(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Bava Metzia, 79

BAVA METZIA 76-79 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.


QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a case in which a person rented a boat from a boat owner (without specifying any particular boat -- "Sefinah Stam") to transport specific barrels of wine ("Yayin Zeh"), and the boat sank at sea with the wine. The renter is obligated to pay rent for the boat, because the boat owner can claim that he is willing to provide another boat to transport the wine. The renter must pay rent because it is his misfortune that he no longer has those specific barrels of wine to transport (since they sunk).

Why does the renter have to transport those specific barrels of wine? Why can he not accept a different boat from the boat owner and transport different barrels of wine? We have learned (77a) that Rava says that if an employer hired workers for one day to do a specific job and the workers finished the job by mid-day, the employer is entitled to give them other work to do (of an equivalent degree of effort as the first job). We see that an employer is entitled to switch the specific work for which he initially hired workers to do (as long as the new work is not more burdensome), and thus the same should apply to a renter -- he should be entitled to switch the specific work for which he initially rented the boat to do. Why, then, in the case of our Gemara, can the renter not bring other barrels of wine to be transported, and demand that the boat owner provide him with another boat? (See HAGAHOS ASHIRI to ROSH 6:5.)

ANSWER: The KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN (311:1; see also SHACH 311:1) says that there are a number of answers to this question, but that the most likely answer is that only in the case of our Gemara can the owner of the boat limit the rental to the transport of the specific barrels of wine. Since he lost his boat in the process of transporting the wine, the renter is not entitled to demand another boat with which to transport other wine. Rather, the renter must pay the rental fee for the original boat. In contrast, in the case of the workers who finished the job early, the workers have not lost anything in the process of doing the original work, and therefore the employer is entitled to have them do other work. (Y. Marcus)


QUESTION: The Gemara states in the name of Rebbi Nasan that in a case in which a person rented a specific boat ("Sefinah Zu") for the purpose of transporting specific barrels of wine ("Yayin Zeh"), and the boat sank after traveling only half of the distance for which it was rented, the Halachah is that "if he has already paid, then the money is not refunded, but if he has not yet paid, then he is exempt."

Why, if he has already paid, does the renter not receive a refund for at least half of the cost of the boat? The boat transported his wine only half of the way! (TOSFOS DH Iy)

ANSWER: TOSFOS answers (as explained by the KEHILOS YAKOV 46:4) that there are two types of rentals. When one pays the entire sum of rent at the onset of the rental term, then the object (such as the boat in our case) becomes completely his (he has temporary ownership) for the purpose for which he rented the object (in the manner of "Dekel l'Perosav"). Hence, even if he did not succeed in using the object in the manner in which he intended, such as in our case where the boat sank, he is nevertheless obligated to pay the entire rental fee because he acquired the object. If, however, the renter did not pay at the onset of the rental term, then we view the rental as merely a right to use the object of the other person (and not that the renter actually has ownership of it), and thus the renter pays only for as much use as he was able to obtain from the object.

Therefore, in Rebbi Nasan's case, if the renter has already paid the entire rental fee for the boat, then he has acquired the boat and is not entitled to a refund. If he has not yet paid the rental fee, then he has not acquired the boat and he is obligated to pay only for the amount of use that he obtained from the object. Since in this case the use of the boat was virtually worthless (the boat sank and did not accomplish anything), the renter is exempt. (Y. Marcus)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,