Talmud for Shabbat 181:3

וכל אדם אין חייבין עליו אלא כשיעורו: מתניתין דלא כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר דתניא כלל א"ר שמעון בן אלעזר כל שאינו כשר להצניע ואין מצניעין כמוהו והוכשר לזה והצניעו ובא אחר והוציא נתחייב זה במחשבתו של זה

Raba said in R. Nahman's name: If one carries out as much as a dried fig for food, and then decides to [use it] for sowing, or the reverse, he is liable. But that is obvious: consider it from this point of view4 [and] there is the standard, and consider it from that point of view, [and] there is the standard? — You might say, [Both] removal and depositing5 must be done with the same intention, which is absent [here]: hence he informs us [otherwise].

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 Verse Full Chapter Next Verse