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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 28, 2016 | 讻状讞 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 93

The gemara concludes that it is a tannaitic debate whether the worker’s rights to eat on the job are considered an added wage or a God given gift. 聽Is a watcher of a field considered “working” to the extent that he can eat from the field or not? 聽There is 聽debate about how to view his work. 聽The mishna discusses the 4 types of watchmen. 聽One who gets paid for watching is responsible for circumstances beyond his control. 聽Rabba and Abaye about what level of “out of his control” is necessary in order for him to be exempt. 聽Is he expected to go beyond what is expected of a regular watchman since he is getting paid (Abaye) or not (Rabba)?

Study Guide Bava Metzia 93

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛专讘 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注砖讛 注诪讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讝谞讱 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛专讘 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注砖讛 注诪讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讝谞讱 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

This works out well according to the one who says that a master cannot say to a slave: Work for me and I will not feed you, i.e., he is obligated to provide the slave with a livelihood. For the purposes of the case at hand, this means that the master cannot stipulate that he is relinquishing his slaves鈥 right to eat while performing labor, and therefore it works out well. But according to the one who says that a master can say to a slave: Work for me and I will not feed you, what can be said? He should be able to stipulate to that effect with regard to his minor slave, as he is entitled to all profits that result from the slaves鈥 labor.

讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘砖讗讬谉 诪注诇讛 诇讛谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬讻讜诇 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛专讘 砖讘讬拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜注讘讬讚 讻讘专讬讬转讗

Rather, according to this opinion one must accept a different explanation: Both this mishna and that baraita are referring to a case when he does not provide the slaves with food, and the two tannaitic sources disagree with regard to that very issue. As one Sage, the tanna of the baraita, holds that a master can say to a slave: Work for me and I will not feed you, and one Sage, the tanna of the mishna, holds that he cannot do so. The Gemara is puzzled by this response: If so, Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that a master can say to his slave that he will not feed him, has left aside the mishna and acted and ruled in accordance with the baraita.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖诇 砖诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 讜诇讗 诪爪讬 拽爪讬抓 讜诪讗讬 拽讜爪抓 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 诪讝讜谞讜转

Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous explanation in favor of another: Everyone agrees that a laborer eats from the property of Heaven, and even if a father or master provides his child or slave with food he cannot stipulate that the child or slave should not eat when performing labor, as the father or master has no rights over that which they consume. And what is the meaning of: Stipulates, that Rabbi Hoshaya says in the baraita? That does not mean, as in the mishna, that the master relinquishes the slaves鈥 right to food; rather, he stipulates that they should eat food before they work, so that they will be too full to eat at a later stage.

讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 讘讛诪转讜 转讘谉 谞拽讜抓 诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪砖诇讜 讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 讜诪专 住讘专 诪砖诇 砖诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, in the corresponding situation, with regard to his animal, there should likewise be no discussion at all because he can stipulate in this manner and distribute straw for it before it starts work, as everyone agrees that this is permitted. Rather, the Gemara retracts this interpretation and says that in fact they disagree with regard to this: That one Sage, the tanna of the mishna, holds that a laborer eats from his own property, and one Sage, the tanna of the baraita, holds that a laborer eats from the property of Heaven. This proves that this issue is in fact a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜爪抓 讗讚诐 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 注诇 讬讚讬 讗砖转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讚注转 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 拽讜爪抓 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讘讛诪转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讚注转

MISHNA: A man can stipulate on his own behalf that he receive a certain increase in his wages instead of eating the produce with which he works, and similarly, he can stipulate this on behalf of his adult son or daughter, on behalf of his adult Canaanite slave or Canaanite maidservant, or on behalf of his wife, with their agreement, because they have the basic level of mental competence, i.e., they are legally competent and can therefore waive their rights. But he cannot stipulate this on behalf of his minor son or daughter, nor on behalf of his minor Canaanite slave or Canaanite maidservant, nor on behalf of his animal, as they do not have the basic level of mental competence.

讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇讬诐 诇注砖讜转 讘谞讟注 专讘注讬 砖诇讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诐 诇讗 讛讜讚讬注谉 驻讜讚讛 讜诪讗讻讬诇谉 谞转驻专住讜 注讙讜诇讬讜 谞转驻转讞讜 讞讘讬讜转讬讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诐 诇讗 讛讜讚讬注谉 诪注砖专 讜诪讗讻讬诇谉

In the case of one who hires a laborer to perform labor with his fourth-year fruit, such laborers may not eat the fruit. And if he did not inform them beforehand that they were working with fourth-year fruit, he must redeem the fruit and feed them. If his fig cakes broke apart and crumbled, so that they must be preserved again, or if his barrels of wine opened and he hired workers to reseal them, these laborers may not eat, as the work of the figs or wine had already been completed with regard to tithes, from which point a laborer may not eat them. And if he did not inform them, he must tithe the food and feed them.

砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讛诇讻讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

The mishna adds: Watchmen of produce may eat the produce of the field or vineyard by local regulations, i.e., in accordance with the ordinances accepted by the residents of that place, but not by Torah law.

讙诪壮 砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讜诪专讬 讙谞讜转 讜驻专讚住讬谉 讗讘诇 砖讜诪专讬 讙讬转讜转 讜注专讬诪讜转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 拽住讘专 诪砖诪专 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

GEMARA: The mishna mentions watchmen of produce. Rav says: They taught this halakha only with regard to watchmen of gardens and orchards, in which the produce is still attached to the ground, and therefore the watchman would have no legal right to it were it not for the local custom. But watchmen of winepresses and piles of detached produce may eat from them by Torah law, as the decisive factor is whether or not the produce is attached to the ground. Evidently, Rav maintains that one who safeguards is considered like one who performs labor, and therefore he has the status of a laborer.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讜诪专讬 讙讬转讜转 讜注专讬诪讜转 讗讘诇 砖讜诪专讬 讙谞讜转 讜驻专讚住讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪讛诇讻讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 拽讗 住讘专 诪砖诪专 诇讗讜 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

And conversely, Shmuel says that the Sages taught the halakha of the mishna, that they may eat by local regulations, only with regard to watchmen of winepresses and piles of detached produce. But watchmen of gardens and orchards may not eat, neither by Torah law nor by local regulations. This shows that Shmuel holds that one who safeguards is not considered like one who performs labor, and therefore no watchman is entitled to eat by Torah law. In the particular case of detached produce, there is a local custom to allow a watchman of detached produce to eat from it.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诪砖诪专 讗转 讛驻专讛 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖诪专 诇讗讜 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讗诪讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讝讬讝 讘讛 讗讘专

Rav A岣 bar Rav Huna raises an objection to this reasoning from a baraita: One who safeguards the red heifer after it has been burned renders his garments impure, in accordance with halakha concerning all those who take part in the ritual of the red heifer. The Torah decrees that all those who take part in the ritual of the red heifer contract impurity (Numbers, chapter 19). It is therefore necessary to establish which people are considered to have taken part in this ritual. And if you say that one who safeguards is not considered like one who performs labor, why does he render his garments impure? He has not performed any labor. Rabba bar Ulla said: He does not render them impure due to his work as a watchman; rather, this is a rabbinic decree, lest he move a limb of the heifer.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛诪砖诪专 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 诪拽砖讗讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬诪诇讗 讻专住讜 诪讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讗诇讗 诪讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讗讜讻诇 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖诪专 诇讗讜 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讗诪讗讬 讗讜讻诇

Rav Kahana raises an objection: With regard to one who safeguards four or five cucumber fields, which contain various types of cucumbers and gourds belonging to different people, this one may not fill his stomach from any single one of them. Rather, he must eat from each and every one by a proportionate amount. But if you say that one who safeguards is not considered like one who performs labor, why is he allowed to eat at all?

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讘注拽讜专讬谉 砖谞讜 注拽讜专讬谉 讜讛诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转谉 诇诪注砖专 砖诇讗 谞讬讟诇 驻讬拽住 砖诇讛诐

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: They taught this halakha with regard to uprooted cucumbers, concerning which even Shmuel agrees that a watchman may eat them by local regulations. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Uprooted? But at that stage hasn鈥檛 their work already been completed with regard to tithes, and therefore no laborer should be permitted to eat them? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case when their blossom had not yet been removed. Since the cucumbers still require work, they are not yet subject to tithes.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞谉 讜讗诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛注讜砖讛 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讘砖注转 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讘转诇讜砖 讻讜壮 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 讗讻讬诇 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讛诇讻讜转 诪讚讬谞讛

Rav Ashi said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as we learned in a mishna (87a): And these laborers may eat by Torah law: A laborer who performs labor with produce attached to the ground at the time of the completion of its work, e.g., harvesting produce; and a laborer who performs labor with produce detached from the ground before the completion of its work. The mishna鈥檚 phrase: By Torah law, proves by inference that with regard to detached produce there is one who does not eat by Torah law but by local regulations.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗诇讜 砖讗讬谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讛诇讻讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪讛诇讻讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 注讜砖讛 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谉 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讜诪专讬 讙谞讜转 讜驻专讚住讜转

The Gemara continues its proof: Now, say the latter clause of that mishna: And these may not eat. What is the meaning of: May not eat? If we say this means that they may not eat by Torah law but by local regulations, this is the same as the first clause. Rather, is it not correct to say that it means they may not eat at all, neither by Torah law nor by local regulations? And who are the people included in this list? They are one who performs labor with produce attached to the ground at a time when it has not reached the completion of its work, and all the more so watchmen of gardens and orchards, who do not perform any significant action.

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬诐 讛谉 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞砖讘注 注诇 讛讻诇 讜讛砖讜讗诇 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻诇

MISHNA: There are four types of bailees, to whom different halakhot apply. They are as follows: An unpaid bailee, who receives no compensation for safeguarding the item; and the borrower of an item for his own use; a paid bailee, who is provided with a salary for watching over an item; and a renter, i.e., a bailee who pays a fee for the use of a vessel or animal. If the item was stolen, lost, or broken, or if the animal died in any manner, their halakhot are as follows: An unpaid bailee takes an oath over every outcome; whether the item was lost, stolen, or broken, or if the animal died, the unpaid bailee must take an oath that it happened as he described, and he is then exempt from payment. The borrower does not take an oath, but pays for every outcome, even in a circumstance beyond his control.

讜谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 谞砖讘注讬诐 注诇 讛砖讘讜专讛 讜注诇 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讜注诇 讛诪转讛 讜诪砖诇诪讬谉 讗转 讛讗讘讬讚讛 讜讗转 讛讙谞讬讘讛

And the halakhot of a paid bailee and a renter are the same: They take an oath over an injured animal, over a captured animal, and over a dead animal, attesting that the mishaps were caused by circumstances beyond their control, and they are exempt, but they must pay for loss or theft.

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诪讗谉 转谞讗 砖讜讻专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this mishna about four types of bailees? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It is Rabbi Meir. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Is there any Sage who does not accept the halakha concerning four types of bailees? All of the Sages agree that the Torah spoke of these four types of bailees. Rav Na岣an said to him: This is what I am saying to you, i.e., I mean as follows: Who is the tanna who maintains that the halakha of a renter is like that of a paid bailee? It is Rabbi Meir.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 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 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讬驻讻讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 we hear that Rabbi Meir said the opposite, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a renter, whose halakha is not stated in the Torah, how does he pay, i.e., in which cases is he liable to pay? Rabbi Meir says: He pays in the same cases as an unpaid bailee; Rabbi Yehuda says he pays in the same cases as a paid bailee. The Gemara explains: Rabba bar Avuh teaches this baraita in the opposite manner to the version here.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗专讘注讛 砖诇砖讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讜讚讬谞讬讛诐 砖诇砖讛

The Gemara asks a question with regard to the accepted number of bailees: If so, that the same halakha applies to a renter and a paid bailee, why does the tanna say that there are four bailees? They are only three. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that the mishna should be understood as follows: There are four types of bailees, whose halakhot are three.

讛讛讜讗 专注讬讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 专注讬 讞讬讜转讗 讗讙讜讚讗 讚谞讛专 驻驻讗 砖专讬讙 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜谞驻诇转 诇诪讬讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讜驻讟专讬讛 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain shepherd who was herding animals on the bank of the Pappa River, when one of them slipped and fell into the water and drowned. He came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Rabba stated the following reasoning in support of his ruling: What could he have done? A drowning of this kind is a circumstance beyond his control, and although a shepherd is a paid bailee he is exempt from liability in circumstances beyond his control.

讛讗 谞讟专 讻讚谞讟专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 注诇 诇诪转讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚注讬讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讙谞讗 驻讜专转讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讙谞讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

He safeguarded them in the manner that people safeguard, and he is not required to do anything more. Abaye said to him: If that is so, in a case where he entered the city at a time when other people enter, as shepherds normally do, when their animals are grazing in a quiet and safe place, and a theft occurred at that hour, so too will you say that he is exempt? Rabba said to him: Yes. Abaye raised a further difficulty: If he slept a little at a time when people generally sleep, so too is he exempt? Rabba said to him: Yes.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗诇讜 讛诐 讗讜谞住讬谉 砖砖讜诪专 砖讻专 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛谉 讻讙讜谉 讜转驻诇 砖讘讗 讜转拽讞诐 讜讗转 讛谞注专讬诐 讛讻讜 诇驻讬 讞专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讘讞讝谞讬 诪转讗

Abaye raised an objection to him from a baraita: These are the circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control for which a paid bailee is exempt: For example, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淭he oxen were plowing, and the donkeys feeding beside them. And the Sabeans made a raid and took them away, and they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword鈥 (Job 1:15). This teaches that only a robbery by an army is considered a circumstance beyond his control, but nothing less. Rabba said to him: There it is referring to city watchmen, i.e., professionals hired to watch over city property, who are exempt due to an occurrence on that scale, i.e., a military incursion.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 注讚 诪转讬 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诪讜专 注讚 讻讚讬 讛讬讬转讬 讘讬讜诐 讗讻诇谞讬 讞专讘 讜拽专讞 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讘讞讝谞讬 诪转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 讬注拽讘 讗讘讬谞讜 讞讝谉 诪转讗 讛讜讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诇讘谉 谞讟专讬 诇讱 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讬转讬专转讗 讻讞讝谞讬 诪转讗

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from another baraita: To what extent is a paid bailee obligated to safeguard? He is obligated to the extent that Jacob said to Laban: 鈥淭hus I was: In the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night鈥 (Genesis 31:40). Rava said to him: There too, the baraita is speaking of city watchmen, whose responsibility extends further. Abaye said to him: Is that to say that Jacob, our forefather, whose statement is the source of this halakha, was a city watchman? Rava replied: It means that Jacob said to Laban: I safeguarded for you an extra level of safeguarding, like that of city watchmen.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讜注讛 砖讛讬讛 专讜注讛 讜讛谞讬讞 注讚专讜 讜讘讗 诇注讬专 讘讗 讝讗讘 讜讟专祝 讜讘讗 讗专讬 讜讚专住 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讛 砖诐 讛讬讛 诪爪讬诇 讗诇讗 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 讞讬讬讘 讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from another baraita: With regard to a shepherd who was herding the animals of others, and he left his flock and came to the town, if in the meantime a wolf came and tore an animal to pieces, or a lion came and trampled one of his flock, we do not say definitively that had he been there he would have rescued them and therefore he is liable due to his absence. Rather, the court estimates with regard to him: If he could have rescued his animal by chasing a beast of this kind away, he is liable, as his departure from the scene was certainly a contributing factor to the damage. If not, he is exempt from liability.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚注诇 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚注讬讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讗 讚注诇 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚诇讗 注讬讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 转讞讬诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 讞讬讬讘

Abaye continues: What, is this baraita not referring to a case when the shepherd enters the town at a time when other people usually enter? If so, it presents a difficulty to the opinion of Rabba. Rabba responds: No, it is speaking of one who enters at a time when other people do not usually enter. Abaye retorts: If so, why is he exempt even if he could not have rescued the animal? This is a mishap that came about initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, and in a case of this kind he is liable due to his negligence.

讚砖诪注 拽诇 讗专讬讛 讜注诇 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇拽讚诐 讘专讜注讬诐 讜讘诪拽诇讜转

Rabba explains: It is referring to one who heard the sound of a lion roaring and entered the city to save himself. In such a case, his actions were not initially negligent, but rather, it was a circumstance beyond his control. Abaye questions this response: If so, what is the relevance of the statement: The court estimates with regard to him? What could he have done to prevent an attack by a lion? Rabba replies: He should have faced the lion with other shepherds and with sticks to chase it away.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇拽讚诐 讘专讜注讬诐 讜讘诪拽诇讜转 讜诇讗 拽讬讚诐 讞讬讬讘 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讘讞谞诐 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讘砖讻专

Abaye asks: If so, why specifically state this halakha with regard to a paid bailee? The same would hold true even for an unpaid bailee, as wasn鈥檛 it you, Master, who said that an unpaid bailee who had the option of facing an animal with other shepherds and with sticks and did not face it in this manner is liable, as he is considered negligent in his duty? Rabba answers: An unpaid bailee is liable only if he could have gathered together other shepherds to help him defend his animals free of charge, whereas a paid bailee is obligated to do so even for payment.

讜注讚 讻诪讛 注讚 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉 讜讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 讚讛讚专 砖拽讬诇 讚诪讬讛谉 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The Gemara asks: And up to how much must a paid bailee pay for this extra protection? The Gemara answers: Up to the sum of the value of the animals he is responsible to safeguard. The Gemara further asks: But in that case, it seems that a paid bailee must pay from his own pocket to protect the animals from marauding beasts; where have we found with regard to a paid bailee that he is liable for circumstances beyond his control? Everyone agrees that this loss was caused by circumstances beyond the bailee鈥檚 control, and yet he must bear the expenses indirectly. The Gemara responds: The halakha is that he may return and take the money that he paid for these additional guards from the owner.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讻讜砖专讗 讚讞讬讜转讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讟专讞讗 讬转讬专转讗

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, what benefit does the owner of the animals receive from this? Any potential loss he avoided from the lion must be paid to the extra guards. Abaye replied: The practical difference concerns the fitness of and his familiarity with the animals. Although it makes no difference to him financially, if he had to purchase other animals he would lose those animals that he knows, and he would rather keep his own livestock. Alternatively, it matters with respect to the additional effort involved in the acquisition of new animals.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专讬 诇讛讻讬 讬讛讘讬 诇讱 讗讙专讗 诇谞讟讜专讬 诇讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讬转讬专转讗

As demonstrated in the above discussion, Rabba maintains that even a paid bailee is required to safeguard and take care of the animals only in the normal fashion. By contrast, Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna do not hold in accordance with this opinion of Rabba, as they say that the owner can tell the bailee: It was for this reason that I gave you a wage, so that you should safeguard for me with an additional level of safeguarding, not for you to go and eat and sleep like other people.

讘专 讗讚讗 住讘讜诇讗讛 讛讜讬 拽讗 诪注讘专 讞讬讜转讗 讗讙诪诇讗 讚谞专砖 讚讞驻讛 讞讚讗 诇讞讘专转讛 讜砖讚讬转讛 讘诪讬讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讞讬讬讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬 诇诪注讘讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘注讬 诇讱 诇注讘讜专讬 讞讚讗 讞讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讚注转 讘讬讛 讘讘专 讗讞转讬讱 讚诪爪讬 诇诪注讘专 讞讚讗 讞讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讘专 爪讜讜讞讜 拽诪讗讬 讚拽诪讱 讜诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗砖讙讞 讘讛讜

The Gemara relates: Bar Adda the porter was transporting animals across the narrow bridge of Neresh when one animal pushed another and cast it into the water, and it drowned. The case came before Rav Pappa, who deemed him liable. Bar Adda said to him: What should I have done? Rav Pappa said to him: You should have transported them one by one. The porter said to him: Do you know of the son of your sister who can transport them one by one? In other words, are you aware of anyone who can do such a thing? It is virtually impossible. Rav Pappa said to him: The very earliest scholars before you already shouted and complained about this, but none paid attention to them. Since you are an expert and were hired for this purpose, the responsibility is yours.

讗讬讘讜 讗驻拽讬讚 讻讬转谞讗 讘讬 专讜谞讬讗 讗讝诇 砖讘讜 砖诪讟讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇住讜祝 讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞讬讬讘讬讛 诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉

The Gemara relates another incident: Aivu deposited flax with a bailee in the house of Ronya. A robber called Shabbu went and forcibly snatched the flax from him. Eventually the thief was identified and caught. The matter came before Rav Na岣an, who rendered the bailee liable. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav Na岣an disagrees with the opinion of Rav Huna bar Avin?

讚砖诇讞 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 谞讙谞讘讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 讗诐 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讜讗 专爪讛 谞砖讘注 专爪讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 讗诐 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注

The Gemara explains: As Rav Huna bar Avin sent this ruling: In a case where an animal was stolen in a circumstance beyond his control, and the thief was subsequently identified and captured, if the bailee is an unpaid bailee, the following distinction applies: If he wishes, he takes an oath that he did not misappropriate the animal before it was stolen, and the owners must claim its value from the thief; if he wishes, he enters into judgment with the thief, by claiming the money directly from him. If he is a paid bailee, he enters into judgment with the thief and does not take an oath. Since the ruling of Rav Na岣an was in the case of an unpaid bailee, why did he have to deal with the thief?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讬 讚驻专诪讜住拽讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讚讗讬 专诪讗 拽诇讗 讛讜讜 讗转讜 讜诪爪诇讬谉 诇讬讛

Rava said: The cases are not the same, as there, in the ruling of Rav Na岣an, men from the government were standing there, which means that if he had raised his voice they would have come and rescued him. Since it was his own negligence that caused the robbery, he must find a way to collect the money from the robber.

诪转谞讬壮 讝讗讘 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 讗讜谞住 砖谞讬 讝讗讘讬诐 讗讜谞住 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖注转 诪砖诇讞转 讝讗讘讬诐 讗祝 讝讗讘 讗讞讚 讗讜谞住

MISHNA: One wolf that approaches a flock and attacks is not considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control, as the shepherd can drive it away, but an attack by two wolves is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control. Rabbi Yehuda says: At a time of wolf attacks, when many wolves come out of hiding and pounce on animals at every corner, even an attack by one wolf is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control.

砖谞讬 讻诇讘讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜谞住 讬讚讜注 讛讘讘诇讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讗讜谞住 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 讗讜谞住 讛诇住讟讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜谞住 讛讗专讬 讛讚讜讘 讜讛谞诪专 讜讛讘专讚诇住 讜讛谞讞砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讜谞住

An attack by two dogs is not considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control. Yadua the Babylonian says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If the two dogs came and attacked from one direction it is not considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control, but if they attacked from two directions, this is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control, as the shepherd cannot protect his flock from both of them at once. If bandits came, this is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control. Likewise, with regard to an attack by a lion, a bear, a leopard, a cheetah, and a snake, these are each considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control.

讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讗讜 诪讗诇讬讛谉 讗讘诇 讛讜诇讬讻谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讙讚讜讚讬 讞讬讛 讜诇住讟讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜谞住

When is an attack by one of the above considered beyond his control, which means that a paid bailee is exempt? It is when the dangerous beasts or bandits came of their own accord to the usual grazing spot. But if the shepherd led his flock to a place of groups of beasts or bandits, this is not considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control, as he is at fault.

诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜谞住 住讙驻讛 讜诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜谞住 注诇转讛 诇专讗砖讬 爪讜拽讬谉 讜谞驻诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜谞住 讛注诇讛 诇专讗砖讬 爪讜拽讬谉 讜谞驻诇讛 讜诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜谞住

If the animal died in its normal manner, this is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control; if he afflicted it by overworking it or by negligent treatment and it died, this is not considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control. If the animal ascended to the top of a cliff and fell down and died, this is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control. If the shepherd himself brought it up to the top of a cliff and it fell down and died, this is not considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control.

讙诪壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讗讘 讗讞讚 讗讜谞住 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讛讬讗 讘砖注转 诪砖诇讞转 讝讗讘讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that an attack by one wolf is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: That baraita is speaking of a time of wolf attacks, and it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna.

讛诇住讟讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜谞住 讗诪讗讬 诇讜拽讬 讙讘专讗 诇讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉

The mishna teaches that if bandits came, this is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control. The Gemara asks: Why? Let one man stand against another man. The shepherd should defend his flock and fight the bandit, as that is what he was hired to do. Rav said: The mishna is referring to armed bandits, against whom the shepherd cannot reasonably defend the flock.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜专讜注讛 诪讝讜讬讬谉 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽讬 讙讘专讗 诇讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 讚讛讗讬 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讜注讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙谞讘讗 住专讬讗 讘讚讜讻转讗 驻诇谞讬讗 讬转讬讘讬谞谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the case involved an armed bandit and an armed shepherd, what is the halakha? Do we say, let one man stand and fight against another man, or perhaps this bandit is willing to risk his life and that shepherd is not prepared to risk his life? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that this one will risk his life and that one would not risk his life. Consequently, the shepherd is not held responsible if he refuses to fight the bandit. Abaye said to Rava: What is the halakha if the shepherd found a known thief and said to him: You dirty thief! In such and such a place we shepherds sit;

  • 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 93

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 93

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛专讘 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注砖讛 注诪讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讝谞讱 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛专讘 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注砖讛 注诪讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讝谞讱 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

This works out well according to the one who says that a master cannot say to a slave: Work for me and I will not feed you, i.e., he is obligated to provide the slave with a livelihood. For the purposes of the case at hand, this means that the master cannot stipulate that he is relinquishing his slaves鈥 right to eat while performing labor, and therefore it works out well. But according to the one who says that a master can say to a slave: Work for me and I will not feed you, what can be said? He should be able to stipulate to that effect with regard to his minor slave, as he is entitled to all profits that result from the slaves鈥 labor.

讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘砖讗讬谉 诪注诇讛 诇讛谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬讻讜诇 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛专讘 砖讘讬拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜注讘讬讚 讻讘专讬讬转讗

Rather, according to this opinion one must accept a different explanation: Both this mishna and that baraita are referring to a case when he does not provide the slaves with food, and the two tannaitic sources disagree with regard to that very issue. As one Sage, the tanna of the baraita, holds that a master can say to a slave: Work for me and I will not feed you, and one Sage, the tanna of the mishna, holds that he cannot do so. The Gemara is puzzled by this response: If so, Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that a master can say to his slave that he will not feed him, has left aside the mishna and acted and ruled in accordance with the baraita.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖诇 砖诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 讜诇讗 诪爪讬 拽爪讬抓 讜诪讗讬 拽讜爪抓 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 诪讝讜谞讜转

Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous explanation in favor of another: Everyone agrees that a laborer eats from the property of Heaven, and even if a father or master provides his child or slave with food he cannot stipulate that the child or slave should not eat when performing labor, as the father or master has no rights over that which they consume. And what is the meaning of: Stipulates, that Rabbi Hoshaya says in the baraita? That does not mean, as in the mishna, that the master relinquishes the slaves鈥 right to food; rather, he stipulates that they should eat food before they work, so that they will be too full to eat at a later stage.

讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 讘讛诪转讜 转讘谉 谞拽讜抓 诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪砖诇讜 讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 讜诪专 住讘专 诪砖诇 砖诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, in the corresponding situation, with regard to his animal, there should likewise be no discussion at all because he can stipulate in this manner and distribute straw for it before it starts work, as everyone agrees that this is permitted. Rather, the Gemara retracts this interpretation and says that in fact they disagree with regard to this: That one Sage, the tanna of the mishna, holds that a laborer eats from his own property, and one Sage, the tanna of the baraita, holds that a laborer eats from the property of Heaven. This proves that this issue is in fact a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜爪抓 讗讚诐 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 注诇 讬讚讬 讗砖转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讚注转 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 拽讜爪抓 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讘讛诪转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讚注转

MISHNA: A man can stipulate on his own behalf that he receive a certain increase in his wages instead of eating the produce with which he works, and similarly, he can stipulate this on behalf of his adult son or daughter, on behalf of his adult Canaanite slave or Canaanite maidservant, or on behalf of his wife, with their agreement, because they have the basic level of mental competence, i.e., they are legally competent and can therefore waive their rights. But he cannot stipulate this on behalf of his minor son or daughter, nor on behalf of his minor Canaanite slave or Canaanite maidservant, nor on behalf of his animal, as they do not have the basic level of mental competence.

讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇讬诐 诇注砖讜转 讘谞讟注 专讘注讬 砖诇讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诐 诇讗 讛讜讚讬注谉 驻讜讚讛 讜诪讗讻讬诇谉 谞转驻专住讜 注讙讜诇讬讜 谞转驻转讞讜 讞讘讬讜转讬讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讗诐 诇讗 讛讜讚讬注谉 诪注砖专 讜诪讗讻讬诇谉

In the case of one who hires a laborer to perform labor with his fourth-year fruit, such laborers may not eat the fruit. And if he did not inform them beforehand that they were working with fourth-year fruit, he must redeem the fruit and feed them. If his fig cakes broke apart and crumbled, so that they must be preserved again, or if his barrels of wine opened and he hired workers to reseal them, these laborers may not eat, as the work of the figs or wine had already been completed with regard to tithes, from which point a laborer may not eat them. And if he did not inform them, he must tithe the food and feed them.

砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讛诇讻讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

The mishna adds: Watchmen of produce may eat the produce of the field or vineyard by local regulations, i.e., in accordance with the ordinances accepted by the residents of that place, but not by Torah law.

讙诪壮 砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讜诪专讬 讙谞讜转 讜驻专讚住讬谉 讗讘诇 砖讜诪专讬 讙讬转讜转 讜注专讬诪讜转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 拽住讘专 诪砖诪专 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

GEMARA: The mishna mentions watchmen of produce. Rav says: They taught this halakha only with regard to watchmen of gardens and orchards, in which the produce is still attached to the ground, and therefore the watchman would have no legal right to it were it not for the local custom. But watchmen of winepresses and piles of detached produce may eat from them by Torah law, as the decisive factor is whether or not the produce is attached to the ground. Evidently, Rav maintains that one who safeguards is considered like one who performs labor, and therefore he has the status of a laborer.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讜诪专讬 讙讬转讜转 讜注专讬诪讜转 讗讘诇 砖讜诪专讬 讙谞讜转 讜驻专讚住讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪讛诇讻讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 拽讗 住讘专 诪砖诪专 诇讗讜 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

And conversely, Shmuel says that the Sages taught the halakha of the mishna, that they may eat by local regulations, only with regard to watchmen of winepresses and piles of detached produce. But watchmen of gardens and orchards may not eat, neither by Torah law nor by local regulations. This shows that Shmuel holds that one who safeguards is not considered like one who performs labor, and therefore no watchman is entitled to eat by Torah law. In the particular case of detached produce, there is a local custom to allow a watchman of detached produce to eat from it.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诪砖诪专 讗转 讛驻专讛 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖诪专 诇讗讜 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讗诪讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讝讬讝 讘讛 讗讘专

Rav A岣 bar Rav Huna raises an objection to this reasoning from a baraita: One who safeguards the red heifer after it has been burned renders his garments impure, in accordance with halakha concerning all those who take part in the ritual of the red heifer. The Torah decrees that all those who take part in the ritual of the red heifer contract impurity (Numbers, chapter 19). It is therefore necessary to establish which people are considered to have taken part in this ritual. And if you say that one who safeguards is not considered like one who performs labor, why does he render his garments impure? He has not performed any labor. Rabba bar Ulla said: He does not render them impure due to his work as a watchman; rather, this is a rabbinic decree, lest he move a limb of the heifer.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛诪砖诪专 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 诪拽砖讗讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬诪诇讗 讻专住讜 诪讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讗诇讗 诪讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讗讜讻诇 诇驻讬 讞砖讘讜谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖诪专 诇讗讜 讻注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讗诪讗讬 讗讜讻诇

Rav Kahana raises an objection: With regard to one who safeguards four or five cucumber fields, which contain various types of cucumbers and gourds belonging to different people, this one may not fill his stomach from any single one of them. Rather, he must eat from each and every one by a proportionate amount. But if you say that one who safeguards is not considered like one who performs labor, why is he allowed to eat at all?

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讘注拽讜专讬谉 砖谞讜 注拽讜专讬谉 讜讛诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转谉 诇诪注砖专 砖诇讗 谞讬讟诇 驻讬拽住 砖诇讛诐

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: They taught this halakha with regard to uprooted cucumbers, concerning which even Shmuel agrees that a watchman may eat them by local regulations. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Uprooted? But at that stage hasn鈥檛 their work already been completed with regard to tithes, and therefore no laborer should be permitted to eat them? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case when their blossom had not yet been removed. Since the cucumbers still require work, they are not yet subject to tithes.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪住转讘专讗 讚转谞谉 讜讗诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛注讜砖讛 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讘砖注转 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讘转诇讜砖 讻讜壮 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 讗讻讬诇 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讛诇讻讜转 诪讚讬谞讛

Rav Ashi said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as we learned in a mishna (87a): And these laborers may eat by Torah law: A laborer who performs labor with produce attached to the ground at the time of the completion of its work, e.g., harvesting produce; and a laborer who performs labor with produce detached from the ground before the completion of its work. The mishna鈥檚 phrase: By Torah law, proves by inference that with regard to detached produce there is one who does not eat by Torah law but by local regulations.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗诇讜 砖讗讬谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讛诇讻讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪讛诇讻讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 注讜砖讛 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谉 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讜诪专讬 讙谞讜转 讜驻专讚住讜转

The Gemara continues its proof: Now, say the latter clause of that mishna: And these may not eat. What is the meaning of: May not eat? If we say this means that they may not eat by Torah law but by local regulations, this is the same as the first clause. Rather, is it not correct to say that it means they may not eat at all, neither by Torah law nor by local regulations? And who are the people included in this list? They are one who performs labor with produce attached to the ground at a time when it has not reached the completion of its work, and all the more so watchmen of gardens and orchards, who do not perform any significant action.

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬诐 讛谉 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讜讛砖讜讗诇 谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞砖讘注 注诇 讛讻诇 讜讛砖讜讗诇 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛讻诇

MISHNA: There are four types of bailees, to whom different halakhot apply. They are as follows: An unpaid bailee, who receives no compensation for safeguarding the item; and the borrower of an item for his own use; a paid bailee, who is provided with a salary for watching over an item; and a renter, i.e., a bailee who pays a fee for the use of a vessel or animal. If the item was stolen, lost, or broken, or if the animal died in any manner, their halakhot are as follows: An unpaid bailee takes an oath over every outcome; whether the item was lost, stolen, or broken, or if the animal died, the unpaid bailee must take an oath that it happened as he described, and he is then exempt from payment. The borrower does not take an oath, but pays for every outcome, even in a circumstance beyond his control.

讜谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 谞砖讘注讬诐 注诇 讛砖讘讜专讛 讜注诇 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讜注诇 讛诪转讛 讜诪砖诇诪讬谉 讗转 讛讗讘讬讚讛 讜讗转 讛讙谞讬讘讛

And the halakhot of a paid bailee and a renter are the same: They take an oath over an injured animal, over a captured animal, and over a dead animal, attesting that the mishaps were caused by circumstances beyond their control, and they are exempt, but they must pay for loss or theft.

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诪讗谉 转谞讗 砖讜讻专 讻谞讜砖讗 砖讻专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this mishna about four types of bailees? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It is Rabbi Meir. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Is there any Sage who does not accept the halakha concerning four types of bailees? All of the Sages agree that the Torah spoke of these four types of bailees. Rav Na岣an said to him: This is what I am saying to you, i.e., I mean as follows: Who is the tanna who maintains that the halakha of a renter is like that of a paid bailee? It is Rabbi Meir.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 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 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讬驻讻讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 we hear that Rabbi Meir said the opposite, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a renter, whose halakha is not stated in the Torah, how does he pay, i.e., in which cases is he liable to pay? Rabbi Meir says: He pays in the same cases as an unpaid bailee; Rabbi Yehuda says he pays in the same cases as a paid bailee. The Gemara explains: Rabba bar Avuh teaches this baraita in the opposite manner to the version here.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗专讘注讛 砖诇砖讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗专讘注讛 砖讜诪专讬谉 讜讚讬谞讬讛诐 砖诇砖讛

The Gemara asks a question with regard to the accepted number of bailees: If so, that the same halakha applies to a renter and a paid bailee, why does the tanna say that there are four bailees? They are only three. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that the mishna should be understood as follows: There are four types of bailees, whose halakhot are three.

讛讛讜讗 专注讬讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 专注讬 讞讬讜转讗 讗讙讜讚讗 讚谞讛专 驻驻讗 砖专讬讙 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜谞驻诇转 诇诪讬讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讜驻讟专讬讛 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain shepherd who was herding animals on the bank of the Pappa River, when one of them slipped and fell into the water and drowned. He came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Rabba stated the following reasoning in support of his ruling: What could he have done? A drowning of this kind is a circumstance beyond his control, and although a shepherd is a paid bailee he is exempt from liability in circumstances beyond his control.

讛讗 谞讟专 讻讚谞讟专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 注诇 诇诪转讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚注讬讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讙谞讗 驻讜专转讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讙谞讜 讗讬谞砖讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

He safeguarded them in the manner that people safeguard, and he is not required to do anything more. Abaye said to him: If that is so, in a case where he entered the city at a time when other people enter, as shepherds normally do, when their animals are grazing in a quiet and safe place, and a theft occurred at that hour, so too will you say that he is exempt? Rabba said to him: Yes. Abaye raised a further difficulty: If he slept a little at a time when people generally sleep, so too is he exempt? Rabba said to him: Yes.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗诇讜 讛诐 讗讜谞住讬谉 砖砖讜诪专 砖讻专 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛谉 讻讙讜谉 讜转驻诇 砖讘讗 讜转拽讞诐 讜讗转 讛谞注专讬诐 讛讻讜 诇驻讬 讞专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讘讞讝谞讬 诪转讗

Abaye raised an objection to him from a baraita: These are the circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control for which a paid bailee is exempt: For example, as it is stated in the verse: 鈥淭he oxen were plowing, and the donkeys feeding beside them. And the Sabeans made a raid and took them away, and they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword鈥 (Job 1:15). This teaches that only a robbery by an army is considered a circumstance beyond his control, but nothing less. Rabba said to him: There it is referring to city watchmen, i.e., professionals hired to watch over city property, who are exempt due to an occurrence on that scale, i.e., a military incursion.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 注讚 诪转讬 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诪讜专 注讚 讻讚讬 讛讬讬转讬 讘讬讜诐 讗讻诇谞讬 讞专讘 讜拽专讞 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讘讞讝谞讬 诪转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 讬注拽讘 讗讘讬谞讜 讞讝谉 诪转讗 讛讜讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诇讘谉 谞讟专讬 诇讱 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讬转讬专转讗 讻讞讝谞讬 诪转讗

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from another baraita: To what extent is a paid bailee obligated to safeguard? He is obligated to the extent that Jacob said to Laban: 鈥淭hus I was: In the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night鈥 (Genesis 31:40). Rava said to him: There too, the baraita is speaking of city watchmen, whose responsibility extends further. Abaye said to him: Is that to say that Jacob, our forefather, whose statement is the source of this halakha, was a city watchman? Rava replied: It means that Jacob said to Laban: I safeguarded for you an extra level of safeguarding, like that of city watchmen.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讜注讛 砖讛讬讛 专讜注讛 讜讛谞讬讞 注讚专讜 讜讘讗 诇注讬专 讘讗 讝讗讘 讜讟专祝 讜讘讗 讗专讬 讜讚专住 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讛 砖诐 讛讬讛 诪爪讬诇 讗诇讗 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 讞讬讬讘 讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from another baraita: With regard to a shepherd who was herding the animals of others, and he left his flock and came to the town, if in the meantime a wolf came and tore an animal to pieces, or a lion came and trampled one of his flock, we do not say definitively that had he been there he would have rescued them and therefore he is liable due to his absence. Rather, the court estimates with regard to him: If he could have rescued his animal by chasing a beast of this kind away, he is liable, as his departure from the scene was certainly a contributing factor to the damage. If not, he is exempt from liability.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚注诇 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚注讬讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讗 讚注诇 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚诇讗 注讬讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 转讞讬诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 讞讬讬讘

Abaye continues: What, is this baraita not referring to a case when the shepherd enters the town at a time when other people usually enter? If so, it presents a difficulty to the opinion of Rabba. Rabba responds: No, it is speaking of one who enters at a time when other people do not usually enter. Abaye retorts: If so, why is he exempt even if he could not have rescued the animal? This is a mishap that came about initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, and in a case of this kind he is liable due to his negligence.

讚砖诪注 拽诇 讗专讬讛 讜注诇 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇拽讚诐 讘专讜注讬诐 讜讘诪拽诇讜转

Rabba explains: It is referring to one who heard the sound of a lion roaring and entered the city to save himself. In such a case, his actions were not initially negligent, but rather, it was a circumstance beyond his control. Abaye questions this response: If so, what is the relevance of the statement: The court estimates with regard to him? What could he have done to prevent an attack by a lion? Rabba replies: He should have faced the lion with other shepherds and with sticks to chase it away.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇拽讚诐 讘专讜注讬诐 讜讘诪拽诇讜转 讜诇讗 拽讬讚诐 讞讬讬讘 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讘讞谞诐 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讘砖讻专

Abaye asks: If so, why specifically state this halakha with regard to a paid bailee? The same would hold true even for an unpaid bailee, as wasn鈥檛 it you, Master, who said that an unpaid bailee who had the option of facing an animal with other shepherds and with sticks and did not face it in this manner is liable, as he is considered negligent in his duty? Rabba answers: An unpaid bailee is liable only if he could have gathered together other shepherds to help him defend his animals free of charge, whereas a paid bailee is obligated to do so even for payment.

讜注讚 讻诪讛 注讚 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉 讜讛讬讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘砖讜诪专 砖讻专 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 讚讛讚专 砖拽讬诇 讚诪讬讛谉 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The Gemara asks: And up to how much must a paid bailee pay for this extra protection? The Gemara answers: Up to the sum of the value of the animals he is responsible to safeguard. The Gemara further asks: But in that case, it seems that a paid bailee must pay from his own pocket to protect the animals from marauding beasts; where have we found with regard to a paid bailee that he is liable for circumstances beyond his control? Everyone agrees that this loss was caused by circumstances beyond the bailee鈥檚 control, and yet he must bear the expenses indirectly. The Gemara responds: The halakha is that he may return and take the money that he paid for these additional guards from the owner.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讻讜砖专讗 讚讞讬讜转讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讟专讞讗 讬转讬专转讗

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, what benefit does the owner of the animals receive from this? Any potential loss he avoided from the lion must be paid to the extra guards. Abaye replied: The practical difference concerns the fitness of and his familiarity with the animals. Although it makes no difference to him financially, if he had to purchase other animals he would lose those animals that he knows, and he would rather keep his own livestock. Alternatively, it matters with respect to the additional effort involved in the acquisition of new animals.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专讬 诇讛讻讬 讬讛讘讬 诇讱 讗讙专讗 诇谞讟讜专讬 诇讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讬转讬专转讗

As demonstrated in the above discussion, Rabba maintains that even a paid bailee is required to safeguard and take care of the animals only in the normal fashion. By contrast, Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna do not hold in accordance with this opinion of Rabba, as they say that the owner can tell the bailee: It was for this reason that I gave you a wage, so that you should safeguard for me with an additional level of safeguarding, not for you to go and eat and sleep like other people.

讘专 讗讚讗 住讘讜诇讗讛 讛讜讬 拽讗 诪注讘专 讞讬讜转讗 讗讙诪诇讗 讚谞专砖 讚讞驻讛 讞讚讗 诇讞讘专转讛 讜砖讚讬转讛 讘诪讬讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讞讬讬讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬 诇诪注讘讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘注讬 诇讱 诇注讘讜专讬 讞讚讗 讞讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讚注转 讘讬讛 讘讘专 讗讞转讬讱 讚诪爪讬 诇诪注讘专 讞讚讗 讞讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讘专 爪讜讜讞讜 拽诪讗讬 讚拽诪讱 讜诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗砖讙讞 讘讛讜

The Gemara relates: Bar Adda the porter was transporting animals across the narrow bridge of Neresh when one animal pushed another and cast it into the water, and it drowned. The case came before Rav Pappa, who deemed him liable. Bar Adda said to him: What should I have done? Rav Pappa said to him: You should have transported them one by one. The porter said to him: Do you know of the son of your sister who can transport them one by one? In other words, are you aware of anyone who can do such a thing? It is virtually impossible. Rav Pappa said to him: The very earliest scholars before you already shouted and complained about this, but none paid attention to them. Since you are an expert and were hired for this purpose, the responsibility is yours.

讗讬讘讜 讗驻拽讬讚 讻讬转谞讗 讘讬 专讜谞讬讗 讗讝诇 砖讘讜 砖诪讟讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇住讜祝 讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞讬讬讘讬讛 诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉

The Gemara relates another incident: Aivu deposited flax with a bailee in the house of Ronya. A robber called Shabbu went and forcibly snatched the flax from him. Eventually the thief was identified and caught. The matter came before Rav Na岣an, who rendered the bailee liable. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav Na岣an disagrees with the opinion of Rav Huna bar Avin?

讚砖诇讞 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 谞讙谞讘讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讜讻专 讛讙谞讘 讗诐 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讛讜讗 专爪讛 谞砖讘注 专爪讛 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 讗诐 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 注诪讜 讚讬谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞砖讘注

The Gemara explains: As Rav Huna bar Avin sent this ruling: In a case where an animal was stolen in a circumstance beyond his control, and the thief was subsequently identified and captured, if the bailee is an unpaid bailee, the following distinction applies: If he wishes, he takes an oath that he did not misappropriate the animal before it was stolen, and the owners must claim its value from the thief; if he wishes, he enters into judgment with the thief, by claiming the money directly from him. If he is a paid bailee, he enters into judgment with the thief and does not take an oath. Since the ruling of Rav Na岣an was in the case of an unpaid bailee, why did he have to deal with the thief?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讬 讚驻专诪讜住拽讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讚讗讬 专诪讗 拽诇讗 讛讜讜 讗转讜 讜诪爪诇讬谉 诇讬讛

Rava said: The cases are not the same, as there, in the ruling of Rav Na岣an, men from the government were standing there, which means that if he had raised his voice they would have come and rescued him. Since it was his own negligence that caused the robbery, he must find a way to collect the money from the robber.

诪转谞讬壮 讝讗讘 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 讗讜谞住 砖谞讬 讝讗讘讬诐 讗讜谞住 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖注转 诪砖诇讞转 讝讗讘讬诐 讗祝 讝讗讘 讗讞讚 讗讜谞住

MISHNA: One wolf that approaches a flock and attacks is not considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control, as the shepherd can drive it away, but an attack by two wolves is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control. Rabbi Yehuda says: At a time of wolf attacks, when many wolves come out of hiding and pounce on animals at every corner, even an attack by one wolf is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control.

砖谞讬 讻诇讘讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜谞住 讬讚讜注 讛讘讘诇讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讗讜谞住 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 讗讜谞住 讛诇住讟讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜谞住 讛讗专讬 讛讚讜讘 讜讛谞诪专 讜讛讘专讚诇住 讜讛谞讞砖 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讜谞住

An attack by two dogs is not considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control. Yadua the Babylonian says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If the two dogs came and attacked from one direction it is not considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control, but if they attacked from two directions, this is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control, as the shepherd cannot protect his flock from both of them at once. If bandits came, this is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control. Likewise, with regard to an attack by a lion, a bear, a leopard, a cheetah, and a snake, these are each considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control.

讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讗讜 诪讗诇讬讛谉 讗讘诇 讛讜诇讬讻谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讙讚讜讚讬 讞讬讛 讜诇住讟讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜谞住

When is an attack by one of the above considered beyond his control, which means that a paid bailee is exempt? It is when the dangerous beasts or bandits came of their own accord to the usual grazing spot. But if the shepherd led his flock to a place of groups of beasts or bandits, this is not considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control, as he is at fault.

诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜谞住 住讙驻讛 讜诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜谞住 注诇转讛 诇专讗砖讬 爪讜拽讬谉 讜谞驻诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜谞住 讛注诇讛 诇专讗砖讬 爪讜拽讬谉 讜谞驻诇讛 讜诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜谞住

If the animal died in its normal manner, this is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control; if he afflicted it by overworking it or by negligent treatment and it died, this is not considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control. If the animal ascended to the top of a cliff and fell down and died, this is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control. If the shepherd himself brought it up to the top of a cliff and it fell down and died, this is not considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control.

讙诪壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讗讘 讗讞讚 讗讜谞住 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讛讬讗 讘砖注转 诪砖诇讞转 讝讗讘讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that an attack by one wolf is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: That baraita is speaking of a time of wolf attacks, and it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna.

讛诇住讟讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜谞住 讗诪讗讬 诇讜拽讬 讙讘专讗 诇讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉

The mishna teaches that if bandits came, this is considered a circumstance beyond one鈥檚 control. The Gemara asks: Why? Let one man stand against another man. The shepherd should defend his flock and fight the bandit, as that is what he was hired to do. Rav said: The mishna is referring to armed bandits, against whom the shepherd cannot reasonably defend the flock.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜专讜注讛 诪讝讜讬讬谉 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽讬 讙讘专讗 诇讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 讚讛讗讬 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讜注讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙谞讘讗 住专讬讗 讘讚讜讻转讗 驻诇谞讬讗 讬转讬讘讬谞谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the case involved an armed bandit and an armed shepherd, what is the halakha? Do we say, let one man stand and fight against another man, or perhaps this bandit is willing to risk his life and that shepherd is not prepared to risk his life? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that this one will risk his life and that one would not risk his life. Consequently, the shepherd is not held responsible if he refuses to fight the bandit. Abaye said to Rava: What is the halakha if the shepherd found a known thief and said to him: You dirty thief! In such and such a place we shepherds sit;

Scroll To Top