Related%20passage for Bava Batra 5:9

הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ אֶת בְּנוֹ אֵצֶל חֶנְוָנִי וּפֻנְדְּיוֹן בְּיָדוֹ, וּמָדַד לוֹ בְּאִסָּר שֶׁמֶן וְנָתַן לוֹ אֶת הָאִסָּר, שָׁבַר אֶת הַצְּלוֹחִית וְאִבֵּד אֶת הָאִסָּר, חֶנְוָנִי חַיָּב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן שְׁלָחוֹ. וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַצְּלוֹחִית בְּיַד הַתִּינוֹק וּמָדַד חֶנְוָנִי לְתוֹכָהּ, חֶנְוָנִי פָטוּר:

If one sent his [small] son to a shopkeeper with a pondion [two issarin] in his hand [to bring oil for an issar, and to return an issar], and he measured out an issar of oil for him and gave him an issar, and he (the child) broke the flask [and spilled the oil] and lost the issar, the shopkeeper is liable [for the oil, the flask, and the issar. For the father sent his small son to the shopkeeper only to tell him that he needed oil, not to have him send the oil with his son. The Gemara asks why the shopkeeper should be liable for the flask when it is "willful loss," the father himself having sent it with his son! And it answers that (the instance is one in which) the shopkeeper took it to measure out oil for others, becoming a thief vis-à-vis the flask, so that it is regarded as being in his domain until he returns it to the owner. And even though he returned it to the child, this did not exempt him.] R. Yehudah exempts him; for it was to this end that he sent him [i.e., that the shopkeeper sent it with his son.] And the sages conceded to R. Yehudah that if the flask were in the child's hand and the shopkeeper measured into it, he is not liable [for the flask. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]

Explore related%20passage for Bava Batra 5:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.