Study Bava Kamma folio 102B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ליקח לו חטין – ולקח מהם שעורין, שעורין – ולקח מהם חטין; תניא חדא: אם פחתו – פחתו לו, ואם הותירו – הותירו לו; ותני חדא: אם פחתו – פחתו לו, ואם הותירו – הותירו לאמצע!
to purchase wheat for him, which he plans to sell at a profit, and instead the agent purchased barley with the money, or if he gave his agent money to purchase barley and instead he purchased wheat with the money, two baraitot issue discordant rulings with regard to the halakha. It is taught in one baraita that if there was a loss, the loss is for the agent, and if there was a profit, the profit is for the agent as well, as he is considered to have abrogated his status as an agent by deviating from the instructions. And it is taught in one baraita (Tosefta, Bava Metzia 4:20) that if there was an agreement that both parties would split the profits from the transaction, if there was a loss, the loss is for the agent, and if there was a profit, the profit goes to the middle, i.e., the agent and the investor split the profit.
אמר רבי יוחנן: לא קשיא; הא רבי מאיר, והא רבי יהודה.
To reconcile the baraitot, R' Yoḥanan said: This is not difficult. This first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir, and this second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda.
הא רבי מאיר, דאמר שינוי קונה; והא רבי יהודה, דאמר שינוי אינו קונה.
R' Yoḥanan explains his rationale: This first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir, who says that a change by an agent that deviates from the terms of his assignment means that the agent acquires the item in question for himself, as in the case of one who was paid to dye wool red but dyed it black. In this case as well, when the agent purchases wheat instead of barley, or vice versa, he acquires the grain for himself. And this second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda, who says that a change by an agent which deviates from the terms of his assignment does not mean that the agent acquires the item in question for himself. It is acquired by the one who appointed the agent, and they split the profits as agreed. But the agent is held responsible for any loss incurred, due to his deviation from the instructions.