Bava Metzia 40b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara calculates how many jugs among them remained for him in order to profit from them, and raises an objection:

But

subtract thirty-six

jugs

at six

zuz, for which he paid,

twelve remain

jugs for profit;

subtract

another

eight

on account of

the sixth

that the barrel absorbs;

there remain

only

four

for Rav Yehuda’s profit,

and

if so, this is difficult:

did not Shmuel say: One who profits

should not profit more than a sixth

, but this measure is indeed permitted!?

[Subtract from the wine thirty-six jugs that he sold for six zuze, in order to cover the principal—the cost of the entire barrel, which was six zuze—and you find that twelve jugs remained for him to sell and profit from. However, Rav Yehuda would lose another eight jugs, which constitute one-sixth of forty-eight, because of the wine absorbed by the barrel. Consequently, only four jugs remained for Rav Yehuda, from whose proceeds he earned a profit. The Gemara objects: Shmuel said that a shopkeeper may not earn more than one-sixth, but he may earn one-sixth; whereas Rav Yehuda earned less than one-sixth!?]

And we answer:

there is

additional profit for Rav Yehuda from the

barrel [A0034]itself

the barrel itself]

and the dregs [A0036]of the wine, all of which he purchased for six zuz.

the sediment of the wine], all of which he purchased for six zuze.

And we wonder:

If so

,

his profit is more than a sixth

, for it follows that the profit is more than a sixth!? But Shmuel said that one who profits should not profit more than a sixth!?

And we answer:

there is the labor involved and the fee of the announcer

, [A0045]Rav Yehuda receives an addition for his labor, and payment for the wage of the announcer who announces Rav Yehuda’s merchandise, that is to say: The sixth that the Sages stated is the profit on the investment in the price of the merchandise, but the wage for his labor and the other expenses that a shopkeeper has, he passes on to the customer.

We learned in the Mishna:

If it was refined oil, he does not

give him dregs

, and if the jugs were old, he does not give him the absorbed quantity:

And we wonder:

But it is impossible

—even if the jugs were old—

that they did not absorb [A0057]at all, for it is impossible that the jugs should not absorb anything whatsoever, even though they are old; and why did we learn that he does not give him any absorbed quantity at all!?

[it is impossible that the jars did not absorb anything at all, even though they were old]; so why did we learn that he does not give him anything for absorption!?

Said

he explained:

Rav Naḥman:

Our Mishna is dealing

with

jugs

coated with pitch [A0065]coated on the inside with pitch,

and such jugs,

once they have been loaded, they have been loaded [A0068]once they absorbed when they were new, they no longer absorb when they are old.

[once they absorbed oil when they were new, they no longer absorb it when they are old].

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who sells refined oil to his fellow throughout the entire year, the latter accepts upon himself one and a half log of dregs per hundred;

but the Sages disagree with him and hold that he does not accept upon himself a reduction from the oil on account of the dregs.

Abaye said: When you determine

, when you examine and understand the full clarification of the matter, you will find that this is the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages:

According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda

, one who sells ordinary oil to his fellow, at a time when the dregs have already settled and become quiet, and the oil has the presumptive status of being refined,

it is permitted

for the seller

to mix

the

dregs

that were in the oil and descended to the bottom of the barrel, and to give the buyer oil mixed with dregs.

But

according to the statement of the Sages: It is forbidden to mix dregs

, because the buyer purchased it with the presumptive status of being refined, and the seller spoils the oil.

And the Gemara explains:

According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is permitted to mix dregs, and this is the reason that he accepts

: For this reason the buyer accepts less than the quantity of oil that was sold to him, because

he says to him

the seller says to the buyer:

If I had wanted to mix them for you, would I not have mixed them for you!?

Now also, accept it! [A0099]If I had wanted to mix the dregs into the oil for you, would I not have been able to!? Then I would immediately have reduced the measure of oil that I would give you, and therefore, even though I am not mixing them, I will reduce for you from the measure of oil that I give you.

[Had I wanted to mix the sediment into your oil, would I not have been able to do so? In that case, I would have given you a smaller measure of oil. Therefore, even though I do not mix it in, I deduct this amount from the measure of oil that I give you.]

Before the Gemara concludes Abaye’s words, the Gemara raises an objection to Abaye’s words: For it enters our minds that the case concerns a shopkeeper who purchases a large quantity of oil from a wholesaler, and he supplies him with the oil little by little over a period of time, and therefore we raise the objection:

And let him say to him [A0102]let the buyer say to the seller:

[the buyer should say to the seller]:

If you had mixed it for me, it would have been sold to me

, but

now what shall I do with it!?

It is not sold to me by itself! [A0107]If, throughout the entire period of supplying the oil, you had mixed the dregs into the oil for me, then I too would sell oil mixed with dregs; but now that you give me one and a half log of dregs after I have already sold the oil, what shall I do with them!? I cannot sell dregs by themselves.

And we answer: Our Mishna is dealing

with

one who sells to

a householder

, and not to a shopkeeper,

for

a householder, on the contrary,

prefers it clear [A0116]it is more convenient for him to receive clear oil rather than oil mixed with dregs.

[he prefers receiving clear oil to receiving oil mixed with sediment].

The Gemara raises another objection to Abaye’s words:

And let him say to him

the buyer to the seller:

Since you did not mix them for me, you waived them for me [A0128]Since you did not mix them for me with each supply, you waived them with regard to me!?

[Since you did not mix it for me with each delivery, you waived your right to it]!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda follows his own position, for he does not accept waiver

, that is to say: Rabbi Yehuda follows his own position that one does not attribute the matter to waiver if he did not state it explicitly.

For

this

we learned: If he sold him the yoke [A0138]this is the yoke placed upon the oxen and joining them; if a person said to his fellow, “This yoke is sold to you

[the yoke placed on oxen and used to harness them together], if a person said to another, “This yoke is sold to you,”

,” he did not sell him the cattle;

and if he

sold him the cattle

, saying to him, “This cattle is sold to you

,” he did not sell him the yoke

upon them.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The money indicates the meaning. How so:

If

he said to him

the buyer to the seller:

Sell me your yoke for two hundred zuz

,

it is known that the yoke is not worth two hundred zuz

, and certainly he sold him both the yoke and the cattle for this price.

And the Sages say: The money is not proof

, for even though the yoke by itself is not worth so much, we say that since he mentioned only a yoke, the buyer waives the remainder of the money for the seller.

We have therefore learned that Rabbi Yehuda does not attribute the matter to waiver unless the buyer explicitly stated it, and the same applies in our case: Since the seller did not explicitly say that he waives his right to mix dregs, we do not attribute the matter to waiver. And here the Gemara continues to cite Abaye’s words [to which the Gemara objected while citing his words]:

According to the statement of the Sages, it is forbidden to mix dregs, and this is the reason that he does not accept

, because

he says to him

the buyer says to the seller:

If you had wanted to mix them, would you have been permitted to do so? Now also, I do not accept

, for if you had wanted to mix dregs, it would have been forbidden for you, and if so, I do not accept a reduction in the oil on account of the dregs.

Said

he objected

to him, Rav Pappa, to Abaye: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable!?

According to the statement of the Sages, it is permitted to mix dregs, and this is the reason that he does not accept

, because

he says to him

the buyer says to the seller:

Since you did not mix them for me, you waived them for me [A0175]Since you did not mix dregs, as you were permitted to do, you waived them.

[Since you did not mix in the sediment, even though you were permitted to do so, you waived your right to it.]

According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is forbidden to mix dregs

,

and this is the reason that he accepts

, because

the seller says to the buyer:

If I had wanted to mix them

,

I would not have been permitted to mix them for you

, and if so, would you also

not accept!?

Buy and sell, and be called a merchant!? [A0187]If I had wanted to mix dregs for you, I would not have been able to do so; and if you do not accept upon yourself the loss from the dregs, what profit is there for me? The main profit is from the dregs, and this is how people speak to a fool: “Buy and sell without profit and be called a merchant!”

[Had I wanted to mix sediment for you, I would not have been able to do so. If you do not accept the loss resulting from the sediment, what profit do I have? The main profit is from the sediment. As people say to a fool: “Buy and sell without profit, and you will be called a merchant!”]

The tannai

in a beraita:

Both the buyer and the one who deposits

have the same law

with regard

to

floating refuse [A0198]the refuse of kernels that floats upon the oil, and he proceeds to explain it.

[the refuse of the kernels that floats on the oil], and the beraita proceeds to explain this.

And we explain:

What does “with regard to floating refuse” mean?

If you say that just as the buyer does not accept floating refuse [A0202]just as when he sold him ordinary oil, he cannot give him oil with floating refuse, so

[just as, if he sold him ordinary oil, he may not give him oil containing floating impurities], so too

the one who deposits also does not accept floating refuse [A0204]he cannot return oil with floating refuse, but only refined oil; this cannot be said, for:

[he may not return oil containing floating impurities, but must return refined oil], this cannot be the meaning. For:

And let him say to him

, let the bailee say to the depositor:

What shall I do with your floating refuse [A0208]What shall I do with your floating refuse!? That is to say: You deposited oil with floating refuse with me, so why should I return oil without floating refuse to you, with the floating refuse remaining for me!?

[What am I to do with your impurities]!? That is, you deposited oil containing impurities with me, so why should I return oil without impurities and keep the impurities for myself!?

Rather

, this is the intention of the beraita:

Just as [A0212]just as

[just as]

the one who deposits accepts floating refuse, the buyer

—to whom ordinary oil was sold—

also accepts floating refuse.

And we wonder:

Does the buyer accept floating refuse!?

But was it not taught: Rabbi Yehuda says:

They spoke of turbid oil [A0220]mixed with floating refuse

[oil mixed with floating impurities]

only with regard to the seller

, that is to say: The loss from the turbidity of the oil is borne by the seller, because the buyer is entitled to receive refined oil,

for the buyer accepts upon himself one and a half log of dregs without floating refuse

, that is to say: Since the buyer suffers the loss of one and a half log per one hundred log on account of the dregs, he is therefore entitled to receive oil without floating refuse.

It is explicitly established that the buyer does not accept floating refuse!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult

, for:

This

—that it was taught that the buyer accepts floating refuse—is in a case

where he gives him

the buyer gives him

money in Tishrei, and takes from him in Nisan according to the measure of Tishrei

, [A0234]in a case where the buyer gave money in Tishrei according to the value of oil in Tishrei, which is mixed with floating refuse, and he takes refined oil in Nisan according to the value of the oil in Tishrei; for in that case the buyer accepted floating refuse upon himself.

This

—that it was taught that the buyer does not accept floating refuse—is

where he gives him money in Nisan

when the oil is refined,

and takes from him in Nisan according to the measure of Nisan

, and he takes in Nisan according to the value of Nisan, which is refined oil; and in this case he does not accept floating refuse upon himself, for when an unspecified buyer and an unspecified seller are mentioned, the seller sells only refined oil.

Mishna:

One who deposits a barrel with his fellow, and the owners did not designate a place for it

, for they did not say to the bailee, “Lend me this corner, and there my barrel shall rest,” [and in the Gemara it will be explained why it stated “did not designate”], and the bailee lifted it

and moved it

the bailee

and it broke:

If it broke from his hand

through an accident, that is to say, before he returned it, this is the law:

If the bailee moved it

for his own needs [A0251]and the amoraim disagree in the Gemara about what “for his own needs” means, he is

[and the amoraim disagree in the Gemara about what “for his own needs” means], he is

liable,

because from the moment he moved it for his own needs, he became liable for accidents involving it like a robber, as the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And if the bailee moved it

for its sake

of the barrel, because it had been in a place where it was liable to break, or something similar, and it broke even from within his hand, he is

exempt,

for it broke through coercion, and he did not become a robber with respect to it, to become liable for its accidents.

And

if, after he had put it down

after he had finished using it, in a guarded place,

it broke,

the law is as follows:

Whether

he moved it

for his sake,

and

whether

he moved it

for its sake,

he is

exempt,

because when he put it down in a guarded place in the house, this is like the restoration of the robbery, and he is no longer liable for it by the law of a robber.

And if

the owners designated a place for it

in the house of the guardian,

and he moved it, and it broke:

whether from within his hand or after he had put it down [the Gemara will explain whether he put it down in its place, or whether he put it down not in its place], if he moved it

[the Gemara will explain whether this means that he set it down in its designated place or that he set it down elsewhere], if he moved it

for his sake,

he is

liable, and if he moved it

, whereas if he moved it

for its sake,

he is

exempt.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If, after he had put it down, it broke, whether for his sake or for its sake, he is exempt:

Whose is this

our Mishna?

It is Rabbi Ishmael, who says:

a guardian who stole from his own domain,

we do not require the owners’ knowledge

themselves in its restoration.

That is to say: Even though one who steals or robs requires the owners’ knowledge when he restores it, and if the owners did not know of its restoration, he is liable for accidents, nevertheless, since the guardian restored it, and he does know of its restoration, his knowledge is like the owners’ knowledge; and we do not say: Since he stole, the owners no longer place trust in him and his guardianship has ended, and he will not be exempt until he restores it with the owners’ knowledge. Rather: He still guards it for them, and his own knowledge is sufficient.

And not like Rabbi Akiva, who holds: A guardian who stole, his guardianship has already ended, because the owners no longer place trust in him, and his knowledge is of no avail; only the knowledge of the owners themselves suffices.

For it was taught:

A guardian

who steals a lamb from the flock

that had been given into his hand as a deposit,

and a coin from the purse

that had been given into his hand as a deposit—so that he may fulfill the mitzva of restoration:

to the place from which he stole,

there

he shall return it. That is to say: Since he returned it to the place from which he stole it, even though the owners did not know of its restoration, he has fulfilled the obligation of restoration, for the mitzva of restoration was fulfilled through the guardian’s knowledge, whose knowledge is like the owners’ knowledge, and he is exempt from accidents,

That is: Since he returns it to the place from which he stole it, he fulfills the mitzva of returning it even if the owners did not know of its return, because the custodian has fulfilled the mitzva through his own knowledge, which is considered like the owners’ knowledge, and he is exempt from liability for accidents.

the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: