Bava Metzia 79b — the Talmud in English

Let him say to him

the lessor to the lessee:

Give me that wine

that you wanted to transport in my ship

, and I shall bring another ship

instead.

For he did not rent from him specifically this ship. And since he does not bring his wine, he shall pay.

And it should be added: what he said to him, “with this wine,” is not merely a narrative, but rather he rented the ship from him specifically for the purpose of this action. Therefore, he cannot transport other wine in it, since he did not rent it for that, and for this reason the lessee is considered to be preventing the rental from being carried out.

Rav Pappa said:

Indeed,

you do not find it

for the ruling of Rabbi Natan

except with this ship and this wine.

For then both of them prevent the rental from being carried out: the lessor, his ship having sunk in the sea, and the lessee, his wine having been lost.

And for this reason, the hand of the claimant is on the lower side, and whoever has the money in his possession is not liable to the other for anything.

But with an unspecified ship and unspecified wine, they divide,

meaning, certainly they can complete the rental if they wish. But if not, he shall pay him the wage for half the journey.

The Sages taught: One who rents the ship

in order to transport his belongings in it to a certain place,

and unloads it

the lessee unloads his belongings

in the middle of the journey,

he gives him

the lessee gives him only the wage for half the journey,

and he has no

the owner of the ship

against him

against the lessee

except a grievance.

And we raised it:

What are the circumstances?

If you say

that he unloaded his belongings at a place

where he can find someone to rent to,

where the owner of the ship can rent his ship to another person,

why does he have a grievance against him?

For he caused him no damage at all; rather, let him rent it to another!

And if

he unloaded it at a place

where he cannot find

the lessor

someone to rent to

to another person, then

he must pay the entire wage!

He certainly must pay him, for he caused him damage by bringing him to this place; why does he pay him only the fee for half the journey?

And we explain:

Actually,

indeed it is speaking of a case where he unloaded it at a place

where he can find someone to rent to; but why does he have a grievance against him,

for he can rent it here to another person?

Because of the ship’s deterioration,

the ship becomes weakened and damaged through the frequent removal and loading of bundles.

And the Gemara asks:

If so, it is a substantial claim,

and why does he have against him only a grievance? After all,

he has money

belonging to the owner of the ship

against him

the lessee, and he must pay for the damage to the ship.

Rather,

this is how it should be explained:

What

is meant by what we learned,

“he unloaded

in the middle of the journey”?

He unloaded his load into it,

that is, he did not unload his belongings from the ship; rather, to the contrary, he added and loaded additional items onto it in the middle of the journey.

And it is speaking here of a case where the transport fee was determined according to the quantity of belongings loaded into it. Therefore he must pay him for those belongings that he has now loaded the fee for half the journey [for he transported them only half the way. But for the belongings that were on it from the outset, he certainly pays him the entire rental fee].

Rather, what is the grievance?

For he caused him no damage at all?

And we explain:

Because of a change of mind,

for the intention of the lessor of the ship was to transport him quickly and return to his home, but now that he loaded it on the way, he had to wait.

Alternatively,

the lessor claims: I needed

an additional rope

ropes

additional,

because the way of a ship is that the heavier it is, the more deeply it sinks, and it must anchor farther from the shore, where the water is deep. Therefore it needs longer ropes in order to tie it to its anchoring place outside.

The Sages taught: One who rents the donkey

in order

to ride upon it,

and not for a load,

the lessee may place his cloak upon it, and his water-skin,

a water container,

and provisions for that journey,

and the owner of the donkey is not permitted to prevent him from placing them there, because since he rented it in order to ride upon it, he certainly intended that he should be able to take with him a few things needed for that journey. And even if the journey lasts many days, he is permitted to take with him provisions for the entire journey.

But

from this point onward,

if he wants to load additional things upon it

, the donkey-driver may prevent him.

And likewise,

the donkey-driver places barley and straw upon it,

so that he can feed it,

and the donkey-driver’s provisions for that day.

And the lessee cannot prevent him from loading it with these things, for he was certainly hired on this understanding.

And even if the journey lasts many days, he takes with him only provisions for that day!

But

from this point onward,

if the donkey-driver wants to add more and load it

, the lessee may prevent him.

And we raised it:

What are the circumstances

of what the lessee is permitted to take with him, all his provisions, while the donkey-driver takes with him only provisions for that day?

If it is common to buy

provisions in the middle of the journey,

the donkey-driver too should prevent

the lessee from taking with him more than provisions for that day.

And if it is not common to buy

provisions in the middle of the journey,

the lessee too should not prevent

the donkey-driver from taking provisions for the entire journey?

And we explain:

Rav Pappa said: It is necessary, where it is common to toil and buy from lodging-place to lodging-place

a wayside inn; that is, there are no permanent shops available for selling food, but one can toil and search each night for where food can be purchased.

And therefore,

the donkey-driver, whose way is to toil and buy,

was certainly hired on the understanding that he would toil in the evening and buy provisions. Therefore he takes only provisions for that day.

But

the lessee, whose way is not to toil and buy,

and therefore takes provisions for the entire journey.

The Sages taught: One who rents the donkey

in order

for a man to ride upon it, a woman may not ride upon it.

It is the way of the world that women are not so proficient at riding, and perhaps the lessor did not agree that a woman should ride upon it, lest his animal be injured.

But if he rented it for the riding of

a woman, a man may ride upon it,

for the lessor certainly agreed that a man more proficient at riding should ride upon it.

And a woman

is permitted to ride in such a case,

whether

she is

an adult or a minor, and even pregnant

who is heavier,

and even nursing

with her child.

And the Gemara asks: What is the novelty in the case of a pregnant woman?

Now, a nursing woman

with her child,

you said

that she is permitted to ride, even though she and her child are two bodies; if so,

a pregnant woman—is it necessary to say it!?

She is certainly permitted to ride!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

It is speaking of the same woman who is both

pregnant and

also

nursing.

Abaye said: Infer from this,

from what we learned, that a pregnant woman is heavier than a woman who is not pregnant,

a fish

a fish,

according to the belly, a burden—

according to the size of its belly, so is its weight.

What practical difference does it make? For buying and selling,

when one purchases a fish with a large belly, he should not purchase it by weight unless the seller first removes its innards, since a substantial part of its weight is intestines, which are not fit for eating.