Bava Metzia 38aבבא מציעא ל״ח א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bava Metzia 38a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
38aל״ח א

והא טעמא דרבי יוסי משום הפסד הרמאי הוא אלא תרוייהו לרבנן איצטריך ולא זו אף זו קתני:

The Gemara asks: But isn’t the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei as he stated in the mishna: Due to the loss of the fraud? It is not due to the fact that the vessel will not remain intact. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that Rabbi Yosei would concede to the Rabbis in the instance where money was deposited. Rather, both of the cases are necessary according to the Rabbis. And although the first case could have been inferred from the second case, the tanna teaches the mishna employing the style of: Not only this but also that, i.e., the mishna began with an obvious example and continued with a more novel one.

מתני׳ המפקיד פירות אצל חבירו אפילו הן אבודין לא יגע בהן רשב"ג אומר מוכרן בפני ב"ד מפני שהוא כמשיב אבידה לבעלים:

MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, even if it is lost due to spoilage or vermin, the bailee may not touch it, as it is not his. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He sells it before the court, as by doing so he is like one returning a lost item to the owner, since through its sale he prevents the owner from losing the value of his produce.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא אמר רב כהנא אדם רוצה בקב שלו מתשעה קבים של חבירו ורב נחמן בר יצחק אמר חיישינן שמא עשאן המפקיד תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר

GEMARA: What is the reason that the first tanna said that the bailee should not touch the produce? Rav Kahana says that it is based on the principle: A person prefers a kav of his own produce to nine kav of another’s produce. Consequently, despite the spoilage, the owner prefers that the bailee not touch the produce. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: We are concerned that perhaps the one who deposited the produce rendered it teruma and tithe for produce in another place, resulting in the buyer consuming produce that is teruma and tithe inappropriately.

מיתיבי המפקיד פירות אצל חבירו הרי זה לא יגע בהן לפיכך בעל הבית עושה אותן תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר בשלמא לרב כהנא היינו דקתני לפיכך

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, the bailee may not touch it, and therefore the owner may render it teruma or tithe for produce in another place. Granted, according to Rav Kahana, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: And therefore the owner renders them teruma. The concern that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe is not the reason why the bailee may not sell it, and the halakha that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe results from the halakha that the bailee may not sell it.

אלא לרב נחמן בר יצחק מאי לפיכך הכי קאמר השתא דאמור רבנן לא נזבין דחיישינן לפיכך בעל הבית עושה אותן תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר

But according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, what is the meaning of the term therefore? According to his explanation, the fact that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe is the very reason why the bailee may not sell the produce. The Gemara explains: This is what the tanna is saying: Now that the Sages said that the bailee may not sell the produce due to the fact that we are concerned that perhaps the owner had rendered it teruma, the owner can be confident that the produce is still in the possession of the bailee. Therefore, the owner may render it teruma and tithe for produce in another place even ab initio.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בכדי חסרונן אבל יותר מכדי חסרונן דברי הכל מוכרן בב"ד

§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute in the mishna is in a case where the produce deteriorates at its standard rate of deterioration. But if the produce deteriorates at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, everyone agrees that the bailee sells it before the court.

אדרב נחמן בר יצחק ודאי פליגא אדרב כהנא מי לימא פליגא כי קאמר רב כהנא בכדי חסרונן קאמר

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly disagrees with the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, as the concern that the owner might have rendered the produce teruma or tithe applies regardless of the rate of deterioration. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with the opinion of Rav Kahana? The Gemara answers: When Rav Kahana says that one prefers his own produce, it was in a case where the produce deteriorates at its standard rate of deterioration that he says it. When the rate of deterioration is accelerated, he would agree that the bailee sells the produce.

והא רוצה בקב שלו מתשעה קבין של חבירו קאמר גוזמא בעלמא

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Kahana say: A person prefers a kav of his own produce to nine kav of another’s produce? This indicates that even if the rate of deterioration was accelerated, one prefers his own produce, as in the case he describes eight-ninths of the produce is lost. The Gemara answers: This expression is merely an exaggeration, and actually one prefers his own produce only when its rate of deterioration is standard.

מיתיבי לפיכך בעה"ב עושה אותן תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר וליחוש דלמא הוו להו יותר מכדי חסרונן וזבנינהו וקא אכיל טבלים יותר מכדי חסרונן לא שכיח

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Therefore, the owner renders it teruma or tithe for produce in another place. And let the owner be concerned that perhaps the produce deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, and the bailee sold it, in which case the owner would be eating untithed produce. The Gemara answers: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is uncommon, and the Sages do not issue decrees for uncommon cases.

ואי משתכחי מאי מזבנינן להו וליחוש שמא עשאן בעל הבית תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר כי מזבנינן נמי לכהנים בדמי תרומה מזבנינן להו

The Gemara asks: And if it is found that more of the produce is missing than would be lost according to the standard rate of deterioration, what should be done? According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, do we sell it? But let us be concerned that perhaps the owner already rendered this produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place. The Gemara answers: Even when we sell the produce, it is to priests at the price of teruma that we sell it. Consequently, even if the owner rendered it teruma, it is consumed by priests and therefore there is no concern.

ולרב נחמן בר יצחק נמי נזבנינהו לכהנים בדמי תרומה בהא פליגי דרבה בר בר חנה סבר יותר מכדי חסרונן לא שכיח מידי וכי משתכח לקמיה הוא דהויא יתר מכדי חסרונן אי עביד להו בעה"ב תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר מקמיה דהוו להו יותר מכדי חסרונן עביד להו הלכך כי הוו להו יותר מכדי חסרונן נזבנינהו לכהנים בדמי תרומה

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak as well, since the concern is that perhaps the owner rendered the produce teruma, let the bailee sell the produce to priests at the price of teruma. The Gemara answers: It is with regard to this that they disagree, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana holds: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is not common at all. And when it occurs that the produce deteriorates at the greater rate, it is only from now on that it is assumed that it became deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration. Therefore, if the owner had rendered the produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place, it is assumed that it was before it deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration that he did it. Therefore, when the produce deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, the bailee should sell the produce to priests at the price of teruma, as it may be teruma.

ורב נחמן בר יצחק סבר יתר מכדי חסרונן משכח שכיח וכי הוו להו לאלתר הוא דהוו להו ואי אמרת נזבנינהו זימנין דקדים ומזבין להו וכי עביד להו בעל הבית תרומה ומעשר על מקום אחר לא ידע דזבנא וקא אכיל טבלים

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak holds: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is common. And when the produce became deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, it may be immediately that it became deteriorated to that extent. And if you say: Let us sell it, the concern is that at times the bailee will sell it early. And when the owner renders the produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place, he does not know that the bailee already sold the produce, and the owner eats untithed produce.

מיתיבי המפקיד פירות אצל חבירו והרקיבו יין והחמיץ שמן והבאיש דבש והדביש הרי זה לא יגע בהן דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים עושה להם תקנה ומוכרן בבית דין וכשהוא מוכרן מוכרן לאחרים ואינו מוכרן לעצמו

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who deposits produce with another and it rotted, wine and it fermented, oil and it putrefied, honey and it spoiled, the bailee may not touch them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He effects a remedy for these items and sells them in court. The baraita adds: And when he sells them, he sells them to others and does not sell them to himself, even for the same price, so no one will suspect that he bought it at a discount.

כיוצא בו גבאי צדקה בזמן שאין להם עניים לחלק פורטין לאחרים ואין פורטין לעצמן גבאי תמחוי בזמן שאין להם עניים לחלק מוכרין לאחרים ואין מוכרין לעצמן

On a similar note, with regard to charity collectors, when they do not have poor people to whom to distribute charity, they change copper perutot that they collected for more valuable silver coins only for other people, but they do not change the coins for themselves, to avoid suspicion. If collectors for the charity plate collected ready-made food for the poor, at a time where there are no poor people to whom to distribute the food, they sell the food only to others but do not sell the food to themselves.

קתני מיהת פירות והרקיבו מאי לאו אפילו יתר מכדי חסרונן לא בכדי חסרונן והא יין והחמיץ שמן והבאיש דבש והדביש דיתר מכדי חסרונן נינהו שאני הני כיון דקם קם

In any event, it is taught: Produce and it rotted. What, is it not referring even to a case where they all rotted at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration? The Gemara rejects this: No; it is referring to a case where they deteriorated at their standard rate of deterioration. The Gemara asks: But aren’t the cases of wine and it fermented, oil and it putrefied, and honey and it spoiled cases where these items deteriorated at a rate greater than their standard rate of deterioration, as there is a significant difference in the price of wine before and after fermentation, and in the price of oil before and after putrefaction? The Gemara rejects that proof: Those cases are different. Once they become spoiled, they remain spoiled but do not continue to deteriorate. Therefore, although their deterioration was significant, there is nothing gained by selling it.

שמן והבאיש דבש והדביש

On a related note, the Gemara asks: Concerning the cases of oil and it putrefied, honey and it spoiled,