Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Talmud for Shabbat 181:2

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחייב היה רבי מאיר אף במוציא חטה אחת לזריעה פשיטא כל שהוא תנן מהו דתימא כל שהוא לאפוקי מגרוגרת ולעולם עד דאיכא כזית קמ"ל מתקיף לה רב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה אלא מעתה חישב להוציא כל ביתו הכי נמי דלא מיחייב עד דמפיק לכוליה התם בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם:

if one declares his intention of carrying out his whole house, is he really not culpable unless he carries out his whole house? — There his intention is null vis a vis that of all men. BUT ALL OTHERS ARE NOT CULPABLE THEREFOR SAVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS STANDARD. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated a general rule: That which is not fit to put away, and such is not [generally] put away, yet it did become fit to a certain person,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He found a use for it. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> and he did put it away, and then another came and carried it out, the latter is rendered liable through the former's intention.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

HALAKHAH: “One who stores as seeds,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, is the Mishnah Rebbi Jehudah’s19Since the Mishnah is anonymous and therefore practice, this decides that regarding the Sabbath one follows Rebbi Jehudah.? For Rebbi Jehudah said, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable20Chapter 1, Note 221.. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi came in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, this comes only for the sample21Greek δεῖγμα, -ατος, τό, Latin digma., because the buyer already was satisfied22R. Meïr, who disagrees with R. Jehudah about the special rule for craftsmen, will nevertheless agree that medicines, which are taken in minute amounts, and seeds, of which every single one counts, make the professional liable in any amount. Their only difference regarding the Mishnah is a sample after it has been shown to the client and is no longer needed, where R. Jehudah declares it the seller’s tool but R. Meïr treats it as regular property.. But as to seeds and medicines even for the most minute amount he is liable. If one stored it and another took it out, he is not liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar declares him liable23Babli 91a in another formulation.. Where do we hold? If he took it out on the second’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is not liable; if he took it out on the first’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is liable24In the Babli this seems to be only R. Simeon ben Eleazar’s opinion since he formulates: “Anything which is not usually stored, but somebody stored it for his use, and a second person came and took it out, the second becomes liable by the first’s intention.”. But we must hold when it was not explained. The rabbis say, it is a common presumption25This is one of the many meanings of חֲזָקָה: A common presumption to be used in the absence of information to arrive at a judgment. Cf. Ketubot 5:5, Note 100. that he took it out on the second’s initiative; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says that it is a common presumption that he took it out on the first’s initiative.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse