Bava Batra 87a — the Talmud in English

-

his wage is

each day

That is, if at the time of the threshing floor the laborer can hire himself out for a sela per day, and because of the advance of the money from Nisan, the laborer hires himself out cheaply—for one dinar per day.

Запрещено

for the householder

to benefit from him,

from the laborer, because of the prohibition of interest, for the laborer gives him, at the time of the threshing floor, work worth a sela, in return for what the purchaser advanced to pay him—a dinar—in Nisan, and waited for him until now.

But, if

the householder hired him

from today,

that he should begin working for him from today,

по

at the price of

one dinar per day,

and the householder paid him his wage in advance—

there is no prohibition in this,

и

and even though

at the threshing floor his wage is

each day

a sela,

nevertheless

it is

permitted.

For all his labor, from today until after the days of the threshing floor, is considered one long day, and here there is no “agar natar lei,” since he began his labor immediately.

But if the laborer did not begin his work except at the time of the threshing floor, the matter is prohibited, since for the waiting of his money the laborer hired himself out cheaply.

This case resembles one who sells to his fellow a kor for thirty sela, a seah for a sela, since he specified giving him one dinar per day, and did not simply say to him: Until the days of the threshing floor I hire you for such-and-such dinars.

And if it enters your mind

that when he said to him:

“A kor for thirty, a seah for a sela I sell to you,”

это считается так, будто каждая сеа является отдельной сделкой и

the matter is considered as though each seah is a separate purchase, and the first one purchased first—

then

so too,

with the hiring of the laborer,

each one is severed separately,

each and every day is considered separately, and there is here a prohibition of interest,

and it is prohibited to benefit from him.

And let it be difficult: How did we learn: If he hired him from today

for one dinar per day, and at the threshing floor his wage is a sela—

is it permitted!?

He said,

he answered,

Rava: “And can you understand it [that way]?”

Do you think that this matter is prohibited according to the law?

And is

lowering the price of hiring,

hiring oneself out cheaply,

prohibited!?

For even when he advanced the payment to him from Nisan, and he does not work with him until the threshing floor, there is no prohibition from the Torah in the matter, since the laborer is permitted to hire himself out for a small payment. And we ask: If so,

what is different in the first clause,

when he does not perform work with him from today, as it teaches: It is prohibited to benefit from him, because of “agar natar lei”?

And what is different about the final clause

that it is permitted, when he performs work with him from today!?

And we explain:

the first clause, in which he does not perform work with him from now,

he does not perform work with him from now, and it is a stringency of the Rabbis to prohibit, because the giving of the money at the outset

appears as “agar natar lei,”

and not by Torah law.

But

the final clause, in which the laborer

performs work

with him from now—

it does not appear as “agar natar lei”;

therefore the matter is permitted.

We learned in the Mishna: One who purchases flax from his fellow,

and if it was attached to the ground and he detached any amount—

he acquired it.

And the Gemara assumed that detaching the flax is considered like pulling, and through detaching part of the flax the purchaser acquired all the flax. And therefore it asks:

Because he detached any amount

of the flax,

he acquired

all the rest!?

And does pulling part of the purchase acquire the entire purchase!?

A. Land is acquired through an acquisition of possession. Therefore, one who improves the land so that it will be fit for plowing—this is an acquisition of possession, and he acquires it.

B. One who takes possession of part of the land acquires all the land that the owner of the land sells or gives him.

C. Everything attached to the land is like land, and it too is acquired through an acquisition of possession.

He said,

he explained,

Rav Sheshet:

The purchaser did not acquire the flax because of pulling, but because of an acquisition of possession.

И

And here, with what are we dealing?

For example,

the seller said to the purchaser:

the seller to the purchaser:

Go,

detach a little flax from the ground,

and improve for yourself

a piece of land of any amount, and acquire

the

entirety of what

is upon it,

the flax.

That is, go and take possession of the land by gathering a little flax and clearing the land in that place for plowing; and through your taking possession of the land, you will acquire the flax upon it.

Mishna:

One who sells wine and oil

to his fellow, and they became more expensive or became cheaper,

after their prices had been fixed, and the seller or the purchaser wishes to retract.

If

they became more expensive or cheaper

before the measure was filled,

before the vessel into which the seller measured the wine or oil was filled,

for the seller—

in the seller’s domain they became more expensive or cheaper.

And if they became more expensive or cheaper

after the measure was filled, for the purchaser—

they are in the purchaser’s domain.

And the Gemara will explain that it is speaking of a case in which the measuring vessel belongs to neither of them, but to another who lent it to both of them. The Mishna comes to teach us that before the measure was filled, it was lent to the seller, and once the measure was filled, it was lent to the purchaser. Here it is speaking of one who measures the wine or oil for him in an alley, or in a courtyard belonging to both of them, or in the purchaser’s domain, for in such a case the purchaser’s vessels acquire for him.

And if there was a broker between them,

who measures for customers for the payment they give him,

the barrel broke—

at the time of measuring; and, for example, it did not break because of unavoidable circumstances, but because he was not sufficiently careful while measuring,

it broke for the broker,

and he is obligated to pay for the loss of the purchase, since he became responsible for the purchase by accepting payment for the measuring .

And in connection with the preceding matter, the Mishna adds to teach us that:

And he is obligated

the one who sells wine and oil to his fellow

to let three drops fall for him.

After the seller poured the wine or oil into the purchaser’s vessels, he is obligated to leave the measure over the vessel until three more drops fall from it, one drop after another.

If he tilted it—

the seller tilted the measure onto its side after letting three drops fall from it—

and it drained [ומיצה

and drained the remnants of the wine or oil, that is, he left the measure on its side until the remnants of the liquid collected from the walls into the bottom of the vessel,

then it is

the drained remainder

the seller’s,

since the purchaser had already despaired of it.

And the shopkeeper is not obligated to let three drops fall,

because he is occupied with his customers, and he has no time to stand with each one until three drops fall .

Rabbi Judah says:

even the shopkeeper is not exempt from letting three drops fall, but only

on the eve of Shabbat at nightfall he is exempt,

because the time is pressing; but on weekdays he is obligated.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the law of the Mishna:

Whose measure is this?

To whom does the measuring vessel belong?

If you say the measure

if it is said that the measuring vessel is

the purchaser’s,

if so, why was it said in the Mishna that

before the measure was filled

what is inside it still belongs

to the seller,

for behold

it is the purchaser’s measure,

and everything that enters the purchaser’s vessel is acquired by him!

But rather,

perhaps we should say that the Mishna is speaking in a manner in which the

measure,

the measuring vessel, is

the seller’s;

if so, it is difficult why it was said in the Mishna that

once the measure was filled,

what is inside it is acquired

by the purchaser,

for behold

it is the seller’s measure,

and the item has still not entered the purchaser’s vessels! And if it is said that it is speaking of the purchaser’s domain, behold, the Gemara earlier was uncertain whether the vessel is considered an interruption of domain, and the matter was not resolved in the Gemara. Seemingly, it would have been possible to resolve from the Mishna that the seller’s vessels in the purchaser’s domain acquire for the purchaser, and likewise the purchaser’s vessels in the seller’s domain acquire for the seller.

Rabbi Ela said:

It can be resolved that the Mishna is speaking

of a broker’s measure,

in which the intermediary between them is the owner of the measure, and it belongs neither to the seller nor to the purchaser. Rather, he lends it to the seller in order to measure with it, and from the moment it is filled, it is lent to the purchaser, so that he may transfer what is in it to his own vessels.

And we object:

But from what it teaches in the final clause,

for behold, from what we learned at the end of the Mishna:

And if there was a broker between them, the barrel broke—

it broke for the broker. From this

you learn

that the first clause is not dealing with a broker!

And we answer:

The first clause—

it is speaking of one who lent them

a measure without a broker,

in which the intermediary is not present, and the Mishna teaches that they are not the intermediary’s agents and the purchase is not considered to be in his domain, even though the measure belongs to him.

The final clause—

it is speaking

of the broker himself,

the intermediary between them; and since he is there and the measuring vessel is his, the purchase is considered to be in his domain, since he takes the purchase from the seller and sells it to the purchaser. Therefore, when the barrel broke during the measuring, it broke for the broker, and he is obligated to pay for the loss of the purchase, since his vessels acquired the purchase.

We learned in the Mishna: If

he tilted it,

the seller tilted the barrel onto its side after letting three drops fall from it,

and it drained—

then it is

the drained remainder

the seller’s,

since the purchaser had already despaired of it.

And the Gemara brings an incident:

When he went up,

when

Rabbi Elazar

ascended from Babylonia to the Land of Israel,

he found

he found

Zeiri. He said to him: Is there here a tanna to whom Rav taught [the matters of] measures?

Is there here in the Land of Israel a tanna who teaches Mishnayot and baraitot, to whom Rav taught a Mishna dealing with the law of measures?

He showed him

Zeiri showed him

Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi.

He said to him,

Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi said to him:

What is difficult to you?

Rabbi Elazar said to him that he had a contradiction between the Mishnayot:

For we learned

in our Mishna:

If he tilted it and it drained—

it is the seller’s,