ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 80
BAVA METZIA 80 (28 Shevat) - Dedicated by the Rosemans of Har Nof in loving
memory of their mother and grandmother, Miryam bat Yisrael of blessed
memory, who passed away on 28 Shevat 5759.
(a) Our Mishnah states that if someone hires a cow and the plow breaks,
assuming that he hired it to ...
1. ... plow in the mountains but plowed in the valley - he is Patur.
(b) The Tana rules that, in a case where the cow that he hired to thresh,
slipped, assuming that he hired it to ...
2. ... plow in the valley but plowed in the mountains - he is Chayav (since
the rocky terrain makes it far more difficult to plow there).
1. ... thresh corn but threshed legumes - he is Chayav, because legumes are
slippery, and therefore more likely to cause the plow to break.
2. ... thresh legumes but threshed corn - he is Patur.
(a) Two men - normally employed by the owner, are needed to control the cow
and the plow in the process of plowing, one to lead the ox-goad, the other
to control the plow-share.
(b) According to Rav Papa, it is the man leading the ox-goad who has to pay
in the event that the plow-share broke in the course of plowing. Rav Shisha
B'rei de'Rav Idi - obligates the man who controls the plow-share.
(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether the former is responsible the
plow-share breaking, for leading the cow off-course, or the latter, for
pushing the plow-share too deep into the ground.
(d) We rule like Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi - because we assume that if the
latter had not pushed the plow-share too deeply into the ground, it would
not have broken in spite of the former having gone off-course.
(e) The one leading the ox-goad will nevertheless be Chayav to pay half - if
they were both aware of the fact that the terrain was rocky, in which case
it remains a Safek as to which of the two caused the damage.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan rules that if Reuven tells Shimon that the cow that he is
selling him ...
1. ... bites, kicks and crouches, when one of these is true - then it is a
false sale, because the purchaser can claim that, seeing as the animal did
not possess the other defects, he assumed that it did not possess the one
that it really did, either.
(b) We cite a Beraisa in this regard - which says about someone who sells a
Shifchah in one of the two ways discussed by Rebbi Yochanan - exactly what
Rebbi Yochanan said in those there.
2. ... bites (which it does) and has other defects - the sale is valid,
because since the seller specifically mentioned the one real fault, the
purchaser should have examined it for that one defect.
(c) Rav Mordechai asked Rav Ashi what the Din will be - if Reuven listed a
number of defects which the animal did possess, and the buyer claims that he
thought that his description, including that particular defect, had been
(d) And he answered him - that the sale is valid.
(a) Our Mishnah renders someone who hired a donkey to transport wheat, and
he changed to barley liable, should the animal subsequently die - and the
same applies to someone who hired a donkey to transport corn, and he change
(b) The reason for this ruling is (not because barley is intrinsically more
difficult to transport than wheat but) - because, since barley is lighter
than wheat (and straw than corn) the hirer loaded the donkey with more than
a Lesech (half a Kur) of barley.
(c) In order to be Chayav, he needs to add - three Kabin (at ninety Kabin
per Lesech [even though this still weighs less than a Lesech of wheat).
(d) We explained the Mishnah like Abaye. According to Rava, who amends the
Mishnah to read 'Mipnei she'ha'Nafach Kashah le'Masuy (instead of
'ke'Mas'uy', like Abaye) - he is not Chayav unless the three Kabin are added
after the barley weighs at least as much as the wheat.
(a) According to Rava, when our Mishnah states 'Le'havi Lesech Chitin,
ve'Heivi Lesech Se'orin, Patur. ve'Im Hosif al Masa'o Chayav' - the Tana
means that he added a Sa'ah.
(b) In light of this, he will explain the final statement of our Mishnah,
which, quoting Sumchus Mishum Rebbi Meir, obligates a hirer for adding three
Kabin on to the load of a donkey, to mean - that he added three Kabin of
*wheat* to the maximum eight load of a Lesech (not of barley).
(c) The equivalent Shiur for overloading a camel (which can carry a Kur)
is - a Sa'ah.
(a) The Tana of a Beraisa writes 'Le'havi Lesech Chitin, ve'Heivi
Sheish-Esrei Se'orim', Chayav'. 'Sheish-Esrei' is - sixteen Sa'ah (meaning
that hirer added an extra Sa'ah).
(b) The Kashya on Abaye is - from the inference, that for adding only three
Kabin of barley one is Patur.
(c) Abaye answers this Kashya by establishing the Beraisa by Mechikta -
which means 'squashed together', and one Sa'ah of squashed produce is
equivalent to three Kabin when it is loose.
(d) We reject the suggestion that it means a Lesech of wormy barley, on the
grounds - that seeing as it is a Lesech, what difference does the fact that
it is wormy (and therefore lighter) make? Why should this be any better than
every case of barley, which weighs less, yet he is Chayav by adding three
Kabin, because the volume is the same?
(a) When the Tana of the Beraisa states ...
1. ... 'Kav le'Katef', he means - that someone who places a Kav more than
the thirty Kav limit on to someone's back, is liable for subsequent damages.
(b) If a load is too much for a person to carry, he has the option of
putting it down. To explain why someone is Chayav for damages if he places
too heavy a load on someone's back, Abaye establishes the Beraisa
'be'she'Chovto le'Alter' - which means that he dumped the entire load on to
the man's back in one go, without giving him a chance to discover that he
was being overloaded.
2. ... 'Adriv la'Arivah' - that one Lesech (the equivalent of Adriv) is
considered excess loading for a small boat, which holds fifteen Kur.
3. ... 'Kur li'Sefinah' - that one Kur is considered an excessive load for a
medium-size boat, which holds thirty Kur. We can also learn from here that
if somebody purchasers a medium-size boat, he is entitled to one that holds
4. ... 'Sheloshes Kurim le'Burni Gedolah - that three Kur is excessive for a
barge, which holds ninety Kur.
(c) When Rava explains 'le'Agra Yeseira' he means - that it is not necessary
to establish the Beraisa like Abaye, since the Tana is not speaking about
damages, but about the extra remuneration that a person will receive for
carrying more than a regular load.
(d) Rav Ashi disagrees with Abaye on principle. Even assuming that he placed
the load on the person's back bit by bit - he explains that the person being
loaded may did not throw the load down, because he thought that the load
felt rather heavy due to a fainting fit (which would pass in a moment), and
not because it was too heavy for him to carry.
(a) The ramifications of our Mishnah, which states that all Umnin are
Shomrei Sachar - is that a Kablan is Chayav for Geneivah va'Aveidah on the
article that he is manufacturing for the commissioner.
(b) The Tana rules that ...
1. ... "Sh'mor Li ve'Eshmor Lach" is - a Shomer Sachar.
(c) According to the Tana Kama, a Shomer Mashkon is a Shomer Sachar -
because he is performing a Mitzvah (as will be explained later).
2. ... "Sh'mor Li, ve'Amar Lei Hanach Lefanai" is - a Shomer Chinam.
(d) The basis for Rebbi Yehudah's distinction between a loan of money and a
loan of fruit is - the fact that on the one hand, he doesn't hold of S'char
Mitzvah, and on the other, the Shomer is benefiting from having lent out his
fruit, which would otherwise have gone bad.
(e) Aba Shaul - permits a creditor to rent out the Mashkon he received from
the poor debtor, provided he deducts the proceeds from the loan, because
this is similar to the Mitzvah of returning a lost article (since in both
cases, he is sparing the owner from a loss).
(a) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa gives a hirer the same Din as a Shomer Chinam
(because the benefit he gains [out of using the article] is canceled by the
fact that he pays for its use). Rebbi Yehudah nevertheless considers him a
Shomer Sachar - since the fact that he is willing to pay for its use
indicates that his benefit outweighs the payment.
(b) This leads us to believe that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi
Meir - because, according to Rebbi Meir, an Uman (who pays for the benefit
with the article) ought not to be a Shomer Sachar.
(c) We refute the answer that Rebbi Meir will agree in our Mishnah that he
is a Shomer Sachar, due to ...
1. ... the benefit the Uman receives from the fact that the commissioner
commissioned him and not someone else - because by the same token, a Socher
ought to be a Shomer Sachar on the grounds that the owner rented out the
article to him and not to someone else.
2. ... the little extra that he inevitably pays the Kablan - because by the
same token, at least a Socher who obtains a reduction ought to be a Shomer
Sachar (and Rebbi Meir does not make any such distinction).
(a) We conclude that an Uman is a Shomer Sachar - because of the benefit
that he derives from holding the article as a security for his money.
(b) Alternatively, we establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Meir by amending the
Beraisa like Rabah bar Avuhah - who switches the opinions of Rebbi Meir and
Rebbi Yehudah. Consequently, Rebbi Meir considers a Socher a Shomer Sachar,
and the Kashya no longer exists.
(a) We learned in a Mishnah in ha'Sho'el 'Amar Lo ha'Sho'el Sh'lach
ve'Shalchah u'Meisah, Chayav'. If the owner were to send the animal to the
Sho'el after they reached an agreement, but before the Sho'el asked him to
send it, and the animal died on the way - the Sho'el would be Patur.
(b) When the Tana continues 've'Chein be'Sha'ah she'Machzirah', he means -
that if the Sho'el sent the animal back to the owner without the owner
having asked for it, and it died on the way, he remains Chayav.
(c) Rafram bar Papa Amar Rav Chisda qualifies this ruling - by confining it
to before the termination of the days of She'eilah, but one's the She'eilah
has terminated, the Sho'el is Patur.