Bava Metzia 78a (עח.) — the Talmud in English

He said to him: Interpret your teaching

as referring specifically to a buyer

who sells his field

because of its poor quality,

and the circumstances prove that he wants to sell it even if he does not receive the money immediately, since he did not sell it because he was pressed for funds.

The Gemara now discusses in which cases his actions prove that he is indeed pressed for money, and in which cases he agrees to sell it even though he was not given the money immediately.

It is obvious:

if he

wanted to sell

a small field valued at

one hundred

zuz,

but did not find

a buyer for his field,

and sold

a large field valued at

two hundred

zuz, and the buyer gave him one hundred and remained liable to him for another one hundred,

and he keeps coming and going over the money,

then certainly

the sale is not acquired.

For he sold this field against his will, because he did not find a buyer for the smaller field, and he can say that he wants his money in order to purchase at least another small field in its place.

Rather, if he wanted to sell

a field valued at

one hundred

zuz,

but did not find

a buyer for his field,

and had he made the effort he would have found one, but he did not make the effort, and he sold

a large field valued at

two hundred, and he keeps coming

the seller

and going over the money, what is the law?

Is he

considered like one who sells his field because of its poor quality,

since we assess his intention as follows: Had he wanted to retain this field, he would have made the effort and found a buyer for his smaller field. And since he did not make the effort, he evidently wants to sell it even though he did not need the money,

or not?

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one hires a donkey driver or a potter, and so forth, he may hire replacements at their expense or deceive them:

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

Up to what amount may he hire replacements at their expense,

and they are required to pay their wages?

Rav Naḥman said: Up to the amount of their wages

that he initially agreed upon with them.

The Gemara challenges this:

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from what we learned: He may hire replacements at their expense

up to forty or fifty zuz,

which is a much larger sum than their wages.

He said to him: When that was taught,

that he may hire replacements at their expense up to forty or fifty zuz,

it was in a case where the bundle came

their work equipment

into his possession,

and he may collect from it the wages of the last workers, up to forty or fifty zuz.

MISHNA:

The first part of our Mishna deals with one who hires an animal and violates the terms of his rental:

One who hires

from another

a donkey,

if he hired it on the condition

that he lead it over a mountain,

meaning along the top of the mountain, and he deviated from the terms of the rental

and led it through a valley,

which is a low place surrounded by mountains, or conversely, if he hired it on the condition that he lead it

through a valley but led it over a mountain, even

if

this

road through the mountain is

ten mil, and that

road through the valley is

ten mil,

and even if the road along the top of the mountain is smooth and straight like the road through the valley,

and it died,

the donkey

, he is liable.

The renter must pay the owner the value of the damage caused to the donkey.

And the Mishna continues:

One who hires a donkey

on the condition

that he lead it over a mountain,

and he deviated from the terms of the rental

and led it through a valley,

then

if

the donkey

slipped

and was injured, the renter

is exempt

from paying for the damage, because he was not negligent in guarding it. The reason is that had he led it over the mountain, the likelihood that the animal would slip would have been greater, since the mountain is steep and sloped on its sides.

And if

the animal

became overheated,

and was injured due to the heat and suffocation, the renter is considered negligent in guarding the donkey, because it is possible that had he led it over the mountain, it would not have become overheated, as the mountain air is cooler than the valley air, and therefore he

is liable

to pay for the damage.

And if he hired the donkey on the condition

that he lead it through a valley,

and he deviated from the terms of the rental

and led it over a mountain,

then, conversely,

if it slipped, he is liable.

Because he was negligent in guarding it, since the likelihood of slipping on a mountain, which is steep and sloped, is greater than in a valley.

And if it became overheated, he is exempt.

For had he led it through a valley, the possibility that the animal would become overheated would have been greater, and therefore he is not considered negligent in guarding it.

Rather,

if

the donkey became overheated

because of the ascent,

that is, because of the difficulty of ascending to the top of the mountain,

he is liable,

because leading the donkey up the mountain caused it to become overheated.

The next part of the Mishna deals with a donkey that was damaged during the rental period, and with when the owner is required to provide the renter with another donkey:

One who hires a donkey

for a specified period

, and it became blind

—it lost its sight—

or it was taken for forced labor,

that is, it was taken for the king’s service, and the renter demands that the owner provide him with another donkey in its place for the time remaining until the end of the rental period,

he says to him

the owner to the renter:

Here is yours before you!

Take the donkey [which is still fit for work] as it is, because just as my bad fortune caused me to suffer a loss, so too your bad fortune caused you to suffer a loss, and I am not obligated to provide you with another donkey.

But if the donkey

died or broke

its leg, and is no longer fit for any work whatsoever, with the result that the renter loses the entire rental fee,

the owner is liable

the owner

to provide

him

with a donkey,

that is, to sell the donkey’s hide and carcass [to feed to dogs], add money, and purchase a donkey for the renter, or rent one for him for the time remaining until the end of the rental period.

GEMARA:

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

What is different in the first clause, which does not distinguish

between the cases, whether the donkey slipped or became overheated [on the mountain or in the valley],

and what is different in the latter clause,

the end of the Mishna,

which does distinguish

between whether it slipped and whether it became overheated?

That is, the beginning of the Mishna indicates that there is no distinction between whether it slipped or became overheated, implying that in both cases the renter is liable. Yet the continuation of the Mishna establishes distinctions in this matter. One must understand what the difference between them is.

The Gemara offers four explanations of the first clause of the Mishna.

The first explanation:

The school of Rabbi Yannai said: The first clause

deals with an animal that neither slipped nor became overheated, but rather the owner can claim and say

that it died

the animal

because of

its having remained in

air

to which it was unaccustomed. Therefore, if he hired the animal on the condition that he lead it through a valley, but he led it over a mountain and it died, he is liable.

For we say: The mountain air killed it!

We say that the mountain air caused its death, and it follows that he was negligent in guarding it.

Similarly, if he hired the animal on the condition that he lead it over a mountain, but he led it through a valley and it died, he is liable. Since

we say: The valley air killed it,

the valley air is what caused its death, and it follows that he was negligent in guarding it. Therefore, the renter is liable in both cases in the first clause of our Mishna.

The Gemara offers another explanation:

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said:

The case discussed in the first clause of the Mishna is

one in which the animal died

the animal

because of exhaustion,

the fatigue and exertion caused by carrying the load.

According to this explanation as well, the animal neither slipped nor became overheated, but died because it exerted itself beyond its strength. Therefore, if he hired it on the condition that he lead it through a valley, but deviated and led it over a mountain, the owner can claim that it died because of the deviation, since it exerted itself climbing to the top of the mountain, and no longer had sufficient strength for carrying work; this caused its death.

And if he hired it on the condition that he lead it over a mountain, but deviated and led it through a valley, the owner can claim that it died because of the deviation: Since there was insufficient air in the valley, it did not have the strength for carrying work [even though it did not become overheated, because had it been on the mountain, the air there would have invigorated it]. And since it died as a result of the renter’s negligence [his deviation], he must be held liable in both cases in the first clause of our Mishna.

The third explanation:

Rabba said:

The case discussed at the beginning of the Mishna is

one in which a snake bit it

and it died. [According to this explanation as well, the animal neither slipped nor became overheated.]

According to Rabba, the owner’s claim is as follows: Had the renter not deviated, and had he led it only in the place agreed upon between them, the animal would not have been bitten. Since he deviated and led it to another place [where there was a snake], it was bitten and died. Therefore, the renter must be held liable in both cases in the first clause of our Mishna.

The final explanation:

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: Who is the author of this?

[The first clause of the Mishna] In whose view is it stated? It is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Meir, who says: