Reference for Bava Metzia 80:16
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> הא מני רבי ישמעאל היא דאמר לא בעינן דעת בעלים דתניא הגונב טלה מן העדר וסלע מן הכיס למקום שגנב יחזיר דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר
R. Papa objected to Abaye: On the contrary, the logic is the reverse. On the view of the Sages lees may be mixed up, and that is the reason that he need not accept it, because he can say, 'Since you did not mix it up for me, you have renounced it in my favour. Whilst in the opinion of R. Judah lees may not be mixed up, and this is the reason that he must accept it, because he can say to him, 'Had I desired to mix it up, it would not have been permitted to me, whilst you also refuse to accept it [separately]: if one buys and sells [at the same price] — do you call him a merchant!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., unless I am permitted to make a deduction from the quantity on account of the lees, I cannot make a living. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> A Tanna taught: The vendee and the depositor are both alike in respect of the scum.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the wine or oil. So translated by Rashi. In H.M. 228, 20 it is translated: 'the muddy oil which ascends to the top' ([H]). Jast. translates: 'the foam or froth of the wine or oil'; this, however, seems unsuited to the context. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> What is meant by 'in respect of the scum?' Shall we say, Just as the vendee does not accept the scum, so does the depositor likewise not accept it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The measure bought by the vendee is calculated without the scum; and when the wine or oil is returned to the depositor, he too may insist that the measure due to him shall be calculated without it. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> But let him [the bailee] say to him, 'What am I to do with your scum?' But [on the contrary], just as the depositor must accept the scum, so must the purchaser likewise. Yet must the vendee accept the scum: but it has been taught: R. Judah said: [The loss due to] the muddy oil was assigned to the vendor alone, since the vendee accepts a <i>log</i> and a half of sediment without the scum!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since 1 1/2 per cent is sediment (v. supra 40a) he is entitled that the rest shall be quite clear, without scum. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> — There is no difficulty: The former treats of one who pays his money in Tishri and received [the wine or oil] in Nisan at Tishri prices;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Tishri the oil is generally turbid with a scum on top, the price being correspondingly low. Hence in this case he must accept it. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> the latter treats of one who pays his money in Nisan and receives [the oil] in Nisan at Nisan prices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are higher, because by then the oil is clear and free from scum; hence he can refuse it. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN DEPOSITS A BARREL WITH HIS NEIGHBOUR, ITS OWNER NOT DESIGNATING A PLACE FOR IT, AND HE [THE BAILEE] MOVES IT AND IT IS BROKEN, IF IT IS BROKEN WHILST IN HIS HAND,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'out of his hand'. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> — [IF HE MOVED IT] FOR HIS PURPOSES, HE IS RESPONSIBLE; FOR ITS OWN NEED, HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE. IF IT IS BROKEN AFTER HE PUTS IT DOWN, WHETHER [HE MOVED IT] FOR HIS NEED OR FOR ITS OWN, HE IS NOT LIABLE. IF THE OWNER DESIGNATES A PLACE FOR IT, AND HE MOVES IT AND IT IS BROKEN, WHETHER WHILST IN HIS HAND OR AFTER HE PUTS IT DOWN, — [IF HE MOVED IT] FOR HIS PURPOSES, HE IS RESPONSIBLE; IF FOR ITS OWN NEED, HE IS NOT LIABLE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Who is the authority of the Mishnah? — It is R. Ishmael, who ruled: The owner's knowledge is unnecessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first clause states that if he moves it for his own purpose, puts it down, and then it is broken, he is not responsible. Now, when he moves it for his own purpose, he is regarded as having stolen it, since a bailee must not make any use of a bailment, and there is a view, expressed immediately in the Gemara, that when a person steals an object he is responsible for it until he returns it and informs its owner that he has returned it. R. Ishmael holds that the owner's knowledge is unnecessary. Now, when the bailee puts the barrel down, he returns it to its owner, of course, without the owner's knowledge, and since the Mishnah rules that he is not responsible then, it must agree with R. Ishmael. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> For it has been taught: If one steals a lamb from a fold or a <i>sela'</i> from a purse, he must return it whence he stole it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After which he ceases to bear responsibility for it. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> this is R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: