Bava Metzia

Now, deduct thirty-six [from the forty-eight] for six [zuz],leaves twelve; deduct eight, which is the sixth [allowed for absorption], leaves four.  But Samuel said: He who profits must not profit more than a sixth?  — There are the barrels and the lees.  If so, it exceeds one sixth. — There is his trouble, and the cost of the crier. IF IT WAS REFINED OIL, HE MAY MAKE NO DEDUCTION FOR LEES etc. But it is impossible that it [the barrel] shall not absorb!  — Said R. Nahman: This refers to [barrels] lined with pitch.  Abaye said: You may even say that they are not pitch lined: being laden, they are laden. R. JUDAH SAID: EVEN IF HE SELLS REFINED OIL TO HIS NEIGHBOUR DURING THE WHOLE YEAR, THE LATTER MUST ACCEPT A LOG AND A HALF OF LEES PER CENT. Abaye said: When you examine the matter, [you will conclude that] in R. Judah's opinion lees may be mixed [with the oil]; whilst on the Rabbis' view lees may not be mixed. 'In R. Judah's opinion lees may be mixed,' and that is the reason that he [the vendee] must accept [the lees],  because he [the vendor] can say to him, 'Had I desired to mix it up for you, could I not have done so? therefore now too, accept it.'  But let him answer, 'Had you mixed it up for me, it could have been sold [together with the rest]: but what am I to do with it now? I cannot sell it separately!' — This refers to a private individual, who prefers clear [oil].  But let him say to him, 'Since you did not mix it up for me, you have renounced it in my favour?'  — R. Judah follows his general reasoning, not accepting [the theory of] renunciation. For we learnt: If one sells the yoke, he has not sold the oxen; if he sells the oxen, he has not sold the yoke. R. Judah said: The price decides [the matter]. E.g., if one says to another, Sell me your yoke for two hundred zuz, it is well known that a yoke is not priced at two hundred zuz.  But the Sages say: The price is no proof. 'Whilst on the Rabbis' view lees may not be mixed,' and that is the reason that he [the vendee] need not accept [the lees], because he can say to him [the vendor], 'Had you desired to mix it up,  would it then have been permitted to you? Now too, [therefore,] I will not accept it.' R. Papa objected to Abaye: On the contrary, the logic is the reverse. On the view of the Sages lees may be mixed up, and that is the reason that he need not accept it, because he can say, 'Since you did not mix it up for me, you have renounced it in my favour. Whilst in the opinion of R. Judah lees may not be mixed up, and this is the reason that he must accept it, because he can say to him, 'Had I desired to mix it up, it would not have been permitted to me, whilst you also refuse to accept it [separately]: if one buys and sells [at the same price] — do you call him a merchant!' A Tanna taught: The vendee and the depositor are both alike in respect of the scum.  What is meant by 'in respect of the scum?' Shall we say, Just as the vendee does not accept the scum, so does the depositor likewise not accept it?  But let him [the bailee] say to him, 'What am I to do with your scum?' But [on the contrary], just as the depositor must accept the scum, so must the purchaser likewise. Yet must the vendee accept the scum: but it has been taught: R. Judah said: [The loss due to] the muddy oil was assigned to the vendor alone, since the vendee accepts a log and a half of sediment without the scum!  — There is no difficulty: The former treats of one who pays his money in Tishri and received [the wine or oil] in Nisan at Tishri prices;  the latter treats of one who pays his money in Nisan and receives [the oil] in Nisan at Nisan prices.  MISHNAH. IF A MAN DEPOSITS A BARREL WITH HIS NEIGHBOUR, ITS OWNER NOT DESIGNATING A PLACE FOR IT, AND HE [THE BAILEE] MOVES IT AND IT IS BROKEN, IF IT IS BROKEN WHILST IN HIS HAND,  — [IF HE MOVED IT] FOR HIS PURPOSES, HE IS RESPONSIBLE; FOR ITS OWN NEED, HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE. IF IT IS BROKEN AFTER HE PUTS IT DOWN, WHETHER [HE MOVED IT] FOR HIS NEED OR FOR ITS OWN, HE IS NOT LIABLE. IF THE OWNER DESIGNATES A PLACE FOR IT, AND HE MOVES IT AND IT IS BROKEN, WHETHER WHILST IN HIS HAND OR AFTER HE PUTS IT DOWN, — [IF HE MOVED IT] FOR HIS PURPOSES, HE IS RESPONSIBLE; IF FOR ITS OWN NEED, HE IS NOT LIABLE. GEMARA. Who is the authority of the Mishnah? — It is R. Ishmael, who ruled: The owner's knowledge is unnecessary.  For it has been taught: If one steals a lamb from a fold or a sela' from a purse, he must return it whence he stole it:  this is R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: