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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 15, 2016 | 讟状讜 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Metzia 80

The mishna continues to deal with cases where one rented a item with certain conditions and then used the item in a different way and damage was caused. 聽If the damage was caused because of the change, he is responsible. 聽What if one pt more weight or more volume on the animal than the standard. 聽What if he uses a different item that is lighter, in which case the volume will be greater. 聽The next mishna discusses various laws related to the responsibility of a worker to an item he is fixing/working on, and other laws of shomrim.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻专讛 诇讞专讜砖 讘讛专 讜讞专砖 讘讘拽注讛 讗诐 谞砖讘专 讛拽谞拽谉 驻讟讜专 讘讘拽注讛 讜讞专砖 讘讛专 讗诐 谞砖讘专 讛拽谞拽谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讚讜砖 讘拽讟谞讬转 讜讚砖 讘转讘讜讗讛 驻讟讜专 诇讚讜砖 讘转讘讜讗讛 讜讚砖 讘拽讟谞讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讛拽讟谞讬转 诪讞诇拽转

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.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 砖谞讬 讘讛 诪讗谉 诪砖诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚谞拽讬讟 驻专砖讗 诪砖诇诐 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 讚谞拽讬讟 诪谞讗 诪砖诇诐 讜讛诇讻转讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诪谞讗 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬 讚讜讻转讗 讚诪讞讝拽讬 讙讜谞讚专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诇诪讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 驻专讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻专讛 讝讜 谞讙讞谞讬转 讛讬讗 谞砖讻谞讬转 讛讬讗 讘注讟谞讬转 讛讬讗 专讘爪谞讬转 讛讬讗 讜讛讬讛 讘讛 诪讜诐 讗讞讚 讜住谞驻讜 讘讬谉 讛诪讜诪讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 诪讜诐 讝讛 讜诪讜诐 讗讞专 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛诪讜讻专 砖驻讞讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讝讜 砖讜讟讛 讛讬讗 谞讬讻驻讬转 讛讬讗 诪砖讜注诪诪转 讛讬讗 讜讛讬讛 讘讛 诪讜诐 讗讞讚 讜住谞驻讜 讘讬谉 讛诪讜诪讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 诪讜诐 讝讛 讜诪讜诐 讗讞专 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讬讜 讘讛 讻诇 讛诪讜诪讬谉 讛诇诇讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讬讜 讘讛 讻诇 讛诪讜诪讬谉 讛诇诇讜 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转

Rav A岣, 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇讛讘讬讗 注诇讬讛 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讘讬讗 注诇讬讛 砖注讜专讬谉 讞讬讬讘 转讘讜讗讛 讜讛讘讬讗 注诇讬讛 转讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谞驻讞 拽砖讛 讻诪砖讗讜讬 诇讛讘讬讗 诇转讱 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讘讬讗 诇转讱 砖注讜专讬谉 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 诪砖讗讜 讞讬讬讘 讜讻诪讛 讬讜住讬祝 注诇 诪砖讗讜 讜讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讗讛 诇讙诪诇 砖诇砖讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讞诪讜专

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鈥檃 on a camel and three kav on a donkey.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽砖讛 讻诪砖讗讜讬 转谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽砖讛 诇诪砖讗讜讬 转谞谉 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽砖讛 讻诪砖讗讜讬 转谞谉 谞驻讞讗 讻讬 转拽诇讗 讜讗讬 诪讜住讬祝 砖诇砖讛 拽讘讬谉 讞讬讬讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽砖讛 诇诪砖讗讜讬 转谞谉 转拽诇讗 讻讬 转拽诇讗 讜谞驻讞讗 讛讜讬 转讜住驻转

GEMARA: It was stated that amora鈥檌m 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.

转谞谉 诇讛讘讬讗 诇转讱 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讘讬讗 诇转讱 砖注讜专讬谉 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜住讬祝 注诇 诪砖讗讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 诇讗 住讗讛 讜讛讗 注诇讛 拽转谞讬 讜讻诪讛 讬讜住讬祝 注诇 诪砖讗讜 讜讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讗讛 诇讙诪诇 砖诇砖讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讞诪讜专

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鈥檃. 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鈥檃 on a camel and three kav on a donkey.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 砖谞讬 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讘讬讗 讞讟讬谉 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讛讘讬讗 砖注讜专讬谉 讻诪讛 讬讜住讬祝 注诇 诪砖讗讜 讜讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讗讛 诇讙诪诇 砖诇砖讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讞诪讜专

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鈥檃 on a camel and three kav on a donkey.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讛讘讬讗 诇转讱 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讘讬讗

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鈥檃, of wheat, but he brought

砖砖 注砖专讛 砖注讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 驻讟讜专 转专讙诪讛 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讞讬拽转讗

sixteen se鈥檃 of barley, he is liable. This indicates that if he added only three kav, i.e., half a se鈥檃, 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鈥檃 less than the usual amount.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讘 诇讻转祝 讗讚专讬讘 诇注专讬讘讛 讻讜专 诇住驻讬谞讛 砖诇砖转 讻讜专讬诐 诇讘讜专谞讬 讙讚讜诇讛

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].

讗诪专 诪专 拽讘 诇讻转祝 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 讘讬讛 讘专 讚注转 讛讜讗 诇砖讚讬讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖讞讘讟讜 诇讗诇转专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘砖诇讗 讞讘讟讜 诇讗诇转专 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讙专讗 讬转讬专讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讜讗 住讘讜专 讞讜诇砖讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛

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.

讻讜专 诇住驻讬谞讛 砖诇砖转 讻讜专讬谉 诇讘讜专谞讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 住转诐 住驻讬谞讜转 讘转 转诇转讬谉 讻讜专讬谉 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

搂 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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讗讜诪谞讬谉 砖讜诪专讬 砖讻专 讛谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讜讛讘讗 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗砖诪讜专 诇讱 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇驻谞讬 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

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.

讛诇讜讛讜 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诇讜讛讜 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛诇讜讛讜 驻讬专讜转 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 专砖讗讬 讗讚诐 诇讛砖讻讬专 诪砖讻讜谞讜 砖诇 注谞讬 诇讛讬讜转 驻讜住拽 讜讛讜诇讱 注诇讬讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛

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鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜讻专 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专

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.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 砖讘讬拽 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜讗讙讬专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讜讻专 谞诪讬 讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 砖讘讬拽 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜诪讜讙专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 砖讜诪专 砖讻专

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.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 驻讜专转讗 讛讜讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 砖讜诪专 砖讻专

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.

砖讜讻专 谞诪讬 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 驻讜专转讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚转驻讬砖 诇讬讛 讗讗讙专讬讛 讚诇讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬注诇 讜诇诪讬驻拽 讗讝讜讝讬 讛讜讬 注诇讬讛 砖讜诪专 砖讻专

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讚诪讞诇讬祝 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讜转谞讬 砖讜讻专 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

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.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讜讛讘讗 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 转谞谉 讛转诐 讗诪专 诇讜 砖讜讗诇 砖诇讞 讜砖诇讞讛 讜诪转讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讻谉 讘砖注讛 砖诪讞讝讬专讛

搂 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.

讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讞讝讬专讛 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 砖讗讬诇转讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讬诪讬 砖讗讬诇转讛 驻讟讜专 诪转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 驻驻讗 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讜讛讘讗 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav 岣sda 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 Na岣an 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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 80

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 80

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻专讛 诇讞专讜砖 讘讛专 讜讞专砖 讘讘拽注讛 讗诐 谞砖讘专 讛拽谞拽谉 驻讟讜专 讘讘拽注讛 讜讞专砖 讘讛专 讗诐 谞砖讘专 讛拽谞拽谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讚讜砖 讘拽讟谞讬转 讜讚砖 讘转讘讜讗讛 驻讟讜专 诇讚讜砖 讘转讘讜讗讛 讜讚砖 讘拽讟谞讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讛拽讟谞讬转 诪讞诇拽转

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.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 砖谞讬 讘讛 诪讗谉 诪砖诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚谞拽讬讟 驻专砖讗 诪砖诇诐 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 讚谞拽讬讟 诪谞讗 诪砖诇诐 讜讛诇讻转讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诪谞讗 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讬 讚讜讻转讗 讚诪讞讝拽讬 讙讜谞讚专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪砖诇诪讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 驻专讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻专讛 讝讜 谞讙讞谞讬转 讛讬讗 谞砖讻谞讬转 讛讬讗 讘注讟谞讬转 讛讬讗 专讘爪谞讬转 讛讬讗 讜讛讬讛 讘讛 诪讜诐 讗讞讚 讜住谞驻讜 讘讬谉 讛诪讜诪讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 诪讜诐 讝讛 讜诪讜诐 讗讞专 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛诪讜讻专 砖驻讞讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讝讜 砖讜讟讛 讛讬讗 谞讬讻驻讬转 讛讬讗 诪砖讜注诪诪转 讛讬讗 讜讛讬讛 讘讛 诪讜诐 讗讞讚 讜住谞驻讜 讘讬谉 讛诪讜诪讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 诪讜诐 讝讛 讜诪讜诐 讗讞专 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讬讜 讘讛 讻诇 讛诪讜诪讬谉 讛诇诇讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讬讜 讘讛 讻诇 讛诪讜诪讬谉 讛诇诇讜 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪拽讞 讟注讜转

Rav A岣, 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇讛讘讬讗 注诇讬讛 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讘讬讗 注诇讬讛 砖注讜专讬谉 讞讬讬讘 转讘讜讗讛 讜讛讘讬讗 注诇讬讛 转讘谉 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谞驻讞 拽砖讛 讻诪砖讗讜讬 诇讛讘讬讗 诇转讱 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讘讬讗 诇转讱 砖注讜专讬谉 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 诪砖讗讜 讞讬讬讘 讜讻诪讛 讬讜住讬祝 注诇 诪砖讗讜 讜讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讗讛 诇讙诪诇 砖诇砖讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讞诪讜专

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鈥檃 on a camel and three kav on a donkey.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽砖讛 讻诪砖讗讜讬 转谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽砖讛 诇诪砖讗讜讬 转谞谉 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽砖讛 讻诪砖讗讜讬 转谞谉 谞驻讞讗 讻讬 转拽诇讗 讜讗讬 诪讜住讬祝 砖诇砖讛 拽讘讬谉 讞讬讬讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽砖讛 诇诪砖讗讜讬 转谞谉 转拽诇讗 讻讬 转拽诇讗 讜谞驻讞讗 讛讜讬 转讜住驻转

GEMARA: It was stated that amora鈥檌m 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.

转谞谉 诇讛讘讬讗 诇转讱 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讘讬讗 诇转讱 砖注讜专讬谉 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜住讬祝 注诇 诪砖讗讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 诇讗 住讗讛 讜讛讗 注诇讛 拽转谞讬 讜讻诪讛 讬讜住讬祝 注诇 诪砖讗讜 讜讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讗讛 诇讙诪诇 砖诇砖讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讞诪讜专

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鈥檃. 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鈥檃 on a camel and three kav on a donkey.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 砖谞讬 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讘讬讗 讞讟讬谉 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讛讘讬讗 砖注讜专讬谉 讻诪讛 讬讜住讬祝 注诇 诪砖讗讜 讜讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讗讛 诇讙诪诇 砖诇砖讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讞诪讜专

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鈥檃 on a camel and three kav on a donkey.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讛讘讬讗 诇转讱 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讘讬讗

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鈥檃, of wheat, but he brought

砖砖 注砖专讛 砖注讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 驻讟讜专 转专讙诪讛 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讞讬拽转讗

sixteen se鈥檃 of barley, he is liable. This indicates that if he added only three kav, i.e., half a se鈥檃, 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鈥檃 less than the usual amount.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讘 诇讻转祝 讗讚专讬讘 诇注专讬讘讛 讻讜专 诇住驻讬谞讛 砖诇砖转 讻讜专讬诐 诇讘讜专谞讬 讙讚讜诇讛

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].

讗诪专 诪专 拽讘 诇讻转祝 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 讘讬讛 讘专 讚注转 讛讜讗 诇砖讚讬讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖讞讘讟讜 诇讗诇转专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘砖诇讗 讞讘讟讜 诇讗诇转专 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讙专讗 讬转讬专讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讜讗 住讘讜专 讞讜诇砖讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛

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.

讻讜专 诇住驻讬谞讛 砖诇砖转 讻讜专讬谉 诇讘讜专谞讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 住转诐 住驻讬谞讜转 讘转 转诇转讬谉 讻讜专讬谉 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

搂 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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讗讜诪谞讬谉 砖讜诪专讬 砖讻专 讛谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讜讛讘讗 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗砖诪讜专 诇讱 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖诪讜专 诇讬 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇驻谞讬 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

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.

讛诇讜讛讜 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诇讜讛讜 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛诇讜讛讜 驻讬专讜转 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 专砖讗讬 讗讚诐 诇讛砖讻讬专 诪砖讻讜谞讜 砖诇 注谞讬 诇讛讬讜转 驻讜住拽 讜讛讜诇讱 注诇讬讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛

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鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜讻专 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专

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.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 砖讘讬拽 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜讗讙讬专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讜讻专 谞诪讬 讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 砖讘讬拽 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜诪讜讙专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 砖讜诪专 砖讻专

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.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 驻讜专转讗 讛讜讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 砖讜诪专 砖讻专

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.

砖讜讻专 谞诪讬 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 驻讜专转讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚转驻讬砖 诇讬讛 讗讗讙专讬讛 讚诇讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬注诇 讜诇诪讬驻拽 讗讝讜讝讬 讛讜讬 注诇讬讛 砖讜诪专 砖讻专

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讚诪讞诇讬祝 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讜转谞讬 砖讜讻专 讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

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.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讜讛讘讗 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 转谞谉 讛转诐 讗诪专 诇讜 砖讜讗诇 砖诇讞 讜砖诇讞讛 讜诪转讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讻谉 讘砖注讛 砖诪讞讝讬专讛

搂 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.

讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛讞讝讬专讛 讘转讜讱 讬诪讬 砖讗讬诇转讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讬诪讬 砖讗讬诇转讛 驻讟讜专 诪转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 驻驻讗 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 讜讛讘讗 诪注讜转 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐

Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav 岣sda 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 Na岣an 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.

Scroll To Top