Bava Metzia 74a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

There

in the case of the Mishna’s law,

it is in his power

to plow and sow, and therefore he is liable

Here

in the case of an agent sent to purchase wine,

it is not in his power

perhaps they will not sell him wine.

Rava said: These three people who gave money to one person to purchase something for them

three who gave money to one person to purchase merchandise for them,

and he purchased for one of them

and the agent purchased for one of them,

he purchased for all of them

the merchandise belongs to all of them.

And we said this

and this law is stated

only when each person’s money is not bundled and sealed separately.

For the money of each one is not bundled and sealed separately, since they intended to become partners, as when they mixed all the money together and therefore the merchandise belongs to all of them.

But if each person bundled and sealed his money separately,

if the money of each one was bundled and sealed separately,

for the one for whom he purchased, he purchased; and for the one for whom he did not purchase, he did not purchase.

He acquired only for the one with whose money the merchandise was purchased.

Rav Pappa said in the name

in the name

of Rava: This situmta,

a seal, that is, in a place where it is customary for shopkeepers to mark with their seal the barrels they purchased, and afterward, when needed, to bring them one by one to sell in the shop,

acquires.

They acquire through sealing, because this is the custom, even though he neither gave money nor pulled the item, and did not perform any of the acts of acquisition.

And we raise a difficulty:

For what halakhic purpose?!

Since he performed none of the acts of acquisition, with regard to which halakha did Rav Pappi say that he acquired it? And we answer:

Rav Haviva said: To acquire it completely.

He acquires it entirely, as though he had performed a complete act of acquisition.

And

the Sages

of the academy

said:

He does not acquire it entirely, but only with regard to

accepting upon himself

that whoever retracts accepts upon himself the curse of

“He Who exacted” [

as is the law concerning one who gave money but did not pull the merchandise].

And the halakha,

the halakha in this dispute, is:

to accept upon himself “He Who exacted,”

and in a place

and where

they practice

where it is customary

to acquire it completely,

where they customarily mark it with the intention that through this it should be acquired by him with a complete acquisition, as though he had performed acquisition through pulling,

he acquires.

The merchandise is acquired, and neither of them can retract at all.

We learned in the Mishna:

“He was first among the reapers”:

This is the law explained in the Mishna [72b], that a person may establish a price for produce even though the market price has not yet been established, since the seller possesses some of that species, even though its processing has not been completed.

Rav said:

Specifically, when it is

lacking two

when its completion requires [one or] two types of labor,

he may establish a price

then it is permitted to establish a price for it, since it is considered that “he possesses it”; but if it is lacking

three

types of labor,

he may not establish a price

it is like one who “does not possess it,” and he may establish a price only if the market price has been established.

And Shmuel said

he disagrees with Rav and holds that the matter does not depend on the number of types of labor lacking, but rather on whether the labor is

in human hands

to perform them:

even

if they lack

one hundred

types of labor,

he may establish a price,

since the matter is in his power, he is considered to “possess it”; but if the lacking labors are not in human hands to perform them, but rather are

in the hands of Heaven

to perform them [and one who promises him that they will indeed be performed],

even

if one labor is lacking,

he may not establish a price

it is like one who “does not possess it,” and he may establish a price only if the market price has been established.

And we raise an objection to Rav from the Mishna:

“We may establish a price with him for the pile of grain, and behold

the pile

is lacking

three types of labor [until its processing is completed]:

a.

To spread it in the sun for drying,

to spread the sheaves in the sun so that they will dry.

b.

And to thresh,

to thresh the grain.

c.

And to winnow,

to winnow the chaff after threshing with a winnowing shovel, so that it will be scattered by the wind and the kernels will remain. This is difficult for Rav, who said that when three are lacking, he may not establish a price!

And we answer: Rav establishes the Mishna

for example

in a situation

where he spread it in the sun and it dried.

He had already spread the sheaves in the sun and they had dried, and if so, the question on Rav is resolved, since only two types of labor remain [above

b, c].

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to Shmuel, who said: When it is in the hands of Heaven, even one [labor] does not permit establishing a price, and behold

the pile

is lacking winnowing

winnowing in the wind,

which is in the hands of Heaven,

since it requires an uncommon wind; if so, why did the Mishna say that one may establish a price for the pile?

And we answer:

It is possible

also through human effort, for example,

with a sieve

a large sieve, through which the chaff is separated from the kernels.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And for the vat of grapes”:

This passage continues the preceding passage.

And we raise a difficulty to Rav from the Mishna: Why is it permitted to establish a price for wine when the seller possesses a vat [a large vessel in which the grapes are gathered before pressing, so that they will warm and ripen and produce fine wine],

and behold

before it becomes wine, it

is lacking

four types of labor:

a. Gathering for warming,

so that the grapes will warm.

b. And bringing them

to bring them

into the winepress house,

into the winery.

c. To thresh,

to press the grapes in the winepress.

d. And to draw off,

to draw the wine into the pit before the winepress [and to put it into barrels].

This is difficult for Rav, who said that when three are lacking, one may not establish a price, whereas in the case of the vat four are lacking, and nevertheless one may establish a price!

And we answer:

Rav teaches the Mishna

as Rabbi Hiyya taught:

as he taught:

“For the heated pile of olives,”

that is: In the Mishna we learned, “One may establish a price with him for the pile of olives” [olives gathered in a vessel that still require warming], whereas Rabbi Hiyya taught, “One may establish a price with him for the heated pile of olives” [olives that have already warmed],

Here too

Rav teaches this way in the Mishna also concerning grapes one may establish a price with him for

“the heated pile” of grapes

grapes that have already warmed, and not as we learned in the Mishna, that one may establish a price with him for “the vat” of grapes [which still require warming]. If so, the question on Rav is resolved, since “gathering for warming” is not lacking [above, section a].

And we raise a difficulty:

And behold

even now it

is lacking three

three types of labor [above,

b, c, d], and this is difficult for Rav, who said that when three are lacking, one may not establish a price.

And we answer: Rav establishes the Mishna

for a place

where

in a place [where it is customary]

that the one who purchases

the one who purchases

is the one who draws off,

he draws the wine into the pit before the winepress [and puts it into barrels]. It follows that the grapes in the seller’s possession lack only two types of labor [above

b, c], and Rav’s words are thereby resolved, for he said that when two are lacking, one may establish a price.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And for the pile of olives”:

This passage continues the preceding passage.

And we raise a difficulty to Rav from the Mishna: Why is it permitted to establish a price for oil when the seller possesses a pile of olives [a large vessel in which the olives are gathered so that they will warm and ripen],

and behold

before it becomes oil, it

is lacking

four types of labor:

a. Gathering for warming,

so that the olives will warm.

b. And bringing them

to bring them

into the oil press,

into the olive press.

c. And to thresh,

to press the olives.

d. And to draw off,

to draw the oil into the pit [and to put it into barrels], and this is difficult for Rav, who said that when three are lacking, one may not establish a price, whereas in the pile four are lacking, and nevertheless one may establish a price!

And we answer:

Rabbi Hiyya taught

Rabbi Hiyya taught:

“For the heated pile of olives”

that is: for olives that have already warmed [as explained above]. If so, the question on Rav is resolved, since “gathering for warming” is not lacking [above, section

a].

And we raise a difficulty:

And there are three

and three types of labor are still lacking [above,

b, c, d], and this is difficult for Rav, who said that when three are lacking, one may not establish a price.

And we answer: Rav establishes the Mishna

in a place

where

in a place [where it is customary]

that the one who purchases

the one who purchases

himself

draws off

he draws the oil into the pit [and puts it into barrels]. It follows that the olives in the seller’s possession lack only two types of labor [above:

b, c], and Rav’s words are thereby resolved, for he said that when two are lacking, one may establish a price.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And for the eggs of the potter”:

This passage continues the preceding passage.

And we raise a difficulty to Rav from the Mishna: Why is it permitted to establish a price for pots if the potter possesses eggs [balls of clay that the potter shapes into pots],

and behold

before it becomes a pot, it

is lacking

four types of labor:

a. Rolling

to roll the eggs [to make a receptacle for them] according to the measure of the vessel he wishes to make from them, small or large,

and drying

and to dry them;

b. Bringing them

to bring them

into the kiln,

into the furnace;

c. Firing

to fire them in the kiln.

d. And removing them

and to remove them from the kiln.

This is difficult for Rav, who said that when three are lacking, one may not establish a price, whereas in the case of the eggs four are lacking, and nevertheless one may establish a price! And we answer: Rav establishes the Mishna

for example

in a situation

where they have already been rolled and dried

where the eggs have already been rolled and dried. If so, the question on Rav is resolved, since “rolling and drying” are not lacking [above, section a].

And we raise a difficulty:

And there are three

and three types of labor are still lacking [above b, c, d], and this is difficult for Rav, who said that when three are lacking, one may not establish a price.

And we answer: Rav establishes the Mishna

in a place

in a place [where it is customary]

that the one who purchases

the one who purchases

is the one who removes them

he removes the eggs from the kiln. It follows that the eggs in the potter’s possession lack only two types of labor [above

b, c], and Rav’s words are thereby resolved, for he said that when two are lacking, one may establish a price.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And for the lime after it has been placed in the kiln”:

This passage continues the preceding passage. And we raise a difficulty to Rav from the Mishna: Why is it permitted to establish a price for lime after he has placed [the limestone] in the kiln [in order to fire it and make lime],

and behold

before it becomes lime, it

is lacking

three types of labor:

a. Firing,

firing in the kiln.

b. And removing,

to remove it from the kiln.

c. And grinding,

after they remove burned pieces from the kiln, they put a little water into them and they are “ground” by themselves like milled flour. This is difficult for Rav, who said that when three are lacking, one may not establish a price, whereas here, in the case of limestone, three are lacking, and nevertheless one may establish a price! And we answer: Rav establishes the Mishna

in a place

in a place [where it is customary]

that the one who purchases it

the one who purchases

does the grinding

he performs the grinding [above, section c]. It follows that for the owner of the limestone only two types of labor are lacking [above: a, b], and Rav’s words are thereby resolved, for he said that when two are lacking, one may establish a price.

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to Shmuel, who said that when it is in human hands, even if one hundred are lacking, one may establish a price, why do I need “after he has placed it in the kiln”?

That is: Why did the Mishna require [in order to permit establishing a price] that the owner of the limestone “place it in the kiln”? According to Shmuel, it is permitted to establish a price even when any number of labors that are in human hands remain to be performed! [According to Rav, this is understandable, for the Mishna required it so that only two labors would remain, as above, a, b.]

And we answer:

Say

say in the Mishna

“from the time when it is fit to be placed in the kiln”

and it is permitted to establish a price once he has prepared the limestone and the wood and everything is in his power and ready to place in the kiln [even though he has not yet placed it there].

and it is permitted to set the price once he has prepared the limestone and the wood, and everything is in his power and ready for placement in the kiln, even though he has not yet placed it there.

We learned in the Mishna:

“and over the potter’s eggs”:

The Sages taught: One may not set a price for the potter’s eggs until they are made; these are the words of Rabbi Meir,

that is: it is forbidden to set a price [if the market price has not emerged] for him to give him pots, until the potter makes his eggs [for then it is considered that “he has it”].

Rabbi Yosei said: When are these words spoken

—that it is necessary that the potter have eggs in his possession—

with white soil

which is not readily available;

but with black soil

which is readily available, it is permitted to set a price for the vessels made from it, even though the potter did not make eggs from it [from the black soil],

such as Kfar Ḥananya and its neighboring places

[the adjacent places],

Kfar Shiḥin and its neighboring places

[the adjacent places], for in all these places black soil is readily available, and the reason for the permission is:

even though this one does not have it, that one has it,

and it is always considered that “he has it.”

Ameimar gave money

—he gave money in order to purchase pots—

once they brought in soil

—once the seller had brought in and piled up soil in his house, and it was black soil.

And we raised an objection:

According to whom

does Ameimar hold?

If according to Rabbi Meir, who says: until they are made

[the eggs], and Ameimar gave the money before the seller made the eggs,

or if according to Rabbi Yosei, who says: even though this one does not have it, that one has it.

And why did Ameimar give the money only after the seller had brought in and piled up soil in his house, for according to Rabbi Yosei it is not necessary at all that he have soil?

And we answer:

Always

Ameimar held

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, and in Ameimar’s place

—and in Ameimar’s locality—

it was expensive,

it was costly,

the soil

—the black soil—;

if they brought in soil

if the seller had already brought in and piled up soil in his house,

his mind relied on it,

he relied in his mind that he would make eggs and pots from the soil, for he had already piled up the soil; and one who retracts will receive Mi shepara, since he gave him money.

But if not,

but if he had not piled up the soil,

his mind did not rely on it

he did not rely in his mind, and he was not certain that he would find soil [which is not readily available]; and one who retracts does not receive Mi shepara, even though he gave money, because he gave it only on the basis of uncertainty.

We learned in the Mishna:

“and he may set a price with him for manure throughout the entire year”:

This is the view of the Tanna Kamma.

And we object: We learned in the Mishna:

“And the Sages”

permit it, and if so, it is difficult:

“This is the Tanna Kamma”

and in what do the Tanna Kamma and the Sages disagree?