Bava Batra

but have we not [also] learnt: '[If the vessel]  has been inclined, the accumulation from the remnants [on its sides] is terumah'?  — He replied unto him: Surely about this it has been said: R. Abbahu said [the accumulation belongs to the seller] because the law of the owner's resignation is applied to it. A SHOPKEEPER IS NOT OBLIGED TO ALLOW TO FALL etc. The question was raised: Does R. Judah refer to the [law in the] earlier clause  to relax it,  or perhaps [he refers] to the [law in the] latter clause  to restrict it?  Come and hear: It has been taught: R. Judah says. A shopkeeper, on Sabbath eve at dusk, is exempt, because a shopkeeper is [at that time] much occupied. MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SENDS HIS [LITTLE] SON TO A SHOPKEEPER [TO WHOM HE HAD PREVIOUSLY GIVEN A DUPONDIUM],  AND [THE SHOPKEEPER] MEASURED OUT FOR HIM OIL FOR ONE ISAR  AND GAVE HIM THE [OTHER] ISAR, [AND ON HIS WAY HOME THE CHILD] BROKE THE BOTTLE [WHICH HIS FATHER HAD SENT WITH HIM] AND LOST THE ISAR [GIVEN HIM AS CHANGE], THE SHOPKEEPER IS [LIABLE FOR ALL THE LOSSES.]  R. JUDAH ABSOLVES [THE SHOPKEEPER], SINCE FOR THAT PURPOSE  [THE FATHER] HAD SENT HIM [THE CHILD]. BUT THE SAGES AGREE WITH R. JUDAH THAT IN THE CASE WHEN THE BOTTLE WAS IN THE HAND OF THE CHILD, AND THE SHOPKEEPER MEASURED OUT INTO IT, THE SHOPKEEPER IS ABSOLVED. GEMARA. One can well understand that, in [the case of] the isar and the oil, the dispute [in our Mishnah between the Rabbis  and R. Judah] depends on the following [views]. The Rabbis maintain that [the father] has sent [the child merely] to inform [the shopkeeper of what he required],  and R. Judah  maintains that [the father] has sent [the child] in order that [the shopkeeper] should send him [back with the things]; but, [as regards the] breaking of the bottle, [why should the Rabbis lay the responsibility on the shopkeeper]? It is a loss, [surely], for which its owner  was well prepared!  — R. Hoshaia replied: Here we deal with an owner [who is also] a seller of bottles, and in the case when the shopkeeper took [the bottle] for the purpose of examining it;  [in such a case the shopkeeper  assumes responsibility] in accordance with [a decision given by] Samuel. For Samuel said: He who takes a vessel from the artisan to examine it, and an accident happens [while it is] in his hand, is liable.  Does this mean that [the decision] of Samuel is [not generally accepted, but is a matter of dispute between] Tannaim?  [Surely this is not very likely]! — But, said both Rabbah and R. Joseph, [the Mishnah] here [deals] with [the case of] a shopkeeper who sells bottles.  And R. Judah follows his own reasoning,  and the Rabbis follow their own reasoning.  If so,  explain the last clause: THE SAGES AGREE WITH R. JUDAH THAT IN THE CASE WHEN THE BOTTLE WAS IN THE HAND OF THE CHILD, AND THE SHOPKEEPER MEASURED OUT INTO IT, THE SHOPKEEPER IS ABSOLVED. But surely you said [that the Rabbis maintained the view that the father] had sent [the child merely] to inform him?  — But, said both Abaye b. Abin and R. Hanina b. Abin, here we deal with a case