If one rents a donkey or a boat and the animal dies or the boat sinks halfway through the journey, what is the law? What are the circumstances of the cases discussed? In the context of this discussion, a debate between Rav and Shmuel addresses whether one can sell the carcass of a rented animal in a way that the principal (the original animal) will no longer exist—specifically, whether the renter can sell it and use the money from the sale to rent a new animal. Rav’s opinion is questioned by a Tosefta, which is then resolved. A case is brought regarding a boat rented to carry wine, which sinks. The Gemara examines the specifics of the rental agreement: whether the renter rented “this boat” or “a boat” and whether it was to carry “this wine” or “any wine.” This distinction is crucial for determining the renter’s obligations and rights. Two additional cases clarify other rights of the renter: How much can the renter load on a donkey that was rented for riding, and how much can the driver load? If the donkey was rented to a man to ride, can a woman ride instead, or vice versa? Is there a difference if the woman is pregnant or nursing? These discussions provide detailed insights into the legal nuances of rental agreements, the responsibilities of renters, and the permissible uses of rented property.
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Bava Metzia 79
דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אִם בְּדֶרֶךְ הִילּוּכָהּ נִיטְּלָה – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ, וְאִם לֹא – חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ חֲמוֹר.
This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: If the animal was seized and then taken in the direction in which it was walking, the owner can say to the renter: That which is yours is before you, but if not, the owner is obligated to provide the renter with another donkey.
וּמִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר? וְהָא קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר וְהִבְרִיקָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּטְּתָה, אוֹמֵר לוֹ: הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ. וְאִילּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ וְהִבְרִיקָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּטְּתָה – חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ חֲמוֹר!
The Gemara asks: And can you establish this entire baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? But the first clause teaches: With regard to one who rents a donkey and it became ill or went mad, the owner can say to the renter: That which is yours is before you. And yet Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in a different baraita: With regard to one who rents a donkey to ride on it, and it becomes ill or goes mad, the owner is obligated to provide the renter with another donkey.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: לִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ שָׁאנֵי. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית – כְּלִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ דָּמֵי.
Rabba bar Rav Huna said that this is not a contradiction. The case of one who takes a donkey to ride on is different, as he requires a donkey that walks steadily. A sick donkey is no better than a dead one for this purpose. Rav Pappa said: And acquiring a donkey so that it should carry glass vessels is considered to be like riding on it, as glass vessels also require steady walking to prevent the load from falling.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ וּמֵתָה לוֹ בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ, נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ, וְאֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעוֹמֶת.
Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav says: In the case of one who rents a donkey to ride on it and it died halfway through the journey, the renter gives the owner his fee for half of the journey, but the renter has nothing but a grievance against the owner. He has no legal claim against the owner over the fact that he now has to go to great trouble to find another donkey.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּשְׁכִיחַ לְאֹגוֹרֵי – תַּרְעוֹמֶת מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ? אִי דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ לְאֹגוֹרֵי – אַגְרָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתַּב לֵיהּ!
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a place where donkeys are available for rent, what is the purpose of this grievance? He does not have any cause for grievance in this case, as he can simply rent another donkey and has not lost anything. If it is a place where donkeys are not available for rent, should he be required to give the owner his fee? After all, the donkey failed to perform the task for which it was rented.
לְעוֹלָם דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ לְאֹגוֹרֵי, וּמִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ בָּעֵית לְמֵיתֵי עַד הָכָא – לָאו אַגְרָא בָּעֵית לְמִיתַּב?
The Gemara explains: Actually, it is referring to a place where donkeys are not available for rent, and the renter must pay the owner due to the fact that the owner of the donkey can say to him: Had you wanted to come to here, i.e., halfway through the journey, wouldn’t you have had to pay a fee? Therefore, pay me for the distance that my donkey carried you.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״חֲמוֹר סְתָם״ – הָא חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ חֲמוֹר אַחֵר. אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״חֲמוֹר זֶה״, אִם יֵשׁ בְּדָמֶיהָ לִיקַּח יִקַּח!
The Gemara further inquires: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a case where the owner said to him: I am renting you an unspecified donkey, the owner is obligated to provide him with another donkey. Since the owner promised him a donkey, if the first donkey is no longer available, he must give him another one. If it is referring to a case where he said to him: I am renting you this particular donkey, then if there is enough money to be gained from selling its carcass to purchase another donkey, let the renter purchase another one.
לָא צְרִיכָא: בְּשֶׁאֵין בְּדָמֶיהָ לִיקַּח. אִם יֵשׁ בְּדָמֶיהָ לִשְׂכּוֹר – יִשְׂכּוֹר, רַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב: לָא מְכַלֵּינַן קַרְנָא.
The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to state this halakha only in a case where there is not enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass to purchase another donkey. The Gemara asks: Even so, if there is enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass to hire another donkey, let him rent another donkey and continue along his way. What grounds are there for grievance? The Gemara explains that Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav said: One may not fully deplete the principal in order to pay rental fees. Consequently, the renter has no right to sell the carcass, so as not to deplete the entire monetary value of the donkey.
דְּאִתְּמַר: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר וּמֵתָה לוֹ בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ. אָמַר רַב: אִם יֵשׁ בְּדָמֶיהָ לִיקַּח – יִקַּח, לִשְׂכּוֹר – אַל יִשְׂכּוֹר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אַף לִשְׂכּוֹר – יִשְׂכּוֹר.
This is as it was stated in a dispute between amora’im on this issue: With regard to one who rents a donkey and it died halfway through the journey, Rav says: If there is enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass to purchase another donkey, the renter may purchase one, but if there is enough money only to rent another donkey, he may not rent one. Shmuel says: Even if there is enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass only to rent another donkey, he may rent one.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַב סָבַר: לָא מְכַלֵּינַן קַרְנָא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר: מְכַלֵּינַן קַרְנָא.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that one may not fully deplete the principal, and as the carcass now constitutes the principal value of the donkey, one may not use the proceeds of its sale to pay rental fees, as nothing will be left to return to the owner. And Shmuel holds that one may fully deplete the principal.
מֵיתִיבִי, יָבֵשׁ הָאִילָן אוֹ נִקְצַץ – שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִין בּוֹ. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה? יִלָּקַח בּוֹ קַרְקַע, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. וְהָא הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּכִי מָטֵי יוֹבֵל קָא הָדְרָא אַרְעָא לְמָרַהּ, וְקָא כָלְיָא קַרְנָא!
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a baraita (Tosefta, Arakhin 5:1), which discusses the case of a borrower who gives his lender a tree as a security for a loan so that the lender may eat an amount of its fruit up to the value of the loan. If the tree dried up or was cut down, it is prohibited for both the borrower and lender to use the body of the tree. What should be done? Land should be purchased with the proceeds from the sale of what is left of the tree, and the lender enjoys the profits of that land. The Gemara explains the objection: And yet here, once the Jubilee Year arrives, that purchased land will return to its original owner. It will not remain with the borrower after the loan has been repaid. And it will turn out that the principal is fully depleted, as the borrower will be left with nothing.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּזַבֵּין לֵיהּ לְשִׁתִּין שְׁנִין. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא: מִנַּיִן לַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ לְשִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת בַּיּוֹבֵל – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָאָרֶץ לֹא תִמָּכֵר לִצְמִיתוּת״. מִי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם יוֹבֵל – נִצְמֶתֶת, יֵשׁ שָׁם יוֹבֵל – אֵינָהּ נִצְמֶתֶת. יָצְתָה זוֹ, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם יוֹבֵל – אֵינָהּ נִצְמֶתֶת.
The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he purchased the field for sixty years. As Rav Ḥisda says that Rav Ketina says: From where is it derived with regard to one who sells his field for sixty years or any fixed length of time, that it does not return to its original owner in the Jubilee Year? As it is stated: “And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:23). This prohibition applies to land which, if there were no Jubilee Year, would be sold in perpetuity, but as there is a Jubilee Year it is not sold in perpetuity. That excludes this case, where the field is sold for a fixed length of time, as even though there is no Jubilee Year it is not sold in perpetuity.
סוֹף סוֹף, לְכִי מָטוּ שִׁיתִּין שְׁנִין – קָא הָדְרָא אַרְעָא לְמָרַהּ, וְקָא כָלְיָא קַרְנָא! אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין הַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג וּמְכַלֵּינַן קַרְנָא, נִצְלְחֵיהּ לְצִיבֵי וְנִשְׁקְלֵיהּ!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Ultimately, when the end of those sixty years arrives, the land will return to its owner, and at that point the principal will be fully depleted. The Gemara answers: Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a period when the halakhot of the Jubilee Year are not in effect, as one can purchase land in perpetuity when the Jubilee Year is not observed. The Gemara adds support for this explanation: This too stands to reason, as, if it enters your mind that this halakha is referring to a period when the halakhot of the Jubilee Year are in effect and the ruling is that the principal may be fully depleted, why undertake a complicated transaction? Let the lender simply cut the tree into branches for kindling, and take it and sell it right away.
אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא – לָא קַשְׁיָא: זִמְנִין דְּשָׁלְמוּ שְׁנֵי מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא מִקַּמֵּי יוֹבֵל. אִי נָמֵי דְּמָטוּ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי וּפָרֵיק לַהּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ שְׁנִין מִקַּמֵּי יוֹבֵל.
The Gemara responds: If the challenge to Rav’s opinion is due to that baraita, it is not difficult. There may be times that the years during which the lender is entitled to the collateral are completed before the arrival of the Jubilee Year, in which case the land would revert to the borrower for a certain amount of time, and therefore the principal is not necessarily fully depleted. Alternatively, it is possible that money comes into the borrower’s possession and he redeems the field four or five years before the arrival of the Jubilee Year. In this case the principal will not be fully depleted, as he repays the loan before the land is returned.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַסְּפִינָה וְטָבְעָה לָהּ בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אִם נָתַן – לֹא יִטּוֹל, וְאִם לֹא נָתַן – לֹא יִתֵּן.
§ The Sages taught: With regard to one who rents a boat, and it sunk halfway through the journey, Rabbi Natan says: If the renter already gave money for the boat, he does not receive a refund, but if he has not yet given money he does not give it after the boat has sunk.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בִּסְפִינָה זוֹ וְיַיִן סְתָם, אִם נָתַן אַמַּאי לֹא יִטּוֹל? נֵימָא לֵיהּ: הַב לִי סְפִינְתָּא, דַּאֲנָא מַיְיתֵינָא חַמְרָא. אֶלָּא בִּסְפִינָה סְתָם וְיַיִן זֶה, אִם לֹא נָתַן אַמַּאי לֹא יִתֵּן?
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this contract? If we say that the owner stated he was renting him this particular boat and the renter said that he was transporting unspecified wine, then even if he gave money, why should he not receive a refund? Let him say to the owner: Give me the boat so that I can transport wine, and if you cannot do so, refund the rental fee so that I can rent another boat. Rather, one could say that this is referring to a situation where the owner said he would rent him an unspecified boat, and the renter said that he would transport this particular wine. But in that case, even if he did not give money, why should he not give the owner the rental fee?
נֵימָא לֵיהּ: הַב לִי הָהוּא חַמְרָא וַאֲנָא מַיְיתֵינָא סְפִינְתָּא.
Let the owner say to him: Give me that wine and I will bring a boat. Since that particular wine is gone, the renter cannot comply with his request, and therefore he should have to pay the rental fee.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ אֶלָּא בִּסְפִינָה זוֹ וְיַיִן זֶה. אֲבָל בִּסְפִינָה סְתָם וְיַיִן סְתָם – חוֹלְקִין.
Rav Pappa said: You find the correct application of Rabbi Natan’s ruling only in a case where the two parties stipulated this specific boat and that specific wine. Since neither party can fulfill his part of the agreement, the money remains where it is. But if they stipulated an unspecified boat and unspecified wine, as they can both complete the agreement, they divide the rental fee, i.e., the renter pays half.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַסְּפִינָה וּפְרָקָהּ לָהּ בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ, וְאֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעוֹמֶת. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָא מַשְׁכַּח לְאֹגוֹרַהּ – אַמַּאי אִית לֵיהּ תַּרְעוֹמֶת? וְאִי דְּלָא קָא מַשְׁכַּח לְאֹגוֹרַהּ – כּוּלֵּיהּ אַגְרַהּ בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי!
The Sages taught: With regard to one who rents a boat and unloads it [uferakah] halfway through the journey, the renter gives the owner his rental fee for half the journey, and the owner of the boat has nothing but a grievance against him. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that this is referring to a situation where the owner can find someone else to whom he can rent out the boat, why does he have grounds for a grievance? And if it is referring to a case where he cannot find another to whom he can rent it out, the renter should be required to pay the full rental fee, as he reneged on his commitment to rent the boat for the entire trip.
לְעוֹלָם דְּקָא מַשְׁכַּח לְאֹגוֹרַהּ, אֶלָּא אַמַּאי אִית לֵיהּ תַּרְעוֹמֶת – מִשּׁוּם רַפְסְתָא דִסְפִינְתָּא. אִי הָכִי, טַעַנְתָּא מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִוא וּמָמוֹנָא אִית לֵיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ.
The Gemara answers: Actually, this is referring to a case where the owner can find someone else to whom he can rent out the boat. But why does he have cause for a grievance? Because of the wear and tear on the boat due to the additional loading and unloading of cargo, which was not taken into account in their agreement. The Gemara asks: If so, that is a proper legal claim, and the owner of the boat has not merely a grievance against the renter, but cause for claiming monetary restitution from him.
אֶלָּא מַאי פְּרָקָהּ – דְּפַרְקֵהּ לְטוּעְנֵיהּ בְּגַוַּיהּ. אֶלָּא מַאי תַּרְעוֹמֶת – מִשּׁוּם שִׁינּוּי דַּעְתָּא. אִי נָמֵי לְאַשְׁלָא יַתִּירָא.
Rather, what is the meaning of the term perakah? This means that the renter unloaded more of his own cargo into the boat halfway through the journey. Accordingly, the baraita is ruling that the renter must pay a fee for the additional cargo only for the second half of the journey. The Gemara asks: But if so, what is the grievance? Why should the owner object to this arrangement at all? The Gemara explains that the grievance is due to the change from the renter’s prior intention, as they had not agreed upon the addition of this additional cargo when they performed the transaction. Alternatively, the grievance is because of the extra rope that was necessary to secure the additional cargo.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ – שׂוֹכֵר מַנִּיחַ עָלֶיהָ כְּסוּתוֹ וּלְגִנוֹתוֹ וּמְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – חַמָּר מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו. חַמָּר מַנִּיחַ עָלָיו שְׂעוֹרִים וְתֶבֶן וּמְזוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – שׂוֹכֵר מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who rents a donkey to ride on it, the renter may place on it his garment, his water jug, and food for that journey. Beyond those items, the donkey driver, who would take the renter on the journey, may prevent him from placing anything on the animal by saying that he does not wish to further burden the donkey. The donkey driver may place on it barley and hay for the donkey and his own food for that first day alone. Beyond those items, the renter may prevent him from placing anything on the animal.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּשְׁכִיחַ לְמִזְבַּן – חַמָּר נָמֵי לִיעַכֵּב, וְאִי דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ לְמִזְבַּן – שׂוֹכֵר נָמֵי לָא לִיעַכֵּב!
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a situation where food is available for purchase, the donkey driver should also be able to prevent the renter from bringing food for the entire journey, and if it is a case where food is not available for purchase, the renter should also not be able to prevent the donkey driver from loading on the donkey his own food for the entire journey.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא צְרִיכָא דִּשְׁכִיחַ לְמִטְרַח וּלְמִזְבַּן מֵאַוּוֹנָא לְאַוּוֹנָא, חַמָּר דַּרְכֵּיהּ לְמִטְרַח וּלְמִזְבַּן. שׂוֹכֵר לָאו דַּרְכֵּיהּ לְמִטְרַח וּלְמִזְבַּן.
Rav Pappa said: No, the ruling of the baraita is necessary in a situation where food is available for one who goes to the trouble to purchase it from one station [me’avna] to the next station. Since it is the manner of a donkey driver to go to the trouble to purchase food, he may load the animal only with food for that day, whereas it is not the manner of the renter to go to the trouble to purchase food, and therefore he may take food with him for the entire journey.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ אִישׁ – לֹא תִּרְכַּב עָלֶיהָ אִשָּׁה. אִשָּׁה – רוֹכֵב עָלֶיהָ אִישׁ. וְאִשָּׁה, בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה וּבֵין קְטַנָּה, אֲפִילּוּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וַאֲפִילּוּ מְנִיקָה.
The Sages taught: With regard to one who rents a donkey with the understanding that a man will ride upon it, a woman may not ride upon it. If he rented it with the understanding that a woman will ride upon it, a man may ride upon it. And if he rented it with the understanding that a woman will ride upon it, any female may ride upon it, whether she is an adult woman or a minor girl. And even a pregnant woman, despite her additional weight, and even a nursing woman who takes the child with her may ride upon it.
הַשְׁתָּא מְנִיקָה אָמְרַתְּ, מְעוּבֶּרֶת מִיבַּעְיָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְהִיא מְנִיקָה קָאָמַר.
The Gemara asks: Now that you said that the owner cannot prevent even a nursing woman from riding upon the donkey, despite the fact that this involves the weight of two people, is it necessary to say that a pregnant woman may ride upon the donkey? Rav Pappa said: The tanna spoke of a pregnant woman who is also nursing, as there is additional weight.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בִּינִיתָא אַכְּרֵסַהּ תָּקְלָה. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר.
Abaye said: You can learn from the fact that a pregnant woman is considered heavier than the average woman that the weight of a fish [binita] is in its belly, i.e., weight increases according to the size of its belly. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference resulting from Abaye’s statement with regard to a fish? The Gemara explains: It is with regard to the halakhot of buying and selling, so that one can know how to evaluate the weight of a fish, and calculate its value accordingly.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
Blacksburg, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Palo Alto, CA, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
Bava Metzia 79
דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אִם בְּדֶרֶךְ הִילּוּכָהּ נִיטְּלָה – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ, וְאִם לֹא – חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ חֲמוֹר.
This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: If the animal was seized and then taken in the direction in which it was walking, the owner can say to the renter: That which is yours is before you, but if not, the owner is obligated to provide the renter with another donkey.
וּמִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר? וְהָא קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר וְהִבְרִיקָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּטְּתָה, אוֹמֵר לוֹ: הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ. וְאִילּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ וְהִבְרִיקָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּטְּתָה – חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ חֲמוֹר!
The Gemara asks: And can you establish this entire baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? But the first clause teaches: With regard to one who rents a donkey and it became ill or went mad, the owner can say to the renter: That which is yours is before you. And yet Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in a different baraita: With regard to one who rents a donkey to ride on it, and it becomes ill or goes mad, the owner is obligated to provide the renter with another donkey.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: לִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ שָׁאנֵי. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית – כְּלִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ דָּמֵי.
Rabba bar Rav Huna said that this is not a contradiction. The case of one who takes a donkey to ride on is different, as he requires a donkey that walks steadily. A sick donkey is no better than a dead one for this purpose. Rav Pappa said: And acquiring a donkey so that it should carry glass vessels is considered to be like riding on it, as glass vessels also require steady walking to prevent the load from falling.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ וּמֵתָה לוֹ בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ, נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ, וְאֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעוֹמֶת.
Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav says: In the case of one who rents a donkey to ride on it and it died halfway through the journey, the renter gives the owner his fee for half of the journey, but the renter has nothing but a grievance against the owner. He has no legal claim against the owner over the fact that he now has to go to great trouble to find another donkey.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּשְׁכִיחַ לְאֹגוֹרֵי – תַּרְעוֹמֶת מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ? אִי דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ לְאֹגוֹרֵי – אַגְרָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתַּב לֵיהּ!
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a place where donkeys are available for rent, what is the purpose of this grievance? He does not have any cause for grievance in this case, as he can simply rent another donkey and has not lost anything. If it is a place where donkeys are not available for rent, should he be required to give the owner his fee? After all, the donkey failed to perform the task for which it was rented.
לְעוֹלָם דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ לְאֹגוֹרֵי, וּמִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ בָּעֵית לְמֵיתֵי עַד הָכָא – לָאו אַגְרָא בָּעֵית לְמִיתַּב?
The Gemara explains: Actually, it is referring to a place where donkeys are not available for rent, and the renter must pay the owner due to the fact that the owner of the donkey can say to him: Had you wanted to come to here, i.e., halfway through the journey, wouldn’t you have had to pay a fee? Therefore, pay me for the distance that my donkey carried you.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״חֲמוֹר סְתָם״ – הָא חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ חֲמוֹר אַחֵר. אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״חֲמוֹר זֶה״, אִם יֵשׁ בְּדָמֶיהָ לִיקַּח יִקַּח!
The Gemara further inquires: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a case where the owner said to him: I am renting you an unspecified donkey, the owner is obligated to provide him with another donkey. Since the owner promised him a donkey, if the first donkey is no longer available, he must give him another one. If it is referring to a case where he said to him: I am renting you this particular donkey, then if there is enough money to be gained from selling its carcass to purchase another donkey, let the renter purchase another one.
לָא צְרִיכָא: בְּשֶׁאֵין בְּדָמֶיהָ לִיקַּח. אִם יֵשׁ בְּדָמֶיהָ לִשְׂכּוֹר – יִשְׂכּוֹר, רַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב: לָא מְכַלֵּינַן קַרְנָא.
The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to state this halakha only in a case where there is not enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass to purchase another donkey. The Gemara asks: Even so, if there is enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass to hire another donkey, let him rent another donkey and continue along his way. What grounds are there for grievance? The Gemara explains that Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav said: One may not fully deplete the principal in order to pay rental fees. Consequently, the renter has no right to sell the carcass, so as not to deplete the entire monetary value of the donkey.
דְּאִתְּמַר: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר וּמֵתָה לוֹ בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ. אָמַר רַב: אִם יֵשׁ בְּדָמֶיהָ לִיקַּח – יִקַּח, לִשְׂכּוֹר – אַל יִשְׂכּוֹר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אַף לִשְׂכּוֹר – יִשְׂכּוֹר.
This is as it was stated in a dispute between amora’im on this issue: With regard to one who rents a donkey and it died halfway through the journey, Rav says: If there is enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass to purchase another donkey, the renter may purchase one, but if there is enough money only to rent another donkey, he may not rent one. Shmuel says: Even if there is enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass only to rent another donkey, he may rent one.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַב סָבַר: לָא מְכַלֵּינַן קַרְנָא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר: מְכַלֵּינַן קַרְנָא.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that one may not fully deplete the principal, and as the carcass now constitutes the principal value of the donkey, one may not use the proceeds of its sale to pay rental fees, as nothing will be left to return to the owner. And Shmuel holds that one may fully deplete the principal.
מֵיתִיבִי, יָבֵשׁ הָאִילָן אוֹ נִקְצַץ – שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִין בּוֹ. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה? יִלָּקַח בּוֹ קַרְקַע, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. וְהָא הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּכִי מָטֵי יוֹבֵל קָא הָדְרָא אַרְעָא לְמָרַהּ, וְקָא כָלְיָא קַרְנָא!
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a baraita (Tosefta, Arakhin 5:1), which discusses the case of a borrower who gives his lender a tree as a security for a loan so that the lender may eat an amount of its fruit up to the value of the loan. If the tree dried up or was cut down, it is prohibited for both the borrower and lender to use the body of the tree. What should be done? Land should be purchased with the proceeds from the sale of what is left of the tree, and the lender enjoys the profits of that land. The Gemara explains the objection: And yet here, once the Jubilee Year arrives, that purchased land will return to its original owner. It will not remain with the borrower after the loan has been repaid. And it will turn out that the principal is fully depleted, as the borrower will be left with nothing.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּזַבֵּין לֵיהּ לְשִׁתִּין שְׁנִין. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא: מִנַּיִן לַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ לְשִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת בַּיּוֹבֵל – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָאָרֶץ לֹא תִמָּכֵר לִצְמִיתוּת״. מִי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם יוֹבֵל – נִצְמֶתֶת, יֵשׁ שָׁם יוֹבֵל – אֵינָהּ נִצְמֶתֶת. יָצְתָה זוֹ, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם יוֹבֵל – אֵינָהּ נִצְמֶתֶת.
The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he purchased the field for sixty years. As Rav Ḥisda says that Rav Ketina says: From where is it derived with regard to one who sells his field for sixty years or any fixed length of time, that it does not return to its original owner in the Jubilee Year? As it is stated: “And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:23). This prohibition applies to land which, if there were no Jubilee Year, would be sold in perpetuity, but as there is a Jubilee Year it is not sold in perpetuity. That excludes this case, where the field is sold for a fixed length of time, as even though there is no Jubilee Year it is not sold in perpetuity.
סוֹף סוֹף, לְכִי מָטוּ שִׁיתִּין שְׁנִין – קָא הָדְרָא אַרְעָא לְמָרַהּ, וְקָא כָלְיָא קַרְנָא! אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין הַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג וּמְכַלֵּינַן קַרְנָא, נִצְלְחֵיהּ לְצִיבֵי וְנִשְׁקְלֵיהּ!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Ultimately, when the end of those sixty years arrives, the land will return to its owner, and at that point the principal will be fully depleted. The Gemara answers: Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a period when the halakhot of the Jubilee Year are not in effect, as one can purchase land in perpetuity when the Jubilee Year is not observed. The Gemara adds support for this explanation: This too stands to reason, as, if it enters your mind that this halakha is referring to a period when the halakhot of the Jubilee Year are in effect and the ruling is that the principal may be fully depleted, why undertake a complicated transaction? Let the lender simply cut the tree into branches for kindling, and take it and sell it right away.
אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא – לָא קַשְׁיָא: זִמְנִין דְּשָׁלְמוּ שְׁנֵי מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא מִקַּמֵּי יוֹבֵל. אִי נָמֵי דְּמָטוּ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי וּפָרֵיק לַהּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ שְׁנִין מִקַּמֵּי יוֹבֵל.
The Gemara responds: If the challenge to Rav’s opinion is due to that baraita, it is not difficult. There may be times that the years during which the lender is entitled to the collateral are completed before the arrival of the Jubilee Year, in which case the land would revert to the borrower for a certain amount of time, and therefore the principal is not necessarily fully depleted. Alternatively, it is possible that money comes into the borrower’s possession and he redeems the field four or five years before the arrival of the Jubilee Year. In this case the principal will not be fully depleted, as he repays the loan before the land is returned.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַסְּפִינָה וְטָבְעָה לָהּ בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אִם נָתַן – לֹא יִטּוֹל, וְאִם לֹא נָתַן – לֹא יִתֵּן.
§ The Sages taught: With regard to one who rents a boat, and it sunk halfway through the journey, Rabbi Natan says: If the renter already gave money for the boat, he does not receive a refund, but if he has not yet given money he does not give it after the boat has sunk.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בִּסְפִינָה זוֹ וְיַיִן סְתָם, אִם נָתַן אַמַּאי לֹא יִטּוֹל? נֵימָא לֵיהּ: הַב לִי סְפִינְתָּא, דַּאֲנָא מַיְיתֵינָא חַמְרָא. אֶלָּא בִּסְפִינָה סְתָם וְיַיִן זֶה, אִם לֹא נָתַן אַמַּאי לֹא יִתֵּן?
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this contract? If we say that the owner stated he was renting him this particular boat and the renter said that he was transporting unspecified wine, then even if he gave money, why should he not receive a refund? Let him say to the owner: Give me the boat so that I can transport wine, and if you cannot do so, refund the rental fee so that I can rent another boat. Rather, one could say that this is referring to a situation where the owner said he would rent him an unspecified boat, and the renter said that he would transport this particular wine. But in that case, even if he did not give money, why should he not give the owner the rental fee?
נֵימָא לֵיהּ: הַב לִי הָהוּא חַמְרָא וַאֲנָא מַיְיתֵינָא סְפִינְתָּא.
Let the owner say to him: Give me that wine and I will bring a boat. Since that particular wine is gone, the renter cannot comply with his request, and therefore he should have to pay the rental fee.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ אֶלָּא בִּסְפִינָה זוֹ וְיַיִן זֶה. אֲבָל בִּסְפִינָה סְתָם וְיַיִן סְתָם – חוֹלְקִין.
Rav Pappa said: You find the correct application of Rabbi Natan’s ruling only in a case where the two parties stipulated this specific boat and that specific wine. Since neither party can fulfill his part of the agreement, the money remains where it is. But if they stipulated an unspecified boat and unspecified wine, as they can both complete the agreement, they divide the rental fee, i.e., the renter pays half.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַסְּפִינָה וּפְרָקָהּ לָהּ בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ, וְאֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעוֹמֶת. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקָא מַשְׁכַּח לְאֹגוֹרַהּ – אַמַּאי אִית לֵיהּ תַּרְעוֹמֶת? וְאִי דְּלָא קָא מַשְׁכַּח לְאֹגוֹרַהּ – כּוּלֵּיהּ אַגְרַהּ בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי!
The Sages taught: With regard to one who rents a boat and unloads it [uferakah] halfway through the journey, the renter gives the owner his rental fee for half the journey, and the owner of the boat has nothing but a grievance against him. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that this is referring to a situation where the owner can find someone else to whom he can rent out the boat, why does he have grounds for a grievance? And if it is referring to a case where he cannot find another to whom he can rent it out, the renter should be required to pay the full rental fee, as he reneged on his commitment to rent the boat for the entire trip.
לְעוֹלָם דְּקָא מַשְׁכַּח לְאֹגוֹרַהּ, אֶלָּא אַמַּאי אִית לֵיהּ תַּרְעוֹמֶת – מִשּׁוּם רַפְסְתָא דִסְפִינְתָּא. אִי הָכִי, טַעַנְתָּא מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִוא וּמָמוֹנָא אִית לֵיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ.
The Gemara answers: Actually, this is referring to a case where the owner can find someone else to whom he can rent out the boat. But why does he have cause for a grievance? Because of the wear and tear on the boat due to the additional loading and unloading of cargo, which was not taken into account in their agreement. The Gemara asks: If so, that is a proper legal claim, and the owner of the boat has not merely a grievance against the renter, but cause for claiming monetary restitution from him.
אֶלָּא מַאי פְּרָקָהּ – דְּפַרְקֵהּ לְטוּעְנֵיהּ בְּגַוַּיהּ. אֶלָּא מַאי תַּרְעוֹמֶת – מִשּׁוּם שִׁינּוּי דַּעְתָּא. אִי נָמֵי לְאַשְׁלָא יַתִּירָא.
Rather, what is the meaning of the term perakah? This means that the renter unloaded more of his own cargo into the boat halfway through the journey. Accordingly, the baraita is ruling that the renter must pay a fee for the additional cargo only for the second half of the journey. The Gemara asks: But if so, what is the grievance? Why should the owner object to this arrangement at all? The Gemara explains that the grievance is due to the change from the renter’s prior intention, as they had not agreed upon the addition of this additional cargo when they performed the transaction. Alternatively, the grievance is because of the extra rope that was necessary to secure the additional cargo.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ – שׂוֹכֵר מַנִּיחַ עָלֶיהָ כְּסוּתוֹ וּלְגִנוֹתוֹ וּמְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – חַמָּר מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו. חַמָּר מַנִּיחַ עָלָיו שְׂעוֹרִים וְתֶבֶן וּמְזוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – שׂוֹכֵר מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who rents a donkey to ride on it, the renter may place on it his garment, his water jug, and food for that journey. Beyond those items, the donkey driver, who would take the renter on the journey, may prevent him from placing anything on the animal by saying that he does not wish to further burden the donkey. The donkey driver may place on it barley and hay for the donkey and his own food for that first day alone. Beyond those items, the renter may prevent him from placing anything on the animal.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּשְׁכִיחַ לְמִזְבַּן – חַמָּר נָמֵי לִיעַכֵּב, וְאִי דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ לְמִזְבַּן – שׂוֹכֵר נָמֵי לָא לִיעַכֵּב!
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a situation where food is available for purchase, the donkey driver should also be able to prevent the renter from bringing food for the entire journey, and if it is a case where food is not available for purchase, the renter should also not be able to prevent the donkey driver from loading on the donkey his own food for the entire journey.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא צְרִיכָא דִּשְׁכִיחַ לְמִטְרַח וּלְמִזְבַּן מֵאַוּוֹנָא לְאַוּוֹנָא, חַמָּר דַּרְכֵּיהּ לְמִטְרַח וּלְמִזְבַּן. שׂוֹכֵר לָאו דַּרְכֵּיהּ לְמִטְרַח וּלְמִזְבַּן.
Rav Pappa said: No, the ruling of the baraita is necessary in a situation where food is available for one who goes to the trouble to purchase it from one station [me’avna] to the next station. Since it is the manner of a donkey driver to go to the trouble to purchase food, he may load the animal only with food for that day, whereas it is not the manner of the renter to go to the trouble to purchase food, and therefore he may take food with him for the entire journey.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ אִישׁ – לֹא תִּרְכַּב עָלֶיהָ אִשָּׁה. אִשָּׁה – רוֹכֵב עָלֶיהָ אִישׁ. וְאִשָּׁה, בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה וּבֵין קְטַנָּה, אֲפִילּוּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וַאֲפִילּוּ מְנִיקָה.
The Sages taught: With regard to one who rents a donkey with the understanding that a man will ride upon it, a woman may not ride upon it. If he rented it with the understanding that a woman will ride upon it, a man may ride upon it. And if he rented it with the understanding that a woman will ride upon it, any female may ride upon it, whether she is an adult woman or a minor girl. And even a pregnant woman, despite her additional weight, and even a nursing woman who takes the child with her may ride upon it.
הַשְׁתָּא מְנִיקָה אָמְרַתְּ, מְעוּבֶּרֶת מִיבַּעְיָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְהִיא מְנִיקָה קָאָמַר.
The Gemara asks: Now that you said that the owner cannot prevent even a nursing woman from riding upon the donkey, despite the fact that this involves the weight of two people, is it necessary to say that a pregnant woman may ride upon the donkey? Rav Pappa said: The tanna spoke of a pregnant woman who is also nursing, as there is additional weight.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בִּינִיתָא אַכְּרֵסַהּ תָּקְלָה. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר.
Abaye said: You can learn from the fact that a pregnant woman is considered heavier than the average woman that the weight of a fish [binita] is in its belly, i.e., weight increases according to the size of its belly. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference resulting from Abaye’s statement with regard to a fish? The Gemara explains: It is with regard to the halakhot of buying and selling, so that one can know how to evaluate the weight of a fish, and calculate its value accordingly.
