Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah states that if someone hires a cow and the plow breaks, assuming that he hired it to ...

1. ... plow in the mountains but plowed in the valley - he is Patur.
2. ... plow in the valley but plowed in the mountains - he is Chayav (since the rocky terrain makes it far more difficult to plow there).

(b) The Tana rules that, in a case where the cow that he hired to thresh, slipped, assuming that he hired it to ...

1. ... thresh corn but threshed legumes - he is Chayav, because legumes are slippery, and therefore more likely to cause the plow to break.
2. ... thresh legumes but threshed corn - he is Patur.

(a) Two men - normally employed by the owner, are needed to control the cow and the plow in the process of plowing, one to lead the ox-goad, the other to control the plow-share.

(b) According to Rav Papa, it is the man leading the ox-goad who has to pay in the event that the plow-share broke in the course of plowing. Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi - obligates the man who controls the plow-share.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether the former is responsible the plow-share breaking, for leading the cow off-course, or the latter, for pushing the plow-share too deep into the ground.

(d) We rule like Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi - because we assume that if the latter had not pushed the plow-share too deeply into the ground, it would not have broken in spite of the former having gone off-course.

(e) The one leading the ox-goad will nevertheless be Chayav to pay half - if they were both aware of the fact that the terrain was rocky, in which case it remains a Safek as to which of the two caused the damage.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan rules that if Reuven tells Shimon that the cow that he is selling him ...

1. ... bites, kicks and crouches, when one of these is true - then it is a false sale, because the purchaser can claim that, seeing as the animal did not possess the other defects, he assumed that it did not possess the one that it really did, either.
2. ... bites (which it does) and has other defects - the sale is valid, because since the seller specifically mentioned the one real fault, the purchaser should have examined it for that one defect.

(b) We cite a Beraisa in this regard - which says about someone who sells a Shifchah in one of the two ways discussed by Rebbi Yochanan - exactly what Rebbi Yochanan said in those there.

(c) Rav Mordechai asked Rav Ashi what the Din will be - if Reuven listed a number of defects which the animal did possess, and the buyer claims that he thought that his description, including that particular defect, had been partially exaggerated.

(d) And he answered him - that the sale is valid.

(a) Our Mishnah renders someone who hired a donkey to transport wheat, and he changed to barley liable, should the animal subsequently die - and the same applies to someone who hired a donkey to transport corn, and he change to straw.

(b) The reason for this ruling is (not because barley is intrinsically more difficult to transport than wheat but) - because, since barley is lighter than wheat (and straw than corn) the hirer loaded the donkey with more than a Lesech (half a Kur) of barley.

(c) In order to be Chayav, he needs to add - three Kabin (at ninety Kabin per Lesech [even though this still weighs less than a Lesech of wheat).

(d) We explained the Mishnah like Abaye. According to Rava, who amends the Mishnah to read 'Mipnei she'ha'Nafach Kashah le'Masuy (instead of 'ke'Mas'uy', like Abaye) - he is not Chayav unless the three Kabin are added after the barley weighs at least as much as the wheat.

(a) According to Rava, when our Mishnah states 'Le'havi Lesech Chitin, ve'Heivi Lesech Se'orin, Patur. ve'Im Hosif al Masa'o Chayav' - the Tana means that he added a Sa'ah.

(b) In light of this, he will explain the final statement of our Mishnah, which, quoting Sumchus Mishum Rebbi Meir, obligates a hirer for adding three Kabin on to the load of a donkey, to mean - that he added three Kabin of *wheat* to the maximum eight load of a Lesech (not of barley).

(c) The equivalent Shiur for overloading a camel (which can carry a Kur) is - a Sa'ah.

(a) The Tana of a Beraisa writes 'Le'havi Lesech Chitin, ve'Heivi Sheish-Esrei Se'orim', Chayav'. 'Sheish-Esrei' is - sixteen Sa'ah (meaning that hirer added an extra Sa'ah).

(b) The Kashya on Abaye is - from the inference, that for adding only three Kabin of barley one is Patur.

(c) Abaye answers this Kashya by establishing the Beraisa by Mechikta - which means 'squashed together', and one Sa'ah of squashed produce is equivalent to three Kabin when it is loose.

(d) We reject the suggestion that it means a Lesech of wormy barley, on the grounds - that seeing as it is a Lesech, what difference does the fact that it is wormy (and therefore lighter) make? Why should this be any better than every case of barley, which weighs less, yet he is Chayav by adding three Kabin, because the volume is the same?

7)

(a) When the Tana of the Beraisa states ...

1. ... 'Kav le'Katef', he means - that someone who places a Kav more than the thirty Kav limit on to someone's back, is liable for subsequent damages.
2. ... 'Adriv la'Arivah' - that one Lesech (the equivalent of Adriv) is considered excess loading for a small boat, which holds fifteen Kur.
3. ... 'Kur li'Sefinah' - that one Kur is considered an excessive load for a medium-size boat, which holds thirty Kur. We can also learn from here that if somebody purchasers a medium-size boat, he is entitled to one that holds thirty Kur.
4. ... 'Sheloshes Kurim le'Burni Gedolah - that three Kur is excessive for a barge, which holds ninety Kur.

(b) If a load is too much for a person to carry, he has the option of putting it down. To explain why someone is Chayav for damages if he places too heavy a load on someone's back, Abaye establishes the Beraisa 'be'she'Chovto le'Alter' - which means that he dumped the entire load on to the man's back in one go, without giving him a chance to discover that he was being overloaded.

(c) When Rava explains 'le'Agra Yeseira' he means - that it is not necessary to establish the Beraisa like Abaye, since the Tana is not speaking about damages, but about the extra remuneration that a person will receive for carrying more than a regular load.

(d) Rav Ashi disagrees with Abaye on principle. Even assuming that he placed the load on the person's back bit by bit - he explains that the person being loaded may did not throw the load down, because he thought that the load felt rather heavy due to a fainting fit (which would pass in a moment), and not because it was too heavy for him to carry.

(a) The ramifications of our Mishnah, which states that all Umnin are Shomrei Sachar - is that a Kablan is Chayav for Geneivah va'Aveidah on the article that he is manufacturing for the commissioner.

(b) The Tana rules that ...

1. ... "Sh'mor Li ve'Eshmor Lach" is - a Shomer Sachar.
2. ... "Sh'mor Li, ve'Amar Lei Hanach Lefanai" is - a Shomer Chinam.

(c) According to the Tana Kama, a Shomer Mashkon is a Shomer Sachar - because he is performing a Mitzvah (as will be explained later).

(d) The basis for Rebbi Yehudah's distinction between a loan of money and a loan of fruit is - the fact that on the one hand, he doesn't hold of S'char Mitzvah, and on the other, the Shomer is benefiting from having lent out his fruit, which would otherwise have gone bad.

(e) Aba Shaul - permits a creditor to rent out the Mashkon he received from the poor debtor, provided he deducts the proceeds from the loan, because this is similar to the Mitzvah of returning a lost article (since in both cases, he is sparing the owner from a loss).

(a) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa gives a hirer the same Din as a Shomer Chinam (because the benefit he gains [out of using the article] is canceled by the fact that he pays for its use). Rebbi Yehudah nevertheless considers him a Shomer Sachar - since the fact that he is willing to pay for its use indicates that his benefit outweighs the payment.

(b) This leads us to believe that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Meir - because, according to Rebbi Meir, an Uman (who pays for the benefit with the article) ought not to be a Shomer Sachar.

(c) We refute the answer that Rebbi Meir will agree in our Mishnah that he is a Shomer Sachar, due to ...

1. ... the benefit the Uman receives from the fact that the commissioner commissioned him and not someone else - because by the same token, a Socher ought to be a Shomer Sachar on the grounds that the owner rented out the article to him and not to someone else.
2. ... the little extra that he inevitably pays the Kablan - because by the same token, at least a Socher who obtains a reduction ought to be a Shomer Sachar (and Rebbi Meir does not make any such distinction).

(a) We conclude that an Uman is a Shomer Sachar - because of the benefit that he derives from holding the article as a security for his money.

(b) Alternatively, we establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Meir by amending the Beraisa like Rabah bar Avuhah - who switches the opinions of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah. Consequently, Rebbi Meir considers a Socher a Shomer Sachar, and the Kashya no longer exists.

(a) We learned in a Mishnah in ha'Sho'el 'Amar Lo ha'Sho'el Sh'lach ve'Shalchah u'Meisah, Chayav'. If the owner were to send the animal to the Sho'el after they reached an agreement, but before the Sho'el asked him to send it, and the animal died on the way - the Sho'el would be Patur.

(b) When the Tana continues 've'Chein be'Sha'ah she'Machzirah', he means - that if the Sho'el sent the animal back to the owner without the owner having asked for it, and it died on the way, he remains Chayav.

(c) Rafram bar Papa Amar Rav Chisda qualifies this ruling - by confining it to before the termination of the days of She'eilah, but one's the She'eilah has terminated, the Sho'el is Patur.