Bava Metzia 38a (לח.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning what we said: According to Rabbi Yosei, I would have said that he disagrees only with regard to vessels, because of the loss suffered by the owner, whereas with regard to money he concedes to the Rabbis:

But the reason for Rabbi Yosei

is:

It is because of the loss of the deceitful person;

and since Rabbi Yosei holds for this reason that the item must be left until Elijah comes, and not because of the loss suffered by the owner, the difficulty nevertheless remains: Let the tanna state their dispute with regard to vessels, and not with regard to money!?

Rather,

the Gemara resolves the matter in another way:

Both—

the case of money and the case of vessels—

were necessary for the Rabbis.

Although it would have sufficed to teach their position with regard to vessels, and all the more so with regard to money, where there is no loss, nevertheless,

the Mishna teaches

the principle of “

“not only this, but also that”

not only this but also that”

.

It teaches both cases in our Mishna.

Mishna:

With regard to one who deposits produce with another, even if it is being ruined

by mice or rot, the bailee

may not touch it

to sell it, as the reason is explained in the Gemara.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

disagrees and

says: The bailee sells it

the bailee

before a court, because this is like returning a lost article to the owners,

so that they will not lose their produce.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who deposits produce with another, even if it is being ruined, may not touch it:

And we explain:

What is the reason!?

Rav Kahana said,

explaining the reason of the Rabbis:

Because

a person prefers his own kav,

for which he worked and exerted himself,

to nine kav of another,

meaning: He does not mind if much of his produce is lost, provided that even one kav remains in his possession; this is preferable to him than purchasing a large quantity of someone else’s produce with the money.

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said

a different reason: Because

we are concerned that perhaps the depositor designated it as teruma and tithe for produce in another place,

and it is forbidden to sell it to non-priests, who would eat it.

Meytivi

to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak from that which was taught in a beraita:

One who deposits produce with another, the bailee

the bailee

may not touch it

to sell it.

And since the depositor will not sell it,

therefore: The owner of the produce designates it

—the produce in the bailee’s house—

as teruma and tithe for produce in another place,

meaning, for produce that he has in his own house, because the produce deposited with the bailee is presumed to still exist.

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, according to Rav Kahana—

who holds that the reason for the law prohibiting its sale is not the concern of teruma and tithe—

this is what it teaches

in the beraita: Since the bailee certainly did not sell it,

“

therefore” the owner designates it as teruma and tithe for produce in another place.

But according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak—

who holds that the reason for the prohibition against selling it is that we are concerned that the owner designated it as teruma and tithe for produce in another place—then

what is

the meaning of ‘therefore’!?

“therefore” mean!?

The reason for the prohibition against selling is the concern that he designated it as teruma and tithe, whereas the beraita indicates the opposite.

And we answer:

This is what it is saying: Now that the Sages said, ‘We may not sell’

[since the Sages said that he may not sell it], and because

we are concerned

that perhaps the owner designated it as teruma and tithe for produce in another place improperly,

therefore the owner designates it as teruma and tithe for produce in another place,

since he need not be concerned that the bailee sold it.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The dispute—

the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishna as to whether the bailee may sell the produce when it is being ruined—applies specifically when it has decreased only

by its normal rate of loss,

that is, the amount by which it normally decreases; this amount is specified in the Mishna below, 40a.

But

if the produce decreased

by more than its normal rate of loss, everyone agrees that he sells it before a court.

And the Gemara explains:

According to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak—

whose reason for the Rabbis is the concern that the owner designated it as teruma and tithe for produce in another place—

he certainly disagrees

with this ruling stated by Rabbi Yoḥanan. For according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, even when it decreased by more than its normal rate of loss, he may not sell it, because perhaps the owner designated it as teruma and tithe for produce in another place.

But

according to Rav Kahana—

who said: A person prefers his own kav to nine kav of another—

can one say that he disagrees

with this ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan? After all, the amount stated by Rav Kahana is more than the normal rate of loss!?

The Gemara explains that they do not disagree:

And when Rav Kahana said

that he may not sell it because a person prefers his own kav, he was referring only to a case in which it decreased

by its normal rate of loss,

and it is only then that he

said this ruling.

And we raise a difficulty:

But

Rav Kahana

said

that a person

prefers his own kav to nine kav of another, and this is far more than the amount of its normal rate of loss!?

And we answer:

Rav Kahana stated

an exaggeration merely.

Meytivi

to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that when it decreased by more than its normal rate of loss, everyone agrees that he sells it, from the beraita cited above: Since the bailee is forbidden to sell it,

therefore the owner designates it as teruma and tithe for produce in another place.

And

if Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words are correct, that when it decreased by more than its normal rate of loss it is permitted to sell it, then why does the owner designate it as teruma and tithe!?

Let us be concerned that perhaps it had decreased by more than its normal rate of loss, and he sold it

[let us be concerned that perhaps it reached the point of more than its normal rate of loss and he already sold it]

and he is eating

and the homeowner is eating

untithed produce

!?

And we answer:

More than its normal rate of loss is uncommon,

and there is no need to be concerned about it.

The Gemara nevertheless asks:

And

if so,

if it is found

[that it decreased by more than its normal rate of loss],

what

is the law according to Rabbi Yoḥanan?

We sell it to them

[we sell it].

But let us be concerned that perhaps the owner designated it as teruma and tithe for produce in another place, and the bailee will thereby feed it to non-priests. And we answer: Even when it decreased by more than its normal rate of loss, Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say that he sells it to everyone. Rather,

and the bailee would thereby be feeding it to non-priests. And we answer: Even when it has decreased by more than the usual amount of loss, Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say that he sells it to everyone. Rather,

even when we sell it, we sell it to priests at the price of teruma,

[indeed, we do not sell it to non-priests because of this concern; rather, we sell the produce to a priest at the price of teruma].

And we ask:

And according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak as well,

why do we not sell it when it decreased by more than its normal rate of loss because of the concern of teruma and tithe!?

Let us sell it to priests at the price of teruma

[let the bailee sell it to a priest at the price of teruma].

And we answer:

They disagree concerning this:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana

in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan

held that: More than the usual amount of deterioration is exceedingly uncommon,

it is not at all a common occurrence,

and when it does occur

and when this has already happened,

it is only later that the produce reaches a level greater than the usual amount of deterioration

it does not reach the level of more than the usual amount of deterioration until some time has passed—and therefore,

if the owner had designated it as teruma and tithe for produce elsewhere

if the owner had designated it as teruma and tithe for produce elsewhere, presumably

he did so before it reached a level greater than the usual amount of deterioration

presumably, he had already done so before it reached that level—

therefore, once it reaches a level greater than the usual amount of deterioration, let us sell it to priests at the teruma value,

and therefore, once it reaches this level, the bailee may sell it to priests at the teruma value, and there is no concern that the owner is relying on it to designate it as teruma for produce elsewhere, with the result that if he sells it, the owner will be found to be eating untithed produce; for he will no longer designate it as teruma and tithe.

But

if

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak held:

even

a level greater than the usual amount of deterioration can commonly occur, and when it reaches that level, it can happen immediately

and sometimes it reaches this level at once—

therefore,

therefore,

if you say that we should sell it

to priests at the teruma value, there is concern that

sometimes he will sell it prematurely

sometimes this sale will take place too early,

and when the owner designates it as teruma and tithe for produce elsewhere, he will not

know that it was sold

and there is concern that the owner will designate it as teruma and tithe in order to permit untithed produce elsewhere, because he does not know that it has already been sold,

and

it will turn out that

he is eating

the owner

untithed produce.

The Gemara raises an objection

to Rabbi Yoḥanan from that which is taught in a beraita:

One who deposits produce with another, and it becomes infested;

or he deposited with him

wine, and it turned sour,

or

oil, and it became rancid,

or

honey, and it spoiled

its honey flavor disappeared and it turned sour,

this

the bailee

may not touch it, the statement of Rabbi Meir.

But the Sages say: He makes arrangements for it and sells it through the court.

And when he

the bailee

sells

the produce that was deposited with him, he

sells it to others,

and he may not sell it to himself,

so that people will not say: He purchased it cheaply.

Similarly:

a.

Charity collectors, when they have no poor people to whom they can distribute

the charity funds in their possession,

exchange

copper small coins for silver coins, because the copper deteriorates and becomes invalid,

for others,

but they may not exchange them for themselves,

so that people will not say: They exchanged them for themselves cheaply.

b. And similarly,

the charity-food collectors

food collected from the homes of the city and distributed to the poor,

when they have no poor people to whom they can distribute

food,

sell

the leftovers

to others, but may not sell them to themselves,

so that people will not say: They purchased them cheaply.

In any event, it is taught: “Produce that became infested”

this bailee may not touch it, and

is it not

the beraita discussing

even

when it has reached the level of

more than the usual amount of deterioration,

and nevertheless there is one who holds that he may not touch it, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan said: According to everyone, he may sell it once it reaches this level!?

And we answer:

No,

not as you interpreted the beraita, that it is discussing produce that became infested to a degree greater than the usual amount of deterioration; rather, the beraita is also discussing produce

that

has diminished

by the usual amount of deterioration,

and therefore Rabbi Meir holds that he may not sell it, in accordance with the view of the first tanna in our Mishna.

And we challenge this answer:

But

in that same beraita we learned:

“Wine that turned sour, oil that became rancid, and honey that spoiled”

this bailee may not touch it,

as

these

are certainly more than the usual amount of deterioration,

and nevertheless, according to Rabbi Meir, he may not sell them; this is difficult for Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that according to everyone he may sell them!? And we answer:

These are different

these items have a different law: wine that turned sour, oil that became rancid, and honey that spoiled; and because once these items have deteriorated,

once they have reached that state, they remain in that state,

meaning, they no longer deteriorate further, and therefore he may not sell them; whereas other produce continues to become increasingly infested, and therefore Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that once it has deteriorated by more than the usual amount, he may sell it.