Bava Metzia 78a — the Talmud in English

He said to him: Translate your teaching

that it acquires, specifically

when he sells his field ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

because of its defect,

and the matter proves that he desires to sell it even if he will not receive his money immediately, for he did not sell it because he was pressed for money.

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

It is obvious:

if

he wishes to sell

a small field valued

at one hundred

zuz,

and he did not find

a buyer for his field,

and he sells

a large field valued

at two hundred

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

and he keeps coming and going over the money,

certainly

he does not acquire.

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 wishes to sell

a field valued

at one hundred

zuz,

and he did not find

a buyer for his field,

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

a large field valued

at two hundred, and he comes

the seller

and goes over the money, what

is he

comparable to one who sells his field because of its defect,

because we assess his intention that if he desired to retain this field in his possession, he would make the effort and find a buyer for his smaller field. And if he did not make the effort, certainly he desires to sell it even though he was not in need of the money

or not?

And we conclude:

teyku.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one hired the donkey-driver or the potter, etc., he hires others in their place or deceives them:

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Up to how much money does he hire others in their place,

and they must pay their wages?

Rav Naḥman said: Up to the amount of their wages

that he stipulated with them at the outset.

And the Gemara objects:

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from what we learned: he hires others in their place

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 hires others in their place up to forty or fifty zuz,

it was in a case where the bundle came

their tools

into his possession,

and from it he is permitted to collect 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 his fellow

the donkey,

if he hired it on the condition

of leading it in the mountain,

that is, at the top of the mountain, and he changed the terms of the rental,

and led it in the valley,

which is a low place surrounded by mountains, or conversely, he hired it on the condition of leading it

in the valley and led it in the mountain, even

if

this

[the mountain road] is ten miles long, and

that

[the valley road] is ten miles long,

ten miles,

and even if the road at the top of the mountain is smooth and straight like the one in the valley,

and it died,

the donkey

, he is liable

the hirer to pay the lessor the value of the damage caused to the donkey.

And the Mishna continues:

One who hires the donkey

on the condition

of leading it in the mountain,

and he changed the terms of the rental,

and led it in the valley,

then

if

the donkey

slipped

and was damaged, the hirer

is exempt

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

And if

the animal

became overheated,

it was damaged because of the heat and the heavy air, the hirer is considered negligent in guarding the donkey, because it is possible that if he had led it in the mountain it would not have become overheated, for the mountain air is colder than the valley air, and therefore he

is liable

to pay for the damage.

And if he hired the donkey on the condition

of leading it in the valley,

and he changed the terms of the rental,

and led it in the mountain,

then conversely,

if it slipped, he is liable.

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

And if it became overheated, he is exempt.

For if he had led it in the 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,

the hirer, because leading the donkey into the mountain caused the donkey to become overheated.

The next part of the Mishna deals with a donkey that was damaged during the rental period, and when the lessor must provide the hirer with another donkey:

One who hires the donkey

for a specified period

, and it became blind

—it lost its sight,

or it became subject to forced labor,

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

he says to him

the lessor to the hirer:

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 it is no longer fit for any work at all, so that the hirer loses the entire rental fee,

the lessor 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 hirer, or hire a donkey for him, for the period remaining until the end of the rental period.

Gemara:

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

What is different in the first part, that it does not distinguish,

that it does not distinguish between the cases, whether the donkey slipped or became overheated [in the mountain or in the valley],

and what is different in the latter part,

the end of the Mishna,

that it distinguishes

—that it distinguishes between whether it slipped and whether it became overheated.

That is, from the beginning of the Mishna’s words it appears that there is no distinction between whether it slipped or became overheated, and it implies that in both cases the hirer is liable. Whereas later in the Mishna it is explained that there are distinctions in the matter. And one must understand what the difference between them is.

And the Gemara brings four explanations of the words of the first part of the Mishna.

The first explanation:

The school of Rabbi Yannai said: The first part

deals with an animal that did not slip and did not become overheated, but the lessor can claim and say

that it died

the animal

because of

its having remained in

air

to which it was unaccustomed. And therefore, if he hired the animal on the condition of leading it in the valley, and led it in the 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.

And likewise, if he hired the animal on the condition of leading it in the mountain, and led it in the 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 hirer is liable in both cases at the beginning of our Mishna.

And the Gemara brings another explanation:

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said:

The case with which the first part of the Mishna deals is

for example, where it died

the animal

because of exhaustion,

the fatigue and exertion from carrying the load.

And according to this explanation as well, the animal did not slip and did not become overheated, but died because it exerted itself beyond its strength. Therefore, if he hired it on the condition of leading it in the valley, and changed this and led it in the mountain, the lessor can claim that it died because of the change, since it exerted itself to ascend to the top of the mountain, and no longer had sufficient strength for carrying work, and this caused its death.

And if he hired it on the condition of leading it in the mountain, and changed this and led it in the valley, the lessor can claim that it died because of the change, since there was insufficient air in the valley, and it did not have the strength for carrying work [even though it did not become overheated, for had it been in the mountain, the air there would have given it strength]. And since it died because of the hirer’s negligence [that he changed the condition], he must be held liable in both cases at the beginning of our Mishna.

The third explanation:

Rabba said:

The case with which we are dealing at the beginning of the Mishna is

for example, where a snake bit it,

and it died. [According to this explanation as well, the animal did not slip and did not become overheated.]

According to Rabba, the lessor’s claim is as follows: if the hirer had not changed the arrangement, and had led it only in the place agreed upon between them, the animal would not have been bitten. And because he changed the arrangement and led it to another place [where there was a snake], it was bitten and died. Therefore, the hirer must be held liable in both cases at the beginning of our Mishna.

The final explanation:

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: Whose view is this?

[The first part of the Mishna] according to whose method is it stated? It is according to the method of

Rabbi Meir, who says: