Previous daf

1)

(a) If someone sells a big field because he cannot find purchasers for the small field that he was trying to sell, if he subsequently pesters the purchaser for the money - we take it for granted that he wants the money in order to buy a small field in place of the half that he was forced to sell against his will. Consequently, the sale is not valid until the purchaser has paid the last penny.

(b) The Safek we have in a similar case, but where we assess that he could have sold the small field had he exerted himself is - does the fact that he did not bother to exert himself to save the big field mean that he does not really care for it, and maybe the sale is valid (like someone who a field that is in bad shape) or not.

(c) The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku' ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Iba'ayos').

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that, in a case of Davar ha'Avud, if the workers retracted, 'Socher Aleihen ... '. Rav Nachman permits the employer to hire new workers on their account - up to however much they were already owed when they retracted (which he may now add on to however much the remaining work would have cost him).

(b) When Rava queried Rav Nachman from the Beraisa that we cited above, which permits him to pay as much as forty or fifty Zuz, he reconciled his statement with the Beraisa - by establishing that Beraisa when the workers had left goods to that value with him for safekeeping (as was customary in those days). These he may now retain to pay towards the hire of fresh workers.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that someone who hires a donkey to take to the mountains, and in violation of the agreement, he takes it to the valley, or vice-versa, and it dies - is liable to pay, even if both distances are ten Mil.

(b) The Tana then seems to repeat the same cases, making a distinction between whether the donkey died from overheating or because it slipped. If he changed and took it ...

1. ... to the mountains - then, if it died from overheating, he is Patur (because it would certainly have overheated had he taken it to the valley, which is hot because it is surrounded by mountains); whereas if it slipped, fell and died, he is liable, because that would not have happened in the valley.
2. ... to the valley - then the opposite is true, and he will be liable if the animal died from overheating, but Patur if it slipped, fell and died.

(c) He will be Chayav for taking the animal into the mountains however, even if it died because of the heat - if the heat was the result of the climb.

(d) The Tana states that if someone hires a donkey and ...

1. ... 'Hivrikah (which will be explained later) O Na'asis Angaryah' (which mean that it was taken by the king's men to do work for the king - the owner can say 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'.
2. ... and it dies - he is obligated to sell the carcass and use the proceeds to hire a new animal for the hirer, and even to add money from his own pocket if necessary (see Rashash). Failing that, he must return his money.

(a) In view of the Seifa of our Mishnah, which distinguishes between whether the donkey died from overheating or from slipping, de'Bei Rebbi Yanai explains the Reisha of our Mishnah, which obligates the hirer who violated his agreement and took the donkey into the mountains or into the valley S'tam, when the animal died because of the air of either place, to which it was not accustomed. Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina attributes it to 'Uvtzena' - which means fatigue (i.e. in the mountains, the climb caused it to subsequently become fatigued, and in the valley, it was the lack of the fresh mountain air to which it was used, that caused it).

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Reisha and the Seifa constitute a Machlokes Tana'im. The author of the Reisha, which does not differentiate between overheating and slipping, is Rebbi Meir, who holds - that whoever deviates from the instructions of the owner, is called a Gazlan (and is therefore liable, even for Onsin).

(c) Rabah gives a fourth answer to the Kashya, establishing both the Reisha and the Seifa - when the donkey died from a snakebite.

5) We just cited Rebbi Yochanan, who establishes the author of the Reisha of the Beraisa as Rebbi Meir, who holds that someone who deviates from the instructions of the owner, is called a Gazlan (and is therefore liable, even for Onsin). This might not refer to the Mishnah in Bava Kama, where Rebbi Meir says that if a dyer dyes red the wool that he was given to dye black or vice-versa, he must pay for the wool - because perhaps the reason there is (not because he is considered a Gazlan, but) because the dyer acquired the wool with Shinuy Ma'aseh, a reason that is not applicable in our Mishnah.

6)

(a) "When the Tana of the Beraisa says ...

1. ... 'Mageves Purim le'Purim', he means - that money that is collected specifically for the Se'udas Purim for poor people, may only be used for that purpose.
2. ... 've'Ein Medakdekin be'Davar' - that we do not limit their meals to what they regularly eat, but buy calves in abundance and serve it to them.

(b) And he says - the same about money that is collected for the poor of a specific town.

(c) Any excess Purim money or food that is left, he adds - goes to Tzedakah.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer forbids the money for Purim to be used even to purchase a shoelace for a poor man - unless one makes a condition to that effect in the presence of the townspeople who donated it.

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - is lenient (though it is not clear to what extent).

(b) It is Rebbi Ya'akov in the name of Rebbi Meir who quoted Rebbi Eliezer. We suggest - that this is where Rebbi Meir holds that whoever deviates from the instructions of the owner, is called a Gazlan.

(c) But we refute this proof too - on the grounds that the reason there is only because the people gave the money specifically for that purpose, a S'vara that would also not apply to our Mishnah.

(a) We finally cite Rebbi Meir in another Beraisa, whom Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar quoted as saying - that someone who donates a Dinar to a poor man stipulating that he buys himself a shirt may not use the money to buy a cloak or vice-versa.

(b) Rebbi Meir's reason cannot be to avoid suspicion falling on the donor that he promised but failed to keep his word - because the Tana should then have said so (and not 'Mipnei she'Ma'avir al Da'as Ba'l ha'Bayis').

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'ha'Socher es ha'Chamor ve'Hivrikah, Omer Lo Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'. According to some, 've'Hivrikah' means that the animal lost its sight. Rava translates it as - worms in the feet.

(b) They asked that man who claimed that he saw moths in the king's wardrobe - whether he saw them among the 'silver' garments or the 'golden' ones.

(c) Some quote him as having replied that he saw them in the silver garments, and others, in the golden ones. 'Silver' and 'gold' in this context means garments of linen and garments of wool dyed red, respectively.

(d) According to those who quote him as having said in the silver garments, they put him to death - because he lied, since moths do not eat linen garments.

(a) Rav qualifies our Mishnah ''O she'Na'asis Angarya, Omer Lo Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha', restricting it to an Angarya Chozeres, which means that the donkey was only seized temporarily, and that it will be returned shortly (see Tosfos DH 'be'Angarya').

(b) In the case of an Angarya she'Einah Chozeres (which is permanent) - the owner is obligated to supply the hirer with a new donkey, because it is no different than if the first donkey had died.

(c) Shmuel makes no distinction between 'Angarya Chozeres' and 'Angarya she'Einah Chozeres' - but he does draw a distinction between 'be'Derech Halichasah' (where the king's men are taking the same route as the hirer), and 'La'av be'Derech Halichasah' (where they are not).

(d) By the former, where the king's men tend to constantly switch animals, taking someone else's and returning the previous one to its owner, the owner can say to the hirer that seeing as his (the hirer's) Mazel caused the animal to be taken no less than his own, he should hire a fresh animal and continue along the way until the king's men find another animal and return his (see Tosfos DH 'Im').

(a) In a case of 'ha'Socher es ha'Chamor ...

1. ... ve'Hivrikah O she'Nishtatsah', the Tana rules - 'Omer Lo Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'.
2. ... Meisah O she'Na'asis Angarya' - 'Chayav Le'ha'amid Lo Chamor Acher'.

(b) This Beraisa presents a problem - on Shmuel, who does not differentiate between an Angarya Chozeres and an Angarya she'Einah Chozeres'. How will he then explain the discrepancy between this Beraisa and our Mishnah?

(c) We cannot simply establish the Beraisa when they took the donkey along the same route that he was taking - because Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the Seifa makes this distinction, indicating that the Tana Kama does not agree with it.

(d) Initially, Shmuel reconciles his opinion with the Beraisa - by establishing himself like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.

(a) Alternatively, he establishes the entire Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (with whom nobody argues).

(b) The Beraisa 'Meisah O she'Na'asis Angarya Chayav Le'ha'amid Lo Chamor Acher' continues - ba'Meh Devarim Amurim, she'Lo be'Derech Halichasah, Aval be'Derech Halichasah Omer Lo Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha, Divrei Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, she'Hayah Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar Omer ... '.

(a) The problem with establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar is - that in another Beraisa, he says 'ha'Socher es ha'Chamor Li'rekov Alav, ve'Hivrikah O she'Nishtatsah, Chayav Le'ha'amid Lo Acher', whilst the Reisha of our Beraisa rules 'Omer Lo Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'?

(b) Rabah bar Rav Huna resolves this problem - by confining the ruling of the latter Beraisa to when the hirer hired the donkey specifically to ride on (as indeed the Tana stipulates), which is not feasible on a blind or crazy donkey, whereas the former Beraisa speaks a donkey that was hired for transportation.

(c) Transporting glass vessels, says Rav Papa - has the same Din as riding in this regard.