Bava Metzia 80b — the Talmud in English

And he brought ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

sixteen se'ahs,

that is, one se'ah more than the measure of a lethekh,

he is liable.

It follows,

yes,

if he added

three kavs, he is exempt.

If so, it is explained according to Rava's view, that specifically when he adds a se'ah he is liable. For then their weight is equal to the agreed-upon lethekh of wheat, and this is difficult for Abaye.

Abaye explained,

Abaye explains that this is referring to a case where the sixteen se'ahs were

level,

not heaped, whereas the measure of a lethekh is fifteen heaped se'ahs. And the difference between level and heaped measures is half a se'ah—three kavs.

Accordingly, he added only three kavs—the second half of the se'ah that he added.

The Sages taught:

One who hires a porter to carry a load on his shoulder—how much may he add to its weight and be liable?

A kav for a shoulder [

a laborer who carries on his shoulder].

And one who hires cargo ships is liable if he adds

an adriv,

a lethekh

for an ariva,

a small ship;

a kor for a ship

of medium size;

and three kors for a borni,

a

large ship.

The Master said:

As for what we learned, that if he adds

a kav for a shoulder

he is liable—why is he liable? After all,

if it is indeed the case that he cannot bear it,

if he cannot carry it,

he is a rational person; let him cast it down,

let him throw it to the ground! And if he did not throw it down, the responsibility is his; why should the hirer be liable for his damages?

Abaye said:

Here it is referring

to where he struck

the load against the ground

immediately,

before he had time to unload it from his shoulder. But if he was indeed able to unload it and did not unload it, the hirer is exempt.

Rava said: You may even say

that it is referring

to where he did not strike it immediately,

and he was able to have time to unload it from upon himself

, it is necessary—

we establish our Mishna as not intending to make the hirer liable for the laborer's damages, but rather

to

pay him

additional wages,

because he carried a load heavier than they had initially agreed upon.

Rav Ashi said:

Even if the porter was able to have time to unload the load from upon himself, the hirer is liable for his damages, and the hirer cannot claim, “You should have unloaded it from upon yourself,” for the laborer did not know that this load was heavier than usual; rather,

he

was

of the opinion that it was weakness

temporary,

that it was holding him,

and that he would be able to overcome it during the journey.

Above, the measure of the addition for ships was explained:

a kor for a ship

of medium size,

three kors for a borni,

a ship

of large size.

Rav Pappa said: Learn from this: ordinary ships [

medium-sized],

are of thirty kors,

for the measure of the addition that makes him liable for damages is one-thirtieth, as is explained concerning an ass [see note 109], and if the measure of the addition is one kor, its ordinary load is thirty kors.

And the Gemara explains:

What practical difference is there? For buying and selling,

if he agreed with him that he would sell him a medium-sized ship, the seller must give him a ship of thirty kors.

Mishna:

All craftsmen are paid bailees

with regard to the object that they undertook to repair, and they are liable if it is stolen or lost, according to the law of a paid bailee.

And all of them—

the craftsmen

, who said

to the owner of the object,

“Take

the object

that is yours,

for we have already completed our work,

and bring

us

money

as payment for our work”—from that point onward become

unpaid bailees [

as will be explained in the Gemara].

And an additional law is explained in the Mishna: A person who says to his fellow,

“Guard for me

my field today

, and I will guard

I

for you

your field tomorrow

, he is a paid bailee,

for in payment for his guarding today, his fellow will guard his field for him tomorrow, and he is liable for theft and loss according to the law of a paid bailee.

A person who says to his fellow,

“Guard for me

my object,”

and he said to him

his fellow,

“Place it before me,”

place your objects before me, even though he did not explicitly say to him, “I will guard them for you,”

he is an unpaid bailee,

for we interpret his words, “Place it before me,” [as meaning that he intended thereby to accept responsibility for guarding them, and if he was negligent in guarding them, he is liable according to the law of bailees.

He lent him

a person to his fellow

against collateral,

that is, the borrower gave him collateral, so that if he did not repay his debt, he would take it in exchange for his money. The lender is considered

a bailee

for payment

with regard to the collateral, for through his loan he fulfilled the mitzva, “You shall surely open your hand,” and since he benefited from this, he is a paid bailee.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If he lent him money, he is an unpaid bailee

with regard to the collateral. His reason is that the reward for the mitzva is not considered benefit sufficient to make him liable as a paid bailee on account of it.

But if

he lent him produce,

and he gave him collateral

, he is a paid bailee

with regard to it, since had he not lent his produce, it would have rotted in his possession, because he presently had no need for it, and he would have lost it. Therefore, he benefits from lending it to his fellow, who will eat it and return other produce to him after some time, when he will need it; therefore he becomes liable for the collateral according to the law of a paid bailee.

Abba Shaul says: A person may rent out the collateral of a poor person

that is in his possession

, so that he may deduct and continue deducting from it,

that is, the lender may rent out the collateral if the borrower is poor and does not have the money with which to repay him, and take the rental payments as repayment of his debt

, because he is like one who returns a lost object.

For if he does not rent it out, he may take it for himself when the repayment date arrives, in exchange for his debt, if the poor man does not repay him his money.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: All craftsmen are paid bailees.

The Gemara's reasoning is that they benefit from the fact that they will be paid the wages for their work.

And we raised an objection:

Let us say: Our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

For it was taught: One who hires

an animal for work, and it is injured,

how does the hirer pay

the hirer? As an unpaid bailee, who is liable only if he was negligent in guarding it, or as a paid bailee, who is liable if it was stolen or lost?

Rabbi Yehuda says: As a paid bailee,

because he benefits from the animal being in his possession, since he can perform his work with it.

Rabbi Meir says

that this benefit is not considered payment for his guarding, for he pays the owners the rental fee for it, and he is liable only

as an unpaid bailee.

And the law of a craftsman is similar to the law of a hirer, for the craftsman likewise does not receive payment for his guarding, but only wages for his work. If so, according to Rabbi Meir, the craftsman too should have the law of an unpaid bailee, unlike what is explained in our Mishna!?

And we explain:

You may even say

that our Mishna is

Rabbi Meir's.

The law of a craftsman differs from that of a hirer, since with a craftsman, in addition to the payment for his work, he derives additional benefit from the fact that the owner preferred to have the object repaired specifically by him.

And through that benefit that the owner leaves everyone else,

that the owner left the other craftsmen

, and hires him,

and hired only him from among them,

he becomes a paid bailee with regard to it.

And the Gemara objects:

If so, a hirer also:

why should we not say that

through that benefit that he leaves

the lessor

everyone else and rents it to him,

and rents specifically to him, he benefits from the fact that the lessor relied only upon him, and because of this benefit

he becomes a paid bailee with regard to it!?

Rather, the Gemara explains what we learned, “All craftsmen are paid bailees,” according to Rabbi Meir, in a different manner:

You may even say

that our Mishna, according to the words of

Rabbi Meir,

differs in the case of a craftsman from that of a hirer, since a craftsman who performs his work as a contractor [that is, if he repairs the object, he receives such-and-such as his wages] earns slightly more than a day laborer [a laborer hired for work by the hours or days]. If so, he benefits from being hired as a contractor, because of which he receives slightly more.

And through that benefit that he gives him in his wages a little more

than if he had hired him as a day laborer,

he becomes a paid bailee with regard to it.

But in the case of one who hires an animal, the hirer does not benefit from this at all; therefore, he is an unpaid bailee.

And the Gemara objects:

A hirer also—is it not possible that he makes it cheaper for him,

in a case where the lessor reduces the price for him

a little more

than the rental fee for the animal fixed in the market? Yet we have not heard that in such a case Rabbi Meir would concede that he is a paid bailee?

Rather, the Gemara explains in a different manner:

You may even say

that our Mishna is

Rabbi Meir's;

the craftsman differs from the hirer, for with a craftsman there is an additional benefit besides the payment for his work: he can retain the object in his possession until the owner pays him his wages.

Through that benefit that he holds it

the object

against his wages, for he does not need

the craftsman

to go in and out

to the owner's house to request

money,

for his wages for his work, but he holds the object in his possession until he receives the wages for his work,

he becomes a paid bailee with regard to it.

But one who hires an object derives all his benefit only from using the object, and for this benefit he pays money; therefore, he is only an unpaid bailee.

If you wish, say

that what we learned, “A paid bailee pays,” should be read differently,

as Rabbah bar Avuha exchanged it, and taught:

One who hires

an animal,

how does he pay?

Rabbi Meir says, as a paid bailee; Rabbi Yehuda says, as an unpaid bailee.

According to this version, what we learned, “All craftsmen are paid bailees,” is according to Rabbi Meir.

We learned in our Mishna: All craftsmen are paid bailees,

and all of them who said

to the owner of the object,

“Take

the object

that is yours, and bring money”—

the wages for our work, if he has not yet taken the object—the craftsman from that point onward becomes

only an unpaid bailee

alone.

We learned there:

A person who asks his fellow, “Lend me your cow,” and the other agrees to lend it to him,

and he said

to

him, the borrower: “Send

me your animal through so-and-so,”

and he sent it

the lender through his agency,

and it died

on the way, before it reached the borrower's house,

the borrower is liable

for the animal's damages. For from the time he delivered it to the agent, at the borrower's request, the borrower became liable for accidents involving it.

And likewise when he returns it

the borrower to the lender's house: if he delivered it to an agent without the lender's request, he is liable for accidents involving it until it reaches the owner's possession.

Rafram bar Pappa said in the name of Rav Chisda: They taught

that the borrower is liable for the animal's damages until it reaches the lender's possession

only when he returned it

the borrower

within the days of its loan,

before the time set for him by the lender for its loan had ended,

but

if he returned it

after

the

days of its loan had ended, he is exempt

the borrower, even if it died in his house. For as soon as the days of the loan end, the law of a borrower is removed from him, and he is only like the other bailees, who are exempt if it dies through an accident.

Rav Nahman bar Pappa raised an objection,

we learned: "

and all of them

[the artisans]

who said, ‘Take the

object

that is yours and bring

money

as our wages, the status of a paid bailee liable for theft and loss is annulled for Reuven, and he is only

an unpaid bailee."

And it follows that it is specifically because he said to him, “Take what is yours,”