הָכָא לָאו בְּיָדוֹ.

By contrast, here, the matter is not in his power to determine whether or not to buy the wine, as perhaps the owner will not sell it to him.

אָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי בֵּי תְלָתָא דְּיָהֲבִי זוּזֵי לְחַד לְמִזְבַּן לְהוּ מִידֵּי וּזְבַן לְחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ – זְבַן לְכוּלְּהוּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא צָר וַחֲתֵים אִינִישׁ אִינִישׁ לְחוֹדֵיהּ. אֲבָל צָר וַחֲתֵים אִינִישׁ אִינִישׁ לְחוֹדֵיהּ, לְמַאן דִּזְבַן – זְבַן, וּלְמַאן דְּלָא זְבַן – לָא זְבַן.

§ Rava said: In the case of these three people who gave money to one individual in order for him to purchase an item for them and he purchased the item for only one of them, he has actually purchased it for all of them. All three share ownership of that which was purchased, and the one for whom the item was purchased does not have any additional claim on the merchandise. And we said this ruling only when the agent did not wrap up and seal each person’s money separately but rather put all of the money in one bundle. But if he wrapped up and sealed each person’s money separately and spent the money of only one of them, he purchased the item only for the one for whom he purchased it, and he did not purchase the item for those for whom he did not purchase it.

אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הַאי סִיטוּמְתָּא – קָנְיָא. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? רַב חֲבִיבָא אֲמַר: לְמִקְנֵיא מַמָּשׁ.

Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: In this case of labeling an item with a marker [situmta], which was commonly used to indicate that specific merchandise had been sold, even though the buyer had not yet paid and the item was still located in the seller’s warehouse, the labeling effects acquisition of the merchandise for the buyer. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this said? What is the significance of this acquisition? Rav Ḥaviva said: It means to actually effect acquisition, in other words, that the merchandise belongs to the buyer for all intents and purposes.

רַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: לְקַבּוֹלֵי עֲלֵיהּ מִי שֶׁפָּרַע.

But the Rabbis said: It effects acquisition only concerning a case where one of the parties withdraws from the transaction and is required to accept upon himself the curse of: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, i.e., that of the Tower of Babel, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement (see 44a). The court does not force the parties to complete the transaction but applies the curse to the one who withdraws for his lack of integrity.

וְהִלְכְתָא לְקַבּוֹלֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״מִי שֶׁפָּרַע״. וּבְאַתְרָא דִּנְהִיגוּ לְמִקְנֵי מַמָּשׁ – קָנוּ.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that a marker effects the acquisition of the item only in that one who withdraws from the transaction is required to accept upon himself the curse: He Who exacted payment. But in a place where the custom is that it actually effects the acquisition of the item, it actually effects acquisition of it, as the halakha recognizes the legitimacy of the local custom.

הָיָה הוּא תְּחִלָּה לַקּוֹצְרִים. אָמַר רַב: מְחוּסָּר שְׁתַּיִם – פּוֹסֵק. שָׁלֹשׁ – אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בִּידֵי אָדָם – אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פּוֹסֵק. בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם – אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק.

§ The mishna teaches that if the seller was first among the reapers, he may set a price with the buyer only when the produce he has is ready for delivery. Rav says: If only two actions needed to complete the labor to prepare the produce were lacking, he may set a price, as the produce is viewed as if it had already been prepared. But if three actions were lacking, he may not set a price, as the item is still not considered prepared, and the setting of a price in advance creates a concern of interest. And Shmuel says: If the actions needed to complete the labor are to be performed by human hands, then even if one hundred actions were lacking, he may set a price, but if the necessary actions must be accomplished by the hand of Heaven, then even if one action is lacking, he may not set a price.

תְּנַן: פּוֹסֵק עִמּוֹ עַל הַגָּדִישׁ, וְהָא מְחוּסָּר מִשְׁדֵּא בְּחַמָּה לְמֵיבַשׁ וּלְמֵידַשׁ וּמִידְרֵא! כְּגוֹן דִּשְׁדָא בְּחַמָּה וִיבַשׁ.

The Gemara challenges Rav’s opinion. We learned in the mishna that he may set a price on a stack of grain. But there are still several actions that are lacking: Placing it in the sun to dry, and threshing, and winnowing. There are three actions that are lacking, and yet the mishna rules that he may set a price. The Gemara responds: The mishna is discussing a case where he already placed it in the sun and it dried. Consequently, there are only two actions that are lacking.

וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק, וְהָא מְחוּסָּר מִידְרֵא, דְּבִידֵי שָׁמַיִם הִיא – אֶפְשָׁר בְּנָפְווֹתָא.

The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, who says: If the actions remaining are to be accomplished by the hand of Heaven even if only one action is lacking he may not set a price, how does he explain the mishna? In the case of the mishna the produce is lacking winnowing, which is done by the hand of Heaven, since winnowing can be done only when there is wind. The Gemara answers: It is possible to winnow with sieves when the wind is not blowing. Although this is done only in exigent circumstances, since it is possible to perform the action entirely by human hands, it is permitted to set a price.

וְעַל הֶעָבִיט שֶׁל עֲנָבִים. וְהָא מְחוּסָּר מִכְמַר, וְעַיּוֹלֵי לְבֵי מַעְצַרְתָּא, לְמֵידַשׁ וּלְמִנְגַּד! כִּדְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: עַל הַכּוֹמֶר שֶׁל זֵיתִים, הָכָא נָמֵי עַל הַכּוֹמֶר שֶׁל עֲנָבִים.

The mishna teaches that one may set a price for a large basket of grapes. Based on this, the Gemara challenges the opinion of Rav: But there are still several actions that are lacking: Warming in a stack, bringing the grapes to the winepress, treading upon them, and drawing the wine out into the pit where it is stored. The Gemara answers: This can be explained as Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches, concerning a difficulty raised from the next clause of the mishna, that the mishna is not discussing setting a price on olives immediately after they were picked but rather for a stack [hakomer] of warmed olives, and here also, it is speaking about a price for a stack of warmed grapes.

וְהָא מְחוּסְּרֵי תְּלָת! בְּאַתְרָא דְּהָהוּא דְּזָבֵין הוּא דְּנָגֵיד.

The Gemara challenges: But there are three actions that are lacking. The Gemara explains: The mishna is discussing a place where the local custom is that the one who purchases the grapes is the one who draws the wine out of the winepress. Consequently, there are only two actions remaining to complete the labor before the merchandise will be ready for purchase.

וְעַל הַמַּעֲטָן שֶׁל זֵיתִים. וְהָא מְחוּסָּר מִכְמַר וְעַיּוֹלֵי לְבֵי דַפֵּי לְמֵידַשׁ וּלְמִנְגַּד! תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: עַל כּוֹמֶר שֶׁל זֵיתִים. הָא אִיכָּא תְּלָת! בְּאַתְרָא דְּהָהוּא דְּזָבֵין הָהוּא (מְנַגֵּיד).

The mishna teaches that one may set a price for a vat of olives. Based on this, the Gemara challenges the opinion of Rav: But there are still several actions that are lacking: Warming the olives in a stack, bringing the olives to the olive press, pressing them, and drawing the oil out into the pit where it is stored. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches a baraita with a different version of the statement, which reads: For a stack of olives that has already been warmed. The Gemara challenges: But there are three actions that are lacking: Bringing the olives to the olive press, pressing them, and drawing the oil. The Gemara explains: The mishna is discussing a place where the local custom is that the one who purchases the olives is the one who draws the oil.

וְעַל הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁל יוֹצֵר. אַמַּאי? וְהָא מְחוּסָּר לָפוֹפֵי וְיַבּוֹשֵׁי, עַיּוֹלֵי לְאַתּוּנָא לְמִשְׂרַף וּלְמִיפַּק! כְּגוֹן דִּמְלָפְפָה וִיבִישׁוּ. וְהָא אִיכָּא תְּלָת! בְּאַתְרָא דְּהָהוּא דְּזָבֵין הוּא דְּמַפֵּיק.

The mishna teaches that one may set a price for the clumps of clay prepared for use by a potter. Based on this, the Gemara challenges the opinion of Rav: Why is this permitted? But there are still several actions that are lacking: Rolling them out to the proper size, drying them, putting them into the kiln, burning them, and removing them from the kiln. The Gemara answers: The mishna is discussing a case where they were already rolled and dried. The Gemara challenges: But there are three actions that are lacking. The Gemara explains: The mishna is discussing a place where the local custom is that the one who purchases the clumps of clay is the one who removes them from the kiln.

וְעַל הַסִּיד מִשֶּׁיְּשַׁקְּעֶנּוּ בַּכִּבְשָׁן. וְהָא מְחוּסָּר מִקְלֵה וְאַפּוֹקֵי וּמֵידַק! בְּאַתְרָא דְּהָהוּא דְּזָבֵין הָהוּא דָּיֵיק. וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר: בִּידֵי אָדָם אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פּוֹסֵק, לְמָה לִי מִשֶּׁיְּשַׁקְּעֶנּוּ בַּכִּבְשָׁן? אֵימָא ״מִשֶּׁרָאוּי לְשַׁקְּעוֹ בַּכִּבְשָׁן״.

The mishna teaches that one may set a price for plaster after he has sunk it in the kiln. Based on this, the Gemara challenges the opinion of Rav: Why is this permitted? But there are still several actions that are lacking: Burning it, and removing it from the kiln, and grinding it. The Gemara answers: The mishna is discussing a place where the local custom is that the one who purchases the plaster is the one who grinds it. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Shmuel, who says that if all actions that remain are to be done by human hands even if one hundred actions are lacking one may set a price, why do I need the statement that this applies only after he has sunk it in the kiln? The Gemara answers: Say: When it is fit to be sunk in the kiln.

וְעַל הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁל יוֹצֵר. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין פּוֹסְקִים עַל הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁל יוֹצֵר עַד שֶׁיֵּעָשׂוּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּעָפָר לָבָן, אֲבָל בְּעָפָר שָׁחוֹר, כְּגוֹן כְּפַר חֲנַנְיָא וְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ, כְּפַר שִׁיחִין וְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ – פּוֹסְקִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְזֶה יֵשׁ לְזֶה.

§ The mishna teaches that one may set a price for the clumps of clay prepared for use by a potter. The Sages taught: One may not set a price for the clumps of clay prepared for use by a potter until they are fully formed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to white earth from which superior clay pottery is made, but with regard to the simple and inexpensive black earth, from which ordinary clay pottery is made, such as that of Kefar Ḥananya and its environs, or that of Kefar Shiḥin and its environs, one may set a price immediately, since even if this one does not have any in his possession, that one does have it, as black earth is a common commodity.

אַמֵּימָר יָהֵיב זוּזֵי מִכִּי מְעַיְּילִי עַפְרָא. כְּמַאן? אִי כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיֵּעָשׂוּ. אִי כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְזֶה יֵשׁ לְזֶה! לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וּבְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּאַמֵּימָר עֲשִׁיק עַפְרָא: אִי דִּמְעַיְּילִי עַפְרָא סָמְכָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ וְיָהֵיב לְהוּ זוּזֵי, וְאִי לָא – לָא סָמְכָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

The Gemara relates: Ameimar gave money to a seller of clumps of clay only from the time that the clay was brought into his house. In accordance with whose opinion did he act? If he acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn’t Rabbi Meir say that one may not set a price until they are fully formed, but there is no need to wait until the merchandise is delivered to his house? And if he acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, doesn’t Rabbi Yosei say that one may set a price at any time, as even though this one does not have any, that one does have it? The Gemara answers: Actually, he ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, but in Ameimar’s locale earth suitable for making clay was scarce, so much so that even black clay was not common. Consequently, if the clay was brought into his house, he relied on this and gave the seller the money, but if not, he did not rely on it.

וּפוֹסֵק עִמּוֹ עַל הַזֶּבֶל כׇּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה. חֲכָמִים הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא? אָמַר רָבָא:

§ The mishna teaches that one may set a price with him for manure on any of the days of the year, and that Rabbi Yosei permitted this only if he already had a pile of manure in his dunghill, whereas the Rabbis permitted it in all cases. The Gemara asks: The statement of the Rabbis is identical to the statement of the first tanna, so what is the reason to repeat it? Rava said: