Bava Batra 87b — the Talmud in English

But did we not learn

he tilted the vessel in which he had measured the teruma

and squeezed it out—

the householder

and extracted it—

this is teruma,

and he gives it to the koen!

And it is explained in the Mishna concerning teruma that even the residue collected at the bottom of the vessel belongs to the recipient [that is, to the koen]. And why do we not say the same in our Mishna?

He said to him: It was stated concerning it,

it was already stated concerning our Mishna what its reason is, for

Rabbi Abahu said:

the reason for what we learned—that what is extracted belongs to the seller—

is because they touched upon the matter of the owners’ despair,

for the buyers despair and relinquish their claim to this small quantity, since it is burdensome for the customers to wait until it is extracted. But this is not so with teruma, since it is a matter of prohibition, and the owners’ despair does not apply to it, and everything that he poured is teruma and is forbidden to non-koanim.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the shopkeeper is not obligated to let three drops fall; Rabbi Judah says: On the eve of Shabbat, close to nightfall, he is exempt.”

They raised a dilemma:

do the words of

Rabbi Judah stand regarding the first clause,

regarding the words of the Mishna in its first clause,

stand

his words

as a leniency,

so that, contrary to what is stated in the Mishna—that every person is obligated to let three drops fall—Rabbi Judah adds and says that on the eve of Shabbat he is exempt, because the hour is pressing?

Or perhaps they stand regarding the latter clause

of the Mishna,

stand

his words

as a stringency,

for the Mishna said that the shopkeeper is exempt from letting three drops fall, and Rabbi Judah came to say that he is exempt only on the eve of Shabbat?

Come and hear

a proof that the words of Rabbi Judah were stated regarding the latter clause of the Mishna:

as it was taught

in a beraita:

“Rabbi Judah says: On the eve of Shabbat, close to nightfall—

the shopkeeper is exempt, because the shopkeeper is occupied.”

It is explicitly clear in the beraita that Rabbi Judah’s words refer to the latter clause of the Mishna, for in his view the shopkeeper is exempt from letting three drops fall only on the eve of Shabbat.

Mishna:

One who sends his son

the minor

to a shopkeeper, with a pundeyon in his hand,

which is the value of two issarim [one forty-eighth of a sela], to buy oil for the value of one issar, and the shopkeeper should return to him one issar as change,

and he measured for him

the shopkeeper

oil worth one issar and gave him the issar

as the change, so that he would bring his father the oil and the issar,

and the son broke

the

small flask

on his way from the store to his home, and the oil spilled,

and he lost the issar—

that the shopkeeper had given him.

The shopkeeper is obligated

to pay for the pundeyon and the small flask. And the Gemara explains the reason: the father sent his minor son only to inform the shopkeeper that he needed oil, and his intention was that the shopkeeper would take the small flask and the pundeyon from the minor and send him the oil and the change through an agent of understanding. Since he sent them through the minor, who is not of legal understanding, he is obligated.

Rabbi Judah exempts

the shopkeeper. For Rabbi Judah holds

that on this condition

that the shopkeeper would send the oil and the issar through the minor

his father sent him.

And even if the shopkeeper used the small flask to measure for others, nevertheless he is exempt concerning it, because according to Rabbi Judah he is only like a borrower; and once he returned the small flask to the place from which he borrowed it, he is exempt from accidents.

And the Sages concede to Rabbi Judah when the small flask is in the infant’s hand—

that is, he did not take it to measure with it for others—

and the shopkeeper measured into it,

and on his way home the minor broke the small flask,

that the shopkeeper is exempt

concerning it, because since the father himself placed the small flask in the minor’s hand, the responsibility rests upon him, and it is an intentional loss, as we explained above. However, concerning the oil and the issar, the shopkeeper is obligated.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the law of the Mishna:

Granted, concerning the issar,

which the shopkeeper gave to the minor son,

and the oil

that was in the small flask—it is possible to explain that

in this they disagree:

For the Rabbis hold:

that only

to inform

the shopkeeper that he needed oil

he sent him,

the father sent his minor son; but he did not intend by this that he should give the oil and the issar into his hand, but rather that he should send them to him through another agent who was an adult and responsible.

And Rabbi Judah holds: that in order

to send him

he sent him,

he sent his minor son, and intended that the shopkeeper would hand the oil and the issar to the infant; therefore the shopkeeper is exempt.

But

the law in the Mishna concerning when

the infant broke

the

small flask

is difficult: why should the shopkeeper be obligated concerning it according to the Sages? Is it not

an intentional loss

on the father’s part, since it was he who initially placed the small flask into the hand of the infant, who does not know how to guard properly what is in his hand, and as soon as he placed it in his hand, he rendered it ownerless, for he does not care if his son loses it? He intended only that the shopkeeper would send the oil and the change, the extra issar, from his side through a responsible agent.

And for this reason it is not difficult why, according to the Sages, the shopkeeper is obligated for the lost extra issar: although the pundeyon that the father sent through the minor is an intentional loss, nevertheless he should not have returned the extra issar with the minor [which is not the coin that the father sent], but rather he should have sent the extra issar through a responsible agent. Rashbam .

Rav Hoshaya said: Here

in our Mishna

we are dealing with a householder who sells small flasks

—it is speaking of one who sends his minor son to the shopkeeper with this small flask in his hand, in case the shopkeeper wishes to buy it—

and, for example, the shopkeeper took it

from the minor

in order

to buy it, and wished

to examine it

to see whether it was intact,

in accordance with Shmuel.

For Shmuel said: One who takes a vessel

whose price is fixed and known

from a craftsman

—a skilled worker—

in order to examine it

—to inspect it, so that if he finds it intact and good he will buy it immediately—

and it is overcome by an accident

the vessel

while in his possession

and it falls and breaks,

he is obligated

to pay the craftsman for the vessel. This is so even if, before it broke, he decided to return it to its owner and not buy it, because as soon as he took the vessel and lifted it in order to examine and buy it, he became responsible for it, like a borrower, and he is not exempt until he returns it to the owners.

Therefore, here in our Mishna, when the shopkeeper took the small flask from the minor in order to examine it, he became responsible for it like a borrower. When he returned it to the minor, it is considered as though the shopkeeper cast it to its loss and it was overcome by an accident while in his possession; he is not exempt from his responsibility until he returns it into the hands of the owners themselves. Therefore, when the small flask breaks in the minor’s hand, according to the Sages the shopkeeper is obligated.

And we ask: Is it so?

Let us say that the law of Shmuel is subject to a dispute between tannaim,

that the tannaim disputed Shmuel’s law? For Rabbi Judah exempts the shopkeeper from paying for the small flask. And if the view of the Sages, who obligate the shopkeeper to pay for the small flask, is because it is speaking of a shopkeeper who took the small flask in order to examine it and buy it, and became responsible for it, in accordance with Shmuel’s law, then necessarily Rabbi Judah exempts because he disagrees with Shmuel’s law.

But, Rabbah and Rav Yosef, both of them say: Here

in our Mishna,

we are dealing with a shopkeeper who sells small flasks.

It is speaking of a case where the small flask belongs to the shopkeeper, and the father sent his son with the money in order to buy the small flask from the shopkeeper and bring oil in it.

And Rabbi Judah proceeds according to his reasoning,

that the father’s intention was that the shopkeeper send the small flask with the oil in the hand of his minor son; therefore Rabbi Judah holds that the shopkeeper is exempt,

and the Rabbis proceed according to their reasoning,

that the father’s intention was that the shopkeeper send the small flask with the oil in the hand of another agent who is of legal understanding; therefore, according to the Rabbis, the shopkeeper who sent it through the minor is obligated.

And we ask:

If so,

if we explain the words of the Mishna in this manner, the words of the latter part of the Mishna will be difficult.

Say the latter clause: “The Sages concede to Rabbi Judah when the small flask is in the infant’s hand and the shopkeeper measured into it”—

that the shopkeeper is exempt.

And it is difficult: why, according to the Sages, is the shopkeeper exempt?

But did you say:

that only

to inform him he sent him

—to inform the shopkeeper, the father sent his minor son, and not that he should send the small flask with the oil through him. If so, the shopkeeper should not have handed the small flask to the householder’s son; why, then, is he exempt?

But

the words of the Mishna must be explained differently:

Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Hanina bar Avin both say: Here

in our Mishna, it is not speaking of one who sells small flasks—not the father and not the son—but

with what are we dealing?

It is speaking, as we established initially, of a minor whom his father sent to the shopkeeper with a small flask so that he would measure oil in it.