The Gemara now analyzes Rav Yehuda’s calculation: Subtract thirty-six pitchersful that were sold for six dinars each, with which he recoups the purchase price of the barrel. Twelve pitchersful remained for him. Subtract eight pitchers full, which is one-sixth of the total amount, as that is the measure absorbed in the barrels. Four pitchersful remained as profit for Rav Yehuda.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Shmuel say that one who profits from the sale of matters related to one’s existence may not profit more than one-sixth? One can infer that it is permitted for one to profit up to one-sixth. But according to the calculation, Rav Yehuda’s profit was much lower. Why did he not sell the oil at a higher price?

The Gemara answers: There are the barrel and the sediment to account for. These remain in his possession, as he purchased the barrel and all its contents for six dinars, and they supplement the profit. The Gemara challenges: If so, once the barrel and sediment are taken into account, the profit is greater than one-sixth. How did Rav Yehuda profit beyond the permitted amount? The Gemara answers: There is the payment for his exertion, as he sold the oil, and there is the payment for tapping, as a craftsman is needed to install a tap in the barrel. When those payments are included in the calculation, the profit is precisely one-sixth.

§ The mishna teaches: If it was refined oil, he does not deduct any of the oil for sediment. If they were stored in old casks that are already saturated, he does not deduct any of the oil for absorption. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it impossible that the cask did not absorb any oil at all, even if it was saturated? Rav Naḥman says: It is with regard to casks coated with pitch that the tanna’im taught the mishna, and if the cask is old and coated with pitch it does not absorb anything. Abaye said: Even if you say that the mishna is not referring to casks coated with pitch, once they are saturated they are saturated, and no more oil is absorbed.

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even in the 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. Abaye said: When you analyze the matter, you will find it necessary to say that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is permitted to mix sediment that settled at the bottom of the barrel with the clear oil and sell the mixture. And according to the statement of the Rabbis, it is prohibited to mix sediment with the clear oil.

The Gemara elaborates. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is permitted to mix sediment, and that is the reason that the buyer accepts upon himself that the seller will deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundred log, as the seller says to him: If I wished to mix sediment and sell it to you, couldn’t I mix it and sell it to you? Now too, accept upon yourself the deduction due to sediment.

The Gemara asks: And let the buyer say to him: If you had mixed sediment into the oil, it could have been sold for me to another. Now what will I do with it? The sediment cannot be sold on its own, and I will suffer a loss. The Gemara answers: We are dealing with a buyer who is a homeowner, not a merchant. He needs oil for his own use, and filtered oil is preferable for him, as his use of the oil is facilitated by removal of the sediment. The Gemara asks: And let the buyer say to him: From the fact that you did not mix the sediment with the oil for me, it is an indication that you renounced your rights to it to me.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he is not of the opinion that one can presume renunciation, and therefore the buyer cannot presume that the seller renounced his right to receive the standard price, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 77b): If one sold the yoke [tzemed] to another, he did not sell the cattle to him. Literally, tzemed means the yoke that holds the animals together [tzamud] while plowing. It can be understood as referring to the two animals held together by the yoke. If one sold the cattle to another, he did not sell the yoke to him. The sale is limited to the literal meaning of what he said.

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: The money informs the scope of the sale. Based on the price, one can determine what is included in the sale. How so? If the buyer said to the seller: Sell me your tzemed for two hundred dinars, the matter is well-known that a yoke does not cost two hundred dinars, and he certainly meant the cattle. And the Rabbis say: The money is not a proof, as it is possible that one of the parties renounced part of the sale price.

The Gemara concludes its elaboration of the statement of Abaye: According to the statement of the Rabbis, it is prohibited to mix sediment, and this is the reason that the buyer does not accept that the seller deduct a log and a half of sediment for one hundred log, as the buyer says to him: If you wished to mix sediment and sell it, would it be permitted for you to do so? Now too, I do not accept that deduction.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: On the contrary, the opposite is reasonable. According to the statement of the Rabbis, it is permitted to mix sediment. And this is the reason that the buyer does not accept the deduction, as the buyer said to the seller: From the fact that you did not mix the sediment for me, apparently you renounced that sum to me. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, it is prohibited to mix sediment. And this is the reason that the buyer accepts the deduction, as the seller says to him: If I wished to mix sediment, it is prohibited for me to mix it for you, and if you do not accept the deduction, I earn nothing from this sale. That is unacceptable according to the maxim: One who buys and sells at the same price, is he called a merchant?

It is taught: The legal status of both one who buys and one who deposits oil with regard to residue [piktim], e.g., olive pits floating on the oil, is the same. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: With regard to residue? If we say that this is teaching: Just as the buyer does not accept upon himself a deduction in the quantity of oil to account for the residue, so too, the one who deposits the oil does not accept upon himself a deduction in the quantity of oil to account for the residue when he returns the oil and is required to return the full amount deposited with him, this is difficult. But let the bailee say to the owner: What shall I do with your residue?

Rather, it is teaching: Just as the one who deposits the oil accepts the residue when his oil is returned to him, so too, the buyer accepts the residue with the oil he purchases. The Gemara asks: And does the buyer accept upon himself a deduction for residue? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages stated that the loss for murky oil is only for the seller, as the buyer accepts upon himself a deduction for a log and a half of sediment without residue?

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this baraita, in which it is taught that the buyer accepts residue, is referring to a case where the buyer gave the seller money in Tishrei, when olives are harvested, and he takes the oil from him in Nisan according to the measure of Tishrei. In Tishrei, due to the substantial supply, the price is lower, and immediately after the harvest the oil is murky. That baraita, in which it is taught that the loss for murky oil is only for the seller, is referring to a case where the buyer gave the seller money in Nisan, and he takes the oil from him in Nisan according to the measure of Nisan, as in Nisan both the buyer and the seller assume that the oil is refined.

MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits a barrel with another, and the owners did not designate a specific place for the barrel to be stored in the bailee’s house, and the bailee moved it and it broke, if it broke while still in his hand, there is a distinction: If he moved the barrel for his purposes, he is liable to pay for the damage. If he moved the barrel for its own purposes, to prevent it from being damaged, he is exempt. If, after he replaced the barrel it broke, whether he initially moved it for his purposes or whether he moved it for its own purposes, he is exempt. But if the owners designated a specific place for the barrel, and the bailee moved it and it broke, whether it broke while still in his hand or whether it broke after he replaced the barrel, if he moved it for his purposes he is liable to pay, and if he moved it for its own purposes, he is exempt.

GEMARA: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: When a thief returns an item that he stole, we do not require the knowledge of the owner for the item to be considered returned, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case of one who steals a lamb from the flock or a sela from the purse, he should return it to the place from which he stole it, and it is unnecessary to inform the owner; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: