Bava Batra

but at that season [the labourer] was worth a sela'  [a day] he must not derive any benefit from it.  If, however, [a man] hires [a labourer to commence work] at once [and to continue through the harvesting season] for a denarius a day, [although] at the harvesting season he was worth a sela', [he] is permitted [to pay in advance and to have the benefit of the difference].  Now, if you are of the opinion that [if the seller said]. 'I sell you a kor for thirty, [each] se'ah for a sela', '[the buyer] acquires possession of every se'ah as it is measured out, here also, [since mention was made of a 'denarius a day'] every day that has passed  [should have been regarded as] cut off  [from the other days of the period that follow] and it should, [therefore], be forbidden to derive any benefit from it.  Why then [has it been said that if a man hires a labourer to commence work at once and to continue through the harvesting season] for a denarius a day, [although] at the harvesting season he was worth a sela' [he] is permitted [to have the benefit]? Is not this [difference] a reward  for advancing the money?  Raba replied: What a logical argument! Has it ever been forbidden to reduce one's hire to the lowest level?  Wherein [then, lies the reason for] the difference between the first, and the last clause?  — [In] the first clause, since work does not begin  at once,  [the difference between the two rates of wage] appears as a reward for advancing the money;  [in] the last clause, where work begins at once, [the difference] does not appear as a reward for advancing the money. AND IT IF WAS ATTACHED TO THE GROUND AND HE PLUCKED [OF IT] ANY QUANTITY, HE HAS ACQUIRED OWNERSHIP. Does he acquire ownership [of all the flax] because he has plucked some of it?  — R. Shesheth replied: The case dealt with here [refers to a seller] who said [to the buyer], 'Go improve  for yourself any piece of land, [acquire  possession of it, and thereby] acquire ownership of all that is upon it.' MISHNAH. [IF] ONE SELLS WINE OR OIL TO ANOTHER AND IT HAS BECOME DEARER  OR CHEAPER,  — IF THE MEASURE HAS NOT YET BEEN FILLED, [THE BENEFIT OR LOSS IS] THE SELLER'S. AFTER THE MEASURE HAS BEEN FILLED, [THE BENEFIT OR LOSS IS] THE BUYER'S. IF THERE WAS A MIDDLEMAN BETWEEN THEM [AND] THE CASK WAS BROKEN [BEFORE DELIVERY TO THE BUYER], THE LOSS  IS THE MIDDLEMAN'S. [A SELLER] MUST [IN FAVOUR OF THE BUYER] ALLOW THREE DROPS TO FALL [FROM THE SIDES OF HIS VESSEL INTO THAT OF THE BUYER AFTER THE LIQUID HAS BEEN POURED OUT]. IF HE INCLINED THE VESSEL [AFTER THE THREE DROPS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FALL]. THE ACCUMULATION OF THE REMNANTS [FROM ITS SIDES] BELONGS TO THE SELLER.  A SHOPKEEPER  IS NOT OBLIGED TO ALLOW THE THREE DROPS TO FALL. R. JUDAH SAID: ON SABBATH EVE TOWARDS DUSK ONE IS EXEMPT. GEMARA. Whose measure was this?  If it is assumed to have been the measure of the buyer, [why should the benefit or loss be that] of the seller before the measure has been filled? [Surely] it is the buyer's measure!  If, however, [it is assumed that it was] the seller's measure, [why should the benefit or loss be that] of the buyer after the measure has been filled? [Surely] it is the seller's measure! — R. Elai replied: The measure was the middleman's.  But since it is taught in the latter clause, IF THERE WAS A MIDDLEMAN BETWEEN THEM AND THE CASK WAS BROKEN THE LOSS IS THE MIDDLEMAN'S, is it not to be inferred that the first clause does not deal with the case of a middleman? — The first clause [speaks of] a measure in the absence of the middleman; the latter clause, of the middleman himself. [IF THE VESSEL …] HAS BEEN INCLINED, THE ACCUMULATION OF THE REMNANTS [FROM ITS SIDES] BELONGS TO THE SELLER. When R. Eleazar went up  he met Ze'iri to whom he said: Is there here a tanna  whom Rab has taught the Mishnah of measures? He showed him R. Isaac b. Abdimi. The latter said unto him: What is your difficulty? — For [the other replied,] we learnt: [IF THE VESSEL …] HAS BEEN INCLINED, THE ACCUMULATION OF THE REMNANTS [FROM ITS SIDES] BELONGS TO THE SELLER;