Bava Metzia 75

והא טעמא דרבי יוסי משום הפסד הרמאי הוא אלא תרוייהו לרבנן איצטריך ולא זו אף זו קתני:

But R. Jose's reason is that the deceiver may suffer loss!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that obviously applies to both cases equally: how then could it be argued that if the second clause alone were taught, I might think that he agrees with the Rabbis in the first? ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המפקיד פירות אצל חבירו אפילו הן אבודין לא יגע בהן רשב"ג אומר מוכרן בפני ב"ד מפני שהוא כמשיב אבידה לבעלים:

— Hence both are necessary on the view of the Rabbis, and he [the Tanna] teaches a case of 'not only this, but this too.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., having first taught the instance of money, he proceeds to state, Not only do the Rabbis rule thus where it involves no loss, but even in a dispute about utensils, where definite loss is caused. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי טעמא אמר רב כהנא אדם רוצה בקב שלו מתשעה קבים של חבירו ורב נחמן בר יצחק אמר חיישינן שמא עשאן המפקיד תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN DEPOSITS PRODUCE WITH HIS NEIGHBOUR, EVEN IF IT IS SUFFERING LOSS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through mildew or rodents. ');">³</span>

מיתיבי המפקיד פירות אצל חבירו הרי זה לא יגע בהן לפיכך בעל הבית עושה אותן תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר בשלמא לרב כהנא היינו דקתני לפיכך

HE MUST NOT TOUCH IT. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: HE MUST SELL IT BY ORDER OF THE COURT, BECAUSE IT IS LIKE RETURNING LOST PROPERTY TO ITS OWNER.

אלא לרב נחמן בר יצחק מאי לפיכך הכי קאמר השתא דאמור רבנן לא נזבין דחיישינן לפיכך בעל הבית עושה אותן תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the first view. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בכדי חסרונן אבל יותר מכדי חסרונן דברי הכל מוכרן בב"ד

— Said R. Kahana: A man prefers a <i>kab</i> of his own to nine of his neighbour's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He would rather have a smaller quantity grown by himself than a larger quantity produced by another. ');">⁵</span>

אדרב נחמן בר יצחק ודאי פליגא אדרב כהנא מי לימא פליגא כי קאמר רב כהנא בכדי חסרונן קאמר

But R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We fear lest the bailor had declared it <i>terumah</i> and tithe for other produce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for another place.' Produce may be declared Terumah (v. Glos.) or tithe for other produce lying elsewhere. If the bailor had done this, it obviously may not be sold. ');">⁶</span>

והא רוצה בקב שלו מתשעה קבין של חבירו קאמר גוזמא בעלמא

An objection is raised: If one deposits produce with his neighbour, he must not touch it. Therefore its owner may declare it <i>terumah</i> and tithe for other produce. Now, on R. Kahana's explanation, it is well: hence he states, 'therefore'. But on the view of R. Nahman b. Isaac, how state 'therefore'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the reason that he may not touch it is precisely because the bailor may have declared it terumah or tithe for other produce. ');">⁷</span>

מיתיבי לפיכך בעה"ב עושה אותן תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר וליחוש דלמא הוו להו יותר מכדי חסרונן וזבנינהו וקא אכיל טבלים יותר מכדי חסרונן לא שכיח

— It means this: now that the Rabbis have ruled that it may not be sold because we fear [that the owner may have declared, etc.], therefore the owner may declare it <i>terumah</i> and tithe for other produce.

ואי משתכחי מאי מזבנינן להו וליחוש שמא עשאן בעל הבית תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר כי מזבנינן נמי לכהנים בדמי תרומה מזבנינן להו

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: The dispute is only when there is the normal rate of decrease; but when [the loss] exceeds the normal rate of decrease, all agree that it must be sold by a court order. Now, he certainly disagrees with R. Nahman b. Isaac;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If we fear that it was declared terumah or tithe, it certainly may not be sold under any circumstances. ');">⁸</span>

ולרב נחמן בר יצחק נמי נזבנינהו לכהנים בדמי תרומה בהא פליגי דרבה בר בר חנה סבר יותר מכדי חסרונן לא שכיח מידי וכי משתכח לקמיה הוא דהויא יתר מכדי חסרונן אי עביד להו בעה"ב תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר מקמיה דהוו להו יותר מכדי חסרונן עביד להו הלכך כי הוו להו יותר מכדי חסרונן נזבנינהו לכהנים בדמי תרומה

but must we say that he differs from R. Kahana [too]? — [No.] R. Kahana referred only to the normal decrease. But did he not Say, A man prefers a <i>kab</i> of his own to nine of his neighbour's!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is certainly more than normal. ');">⁹</span>

ורב נחמן בר יצחק סבר יתר מכדי חסרונן משכח שכיח וכי הוו להו לאלתר הוא דהוו להו ואי אמרת נזבנינהו זימנין דקדים ומזבין להו וכי עביד להו בעל הבית תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר לא ידע דזבנא וקא אכיל טבלים

— That was a mere exaggeration.

מיתיבי המפקיד פירות אצל חבירו והרקיבו יין והחמיץ שמן והבאיש דבש והדביש הרי זה לא יגע בהן דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים עושה להם תקנה ומוכרן בבית דין וכשהוא מוכרן מוכרן לאחרים ואינו מוכרן לעצמו

An objection is raised: 'therefore its owner may declare it <i>terumah</i> and tithe for other produce;' but let him fear lest [the loss] exceeded the normal decrease, so that it was sold, hence he [the bailor] eats <i>tebel</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.; the plural is used here. — The produce might have been sold before it was declared tithe, in which case the bailor now eats untithed produce. ');">¹⁰</span>

כיוצא בו גבאי צדקה בזמן שאין להם עניים לחלק פורטין לאחרים ואין פורטין לעצמן גבאי תמחוי בזמן שאין להם עניים לחלק מוכרין לאחרים ואין מוכרין לעצמן

— [A loss] above the normal decrease is rare.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is not found.' ');">¹¹</span>

קתני מיהת פירות והרקיבו מאי לאו אפילו יתר מכדי חסרונן לא בכדי חסרונן והא יין והחמיץ שמן והבאיש דבש והדביש דיתר מכדי חסרונן נינהו שאני הני כיון דקם קם

But what if it does happen — we sell it? But let us fear lest the owner might have declared it <i>terumah</i> and tithe for other produce!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the buyer, though possibly a zar, (q.v. Glos.) eats terumah, which is forbidden. ');">¹²</span>

שמן והבאיש דבש והדביש

— It is, in fact, sold to priests [only] at the price of <i>terumah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is less than that of ordinary produce: firstly, because only priests may eat it; and secondly, because it may not be eaten at all if it becomes defiled. ');">¹³</span> Then according to R. Nahman b. Isaac too, let it be sold to priests at the price of <i>terumah</i>! — They differ in this: viz., Rabbah b. Bar Hanah holds that [loss] above the normal decrease is altogether rare, and when it does happen, it exceeds the usual rate only after a considerable time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at a time ahead.' ');">¹⁴</span> Hence, if the owner declared it <i>terumah</i> and tithe for other produce, he would have done so before its loss exceeded the normal;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the produce is properly tithed. ');">¹⁵</span> therefore, when it does exceed it we can sell it to priests at the price of <i>terumah</i>. R. Nahman b. Isaac, however, maintains that a greater decrease than normal is quite frequent, and when it happens, it may happen immediately.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the lapse of a considerable time. ');">¹⁶</span> Therefore, should you say that it is sold, it may happen that it is sold early, and when the owner declares it <i>terumah</i> and tithe for other produce he is unaware that it is [already] sold, and so eats <i>tebel</i>. An objection is raised: If one deposits fruit with his neighbour, and it rots; wine, and it sours; oil, and it putrefies, or honey, and it turns rancid, he [the bailee] may not touch it: this is R. Meir's ruling. But the Sages maintain: He effects a remedy for them by selling them on the instructions of the court; and when he sells, he must sell to strangers, not to himself. Similarly, when the charity overseers have no poor to whom to distribute [their funds], they must change [the copper coins] with others, not themselves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Copper coins were unsuitable for keeping a long time, being liable to tarnish and mould. Therefore they would be exchanged for silver ones. ');">¹⁷</span> The overseers of the soup kitchen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]; actual food was collected for this purpose, not money, and it was distributed to those in immediate need of a meal. V. B.B. 8b. ');">¹⁸</span> when they have no poor to whom to make a distribution, must sell to others, not themselves. Now, incidentally he [the Tanna] states, 'fruit&nbsp;… and it rots': surely that means, even more than the normal decrease?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yet R. Meir rules that it must not be touched, which contradicts R. Johanan. ');">¹⁹</span> — No: [it means] within the normal deterioration. But 'wine, and it sours, oil and it putrefies, or honey, and it turns rancid' are more than normal deterioration! — These are different: having arrived at that stage, they remain so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And do not deteriorate any further; therefore nothing is gained by selling them. But produce goes on rotting more and more. ');">²⁰</span> Now, when oil putrefies, or honey becomes rancid,