Talmud - Bava Metzia 40a בבא מציעא מ׳ א׳

And likewise, Rabba says: They enhanced the property, and the profit goes to the middle. Abaye said to him: Are these matters comparable? There, in the case that the adult and minor brothers were together, the adults are aware that the minors exist and forgo payment for their effort on behalf of their younger brothers. Here, in the case of Mari bar Isak, was the older brother aware of the existence of the younger brother so that he could forgo payment for his labor?

The matter continued to develop and came before Rabbi Ami. He said to those who reported Rav Ḥisda’s ruling: The Sages stated a more far-reaching halakha than that: In the case of relatives who tend to the property of a captive, the court appraises their work as one would appraise the work of a sharecropper. Although the property they tended did not belong to them at all, they receive wages for their labor. Why, then, is the ruling now, in the case of Mari bar Isak, that payment for labor on property that is his, we do not give him? Mari bar Isak should be reimbursed for his expenditures.

They returned and related this matter before Rav Ḥisda. Rav Ḥisda said to them: Are these matters comparable? There, in the case of the captive’s property, it was with authorization from the court that the relative descended to tend to the property. Here, it was without authorization that Mari bar Isak descended to tend to the property of his brother. And furthermore, Mari bar Isak’s brother was a minor when Mari inherited the property, and the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a minor.

They returned and related this response before Rabbi Ami. Rabbi Ami said to them: They did not complete conveying all the details of the case before me, and I was unaware that Mari’s brother was a minor. Rav Ḥisda is correct.

MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, and the bailee provides him with different produce in return, that bailee deducts from the produce that he returns an amount equal to the standard decrease of the produce. The decrease is calculated according to this formula: For wheat and for rice, he deducts nine half-kav per kor, which is 180 kav; for barley and millet, he deducts nine kav per kor; for spelt and flaxseed, he deducts three se’a, which total eighteen kav, per kor. The entire calculation is according to the measure, and the entire calculation is according to the time elapsed. This is the amount of produce that the bailee deducts per one kor of produce over the course of one year.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: And what do the mice care how much produce the bailee is safeguarding? Don’t they eat the same amount whether it is from much produce and whether it is from little produce? Rather, he deducts an amount equal to the standard decrease of just one kor of produce. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the deposit was a large measure, the bailee does not deduct the decrease from it, due to the fact that for different reasons it increases. Therefore, he returns the measure of produce that was deposited with him, because the increase offsets the decrease.

GEMARA: The Gemara challenges: After decrease, rice is lacking a greater amount than what is recorded in the mishna. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is with regard to shelled rice that the tanna’im taught the mishna. The mishna teaches: For spelt and flaxseed, he deducts three se’a per kor. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: It is with regard to flaxseed on its stalks that the tanna’im taught the mishna, and that is why the rate of decrease is so great. The Gemara comments: That is also taught in a baraita: For spelt and for flaxseed on its stalks and for unshelled rice, he deducts three se’a per kor.

The mishna teaches: The entire calculation is according to the measure, and the entire calculation is according to the time elapsed. It is taught in a baraita: That is the measure of decrease for each and every kor, and that is the measure of decrease for each and every year.

The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: And what do the mice care how much produce the bailee is safeguarding? It is taught in a baraita that the Sages said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: The reduction is due not only to mice eating the produce. Much of the produce is lost, and much of the produce is scattered.

It is taught: In what cases is this statement said, that the bailee deducts these measures for the decrease? It is in a case where the bailee mixed the produce that he is safeguarding with his own produce, and he is unable to distinguish between them. But if he designated a corner for the produce that he is safeguarding, the bailee says to the owner of the produce: That which is yours is before you, and he does not calculate the decrease.

The Gemara asks: And when he mixed the produce that he is safeguarding with his own produce, what of it? Why must he calculate the decrease? Let him see how much his produce was, add the amount that was deposited with him, and calculate how much the produce diminished over time. He can then divide the loss proportionately between his produce and the deposited produce. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the bailee took supplies from that produce, and therefore it is impossible to ascertain the rate of decrease.

The Gemara asks: And let him see how much produce he took as supplies and include this in his calculation. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the bailee does not know with how much he took as supplies, and therefore he must calculate the decrease based on the measures enumerated in the mishna.

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: If the deposit was a large measure, the bailee does not deduct the decrease from it. The Gemara asks: How much is a large measure? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is ten kor. This is also taught in a baraita: How much is a large measure? It is ten kor.

The tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot taught before Rav Naḥman: In what case is this statement said, that the bailee deducts the decrease from the produce he returns? It is in a case where the owner of the produce measured the produce for the bailee from his own threshing floor, and the bailee returned the produce to him from his own threshing floor. The measures used in all threshing floors were equal, and tended to err on the side of increasing the amount measured. But in a case where the owner measured the produce for the bailee from his own threshing floor and the bailee returned the produce to him as measured by a measure from his own house, which were more precise than those used on the threshing floor, he does not deduct the decrease when returning the produce. This is because the produce the owner deposited was measured with the increased measure of the threshing floor, and that offsets the decrease.

Rav Naḥman said to him: And are we dealing with fools, who give the deposit with a large measure and take the produce back with a small measure? Clearly, the same measure was used in both cases. Perhaps you are stating a ruling about the season of the threshing floor, and this is what it means: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where he measured the produce for the bailee during the season of the threshing floor and the bailee returned the produce to him during the season of the threshing floor, i.e., in the same period. But in a case where he measured the produce for the bailee during the season of the threshing floor and the bailee returned the produce to him during the rainy season, he does not deduct the decrease when returning the produce, because the produce that he received absorbed moisture and expanded, so that he ultimately returns the same measure.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, if the volume of the grain expands during the rainy season, the jug in which the grain is placed should burst due to that expansion. The Gemara relates: There was an incident and the jug burst. If you wish, say instead that the volume contracted due to compression. When the produce was deposited it was loose and had greater volume. When the bailee returned it, the produce was tightly packed in the jug, resulting in lesser volume.

MISHNA: When the bailee returns liquids that were deposited with him, he deducts one-sixth of the amount for wine, to offset the decrease in volume due to absorption into the cask and evaporation. Rabbi Yehuda says: He deducts one-fifth. He deducts three log of oil for one hundred log: A log and a half for sediment that sinks to the bottom of the cask, and a log and a half for absorption into the cask. If it was refined oil, he does not deduct any of the oil for sediment because it was filtered. If the oil was stored in old casks that are already saturated, he does not deduct any of the oil for absorption. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in a case of one who sells refined oil to another all the days of the year, this buyer accepts upon himself that the seller will deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundred log, as that is the standard measure of sediment.

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: And the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda do not disagree with regard to the halakha. Rather, this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale, and this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale. In the place of one Sage, i.e., the first tanna, they coat the casks with wax [bekira] and it does not absorb much. In the place of the other Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, they coat the casks with pitch and it absorbs much. If you wish, say instead that it is due to the quality of earth [gargishta] from which they make the casks. Barrels made from this earth absorb much, and barrels made from that earth do not absorb much.

The Gemara relates: In Rav Yehuda’s place they would place the contents of forty-eight pitchers of wine into a barrel, as that was the standard size of barrels there. The barrel went for six dinars, and Rav Yehuda divided the oil and sold it at six pitchersful for one dinar.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Bava Metzia 40a explores compensation for managing a relative's property without court approval, contrasting captives' estates with minor heirs' cases.