Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra

Folio 87a

but at that season [the labourer] was worth a sela'¹  [a day] he must not derive any benefit from it.²  If, however, [a man] hires [a labourer to commence work] at once [and to continue through the harvesting season] for a denarius a day, [although] at the harvesting season he was worth a sela', [he] is permitted [to pay in advance and to have the benefit of the difference].³  Now, if you are of the opinion that [if the seller said]. 'I sell you a kor for thirty, [each] se'ah for a sela', '[the buyer] acquires possession of every se'ah as it is measured out, here also, [since mention was made of a 'denarius a day'] every day that has passed⁴  [should have been regarded as] cut off⁵  [from the other days of the period that follow] and it should, [therefore], be forbidden to derive any benefit from it.⁶  Why then [has it been said that if a man hires a labourer to commence work at once and to continue through the harvesting season] for a denarius a day, [although] at the harvesting season he was worth a sela' [he] is permitted [to have the benefit]? Is not this [difference] a reward⁷  for advancing the money?⁸  Raba replied: What a logical argument! Has it ever been forbidden to reduce one's hire to the lowest level?⁹  Wherein [then, lies the reason for] the difference between the first, and the last clause?¹⁰  — [In] the first clause, since work does not begin¹¹  at once,¹²  [the difference between the two rates of wage] appears as a reward for advancing the money;¹³  [in] the last clause, where work begins at once, [the difference] does not appear as a reward for advancing the money.

AND IT IF WAS ATTACHED TO THE GROUND AND HE PLUCKED [OF IT] ANY QUANTITY, HE HAS ACQUIRED OWNERSHIP. Does he acquire ownership [of all the flax] because he has plucked some of it?¹⁴  — R. Shesheth replied: The case dealt with here [refers to a seller] who said [to the buyer], 'Go improve¹⁵  for yourself any piece of land, [acquire¹⁶  possession of it, and thereby] acquire ownership of all that is upon it.'¹⁷

MISHNAH. [IF] ONE SELLS WINE OR OIL TO ANOTHER AND IT HAS BECOME DEARER¹⁸  OR CHEAPER,¹⁸  — IF THE MEASURE HAS NOT YET BEEN FILLED, [THE BENEFIT OR LOSS IS] THE SELLER'S. AFTER THE MEASURE HAS BEEN FILLED, [THE BENEFIT OR LOSS IS] THE BUYER'S. IF THERE WAS A MIDDLEMAN BETWEEN THEM [AND] THE CASK WAS BROKEN [BEFORE DELIVERY TO THE BUYER], THE LOSS¹⁹  IS THE MIDDLEMAN'S. [A SELLER] MUST [IN FAVOUR OF THE BUYER] ALLOW THREE DROPS TO FALL [FROM THE SIDES OF HIS VESSEL INTO THAT OF THE BUYER AFTER THE LIQUID HAS BEEN POURED OUT]. IF HE INCLINED THE VESSEL [AFTER THE THREE DROPS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FALL]. THE ACCUMULATION OF THE REMNANTS [FROM ITS SIDES] BELONGS TO THE SELLER.²⁰  A SHOPKEEPER²¹  IS NOT OBLIGED TO ALLOW THE THREE DROPS TO FALL. R. JUDAH SAID: ON SABBATH EVE TOWARDS DUSK ONE IS EXEMPT.²²

GEMARA. Whose measure was this?²³  If it is assumed to have been the measure of the buyer, [why should the benefit or loss be that] of the seller before the measure has been filled? [Surely] it is the buyer's measure!²⁴  If, however, [it is assumed that it was] the seller's measure, [why should the benefit or loss be that] of the buyer after the measure has been filled? [Surely] it is the seller's measure! — R. Elai replied: The measure was the middleman's.²⁵  But since it is taught in the latter clause, IF THERE WAS A MIDDLEMAN BETWEEN THEM AND THE CASK WAS BROKEN THE LOSS IS THE MIDDLEMAN'S, is it not to be inferred that the first clause does not deal with the case of a middleman? — The first clause [speaks of] a measure in the absence of the middleman; the latter clause, of the middleman himself.²⁶

[IF THE VESSEL …] HAS BEEN INCLINED, THE ACCUMULATION OF THE REMNANTS [FROM ITS SIDES] BELONGS TO THE SELLER. When R. Eleazar went up²⁷  he met Ze'iri to whom he said: Is there here a tanna²⁸  whom Rab has taught the Mishnah of measures? He showed him R. Isaac b. Abdimi. The latter said unto him: What is your difficulty? — For [the other replied,] we learnt: [IF THE VESSEL …] HAS BEEN INCLINED, THE ACCUMULATION OF THE REMNANTS [FROM ITS SIDES] BELONGS TO THE SELLER;

1. Sela' = four denarii.
2. Viz., the difference between the sum given and the price of labour at harvesting time; because this may be regarded as usury. since the labourer is paying a sela' (in labour) for every denarius he has received in advance.
3. Because the whole period of the hiring is considered as one long day; and, since on the first days of the period the labour was only worth a denarius per day. no higher price need be paid for the other days.
4. Lit. 'first first'.
5. Mentioning the entire period and the denarius per day is similar to mentioning the entire kor and the individual units of the se'ah.
6. Viz. the difference between the wages at the harvesting season and that at the earlier days.
7. I.e., usury.
8. Lit., 'reward for waiting for me'.
9. A labourer may. so far as the Biblical prohibition of usury is concerned, agree to take any wage, however low, even if his work is not to begin until the harvesting season, and his wages may be paid in advance. Lowering one's wage is not the same as paying usury for advancing money as a loan or on a purchase.
10. Since one may lower his wage, why does the first clause state that one must have no benefit from the difference between the denarius and the sea'?
11. Lit. 'does not do with him'.
12. As soon as the wage was agreed upon and paid.
13. And prohibited as a mere Rabbinical restrictive measure. V. n. 6.
14. How can the meshikah of a small part affect the entire purchase?
15. Clearing any piece of land, by plucking the flax that grows upon it, prepares it for ploughing. and thus improves it.
16. By improving the piece of land at the request of the owner, the buyer acquires possession of the entire field, though he did not buy it for the purpose of acquiring the flax.
17. By acquiring possession of the land one acquires all that grows upon it.
18. After the price had been agreed upon.
19. Lit., 'it was broken.
20. So Rashb. Jastrow, on the basis of a variant reading. renders, 'If he bent the vessel and drained it.'
21. Who has to attend to his customers and is pressed for time.
22. The Gemara explains this.
23. The measure spoken of in our Mishnah.
24. Whereby he should acquire ownership.
25. And he lent it to the buyer and the seller.
26. Since he buys from the seller to sell to the buyer, and the measure is his, and he himself is present, the purchase is his until delivery to the buyer.
27. From Babylon to Palestine.
28. I.e. one who memorizes Mishnayoth and Baraithoth for recital in the school; v. Glos.

but have we not [also] learnt: '[If the vessel]¹  has been inclined, the accumulation from the remnants [on its sides] is terumah'?²  — 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.³

A SHOPKEEPER IS NOT OBLIGED TO ALLOW TO FALL etc. The question was raised: Does R. Judah refer to the [law in the] earlier clause⁴  to relax it,⁵  or perhaps [he refers] to the [law in the] latter clause⁶  to restrict it?⁷  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.⁸

MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SENDS HIS [LITTLE] SON TO A SHOPKEEPER [TO WHOM HE HAD PREVIOUSLY GIVEN A DUPONDIUM],⁹  AND [THE SHOPKEEPER] MEASURED OUT FOR HIM OIL FOR ONE ISAR⁵  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.]¹⁰  R. JUDAH ABSOLVES [THE SHOPKEEPER], SINCE FOR THAT PURPOSE¹¹  [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.

GEMARA. One can well understand that, in [the case of] the isar and the oil, the dispute [in our Mishnah between the Rabbis¹²  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],¹³  and R. Judah¹⁴  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 owner¹⁵  was well prepared!¹⁶  — 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;¹⁷  [in such a case the shopkeeper¹⁸  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.¹⁹  Does this mean that [the decision] of Samuel is [not generally accepted, but is a matter of dispute between] Tannaim?²⁰  [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.²¹  And R. Judah follows his own reasoning,²²  and the Rabbis follow their own reasoning.²³  If so,²⁴  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?²⁵  — But, said both Abaye b. Abin and R. Hanina b. Abin, here we deal with a case

1. In which the Israelite measured out oil for the priestly portion.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Which requires the seller always to allow three drops to fall into the vessel of the buyer.
5. That on Sabbath eve towards dusk, it is not to be applied.
6. Which exempts a shopkeeper.
7. That even a shopkeeper is not exempt, except on Sabbath eve towards dusk.
8. R. Judah's is thus a restrictive measure.
9. Dupondium and isar, Roman coins. The former is worth two of the latter.
10. Of the bottle, the oil and the isar.
11. I.e., of bringing home, from the shopkeeper, the oil and the isar as well as the bottle.
12. I.e., the Sages who hold the shopkeeper responsible for the losses.
13. 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.
14. Who absolves the shopkeeper.
15. I.e., the father of the child.
16. By entrusting the bottle to the child, the father had shown that he was prepared to take the risk.
17. Not merely for the purpose of putting the oil into it, but with the intention of buying it if found suitable.
18. Who thus becomes a potential buyer.
19. 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.
20. R. Judah, who absolves the shopkeeper, disagreeing with Samuel.
21. And the child was given money by his father to pay for the bottle in which the oil was to be carried.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Not to bring the bottle. Why, then, do they in this case, absolve the shopkeeper?