗诇讗 诇诪讜讻专 讘诇讘讚 砖讛专讬 诇讜拽讞 诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇讜讙 讜诪讞爪讛 砖诪专讬诐 讘诇讗 驻拽讟讬诐


Rather, it is teaching: Just as the one who deposits the oil accepts the residue when his oil is returned to him, so too, the buyer accepts the residue with the oil he purchases. The Gemara asks: And does the buyer accept upon himself a deduction for residue? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages stated that the loss for murky oil is only for the seller, as the buyer accepts upon himself a deduction for a log and a half of sediment without residue?


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘转砖专讬 讜拽讗 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讘谞讬住谉 讻讬 诪讚讛 讚转砖专讬 讛讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘谞讬住谉 讜拽讗 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讘谞讬住谉 讻讬 诪讚讛 讚谞讬住谉


The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this baraita, in which it is taught that the buyer accepts residue, is referring to a case where the buyer gave the seller money in Tishrei, when olives are harvested, and he takes the oil from him in Nisan according to the measure of Tishrei. In Tishrei, due to the substantial supply, the price is lower, and immediately after the harvest the oil is murky. That baraita, in which it is taught that the loss for murky oil is only for the seller, is referring to a case where the buyer gave the seller money in Nisan, and he takes the oil from him in Nisan according to the measure of Nisan, as in Nisan both the buyer and the seller assume that the oil is refined.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讞讘讬转 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 讬讞讚讜 诇讛 讘注诇讬诐 诪拽讜诐 讜讟诇讟诇讛 讜谞砖转讘专讛 讗诐 诪转讜讱 讬讚讜 谞砖讘专讛 诇爪讜专讻讜 讞讬讬讘 诇爪讜专讻讛 驻讟讜专 讗诐 诪砖讛谞讬讞讛 谞砖讘专讛 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讻讜 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讻讛 驻讟讜专 讬讞讚讜 诇讛 讛讘注诇讬诐 诪拽讜诐 讜讟诇讟诇讛 讜谞砖讘专讛 讘讬谉 诪转讜讱 讬讚讜 讜讘讬谉 诪砖讛谞讬讞讛 诇爪讜专讻讜 讞讬讬讘 诇爪讜专讻讛 驻讟讜专


MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits a barrel with another, and the owners did not designate a specific place for the barrel to be stored in the bailee鈥檚 house, and the bailee moved it and it broke, if it broke while still in his hand, there is a distinction: If he moved the barrel for his purposes, he is liable to pay for the damage. If he moved the barrel for its own purposes, to prevent it from being damaged, he is exempt. If, after he replaced the barrel it broke, whether he initially moved it for his purposes or whether he moved it for its own purposes, he is exempt. But if the owners designated a specific place for the barrel, and the bailee moved it and it broke, whether it broke while still in his hand or whether it broke after he replaced the barrel, if he moved it for his purposes he is liable to pay, and if he moved it for its own purposes, he is exempt.


讙诪壮 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转 讘注诇讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讜谞讘 讟诇讛 诪谉 讛注讚专 讜住诇注 诪谉 讛讻讬住 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讙谞讘 讬讞讝讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专


GEMARA: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: When a thief returns an item that he stole, we do not require the knowledge of the owner for the item to be considered returned, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case of one who steals a lamb from the flock or a sela from the purse, he should return it to the place from which he stole it, and it is unnecessary to inform the owner; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says:


Scroll To Top