Bava Metzia 80

דל תלתין ושיתא בשיתא פשו ליה תריסר דל תמניא שתותי פשו להו ארבעה

Now, deduct thirty-six [from the forty-eight] for six [<i>zuz</i>],leaves twelve; deduct eight, which is the sixth [allowed for absorption], leaves four.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This then was his profit — 4 in 48 = 1/12 th. ');">¹</span>

והאמר שמואל המשתכר אל ישתכר יותר על שתות

But Samuel said: He who profits must not profit more than a sixth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yet 1/6 th is permissible: why then did Rab Judah content himself with 1/12 th? ');">²</span>

איכא גולפי ושמריא אי הכי נפיש ליה טפי משתות איכא טרחיה ודמי ברזנייתא:

— There are the barrels and the lees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which augment his profits. ');">³</span>

אם היה שמן מזוקק אינו יוציא לו שמרים [וכו']: והא אי אפשר דלא בלע אמר רב נחמן במזופפין שנו אביי אמר אפילו תימא שלא במזופפין כיון דטעון טעון

If so, it exceeds one sixth. — There is his trouble, and the cost of the crier.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who announced the wares. Others: the cost of piercing the bung. ');">⁴</span>

ר"י אומר אף המוכר שמן מזוקק לחבירו כל ימות השנה הרי זה מקבל עליו לוג ומחצה שמרים למאה: אמר אביי כשתמצא לומר לדברי ר"י מותר לערב שמרים לדברי חכמים אסור לערב שמרים

IF IT WAS REFINED OIL, HE MAY MAKE NO DEDUCTION FOR LEES etc. But it is impossible that it [the barrel] shall not absorb!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if old. ');">⁵</span>

לדברי רבי יהודה מותר לערב שמרים והיינו טעמא דמקבל דאמר ליה אי בעי לערובי לך מי לא ערבי לך השתא נמי קביל

— Said R. Nahman: This refers to [barrels] lined with pitch.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These, if old, do not absorb. ');">⁶</span>

ולימא ליה אי ערבת ליה הוה מזדבן לי השתא מאי אעביד ליה לחודיה לא מזדבן לי בבעל הבית עסקינן דניחא ליה בצילא ולימא ליה מדלא ערבית לי אחולי אחלת לי

Abaye said: You may even say that they are not pitch lined: being laden, they are laden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And cannot absorb more. ');">⁷</span>

רבי יהודה לטעמיה דלית ליה מחילה דתנן מכר לו את הצמד לא מכר לו את הבקר מכר לו את הבקר לא מכר לו את הצמד

R. JUDAH SAID: EVEN IF HE SELLS REFINED OIL TO HIS NEIGHBOUR DURING THE WHOLE YEAR, THE LATTER MUST ACCEPT A <i>LOG</i> AND A HALF OF LEES PER CENT. Abaye said: When you examine the matter, [you will conclude that] in R. Judah's opinion lees may be mixed [with the oil]; whilst on the Rabbis' view lees may not be mixed. 'In R. Judah's opinion lees may be mixed,' and that is the reason that he [the vendee] must accept [the lees],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated in the Mishnah. ');">⁸</span>

ר"י אומר הדמים מודיעין כיצד אמר לו מכור לי צמדך במאתים זוז הדבר ידוע שאין הצמד במאתים זוז וחכ"א אין הדמים ראיה

because he [the vendor] can say to him, 'Had I desired to mix it up for you, could I not have done so? therefore now too, accept it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., having received the refined oil in small quantities without lees, you must now accept one and a half logs of sediment separately. ');">⁹</span>

לדברי חכמים אסור לערב שמרים והיינו טעמא דלא מקבל דא"ל אי בעית לערובי מי הוה שרי לך השתא נמי לא מקבילנא

But let him answer, 'Had you mixed it up for me, it could have been sold [together with the rest]: but what am I to do with it now? I cannot sell it separately!' — This refers to a private individual, who prefers clear [oil].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He bought it for his own use, not to resell, and therefore is glad that pure oil was delivered him; consequently he must accept the sediment separately. ');">¹⁰</span>

א"ל רב פפא לאביי אדרבה איפכא מסתברא לדברי חכמים מותר לערב שמרים והיינו טעמא דלא מקבל דא"ל מדלא ערבת לי אחולי אחלית לי לדברי רבי יהודה אסור לערב שמרים והיינו טעמא דמקבל דאמר ליה אי בעי לערובי לא שרי לי לערובי לך קבולי לא מקבלת זבון וזבין תגרא איקרי

But let him say to him, 'Since you did not mix it up for me, you have renounced it in my favour?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., your right to mingle the lees with the oil. ');">¹¹</span>

תנא אחד הלוקח ואחד המפקיד לפקטים מאי לפקטים אילימא כי היכי דלוקח לא מקבל פקטים מפקיד נמי לא מקבל פקטים ולימא ליה פקטך מאי איעביד להו

— R. Judah follows his general reasoning, not accepting [the theory of] renunciation. For we learnt: If one sells the yoke, he has not sold the oxen; if he sells the oxen, he has not sold the yoke. R. Judah said: The price decides [the matter]. E.g., if one says to another, Sell me your yoke for two hundred <i>zuz</i>, it is well known that a yoke is not priced at two hundred <i>zuz</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he must have meant the yoke and the oxen. ');">¹²</span>

אלא כי היכי דמפקיד מקבל פקטים לוקח נמי מקבל פקטים ומי מקבל לוקח פקטים והתניא ר"י אומר לא אמרו שמן עכור אלא למוכר בלבד שהרי לוקח מקבל עליו לוג ומחצה שמרים בלא פקטים

But the Sages say: The price is no proof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 77b. The vendee may have chosen this method of renouncing his money, i.e., gifting it, to the vendor. Since R. Judah rules that the price does prove the meaning of the terms used, he evidently rejects this plea of renunciation. ');">¹³</span>

לא קשיא הא דיהיב ליה זוזי בתשרי וקא שקיל מיניה בניסן כי מדה דתשרי הא דיהיב ליה זוזי בניסן וקא שקיל מיניה בניסן כי מדה דניסן:

'Whilst on the Rabbis' view lees may not be mixed,' and that is the reason that he [the vendee] need not accept [the lees], because he can say to him [the vendor], 'Had you desired to mix it up,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After it had settled at the bottom. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המפקיד חבית אצל חבירו ולא יחדו לה בעלים מקום וטלטלה ונשתברה אם מתוך ידו נשברה לצורכו חייב לצורכה פטור אם משהניחה נשברה בין לצורכו בין לצורכה פטור יחדו לה הבעלים מקום וטלטלה ונשברה בין מתוך ידו ובין משהניחה לצורכו חייב לצורכה פטור:

would it then have been permitted to you? Now too, [therefore,] I will not accept it.'

<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. ');">¹⁵</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. ');">¹⁶</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. ');">¹⁷</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. ');">¹⁸</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. ');">¹⁹</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. ');">²⁰</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'. ');">²¹</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. ');">²²</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. ');">²³</span> this is R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: