Study Bava Metzia folio 38A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud asks: But isn’t the reason for the opinion of R' Yosei as he stated in the Mishnah: Due to the loss of the fraud? It is not due to the fact that the vessel will not remain intact. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that R' Yosei would concede to the Rabbis in the instance where
Mishnah: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, even if it is lost due to spoilage or vermin, the bailee may not touch it, as it is not his. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He sells it before the court, as by doing so he is like one returning a lost item to the owner, since through
Talmud: What is the reason that the first tanna said that the bailee should not touch the produce? Rav Kahana says that it is based on the principle: A person prefers a kav of his own produce to 9 kav of another’s produce. Consequently, despite the spoilage, the owner prefers that the bailee not to
The Talmud raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, the bailee may not touch it, and therefore the owner may render it teruma or tithe for produce in another place. Granted, according to Rav Kahana, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: And th
But according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, what is the meaning of the term therefore? According to his explanation, the fact that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe is the very reason why the bailee may not sell the produce. The Talmud explains: This is what the tanna is saying: Now th