Bava Metzia 80

מתני׳ השוכר את הפרה לחרוש בהר וחרש בבקעה אם נשבר הקנקן פטור בבקעה וחרש בהר אם נשבר הקנקן חייב לדוש בקטנית ודש בתבואה פטור לדוש בתבואה ודש בקטנית חייב מפני שהקטנית מחלקת

MISHNA: With regard to one who rents a cow and a plow in order to plow on the mountain but he plowed in the valley, if the plowshare, the cutting tool on the bottom part of the plow, breaks, he is exempt, as it was even more likely to break on mountainous terrain. In a case where he rents the cow and a plow to plow in the valley but he plowed on the mountain, if the plowshare breaks he is liable. If he hired the cow to thresh legumes but it threshed grain, and the cow slipped and broke its leg, he is exempt. If he hired it to thresh grain but it threshed legumes he is liable, because legumes are slippery.

גמ׳ היכא דלא שני בה מאן משלם אמר רב פפא דנקיט פרשא משלם רב שישא בריה דרב אידי אמר דנקיט מנא משלם והלכתא דנקיט מנא משלם ואי דוכתא דמחזקי גונדרי תרוייהו משלמין

GEMARA: The mishna discussed the liability of a renter who diverged from the terms of the rental agreement, but it does not teach the halakha of liability for broken machinery in a case where the renter did follow the agreement. The Gemara asks: In a case where the renter did not diverge from their agreement, who pays? Rav Pappa said: The one who holds the goad [parasha] pays, as it can be assumed that he caused the plow to break by not leading it in a straight path. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The one who holds the vessel, the plow itself, pays. And the halakha is that the one who holds the vessel pays. And if it was a place where rocks are commonly found they both pay, as in this case any small irregularity in the ground where the plow digs a furrow is likely to cause the plow to break.

אמר רבי יוחנן המוכר פרה לחבירו ואמר לו פרה זו נגחנית היא נשכנית היא בעטנית היא רבצנית היא והיה בה מום אחד וסנפו בין המומין הרי זה מקח טעות מום זה ומום אחר אין זה מקח טעות

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says, citing the Tosefta (Bava Batra 4:6): In a case of one who sells a cow to another and says to him: You should know that this cow has defects, it is accustomed to goring, it is accustomed to biting, it is a kicker, it lies down habitually; but in reality it had only one defect and he inserted it among the list of defects that it did not have, this is a mistaken transaction, as the buyer saw that it did not have the other defects and therefore did not take seriously any of the defects the seller enumerated, including the one that the cow actually had. But if the seller stated: The animal has this defect, i.e., the defect that it in fact has, and other defects, without specifying what they were, this is not a mistaken transaction.

תניא נמי הכי המוכר שפחה לחבירו ואמר לו שפחה זו שוטה היא ניכפית היא משועממת היא והיה בה מום אחד וסנפו בין המומין הרי זה מקח טעות מום זה ומום אחר אין זה מקח טעות

The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Batra 4:3): With regard to one who sells a maidservant to another and says to him: This maidservant is an imbecile, she is epileptic, she is crazy [meshuamemet]; but in reality she had only one defect and he inserted it among the other defects, this is a mistaken transaction. But if the seller stated: The maidservant has this defect, i.e., the defect that she in fact has, and other defects, without specifying what they were, this is not a mistaken transaction.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי היו בה כל המומין הללו מהו אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי הכי אמרינן משמיה דרבא היו בה כל המומין הללו אין זה מקח טעות

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If the animal had all of these defects, what is the halakha in that case? Can the buyer claim to have thought that the seller was not serious when he mentioned so many problems? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: We say this halakha in the name of Rava: If the animal had all of these defects, it is not a mistaken transaction, as he was forthright. The seller is not at fault if the buyer did not believe him.

מתני׳ השוכר את החמור להביא עליה חטין והביא עליה שעורין חייב תבואה והביא עליה תבן חייב מפני שהנפח קשה כמשאוי להביא לתך חטין והביא לתך שעורין פטור ואם מוסיף על משאו חייב וכמה יוסיף על משאו ויהא חייב סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר סאה לגמל שלשה קבין לחמור

MISHNA: With regard to one who rents a donkey in order to bring wheat on it, to transport it on its back, and he brought upon it an identical weight of barley, which is lighter than wheat, and the donkey was injured, he is liable. Similarly, if he hired it for transporting grain, and he brought straw of the same weight upon it, he is liable, because the extra volume is as difficult for the animal as the load itself. If he rented a donkey in order to bring on it a letekh, i.e., a measurement of volume, of wheat, but he brought a letekh of barley, he is exempt, as he brought the same volume of a lighter substance. And one who adds to a load a greater volume than he stipulated is liable. And how much must he add to the load for him to be liable? Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A se’a on a camel and three kav on a donkey.

גמ׳ איתמר אביי אמר קשה כמשאוי תנן רבא אמר קשה למשאוי תנן אביי אמר קשה כמשאוי תנן נפחא כי תקלא ואי מוסיף שלשה קבין חייב רבא אמר קשה למשאוי תנן תקלא כי תקלא ונפחא הוי תוספת

GEMARA: It was stated that amora’im disagreed about the precise text of this mishna. Abaye said that we learned in the mishna: Difficult as the load. Rava said that we learned: Difficult for the load. The Gemara explains: Abaye said that we learned: Difficult as the load, with the meaning that volume is like weight, and therefore when the volume of the two substances is equal, if one adds three kav he is liable. Rava said that we learned: Difficult for the load, with the meaning that if one weight is like the other weight, then the difference in volume is considered an addition. In other words, one is liable if the weight of the barley is the same as that of the wheat, in which case the additional volume is considered to cause damage. Rava holds that if the volume of the two is equal, one is not liable for the additional three kav of weight.

תנן להביא לתך חטין והביא לתך שעורין פטור ואם הוסיף על משאו חייב מאי לאו שלשת קבין לא סאה והא עלה קתני וכמה יוסיף על משאו ויהא חייב סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר סאה לגמל שלשה קבין לחמור

The Gemara attempts to cite a proof for one of these opinions. We learned in the mishna: If one hired a donkey to bring a letekh of wheat, but he brought a letekh of barley, he is exempt. And one who adds to a load a greater volume than he stipulated is liable. What, is it not correct that this means he did not bring exactly a letekh of barley, but added three kav, which would support the opinion of Abaye? The Gemara refutes this interpretation: No, he added a whole se’a. The Gemara asks: But the continuation of the mishna was taught concerning this case: How much must he add to the load for him to be liable? Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A se’a on a camel and three kav on a donkey.

הכי קאמר היכא דלא שני חטין והביא חטין שעורין והביא שעורין כמה יוסיף על משאו ויהא חייב סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר סאה לגמל שלשה קבין לחמור

The Gemara explains that this is what the last clause of the mishna is saying: In a case where the renter did not diverge from their agreement, e.g., they stipulated that he would bring wheat and he brought wheat, or barley and he brought barley, how much must he add to the load for him to be liable? Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A se’a on a camel and three kav on a donkey.

תא שמע להביא לתך חטין והביא

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one hired a donkey to bring a letekh, i.e., fifteen se’a, of wheat, but he brought

שש עשרה שעורים חייב הא שלשת קבין פטור תרגמה אביי במחיקתא

sixteen se’a of barley, he is liable. This indicates that if he added only three kav, i.e., half a se’a, he is exempt. Abaye interpreted the baraita as referring to smoothed-over barley, a precisely measured load, where the volume of the barley was not measured with heaped measuring utensils, but leveled flat. Consequently, it is roughly a se’a less than the usual amount.

תנו רבנן קב לכתף אדריב לעריבה כור לספינה שלשת כורים לבורני גדולה

§ The Sages taught: A kav is too large an addition for a porter, and therefore if the porter is injured by the additional weight, the owner must pay him. An adriv, half a kor, is too large an addition for a small boat [areiva]; a kor is too large an addition for a regular boat; three kor is too large an addition for a large ship [burnei].

אמר מר קב לכתף אם איתא דלא מצי ביה בר דעת הוא לשדיה אמר אביי בשחבטו לאלתר רבא אמר אפילו תימא בשלא חבטו לאלתר לא צריכא אלא לאגרא יתירא רב אשי אמר הוא סבור חולשא הוא דנקיט ליה

The Master said: A kav is too large an addition for a porter. The Gemara asks: If it is so, that he cannot withstand this load, the porter is a sensible person; let him throw it off and avoid injury. Abaye said: This is referring to a case where the load knocked him down immediately, before he could remove it from his back. Rava said: Even if you say that it is referring to a case where it did not knock him down immediately the baraita is not difficult, as it is necessary only with regard to the extra pay that he can demand for this addition. Rav Ashi said: Even if the porter is a sensible man, perhaps he thought it was a momentary weakness that seized him and did not realize that the load itself was excessive.

כור לספינה שלשת כורין לבורני גדולה אמר רב פפא שמע מינה סתם ספינות בת תלתין כורין למאי נפקא מינה למקח וממכר

§ The baraita teaches: A kor is too large an addition for a regular boat; three kor is too large an addition for a large ship. Rav Pappa said: Learn from here that unspecified boats can bear thirty kor, i.e., this is the volume of a ship’s cargo. The reason for this claim is that in all these cases the addition that causes damage is one-thirtieth of the normal load. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference resulting from this observation? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to the halakhot of buying and selling, i.e., one who purchases a boat of unspecified dimensions should know that this is its expected capacity.

מתני׳ כל האומנין שומרי שכר הן וכולן שאמרו טול את שלך והבא מעות שומר חנם שמור לי ואשמור לך שומר שכר שמור לי ואמר לו הנח לפני שומר חנם

MISHNA: All artisans and laborers who take raw materials to their homes are considered paid bailees for those items until they return them to the owner. And with regard to all those who said to the owner: I finished the work, and therefore take what is yours, i.e., this item, and bring money in its stead, from that point on each of them is considered an unpaid bailee. If one person says to another: Safeguard my property for me and I will safeguard your property for you, each of them is a paid bailee, as each receives the services of the other as payment for his safeguarding. If one says: Safeguard for me, and the other says to him: Place it before me, the second individual is an unpaid bailee.

הלוהו על המשכון שומר שכר רבי יהודה אומר הלוהו מעות שומר חנם הלוהו פירות שומר שכר אבא שאול אומר רשאי אדם להשכיר משכונו של עני להיות פוסק והולך עליו מפני שהוא כמשיב אבידה

One who lent to another based on collateral is a paid bailee for the collateral. Rabbi Yehuda says: One who lent another money is an unpaid bailee for the collateral, whereas one who lent another produce is a paid bailee. Abba Shaul says: It is permitted for a person to rent out a poor person’s collateral that was given to him for a loan, so that by setting a rental price for it he will thereby progressively reduce the debt, i.e., the lender will subtract the rental money he receives from the amount owed by the borrower, because this is considered like returning a lost item. The borrower profits from this arrangement, whereas if the lender does not use the collateral in this manner it provides benefit to no one.

גמ׳ לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי מאיר דתניא שוכר כיצד משלם רבי מאיר אומר כשומר חנם רבי יהודה אומר כשומר שכר

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a renter, whose legal status is not stated explicitly in the Torah, how does he pay in the event that a rented article is lost or stolen? Rabbi Meir says: He pays like an unpaid bailee, i.e., only in cases where the loss of the item was due to his negligence. Rabbi Yehuda says: He pays like a paid bailee, i.e., even in cases where the loss of the item was not due to his negligence. Skilled laborers are similar to renters, as they take possession of the item to earn a profit from it, and the mishna teaches that skilled laborers are like paid bailees. Consequently, the ruling of the mishna is apparently not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

אפילו תימא רבי מאיר בההיא הנאה דקא שביק כולי עלמא ואגיר ליה לדידיה הוי עילויה שומר שכר אי הכי שוכר נמי בההיא הנאה דקא שביק כולי עלמא ומוגר ליה לדידיה הוי עילויה שומר שכר

The Gemara rejects this claim. You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and the reason skilled laborers are considered like paid bailees is that through that benefit that the worker receives from the fact that the owner of the item leaves aside everyone else and hires him, he becomes a paid bailee over the item. The Gemara challenges this reasoning: If so, with regard to a renter as well, it can be said that through that benefit he receives from the fact that the owner leaves aside everyone else and rents to him, he should become a paid bailee over the item.

אלא אפילו תימא רבי מאיר בההיא הנאה דקא יהיב ליה טפי פורתא הוי עילויה שומר שכר

Rather, in light of this refutation the Gemara suggests a different reason that you may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir: Through that benefit that the skilled laborer receives from the fact that the owner gives him a little more money, he becomes a paid bailee. Since it is impossible to calculate the precise sum to which a skilled laborer is entitled, it is assumed that he is slightly overpaid.

שוכר נמי מי לא עסקינן דקא משוי ליה טפי פורתא אלא אפילו תימא רבי מאיר בההיא הנאה דתפיש ליה אאגריה דלא בעי למיעל ולמיפק אזוזי הוי עליה שומר שכר

The Gemara asks: With regard to a renter as well, are we not dealing even with a case where the owner gives him a little more value for his money, and yet Rabbi Meir claims that he is considered like an unpaid bailee? Rather, you may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir for a different reason: Through that benefit that the skilled laborer receives from the fact that he holds onto the item so that he is not required to go in and go out for his money, he becomes a paid bailee over the item.

איבעית אימא כדמחליף רבה בר אבוה ותני שוכר כיצד משלם רבי מאיר אומר כשומר שכר רבי יהודה אומר כשומר חנם

If you wish, say instead that the mishna can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir without these explanations, as Rabba bar Avuh reversed the opinions and teaches that the baraita says: With regard to a renter, how does he pay? Rabbi Meir says: Like a paid bailee; Rabbi Yehuda says: Like an unpaid bailee.

וכולן שאמרו טול את שלך והבא מעות שומר חנם תנן התם אמר לו שואל שלח ושלחה ומתה חייב וכן בשעה שמחזירה

§ The mishna teaches: And in the case of all those who said to the owner: Take what is yours, i.e., this item, and bring money in its stead, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee. We learned in a mishna there (98b): If the borrower said to the lender: Send the animal that you agreed to lend me with the person whom you said would deliver it, and he sent it to him and it died on the way, the borrower is liable, and similarly when he returns it. The borrower is responsible for the animal as long as it has not actually been returned to the owner.

אמר רפרם בר פפא אמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא שהחזירה בתוך ימי שאילתה אבל לאחר ימי שאילתה פטור מתיב רב נחמן בר פפא וכולן שאמרו טול את שלך והבא מעות שומר חנם

Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav Ḥisda said: They taught this halakha only when the borrower returned it during the period of its loan, as he accepted responsibility for the animal for the stipulated duration of the loan. But if he returned it after the period of its loan, he is exempt, as once the duration of the loan is complete he no longer has the status of a borrower. Rav Naḥman bar Pappa raises an objection from the mishna: And all those who said: Take what is yours and bring money, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee.