Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 14, 2016 | 讬状讚 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 79

The mishna discusses a case where one rents a donkey and it gets seized by the king. 聽Rav and Shmuel disagree about the case and a tosefta is brought in to question Shmuel’s explanation. 聽Some answers are given. 聽The gemara then brings in sources that discuss situations where one rents and the item rented dies/sinks halfway through. 聽The conclusions are questioned and the gemara tries to establish what the exact situation is in order to explain the halacha. 聽In the context of this discussion, a debate between Rav and Shmuel is brought about whether one can sell the carcass of an animal he rented in a way that the principal will no longer exist (meaning he can sell it and use the difference to rent a new animal). 聽Rav’s opinion is questioned by a tosefta and resolved. 聽A case is brought with a boat that was rented to carry wine sinks and the gemara discusses the particulars of the case – did he rent “this boat” or “a boat” and was it to carry “this wine” or “any wine.” 聽TWo other cases are brought which explain what more聽rights of the renter – how much can he load on a donkey he rented to ride (and how much can the driver load) and if the donkey was rented to a man to ride on, can a woman ride instead or the reverse?

讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讘讚专讱 讛讬诇讜讻讛 谞讬讟诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讜讗诐 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 讞诪讜专

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.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 讜讛讘专讬拽讛 讗讜 砖谞砖转讟转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讜讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讛 讜讛讘专讬拽讛 讗讜 砖谞砖转讟转讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 讞诪讜专

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讻诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讛 讚诪讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讛 讜诪转讛 诇讜 讘讞爪讬 讛讚专讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 砖诇 讞爪讬 讛讚专讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪讜转

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞 诇讗讙讜专讬 转专注讜诪讜转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讗讙讜专讬 讗讙专讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 诇讬讛

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.

诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讗讙讜专讬 讜诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讘注讬转 诇诪讬转讬 注讚 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 讗讙专讗 讘注讬转 诇诪讬转讘

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鈥檛 you have had to pay a fee? Therefore, pay me for the distance that my donkey carried you.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 住转诐 讛讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 讞诪讜专 讗讞专 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 讝讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讚诪讬讛 诇讬拽讞 讬拽讞

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘砖讗讬谉 讘讚诪讬讛 诇讬拽讞 讗诐 讬砖 讘讚诪讬讛 诇砖讻讜专 讬砖讻讜专 专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 诪讻诇讬谞谉 拽专谞讗

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.

讚讗转诪专 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 讜诪转讛 诇讜 讘讞爪讬 讛讚专讱 讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 讬砖 讘讚诪讬讛 诇讬拽讞 讬拽讞 诇砖讻讜专 讗诇 讬砖讻讜专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗祝 诇砖讻讜专 讬砖讻讜专

This is as it was stated in a dispute between amora鈥檌m 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.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 住讘专 诇讗 诪讻诇讬谞谉 拽专谞讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诪讻诇讬谞谉 拽专谞讗

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讘砖 讛讗讬诇谉 讗讜 谞拽爪抓 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讜 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬诇拽讞 讘讜 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诪讟讬 讬讜讘诇 拽讗 讛讚专讗 讗专注讗 诇诪专讛 讜拽讗 讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 诇砖转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 诇砖砖讬诐 砖谞讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讗专抓 诇讗 转诪讻专 诇爪诪讬转讜转 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讬讜讘诇 谞爪诪转转 讬砖 砖诐 讬讜讘诇 讗讬谞讛 谞爪诪转转 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讬讜讘诇 讗讬谞讛 谞爪诪转转

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 岣sda 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: 鈥淎nd the land shall not be sold in perpetuity鈥 (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.

住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讻讬 诪讟讜 砖讬转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 拽讗 讛讚专讗 讗专注讗 诇诪专讛 讜拽讗 讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 讜诪讻诇讬谞谉 拽专谞讗 谞爪诇讞讬讛 诇爪讬讘讬 讜谞砖拽诇讬讛

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.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讚砖诇诪讜 砖谞讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 诪拽诪讬 讬讜讘诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讟讜 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讜驻专讬拽 诇讛 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 砖谞讬谉 诪拽诪讬 讬讜讘诇

The Gemara responds: If the challenge to Rav鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛住驻讬谞讛 讜讟讘注讛 诇讛 讘讞爪讬 讛讚专讱 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞转谉 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讗 讬转谉

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘住驻讬谞讛 讝讜 讜讬讬谉 住转诐 讗诐 谞转谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 住驻讬谞转讗 讚讗谞讗 诪讬讬转讬谞讗 讞诪专讗 讗诇讗 讘住驻讬谞讛 住转诐 讜讬讬谉 讝讛 讗诐 诇讗 谞转谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬转谉

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?

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讞诪专讗 讜讗谞讗 诪讬讬转讬谞讗 住驻讬谞转讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讗 讘住驻讬谞讛 讝讜 讜讬讬谉 讝讛 讗讘诇 讘住驻讬谞讛 住转诐 讜讬讬谉 住转诐 讞讜诇拽讬谉

Rav Pappa said: You find the correct application of Rabbi Natan鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛住驻讬谞讛 讜驻专拽讛 诇讛 讘讞爪讬 讛讚专讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 砖诇 讞爪讬 讛讚专讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗 诪砖讻讞 诇讗讙讜专讛 讗诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专注讜诪转 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪砖讻讞 诇讗讙讜专讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讗讙专讛 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬

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.

诇注讜诇诐 讚拽讗 诪砖讻讞 诇讗讙讜专讛 讗诇讗 讗诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专注讜诪转 诪砖讜诐 专驻住转讗 讚住驻讬谞转讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讟注谞转讗 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讜诪诪讜谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讘讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 驻专拽讛 讚驻专拽讛 诇讟讜注谞讬讛 讘讙讜讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 转专注讜诪转 诪砖讜诐 砖讬谞讜讬 讚注转讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗砖诇讗 讬转讬专讗

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鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讛 砖讜讻专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 讻住讜转讜 讜诇讙谞讜转讜 讜诪讝讜谞讜转 砖诇 讗讜转讛 讛讚专讱 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讞诪专 诪注讻讘 注诇讬讜 讞诪专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讜 砖注讜专讬诐 讜转讘谉 讜诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖讜讻专 诪注讻讘 注诇讬讜

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞 诇诪讝讘谉 讞诪专 谞诪讬 诇讬注讻讘 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇诪讝讘谉 砖讜讻专 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬注讻讘

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚砖讻讬讞 诇诪讟专讞 讜诇诪讝讘谉 诪讗讜讜谞讗 诇讗讜讜谞讗 讞诪专 讚专讻讬讛 诇诪讟专讞 讜诇诪讝讘谉 砖讜讻专 诇讗讜 讚专讻讬讛 诇诪讟专讞 讜诇诪讝讘谉

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鈥檃vna] 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讛 讗讬砖 诇讗 转专讻讘 注诇讬讛 讗砖讛 讗砖讛 专讜讻讘 注诇讬讛 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注讜讘专转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讬拽讛

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.

讛砖转讗 诪谞讬拽讛 讗诪专转 诪注讜讘专转 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪注讜讘专转 讜讛讬讗 诪谞讬拽讛 拽讗诪专

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讬谞讬转讗 讗讻专住讛 转拽诇讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

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鈥檚 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 79

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 79

讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讘讚专讱 讛讬诇讜讻讛 谞讬讟诇讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讜讗诐 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 讞诪讜专

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.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 讜讛讘专讬拽讛 讗讜 砖谞砖转讟转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 砖诇讱 诇驻谞讬讱 讜讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讛 讜讛讘专讬拽讛 讗讜 砖谞砖转讟转讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 讞诪讜专

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讻诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讛 讚诪讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讛 讜诪转讛 诇讜 讘讞爪讬 讛讚专讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 砖诇 讞爪讬 讛讚专讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪讜转

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞 诇讗讙讜专讬 转专注讜诪讜转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讗讙讜专讬 讗讙专讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 诇讬讛

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.

诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讗讙讜专讬 讜诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讘注讬转 诇诪讬转讬 注讚 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 讗讙专讗 讘注讬转 诇诪讬转讘

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鈥檛 you have had to pay a fee? Therefore, pay me for the distance that my donkey carried you.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 住转诐 讛讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 讞诪讜专 讗讞专 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪讜专 讝讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讚诪讬讛 诇讬拽讞 讬拽讞

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘砖讗讬谉 讘讚诪讬讛 诇讬拽讞 讗诐 讬砖 讘讚诪讬讛 诇砖讻讜专 讬砖讻讜专 专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 诪讻诇讬谞谉 拽专谞讗

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.

讚讗转诪专 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 讜诪转讛 诇讜 讘讞爪讬 讛讚专讱 讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 讬砖 讘讚诪讬讛 诇讬拽讞 讬拽讞 诇砖讻讜专 讗诇 讬砖讻讜专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗祝 诇砖讻讜专 讬砖讻讜专

This is as it was stated in a dispute between amora鈥檌m 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.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 住讘专 诇讗 诪讻诇讬谞谉 拽专谞讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诪讻诇讬谞谉 拽专谞讗

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讘砖 讛讗讬诇谉 讗讜 谞拽爪抓 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讜 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬诇拽讞 讘讜 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诪讟讬 讬讜讘诇 拽讗 讛讚专讗 讗专注讗 诇诪专讛 讜拽讗 讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 诇砖转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 诇砖砖讬诐 砖谞讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 讘讬讜讘诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讗专抓 诇讗 转诪讻专 诇爪诪讬转讜转 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讬讜讘诇 谞爪诪转转 讬砖 砖诐 讬讜讘诇 讗讬谞讛 谞爪诪转转 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讬讜讘诇 讗讬谞讛 谞爪诪转转

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 岣sda 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: 鈥淎nd the land shall not be sold in perpetuity鈥 (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.

住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讻讬 诪讟讜 砖讬转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 拽讗 讛讚专讗 讗专注讗 诇诪专讛 讜拽讗 讻诇讬讗 拽专谞讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 讜诪讻诇讬谞谉 拽专谞讗 谞爪诇讞讬讛 诇爪讬讘讬 讜谞砖拽诇讬讛

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.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讚砖诇诪讜 砖谞讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 诪拽诪讬 讬讜讘诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讟讜 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讜驻专讬拽 诇讛 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 砖谞讬谉 诪拽诪讬 讬讜讘诇

The Gemara responds: If the challenge to Rav鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛住驻讬谞讛 讜讟讘注讛 诇讛 讘讞爪讬 讛讚专讱 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞转谉 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讗 讬转谉

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘住驻讬谞讛 讝讜 讜讬讬谉 住转诐 讗诐 谞转谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 住驻讬谞转讗 讚讗谞讗 诪讬讬转讬谞讗 讞诪专讗 讗诇讗 讘住驻讬谞讛 住转诐 讜讬讬谉 讝讛 讗诐 诇讗 谞转谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬转谉

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?

谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讞诪专讗 讜讗谞讗 诪讬讬转讬谞讗 住驻讬谞转讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讗 讘住驻讬谞讛 讝讜 讜讬讬谉 讝讛 讗讘诇 讘住驻讬谞讛 住转诐 讜讬讬谉 住转诐 讞讜诇拽讬谉

Rav Pappa said: You find the correct application of Rabbi Natan鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛住驻讬谞讛 讜驻专拽讛 诇讛 讘讞爪讬 讛讚专讱 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 砖诇 讞爪讬 讛讚专讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 转专注讜诪转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗 诪砖讻讞 诇讗讙讜专讛 讗诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专注讜诪转 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪砖讻讞 诇讗讙讜专讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讗讙专讛 讘注讬 砖诇讜诪讬

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.

诇注讜诇诐 讚拽讗 诪砖讻讞 诇讗讙讜专讛 讗诇讗 讗诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转专注讜诪转 诪砖讜诐 专驻住转讗 讚住驻讬谞转讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讟注谞转讗 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讜诪诪讜谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讘讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 驻专拽讛 讚驻专拽讛 诇讟讜注谞讬讛 讘讙讜讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 转专注讜诪转 诪砖讜诐 砖讬谞讜讬 讚注转讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗砖诇讗 讬转讬专讗

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鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讛 砖讜讻专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 讻住讜转讜 讜诇讙谞讜转讜 讜诪讝讜谞讜转 砖诇 讗讜转讛 讛讚专讱 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讞诪专 诪注讻讘 注诇讬讜 讞诪专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讜 砖注讜专讬诐 讜转讘谉 讜诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖讜讻专 诪注讻讘 注诇讬讜

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞 诇诪讝讘谉 讞诪专 谞诪讬 诇讬注讻讘 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇诪讝讘谉 砖讜讻专 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬注讻讘

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚砖讻讬讞 诇诪讟专讞 讜诇诪讝讘谉 诪讗讜讜谞讗 诇讗讜讜谞讗 讞诪专 讚专讻讬讛 诇诪讟专讞 讜诇诪讝讘谉 砖讜讻专 诇讗讜 讚专讻讬讛 诇诪讟专讞 讜诇诪讝讘谉

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鈥檃vna] 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇专讻讜讘 注诇讬讛 讗讬砖 诇讗 转专讻讘 注诇讬讛 讗砖讛 讗砖讛 专讜讻讘 注诇讬讛 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注讜讘专转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讬拽讛

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.

讛砖转讗 诪谞讬拽讛 讗诪专转 诪注讜讘专转 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪注讜讘专转 讜讛讬讗 诪谞讬拽讛 拽讗诪专

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讬谞讬转讗 讗讻专住讛 转拽诇讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

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鈥檚 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.

Scroll To Top