Bava Batra 174

והתנן הרכינה ומיצה הרי זו תרומה

but have we not [also] learnt: '[If the vessel]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which the Israelite measured out oil for the priestly portion. ');">¹</span> has been inclined, the accumulation from the remnants [on its sides] is terumah'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ter. XI. 8. If in the former case the accumulation belongs to the seller not to the buyer, in this case it should belong to the owner, not to the priest. ');">²</span> — He replied unto him: Surely about this it has been said: R. Abbahu said [the accumulation belongs to the seller] because the law of the owner's resignation is applied to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer of the liquid, who becomes its owner, does not expect any more of it after the three drops from the sides had been drained. In the case of terumah, however, the principle of 'resignation' does not apply, as the remnants, however insignificant, are forbidden to a non-priest. ');">³</span>

א"ל הא איתמר עלה אמר רבי אבהו משום יאוש בעלים נגעו בה:

A SHOPKEEPER IS NOT OBLIGED TO ALLOW TO FALL etc. The question was raised: Does R. Judah refer to the [law in the] earlier clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which requires the seller always to allow three drops to fall into the vessel of the buyer. ');">⁴</span> to relax it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That on Sabbath eve towards dusk, it is not to be applied. ');">⁵</span> or perhaps [he refers] to the [law in the] latter clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which exempts a shopkeeper. ');">⁶</span>

והחנווני אינו חייב להטיף וכו': איבעיא להו רבי יהודה ארישא קאי ולקולא או דלמא אסיפא קאי ולחומרא

to restrict it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even a shopkeeper is not exempt, except on Sabbath eve towards dusk. ');">⁷</span> Come and hear: It has been taught: R. Judah says. A shopkeeper, on Sabbath eve at dusk, is exempt, because a shopkeeper is [at that time] much occupied.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah's is thus a restrictive measure. ');">⁸</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A PERSON SENDS HIS [LITTLE] SON TO A SHOPKEEPER [TO WHOM HE HAD PREVIOUSLY GIVEN A DUPONDIUM],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dupondium and isar, Roman coins. The former is worth two of the latter. ');">⁹</span>

ת"ש דתניא רבי יהודה אומר ערב שבת עם חשכה חנווני פטור מפני שחנווני טרוד:

AND [THE SHOPKEEPER] MEASURED OUT FOR HIM OIL FOR ONE ISAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That on Sabbath eve towards dusk, it is not to be applied. ');">⁵</span> AND GAVE HIM THE [OTHER] ISAR, [AND ON HIS WAY HOME THE CHILD] BROKE THE BOTTLE [WHICH HIS FATHER HAD SENT WITH HIM] AND LOST THE ISAR [GIVEN HIM AS CHANGE], THE SHOPKEEPER IS [LIABLE FOR ALL THE LOSSES.]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the bottle, the oil and the isar. ');">¹⁰</span> R. JUDAH ABSOLVES [THE SHOPKEEPER], SINCE FOR THAT PURPOSE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of bringing home, from the shopkeeper, the oil and the isar as well as the bottle. ');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השולח את בנו אצל חנווני (ופונדיון בידו) ומדד לו באיסר שמן ונתן לו את האיסר שבר את הצלוחית ואבד את האיסר חנווני חייב רבי יהודה פוטר שעל מנת כן שלחו ומודים חכמים לר' יהודה בזמן שהצלוחית ביד התינוק ומדד חנווני לתוכה שחנווני פטור:

[THE FATHER] HAD SENT HIM [THE CHILD]. BUT THE SAGES AGREE WITH R. JUDAH THAT IN THE CASE WHEN THE BOTTLE WAS IN THE HAND OF THE CHILD, AND THE SHOPKEEPER MEASURED OUT INTO IT, THE SHOPKEEPER IS ABSOLVED. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. One can well understand that, in [the case of] the isar and the oil, the dispute [in our Mishnah between the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Sages who hold the shopkeeper responsible for the losses. ');">¹²</span> and R. Judah] depends on the following [views]. The Rabbis maintain that [the father] has sent [the child merely] to inform [the shopkeeper of what he required],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was the shopkeeper's duty to find a reliable person with whom to send the oil and the change. He had no authority to entrust these to the child. ');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בשלמא באיסר ושמן בהא פליגי דרבנן סברי לאודועי שדריה ור' יהודה סבר לשדורי ליה שדרי' אלא שבר צלוחית אבדה מדעת היא

and R. Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who absolves the shopkeeper. ');">¹⁴</span> maintains that [the father] has sent [the child] in order that [the shopkeeper] should send him [back with the things]; but, [as regards the] breaking of the bottle, [why should the Rabbis lay the responsibility on the shopkeeper]? It is a loss, [surely], for which its owner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the father of the child. ');">¹⁵</span> was well prepared!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By entrusting the bottle to the child, the father had shown that he was prepared to take the risk. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רב הושעיא הכא בבעל הבית מוכר צלוחיות עסקינן וכגון שנטלה חנווני על מנת לבקרה וכדשמואל דאמר שמואל הנוטל כלי מן האומן על מנת לבקרו ונאנס בידו חייב

— R. Hoshaia replied: Here we deal with an owner [who is also] a seller of bottles, and in the case when the shopkeeper took [the bottle] for the purpose of examining it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not merely for the purpose of putting the oil into it, but with the intention of buying it if found suitable. ');">¹⁷</span> [in such a case the shopkeeper<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who thus becomes a potential buyer. ');">¹⁸</span> assumes responsibility] in accordance with [a decision given by] Samuel. For Samuel said: He who takes a vessel from the artisan to examine it, and an accident happens [while it is] in his hand, is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis of our Mishnah also hold the same view. The shopkeeper, by taking the bottle, has undertaken a responsibility for its safety, of which he cannot be absolved until the bottle has been returned to its owner, not merely to the child. ');">¹⁹</span>

לימא דשמואל תנאי היא אלא רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו הכא בחנווני מוכר צלוחיות עסקינן ואזדא רבי יהודה לטעמיה ורבנן לטעמייהו

Does this mean that [the decision] of Samuel is [not generally accepted, but is a matter of dispute between] Tannaim?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah, who absolves the shopkeeper, disagreeing with Samuel. ');">²⁰</span> [Surely this is not very likely]! — But, said both Rabbah and R. Joseph, [the Mishnah] here [deals] with [the case of] a shopkeeper who sells bottles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the child was given money by his father to pay for the bottle in which the oil was to be carried. ');">²¹</span> And R. Judah follows his own reasoning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He absolved the shopkeeper from responsibility for the oil and the isar, because he maintains that the child was sent to bring the things with him. For the same reason he absolves the shopkeeper from responsibility for the bottle. ');">²²</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא מודים חכמים לר' יהודה בזמן שהצלוחית ביד התינוק ומדד חנווני לתוכה שהחנווני פטור והא אמרת לאודועי שדריה אלא אביי בר אבין ור' חנינא בר אבין דאמרי תרוייהו הכא במאי עסקינן

and the Rabbis follow their own reasoning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They maintain that the child was sent to give the order only, and not to bring either the oil and the isar or the bottle. The responsibility for these things, therefore, rests upon the shop. keeper. ');">²³</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Rabbis lay the responsibility for the bottle upon the shopkeeper for the reason that the child was sent only to give the order for it. ');">²⁴</span> explain the last clause: THE SAGES AGREE WITH R. JUDAH THAT IN THE CASE WHEN THE BOTTLE WAS IN THE HAND OF THE CHILD, AND THE SHOPKEEPER MEASURED OUT INTO IT, THE SHOPKEEPER IS ABSOLVED. But surely you said [that the Rabbis maintained the view that the father] had sent [the child merely] to inform him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to bring the bottle. Why, then, do they in this case, absolve the shopkeeper? ');">²⁵</span> — But, said both Abaye b. Abin and R. Hanina b. Abin, here we deal with a case