Bava Metzia

But R. Jose's reason is that the deceiver may suffer loss!  — Hence both are necessary on the view of the Rabbis, and he [the Tanna] teaches a case of 'not only this, but this too.' MISHNAH. IF A MAN DEPOSITS PRODUCE WITH HIS NEIGHBOUR, EVEN IF IT IS SUFFERING LOSS,  HE MUST NOT TOUCH IT. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: HE MUST SELL IT BY ORDER OF THE COURT, BECAUSE IT IS LIKE RETURNING LOST PROPERTY TO ITS OWNER. GEMARA. What is the reason?  — Said R. Kahana: A man prefers a kab of his own to nine of his neighbour's.  But R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We fear lest the bailor had declared it terumah and tithe for other produce. An objection is raised: If one deposits produce with his neighbour, he must not touch it. Therefore its owner may declare it terumah and tithe for other produce. Now, on R. Kahana's explanation, it is well: hence he states, 'therefore'. But on the view of R. Nahman b. Isaac, how state 'therefore'?  — It means this: now that the Rabbis have ruled that it may not be sold because we fear [that the owner may have declared, etc.], therefore the owner may declare it terumah and tithe for other produce. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: The dispute is only when there is the normal rate of decrease; but when [the loss] exceeds the normal rate of decrease, all agree that it must be sold by a court order. Now, he certainly disagrees with R. Nahman b. Isaac;  but must we say that he differs from R. Kahana [too]? — [No.] R. Kahana referred only to the normal decrease. But did he not Say, A man prefers a kab of his own to nine of his neighbour's!  — That was a mere exaggeration. An objection is raised: 'therefore its owner may declare it terumah and tithe for other produce;' but let him fear lest [the loss] exceeded the normal decrease, so that it was sold, hence he [the bailor] eats tebel!  — [A loss] above the normal decrease is rare.  But what if it does happen — we sell it? But let us fear lest the owner might have declared it terumah and tithe for other produce!  — It is, in fact, sold to priests [only] at the price of terumah.  Then according to R. Nahman b. Isaac too, let it be sold to priests at the price of terumah! — They differ in this: viz., Rabbah b. Bar Hanah holds that [loss] above the normal decrease is altogether rare, and when it does happen, it exceeds the usual rate only after a considerable time.  Hence, if the owner declared it terumah and tithe for other produce, he would have done so before its loss exceeded the normal;  therefore, when it does exceed it we can sell it to priests at the price of terumah. R. Nahman b. Isaac, however, maintains that a greater decrease than normal is quite frequent, and when it happens, it may happen immediately.  Therefore, should you say that it is sold, it may happen that it is sold early, and when the owner declares it terumah and tithe for other produce he is unaware that it is [already] sold, and so eats tebel. An objection is raised: If one deposits fruit with his neighbour, and it rots; wine, and it sours; oil, and it putrefies, or honey, and it turns rancid, he [the bailee] may not touch it: this is R. Meir's ruling. But the Sages maintain: He effects a remedy for them by selling them on the instructions of the court; and when he sells, he must sell to strangers, not to himself. Similarly, when the charity overseers have no poor to whom to distribute [their funds], they must change [the copper coins] with others, not themselves.  The overseers of the soup kitchen,  when they have no poor to whom to make a distribution, must sell to others, not themselves. Now, incidentally he [the Tanna] states, 'fruit … and it rots': surely that means, even more than the normal decrease?  — No: [it means] within the normal deterioration. But 'wine, and it sours, oil and it putrefies, or honey, and it turns rancid' are more than normal deterioration! — These are different: having arrived at that stage, they remain so.  Now, when oil putrefies, or honey becomes rancid,