Bava Batra 87b (פז:) — the Talmud in English

But didn’t we learn [Trumot 11:8] regarding one who separates teruma: If he measured with a utensil a measure of one-fiftieth—oil or wine—for the separation of teruma, and poured that oil or wine from the utensil in which he measured it into another utensil, if afterward

the householder tilted the utensil in which he had measured the teruma

and extracted

the teruma

—and squeezed out its contents—

this is teruma,

and he gives it to a kohen!

And it is explained in the Mishna in Trumot that even the residue collected at the bottom of the utensil belongs to the recipient [that is, to the kohen]. 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 rationale is, as

Rabbi Abbahu said:

The reason that we learned that whatever is extracted belongs to the seller is

because they based it on the owners’ despair,

as the buyers despair of and waive their claim to this small quantity, since it is burdensome for the customers to wait until it is extracted. This is not so with teruma, because, since it is a prohibited substance, the owners’ despair is not relevant to it , and everything that he poured is teruma and is forbidden to non-kohanim .

We learned in the Mishna:

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

They raised a dilemma before them:

Do the words of

Rabbi Yehuda stand at the beginning

of the Mishna,

does his statement apply

to its words

leniently,

meaning that, contrary to the Mishna’s statement that everyone is obligated to let three drops drip, Rabbi Yehuda adds and says that on the eve of Shabbat he is exempt because the time is pressing?

Or perhaps they apply to the end

of the Mishna,

does his statement apply

to its words

stringently,

meaning that the Mishna says that the shopkeeper is exempt from letting three drops drip, and Rabbi Yehuda comes to say that he is exempt only on the eve of Shabbat?

Come and hear

a proof that Rabbi Yehuda’s statement was said with regard to the end of the Mishna:

as it was taught

in a beraita:

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

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

It is explicitly clarified in the beraita that Rabbi Yehuda’s statement refers to the end of the Mishna, for in his view the shopkeeper is exempt from letting three drops drip only on the eve of Shabbat.

Mishna:

One who sends his son

the minor

to a shopkeeper with a pundeyon in his hand

a coin worth two isarim [one forty-eighth of a sela] in order to purchase oil worth one isar, with the shopkeeper to return one additional isar as change,

and he measured for him

the shopkeeper

one isar’s worth of oil and gave him the isar

the change, so that he would bring the oil and the isar to his father,

and the son broke

the

flask

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

and he lost the isar—

that the shopkeeper had given him .

The shopkeeper is obligated

to pay for the pundeyon and the flask. The Gemara explains the reason: The father sent his minor son only to inform the shopkeeper that he needed oil; his intention was that the shopkeeper take the flask and the pundeyon from the minor and send him the oil and the change with an agent of legal capacity. Since he sent them with the minor, who lacks legal capacity, he is liable.

Rabbi Yehuda exempts

the shopkeeper. For Rabbi Yehuda maintains

that with this intention

that the shopkeeper send the oil and the isar with the minor,

his father sent him.

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

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

meaning that 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 flask,

that the shopkeeper is exempt

from liability for it, because since the father himself placed the flask in the minor’s hands, responsibility for it rests upon him, and this is an instance of intentional loss, as we explained above. However, the shopkeeper is liable for the oil and the isar.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the ruling of the Mishna:

Granted, with regard to the isar,

that the shopkeeper gave to the minor son,

and the oil

in the flask—it is possible to explain that

they disagree about this:

For the Rabbis maintain:

The father sent his minor son only

to inform

the shopkeeper that he needed oil;

he sent him

for that purpose, but he did not intend that the oil and the isar be placed in his hands; rather, the shopkeeper should send them to him through another agent who was an adult and responsible.

And Rabbi Yehuda maintains:

That in order

to send it to him, he sent him

the minor son, and he intended that the shopkeeper give the oil and the isar to the infant; therefore, the shopkeeper is exempt.

But

the law in the Mishna concerning when

the infant broke

the

flask

is difficult: Why should the shopkeeper be liable for it according to the Rabbis? Is it not

an instance of intentional loss

on the father’s part? For it was he who initially placed the flask in the hands of the infant, who does not know how to properly guard what is in his possession; and as soon as he placed it in his hands, he abandoned it , since he is unconcerned if his son loses it. He intended only that the shopkeeper send the oil and the additional change on his behalf with a responsible agent.

And for this reason it is not difficult why, according to the Rabbis, the shopkeeper is liable for the additional isar that was lost: Although the pundeyon that the father sent with the minor is an object intentionally lost, nevertheless, the shopkeeper should not have returned the additional isar with the minor—for it was not the coin that the father had sent—but should have sent the additional isar with a responsible agent. Rashbam .

Rav Hoshaya said: Here

in our Mishna

we are dealing with a householder who sells flasks,

meaning that he sent his minor son to the shopkeeper with this flask in his hand, in case the shopkeeper wished to purchase it,

and it is a case where the shopkeeper took it

from the minor

in order

to purchase it, and he wished

to examine it

to see whether it was intact,

and this is in accordance with the statement of Shmuel.

For Shmuel said: One who takes a utensil

whose price is fixed and known

from an artisan—

a craftsman—

in order to examine it—

to inspect it, so that if he finds it intact and of good quality he will purchase it immediately—

and an accident occurs to

the utensil

while it is in his possession

and it falls and breaks,

he is liable

to pay the artisan for the utensil. This is so even if, before it broke, he decided to return it to the owner rather than purchase it, because as soon as he took the utensil and lifted it in order to inspect it and purchase it, he became responsible for it as a borrower, and he is not exempt until he returns it to the owner.

Therefore, here, in our Mishna, when the shopkeeper took the flask from the minor in order to examine it, he became responsible for it as a borrower. When he returned it to the minor, it is considered as though the shopkeeper cast it away to be lost and the accident occurred while it was in his possession; he does not become exempt from his responsibility until he returns it to the owners themselves. Therefore, when the flask broke while in the minor’s possession, according to the Rabbis the shopkeeper is liable.

And we challenge this: Is it possible to say

that Shmuel’s ruling is subject to a dispute among the tannaim,

that the tannaim disagree about the law stated by Shmuel? For Rabbi Yehuda exempts the shopkeeper from paying for the flask. And if the opinion of the Rabbis, who obligate the shopkeeper to pay for the flask, is because this is a case where the shopkeeper took the flask in order to examine and purchase it and became responsible for it, in accordance with Shmuel’s ruling, then necessarily Rabbi Yehuda exempts because he disagrees with Shmuel’s ruling .

Rather, Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: Here

in our Mishna

we are dealing with a shopkeeper who sells flasks.

The flask belongs to the shopkeeper, and the father sent his son with the money in order to purchase the flask from the shopkeeper and bring oil in it.

And Rabbi Yehuda follows his own reasoning,

that the father’s intention was for the shopkeeper to send the flask with the oil in the hands of his minor son; therefore, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the shopkeeper is exempt.

And the Rabbis follow their own reasoning,

that the father’s intention was for the shopkeeper to send the flask with the oil in the hands of another agent who possesses legal capacity; therefore, according to the Rabbis, the shopkeeper who sent it with the minor is liable.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if we interpret the Mishna’s words in this manner, the words at the end of the Mishna will be difficult.

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

“that the shopkeeper is exempt.”

And this is difficult: Why, according to the Rabbis, is the shopkeeper exempt?

But you said:

It was only

to inform him that he sent him

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

Rather,

the words of the Mishna must be interpreted differently:

Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Avin both said: Here

in our Mishna, the case is not one involving a seller of flasks—the father or the son—but

what are we dealing with?

It is as we initially established it: a minor whom his father sent to the shopkeeper with a flask, so that he could measure oil into it,