Bava Batra

explain the last clause [of the Mishnah quoted, which reads]. R. Jose says: He shall pick out [all]. This would be correct if you assumed [that a quarter of a kab in kilayim is] like [a quantity of] more than a quarter [of a kab] of refuse. For their  dispute could [then be said to] depend on [the following principles]. The first Tanna might hold the opinion that a penalty is not imposed on a permitted thing for the sake of a prohibited one, and R. Jose might hold the opinion that a penalty may thus be imposed.  But if it is said that [a quarter of a kab of kilayim is] like a quarter [of refuse], why should he pick?  This is the reason of R. Jose. there: Because  it seems as if he was retaining  kilayim. Come and hear! [It has been taught]:  If two [persons] deposited [money] with one [man], one of them  a maneh  and the other  two hundred zuz, and the one  says. 'the two hundred zuz are mine', and the other  [also] says, 'the two hundred zuz are mine one maneh is given to the one,  and one maneh to the other,  and the remainder must lie until [the prophet] Elijah comes.  [Does not this show that one is not penalised by being made to lose the whole  for the sake of a part?]  — What a comparison!  In that case,  one maneh certainly belongs to the one, and one maneh to the other,  [but in] this [case],  who can say that he has not [himself] put it all in?  Come and hear [a confirmation]  from the last [clause of the quoted Baraitha which reads]: R. Jose said, 'If so,  what has the knave lost?  But all  must be kept over until Elijah comes. What a comparison!  In that case  there is certainly [one] knave [at least].  but in this case,  who can say that he has put it in at all? Come and hear! [It has been taught]: [If] a bill [of debt] contains [an undertaking to pay] usury, a penalty is imposed [on the lender], and he receives neither the principal nor the interest; these are the words of R. Meir.  [Does not this prove that a penalty may be imposed on the whole for the sake of its part?] — What a comparison!  In that case,  [the lender] had committed the transgression  from the moment of the writing.  but in this case,  who can say that he has put it in at all? Come and hear! [an objection] from the last [clause of the quoted Baraitha]: And the Sages say. '[the lender] receives the principal but not the interest'. [Does not this show that a penalty on the whole is not imposed on account of its part]?  — What a comparison!  In that case,  the principal [at least] is certainly a permitted sum; but here, who can say that all has not been put in by him Come and hear what Rabin son of R. Nahman learned:  [In case of the sale of a piece of ground, under certain conditions, though it was found to be bigger than arranged. by an area equal to that of a quarter of a kab per se'ah, the sale is valid; if, however, the difference is greater. then] not only must the surplus  be returned but all the quarters  also must be returned. This shows clearly that whenever [a part] has to be returned, all must be returned!  — What a comparison!