Bava Metzia – “The Middle Gate”

• Seder Nezikin – “Book of Damages”
• Bava Metzia – “The Middle Gate”
• Having dispensed summarily with the introduction to damages in Bava Kamma, and the separation of types by whether they are criminal or civil, and intentional or not, we move on to specifics. This second tractate is focused on civil matters, particularly those around property law, with a section devoted to responsibility for property that’s been entrusted to someone to care for and/or guard, and usury (monetary lending practices). Listening in and reading discussions by Talmudic scholars, this tractate is posited as an analogy over the ownership of Jewish heritage and tradition, and “who gets to interpret the word of God, and the laws”. A linguistic tangent that I find curious and interesting, in Aramaic, “metzia” means “middle”, but in Hebrew and Yiddish, “metzia” means “a lucky break”, “a bargain”, “a real find”. Hopefully we will spend less time on cows.
  • 3/1/24, Chapter 1, Page 2 – We open with two people claiming ownership of a sacred garment, a tallis. In one situation, each claiming full ownership, no evidence to support one or the other’s claim, and both willing to swear an oath before God, it’s easy – the court grants them each half ownership, and done. In the other instance presented, one claims full ownership, the other claims it is jointly owned by them. In a ruling worthy of game theory, the rabbis state that since one person admits the other owns half, that half is not in dispute, only the second half is, and so it is split between them, resulting in 3/4 and 1/4 ownership.
  • 3/2/24, Page 3 – Two people deposit money in the care of a supposedly responsible person. The guardian doesn’t keep good records and doesn’t remember who left which amount. Both depositors are willing to swear an oath that they left the bigger amount. The initial ruling is give them both the smaller amount and leave the rest in escrow “until Elijah returns and decides”, basically, never. This leads to an argument, as it punishes the person telling the truth, and costs the liar nothing. Which leads to a whole lot of what-ifs.
  • 3/3/24, Page 4 – As the rabbis continue discussing disputed claims of ownership, it strikes me that they are less concerned with a just resolution than they are with administering oaths. And apparently I’m not the only one who has noticed this, as numerous Talmudic scholars have delved into why oaths are so important in Jewish tradition. Is it that it’s one of the Ten Commandments? Is it the severity of punishment for swearing a false oath or violating a true one? We may never know.
  • 3/4/24, Page 5 – Someone suspected of financial impropriety based on the statements of two witnesses is automatically considered dishonest. Therefore, any oath they take is suspect. This presents an interesting problem for the rabbis hearing a case, since the witnesses make the defendant’s testimony moot. But at the same time, they understand that witnesses could be lying, and the defendant may be innocent of the charges. What to do? Interestingly, it’s left undecided, and in the hands of the rabbis hearing the case.
  • 3/5/24, Page 6 – Only in a milieu where “possession is proof of ownership” could this situation take place. Two people show up to the court, both hanging on to the same object. One of them wrests control of it from the other, in full view of the court. The judges wait to see what the other does. Does he immediately and loudly object, does he try to take back his share of control? If not, why not? Is he admitting it’s not really his? After all, the one person now has full possession of the object, it really isn’t relevant how it happened, is it?
  • 3/6/24, Page 7 – Not all objects are homogenous. That’s to say, using our several day example, if two people are claiming ownership of a cloth, or garment, and a part of that cloth has been adorned with literal gold thread, when it comes time to divide it, the law requires that each person gets not just their percentage share of the cloth, but also of the gold, so that their portions are of equal value, not just size. This is, of course, extended to other contested properties.
  • 3/7/24, Page 8 – Once again, people who are deaf-mute are singled out in a series of discussions over their rights to possess property. This may run on a little, as I finally did more of a dive into why this is contentious. First off, these particular rules apply to someone who is both deaf and mute, not just one or the other. The reasoning, back in the day, was that if someone couldn’t hear to understand, nor speak to convey understanding, it was assumed that they didn’t understand, period. This was not unique to Judaism. In the 7th century, one archbishop was actually canonized for performing a miracle simply because he taught someone who was deaf-mute to read and write. Sign languages and schools for the hearing and speech disabled didn’t start showing up until the 17th and 18th centuries. And it was into the 19th century before Judaism really began to reassess its assumptions on the topic. And there are still holdouts, especially in ultra-orthodox circles, who still assume that the lack of hearing and/or speech, and especially both, indicate a lack of mental competence. That, too, unfortunately, is not unique to Judaism.
  • 3/8/24, Page 9 – Sitting on a camel or donkey, holding the reins, and riding it around in public, was considered equivalent to having acquired it. So sellers knew that if someone wanted to “test drive” their camel or donkey, it had to be kept on their property, not allowing the potential purchaser to head to a public space. I’m keeping this in mind next time I want to test drive a car… especially if I’m buying it from someone who follows Talmudic law.
  • 3/9/24, Page 10 – In a statement that has really interesting application to modern day employment law, the Talmud makes quite clear: “a Jew can never be enslaved to another Jew with a contract from which he cannot release himself whenever he wishes.” It is in context over whether an employee can choose at any moment to quit his employment and act on his own behalf, with no restrictions imposed by his employer. No NDAs, no non-competes, no-intellectual property losses.
  • 3/10/24, Page 11 – There are limits, thankfully, to all these “acquisition by possession” examples. You can’t simply go grab someone’s livestock and claim it as yours, not even if you find it wandering free, or running across your, or someone else’s lands. If it’s identified as belonging to someone, you can’t take possession. The rabbis want to make sure we know that the last ten pages all apply to objects and animals that are, at least to appearances, ownerless.
  • 3/11/24, Page 12 – A minor, a deaf-mute (here we are again), or an imbecile do not acquire found ownerless property for themselves, but for their father, guardian, or employer. However, the rabbis opine, if the found property is not of some great value or benefit, it’s generally best to let them keep it, so they don’t feel like they are robbery victims. To me, this seems a very odd construct, and one that bolsters an ethos of victimhood, rather than one of responsibility.
  • 3/12/24, Page 13 – A promissory note that is found, like any other piece of property, might be considered “acquired”. In devious moments, someone might use it to try to collect on a debt that’s actually owed to someone else. But no, the rabbis say, a found promissory note is, basically invalid, and even returning it to the creditor, or the court, hoping for a reward, is useless, since you have no idea if the debt has been settled, and it’s really none of your business.
  • 3/13/24, Page 14 – No one would write an IOU without backing it up with collateral. Or, more accurately, according to the rabbinical folk, no one would accept an IOU without it. Therefore, if someone has a promissory note that doesn’t specify collateral property, the courts assume that it is simply a “scribal error”, and that the borrower’s property is indeed considered collateral when it comes time for collection. Not the way it works these days!
  • 3/14/24, Page 15 – Again, we are back to what either has to be a very different definition of what being a thief, or robber, involves, as we’re back in situations where it seems like those are simply treated as chosen occupations. Over several examples, one stood out – a robber steals land from an owner, is caught and convicted, but goes on to sell the land to someone else. The courts rule that the original owner has a lien against the property and can recover it, or its value, from… the purchaser.
  • 3/15/24, Page 16 – Seriously, the whole “robber” thing is so bizarre. Today the discussion is around whether it’s “fair” to call someone who stole property a robber if the original owner dies, and therefore cannot denounce the thief as a “robber”. Can his children do it on behalf of the estate? Some say yes, some say no. What if the robber dies after stealing the property? Is it fair to call his children, “children of a robber”? After all, this damages his reputation, which is important not just while alive, but after death.
  • 3/16/24, Page 17 – A promissory note is lost, and there is disagreement as to the content. The supposed writer says, “I never wrote a note”. Witnesses say, “yes you did.” The writer says, “Well, I wrote a note, but it didn’t make that promise.” Witnesses say, “Yes it did.”, Writer says, “Well, if it said that, then I already paid it.”. Witnesses say, “No you didn’t.”, Writer says, “You guys were never even there.” Witnesses say, “Yes we were.” Where have we heard a similar set of claims recently, and who from? It’s so hard to think of a name….
  • 3/17/24, Page 18 – If a divorce decree is lost and then found “immediately” it is still valid. If it is found “some time later”, it may not be valid. A search of the city records is instituted, and if there exist both a man and a woman of the same names in the city, regardless of whether they apparently know each other, the decree is invalidated because is is in the realm of possibility that it applies to them, and not to those who claim to have lost the decree. Hang on to your paperwork! And, I don’t know, track down the others of the same name and ask them?
  • 3/18/24, Page 19 – If a lost divorce decree, bill of manumission (release from slavery), or a property deed given as a gift is found, it should be returned to the person who issued it, not the person who it was addressed to. Why? Because maybe it hadn’t been given yet, and the person who wrote it might have a future date in mind when it will become effective. The gift, that makes sense. The other two? I mean, you wouldn’t want to give someone their freedom too early, would you?
  • 3/19/24, Page 20 – Two pages ago we saw that there was concern for the possibility that a found document had to be carefully vetted to make sure that it isn’t delivered to the wrong one of two people with the same name in the same city. Today that is extended to neighboring cities. Further, if you find in your papers a document that you don’t recognize nor know if the conditions have been fulfilled, you are advised to set it aside “until the time Elijah returns and let him sort it out” – essentially, forget about it.
  • 3/20/24, Chapter 2, Page 21 – If you find something and it has nothing that could be used to identify its owner, it’s yours. If there’s anything, even a sliver or shard of something that might help to identify its owner, you must publicize the find, so that a potential owner can contact you and provide proof of his or her ownership by describing whatever it is that’s unique about it.
  • 3/21/24, Page 22 – What about found items that really can’t be marked – sheaves of grain, piles of fruit. Sure, an owner could mark the bundles, the baskets, the crates. But the sages aren’t satisfied. Perhaps those are old binders, baskets, or crates and no longer belong to the person who marked them. And if it’s an easily erased and replaced mark, it could be fake. It really seems like they’re very invested in “finders keepers”. One begins to wonder why.
  • 3/22/24, Page 23 – If loaves of bread are found sitting around in some public space, they must be returned to the person who baked them, if they were baked by a home cook. If, on the other hand, they were baked by a professional baker, they are yours! How do you tell? Oh, it’s just obvious, trust us. Food left out in public will be picked up by Jews, because we don’t waste food. But Gentiles will avoid it, because being the superstitious lot that they are, they’ll be afraid of sorcery.
  • 3/23/24, Page 24 – Scattered coins. Coins bundled together. A purse. All things that one might find without an identifying mark. Still, the rabbis rule, you must proclaim that you found it and see if a fellow Jew claims it and can provide evidence it is his. Unless, of course, it’s in an a primarily Gentiles area, because… their problem, not ours. And besides, they’d lie about it anyway. Is it any wonder, with rulings like this, that money has long been a point of contention between Jews and Gentiles?
  • 3/24/24, Page 25 – In a move worthy of a CSI episode the rabbis discuss what might constitute identifying characteristics of these various piles of coins, grains, vegetables, or meats. They get down to the exact arrangement, the way things are stacked, what touches what, are things side-by-side or in other arrangements (there was, apparently, a specific arrangement dedicated to the Gentile worship of Mercury), and even if something without identifiers is next to something that has them.
  • 3/25/24, Page 26 – If you rent out a home or building, and after a renter leaves you find personal property they left behind, what is your obligation? Well, according to the sages, nothing. A renter who has moved on will “of course” have assumed his property lost to him forever. And maybe it was the property of a previous renter. You don’t know, so just keep it for yourself. This doesn’t sit well with me, nor I imagine, with most of you.
  • 3/26/24, Page 27 – If you buy something, and find, intermingled with whatever you bought, valuables that clearly belong to the seller, you are under no obligation to notify them. You can keep them, unless the seller contacts you and specifically asks about the valuables, and identifies them clearly. This is justified by using a metaphor from Deuteronomy 22:1-3. It may have that scriptural basis, but doesn’t seem to me a righteous way to live and conduct oneself. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
  • 3/27/24, Page 28 – If you find a clearly lost object during a festival, an occasion where people come from afar, you must proclaim its existence for seven days, awaiting claimants. Why a week? Because, obviously, you must allow three days for someone to travel home to wherever they came from, a day to figure out that they lost something, and three days to return to make their claim. Do you not understand how intercity travel works?
  • 3/28/24, Page 29 – If you find a sacred scroll, particularly a Torah scroll, it is incumbent on you to unroll it, a few columns at a time, every couple of months, just to make sure the pages stay supple. If you happen to be a Torah scholar, it’s fine to read from it as you go. But, if you’re not, don’t, as you may be profaning something you don’t understand. Plus, you know, no assessing it for potential resale or pawn value, that’s just a no-no.
  • 3/29/24, Page 30 – If you find an object of value that is useful, it’s fine if you use it while waiting for its owner to claim it. That comes with a caveat – it’s fine if it’s simply useful and aids you in some manner, but not fine if it’s valuable or impressive enough that doing so publicly would make you seem more important or richer than you really are. Stay in your lane.
  • 3/30/24, Page 31 – If you see something that appears abandoned or lost, but it’s in a place where it might easily belong to someone – a cow just outside a fenced pasture, a sack sitting at the side of someone’s owned path – you can’t assume it is lost or abandoned unless it is there three days in a row. On the third day, you can claim it by finder’s rights. Doesn’t square well with “if you see something, say something”. Or, I guess it does – you could always point it out to see if it belongs to someone.
  • 3/31/24, Page 32 – What you do when you see an overburdened pack animal that’s not being attended to? Our obligation to relieve animal suffering tells us we must unload it of its burden, without expectation of compensation. The rabbis end up discussing whether there is an obligation to reload the animal of its burden when the owner is found, without compensation, since you unloaded it. Strangely, the obligation to relieve an animal’s suffering isn’t mentioned in the reloading part.
  • 4/1/24, Page 33 – We’re still on whether there’s an obligation to reload a donkey’s burden after having unloaded it to spare the animal’s suffering. Much of the conversation focuses on whether you can expect remuneration for your labor. I’m still struck by the lack of concern about causing the donkey suffering all over again. I can’t be the only one who reads Deuteronomy 22:4’s “You shall lift them with him” not as instruction to simply load him up, but to help carry some of it, so he doesn’t suffer. Apparently, that didn’t occur to any of the rabbis.
  • 4/2/24, Chapter 3, Page 34 – You agree to take care of a friend’s livestock while they’re away, no charge. One or more of the animals disappears while under your care, either lost or stolen. You’ve sworn under oath that you didn’t steal it, and, you’ve compensated your friend for the loss. Later, the animal is recovered, or the thief is caught, and is forced to make restitution, perhaps even a profitable one. Not to your friend, but to you, as the rabbinical court says that your compensation effected a purchase, and the animal became yours.
  • 4/3/24, Page 35 – We have the case of someone depositing their jewels with a service whose job it is to safeguard them. When he goes to reclaim them, as their value has increased and he wants to sell them, the caretaker says they’ve disappeared, but refuses to take responsibility or pay for them. The court orders him to pay for them at their new assessed value, but also note that had he simply taken responsibility and paid for their former value, they would be his, and he could have profited from their increased value. It’s always a bonus when the judge gives you tips on how to be a better criminal.
  • 4/4/24, Page 36 – This is how conspiracy theories form. You hire someone to take care of your cow. He negligently allows the cow to wander off into a marsh where it could be killed or stolen. But, the cow comes contentedly back. Later, though not much later, it dies of ostensibly normal causes. Or did it? After all, the caretaker was negligent in one thing, maybe he’s negligent in everything? Maybe something mysterious happened on the marsh? Perhaps the Angel of Death is involved?
  • 4/5/24, Page 37 – A thief has stolen, for our purposes, $100, from someone. Multiple people claim the loss. The argument starts with – determine who the thief actually stole from and have him return the money to them. But then it’s proposed that since they all claim loss, he should pay them all a share. Which then leads to he should pay them all the full amount, in order to atone. Interestingly, at no point do the rabbis address that all but one of the claimants is lying.
  • 4/6/24, Page 38 – If someone stores perishable products in a warehouse, and they begin to rot or ferment, what is the responsibility of the caretaker of the warehouse? For the most part, the rabbis say, “none”. The person who stored the items knew they were perishable, and if he didn’t give specific instructions, he accepts all responsibility for their fate. A few argue for circumstances where the caretaker would sell them before they rot and hold the proceeds for the owner, but generally, this seems unpopular. Contacting the owner never seems to occur to anyone.
  • 4/7/24, Page 39 – If the owner of a property is a fugitive, for example, has gone overseas to avoid paying taxes, his property can be considered abandoned, and taken over – by a family member, the court, a lender, even a… squatter. If, on the other hand, the owner is caught, and jailed because of serious crime, until there is a court disposition the court appoints a steward to manage the property, as a family member or friend might collude with the owner.
  • 4/8/24, Page 40 – One of the main reasons I started in on this project was curiosity about the sociology and psychology of the Jewish world 1500-2000 or so years ago when the Talmud, and thus the underpinnings of modern Judaism, were created. It’s been amusing at times, no more so than today, where the rabbinic court rules that a relative who stepped in to help an orphaned minor manage his newly inherited properties is not to be trusted or compensated, because, no one would do that unless they had nefarious designs on the wealth.
  • 4/9/24, Page 41 – We’ve all seen movies and TV shows where someone says something like, “I’m going to close my eyes and count to ten, and if the missing thingamajig shows up on the table, no questions will be asked”. This doesn’t fly with the rabbis, who insist that you can’t just return a lost or stolen item to its rightful place, but you have to do so with the full knowledge, and acknowledgement, of the owner. No anonymous returns!
  • 4/10/24, Page 42 – You should always keep one-third of your money in your possession, one-third invested in your business, and one-third buried in the ground. Such is the rabbinical advice we receive today. There is some debate of the ground-buried money, as, along with the thieves that we’ve discussed before who have all sorts of rights, there are, apparently, “rummagers”, whose career it is to dig up other people’s backyards looking for a score. Several rabbis suggest keeping that third in your attic, but, of course, then it may come within the purview of thieves….
  • 4/11/24, Page 43 – Banks were a much more individualized, private concern in the past. If you deposited money in a bank, you had to clearly indicate that your money was to be safeguarded, not just by telling them so, but by binding it up, and presumably labeling it with your name. The banker could assume that any unbound money was his to use, despite the obvious circumstances, and couldn’t be held liable if it was gone when you returned. You could, however, if you were, say, depositing your organization’s money for safekeeping and didn’t bind it up first.
  • 4/12/24, Chapter 4, Page 44 – When does a transaction legally occur? Not when an item or property is paid for but not yet received. Not when an item or property is received but not yet paid for. Only when an item or property has both been received and paid for. I mean, did these rabbis not watch cop shows on TV? Everyone knows you have to wait until the exchange has been made before you move in for the arrest….
  • 4/13/24, Page 45 – Jews are not allowed to charge other Jews interest on loans, nor repay a loan with more than was lent; and the same holds true for “borrowing property” – an example is given of someone giving you ten eggs, you can’t repay them by giving them a dozen. This doesn’t apply to transactions with Gentiles. But what about repayments in equivalents? Can you use an amount of silver to repay a loan in gold, or vice versa? It’s quite the lively discussion.
  • 4/14/24, Page 46 – Given the prohibition on Jews charging other Jews interest for loans, how did such transactions take place? Let’s face it, people sometimes need a loan, and others aren’t going to just offer them gratis. Try this on. “Loan me X dollars, and I’ll repay you X dollars. I would like, totally unrelated to the loan, to pay your employee’s salaries for a couple of weeks/buy you something nice, just out of my personal generosity. We good?”
  • 4/15/24, Page 47 – On the table today, focusing in on the bathhouse, a place of communal gathering, and cleanliness, is the token. You used a token for entrance, that you’d bought in quantity. The question in front of the rabbis was whether these tokens could be used elsewhere for purchases, since everyone would, eventually use them at the bathhouse. It’s easy to see pro and con views, though in the end, they decided “no”, the tokens had no legal value outside of the bathhouse realm.
  • 4/16/24, Page 48 – If someone pays you money for goods, property, or services, what happens if you change your mind about the sale? As long as you haven’t actually delivered the item, you can back out. Of course, you can be immediately accused of robbery, extorsion, coercion, and just all around bad form. You may even be subject to the displeasure of the sages, and even cursed (not in the spiritual sense, just socially). But, just return the money paid and you can walk away, no legal obligations.
  • 4/17/24, Page 49 – A deposit is made, price of goods goes up, seller insists on more money or giving less goods for the same money. Rabbis agree, though offer that buyer can demand deposit back. But many of them also feel that the seller can refuse to return the deposit and short-change the buyer, which leads to a discussion on fraudulent sales practices. In the end, it seems to come down to “buyer beware” and a very loose definition of what a deposit or down payment guarantees.
  • 4/18/24, Page 50 – You buy something, but suspect that you’ve overpaid, especially as you look around and find the same object available for less. What are your rights? After much discussion, the consensus of the rabbis is that a 1/6, or roughly 17% markup, over cost, is the limit imposed on merchants. They can charge more if they want, but if they do, the buyer is given the right of recission for “the length of time it would take to show the sale to his relatives or other merchants” – basically, a day or so.
  • 4/19/24, Page 51 – Having dealt with the right of recission for the buyer, the sages turn to the seller, after all, there are dishonest buyers out there. First, it is noted that merchants in the city of Lod are scrupulously honest, and if there’s any irregularity in a transaction, it must be the buyer’s fault. Second, since a merchant is presumed expert in his field, in a barter type purchase, if he assesses something and then later finds it lacking, it is assumed the buyer slipped in a substitution.
  • 4/20/24, Page 52 – “…one who would refuse to accept a slightly eroded coin is merely a miserly soul, while the coin is in fact valid for any use.” For all those of us expats and visitors to Argentina who have tried to exchange foreign currency for Argentine pesos, this is an accurate assessment of local moneychangers.
  • 4/21/24, Page 53 – When produce, or money, has been tithed to the Temple or its representatives, it is “sacralized”, i.e., deemed holy, and only for the use of the Temple’s priests. But what happens if there’s… just too much of it? Torah law says that de-sacralized food, objects, or money must be buried. At the same time, the rabbis recognize the waste involved and today argue the moral imperatives to find an acceptable method to not waste those things, and use them for societal good.
  • 4/22/24, Page 54 – What if you change your mind about a contribution to the Temple, and wish it back? After all, the whole sacralized thing, and having to be buried if it’s de-sacralized comes into play. Well, hey, just, you know, pay us 20% interest on the value (wait, I thought we couldn’t charge other Jews interest?), and it’s yours, free and clear. And the 20% is the rounded-up to the next dinar amount. The house always wins.
  • 4/23/24, Page 55 – We still have a current of exploitation and cheating running in the background of these discussions, though I haven’t focused in on it. Today’s is interesting, as it addresses “small claims”. While the average person may well pursue a claim of having been cheated of a lesser amount, the rabbis don’t want the Temple embroiled in legal battles over having been shortchanged, especially since they’re talking about donations, even if obligatory, and they set a minimum for when it’s worth going after a donor.
  • 4/24/24, Page 56 – Amidst all the discussions about exploitation and substitutions of lesser or different materials, goods, or coinage, we have… an exemption. Sort of. While not codified as a consensus opinion, no one seems willing to argue with Rabbi Meir over… bread. He opines that even if you pretty much know that tithed bread is made from unconsecrated grain, or that the bread hasn’t been mixed, formed, and baked with proper procedures and reverence, it’s bread. It’s warm. It’s just out of the oven. Tithe away.
  • 4/25/24, Page 57 – A seller agrees to sell something to a buyer at market price. Between the time of the contract and the date of the transaction, the market price goes up. According to the halakhic rules, the buyer must pay the new price, even though the two agreed on a lower price. Except, of course, if the buyer is the Temple – they pay the lower price, because, again, the house always wins. Interestingly, they never address why a contract written for a specific price doesn’t have to be honored, nor what happens if the market price goes down.
  • 4/26/24, Page 58 – If we hire someone and pay them on a daily basis, we can’t pay them for working on the Sabbath, and therefore, anything they are normally considered responsible for, like, say, security of property, they are absolved of their responsibility. Therefore, they must be hired on a weekly, monthly, or yearly basis, which will just happen to include the Sabbath(s), and then they are considered responsible. My mind, such that it is, immediately thinks of the possibility of an inside job type theft where the guard gets himself hired as a day laborer for a Saturday shift….
  • 4/27/24, Page 59 – So much in today’s passage. Exploitation is, apparently, okay, if you as the seller can see that the buyer will pay pretty much anything to get something you have – such as, example given, you have a matching pearl to one they already have and they really want a pair. Exploitation of someone’s time, apparently, is not acceptable, such as pretending to be interested in buying clothing, or a home, when you have no intention of doing so – being a “phantom buyer” is a no-no!
  • 4/28/24, Page 60 – Ah, the dichotomy between wholesalers and retailers stretches back millennia. A grower of produce, or grain, or a winemaker, cannot adulterate their product – mixing old and new vegetables, or grains, or adding sediment to wine to make it seem older, or watering it down to stretch it – and then selling it to a retailer. However, a retailer can do any of those things, even mixing together produce, grain, or wine from different producers, because… why? Because he’s doing it to make the product more attractive to customers. Obviously.