Bava Kamma 198

רבא אמר דכ"ע ישנה לשכירות מתחילה ועד סוף ודכולי עלמא המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת ודכולי עלמא אין אומן קונה בשבח כלי

Raba, however, said that all might have been agreed that there is progressive [liability for] hire from the very commencement until the end, and also that one who betroths [a woman] by [forgoing] a debt [due from her] would not thereby effect a valid betrothal, and it was again unanimously held that a craftsman does not acquire title to the improvement carried out by him upon an article,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 578, n. 11. ');">¹</span> and here we are dealing with a case where, e.g., he added a particle out of his own [funds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which could constitute valid consideration. ');">²</span>

אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהוסיף לה נופך משלו רבי מאיר סבר מלוה ופרוטה דעתה אפרוטה ורבנן סברי מלוה ופרוטה דעתה אמלוה

to the raw material supplied by her], R. Meir holding that where the [instrument of betrothal] is both [the foregoing of] a debt and [the giving of] a <i>perutah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a coin which constitutes the minimum of value in legal matters. ');">³</span> the woman thinks more<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. 19b. ');">⁴</span>

ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא בשכר שעשיתי עמך אינה מקודשת בשכר שאעשה עמך מקודשת רבי נתן אומר בשכר שאעשה עמך אינה מקודשת וכל שכן בשכר שעשיתי עמך

of the <i>perutah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which could constitute valid consideration. ');">²</span> whereas the Rabbis held that where the [instrument of betrothal] is both [the foregoing of] a debt and [the giving of] a <i>perutah</i>, she thinks more of the debt [which she is excused].

ורבי יהודה הנשיא אומר באמת אמרו בין בשכר שעשיתי עמך ובין בשכר שאעשה עמך אינה מקודשת ואם הוסיף לה נופך משלו מקודשת

This was also the difference between the following Tannaim, as taught: [If a man says,] 'In consideration of the hire for the work I have already done for you<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The article having been already returned to her. ');">⁵</span> [be betrothed to me],'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was spoken to a prospective wife. ');">⁶</span>

(מאי איכא) בין ת"ק לרבי נתן איכא בינייהו שכירות בין רבי נתן לר' יהודה הנשיא איכא בינייהו מלוה ופרוטה

she would not become betrothed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 578. n. 8. ');">⁷</span> but [if he says], 'In consideration of the hire for work which I will do for you [be betrothed to me]', she would become betrothed. R. Nathan said that if he said, 'In consideration of the hire for work I will do for you,' she would thereby not become betrothed; and all the more so in this case where he said, 'In consideration of the hire for work I have already done for you.' R. Judah the Prince, however, says: It was truly stated that whether he said, 'In consideration of the hire for the work I have already done for you,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was spoken to a prospective wife. ');">⁶</span>

אמר שמואל טבח אומן שקלקל חייב לשלם מזיק הוא פושע הוא נעשה כאומר לו שחוט לי מכאן ושחט לו מכאן

or, 'In consideration of the hire for work I will do for you,' she would not thereby become betrothed, but if he added a particle out of his own funds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 579, n. 7. ');">⁸</span> [to the raw material supplied by her], she would thereby become betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 48b. ');">⁹</span>

למה ליה למימר מזיק הוא פושע הוא אי אמר מזיק הוא הוה אמינא הני מילי היכא דקא עביד בשכר אבל היכא דקא עביד בחנם לא קמ"ל פושע הוא

Now, the difference between the first Tanna and R. Nathan is on the question of the liability for hire [whether or not it is progressive from the very commencement],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [R. Nathan holding that it is, whereas the first Tanna holds that there is no liability except at the very end.] ');">¹⁰</span> while the difference between R. Nathan and R. Judah the Prince is on the question [what is her attitude when the betrothal is made both by the foregoing of] a debt [and the giving of] a <i>perutah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [R. Nathan maintains that the woman thinks primarily of the debt, while, according to R. Judah the Prince she thinks more of the perutah.] ');">¹¹</span>

איתיביה רב חמא בר גוריא לשמואל הנותן בהמה לטבח וניבלה אומן פטור הדיוט חייב ואם נותן שכר בין הדיוט בין אומן חייב אמר ליה לעכר מוחך

Samuel said: An expert slaughterer who did not carry out the slaughter properly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As required by the ritual, and has thus rendered the animal unfit for consumption according to the dietary laws. ');">¹²</span> would be liable to pay, as he was a damage-doer, [and] he was careless, and this would be considered as if the owner asked him to slaughter for him from one side<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the throat. ');">¹³</span>

אתא ההוא מרבנן קא מותיב ליה א"ל השתא שקלת מאי דשקל חברך קאמינא לכו אנא רבי מאיר וקאמריתו לי רבנן אמאי לא דייקת מילי שאני אומר מזיק הוא פושע הוא נעשה כאומר לו שחוט לי מכאן ושחט לו מכאן מאן אית ליה האי סברא רבי מאיר דאמר מבעי ליה למירמי אנפשיה

and he slaughtered for him from the other. But why was it necessary for him to say both 'he was a damage-doer [and] he was careless'? — If he had said only he was a damage-doer, I might have said that this ruling should apply only where he was working for a hire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he could be made liable even in the absence of carelessness. ');">¹⁴</span> whereas where he was working gratuitously this would not be so; we are therefore told, [that there is no distinction as] he was careless. R. Hama b. Guria raised an objection to this view of Samuel [from the following]: If an animal was given to a slaughterer and he caused it to become <i>nebelah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., unfit for consumption through a flaw in the slaughter; v. Glos. ');">¹⁵</span>

הי רבי מאיר אילימא [הא] רבי מאיר (קל"ן סימן)

if he was an expert he would be exempt, but if an amateur<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he had no right to slaughter. ');">¹⁶</span> he would be liable. If, however, he was engaged for hire, whether he was an amateur or expert he would be liable. [Is this not in contradiction to the view of Samuel?] — He replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Samuel to R. Hama. ');">¹⁷</span>

דתנן קשרו בעליו במוסירה ונעל בפניו כראוי ויצא והזיק בין תם בין מועד חייב דברי רבי מאיר

Is your brain disordered? Then another one of our Rabbis came along and raised the same objection to his view. He said to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Samuel to the other Rabbi. ');">¹⁸</span> 'You surely deserve to be given the same as your fellow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hama. ');">¹⁹</span>

התם בקראי פליגי

I was stating to you the view of R. Meir and you tell me the view of the Rabbis! Why did you not examine my words carefully wherein I said: "For he was a damage-doer [and] he was careless, and this should be considered as if the owner asked him to slaughter for him from one side<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 580, n. 9. ');">²⁰</span> and he slaughtered for him from the other." For surely who reasons in this way if not R. Meir, who said that a human being has to take greater heed to himself?' But what [statement of] R. Meir [is referred to]? We can hardly say the one of R. Meir which we learned: (Mnemonic: <i>KLN</i>)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keyword consisting of the Hebrew initial words of the three teachings that follow. ');">²¹</span>

אלא הא רבי מאיר דתנן לצבוע לו אדום וצבעו שחור שחור וצבעו אדום רבי מאיר אומר נותן לו דמי צמרו התם בידים קלאו מיניה

'If the owner fastened his ox [to the wall inside the stable] with a cord or shut the door in front of it properly but the ox [nevertheless] got out and did damage, whether it had been <i>Tam</i> or already <i>Mu'ad</i> he would be liable; this is the opinion of R. Meir,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 45b. ');">²²</span> for surely, in that case, there they differed as to the interpretation of Scriptural Verses!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [V. loc. cit. This case cannot accordingly be appealed to as precedent.] ');">²³</span>

אלא הא רבי מאיר דתנן נשברה כדו ולא סילקה נפלה גמלו ולא העמידה רבי מאיר אומר חייב בנזקן וחכמים אומרים פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים וקיימא לן דבנתקל פושע הוא פליגי

— It therefore seems to be the one of R. Meir which we learned: [If wool was handed over to a dyer] to dye it red but he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, R. Meir says that he would have to pay [the owner] for the value of the wool.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 100b. ');">²⁴</span> But did he not there spoil it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'burn it'. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן טבח אומן שקלקל חייב ואפילו הוא אומן כטבחי ציפורי ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והאמר רבה בר בר חנה עובדא הוה קמיה דרבי יוחנן בכנישתא דמעון ואמר ליה זיל אייתי ראיה דממחית לתרנגולים ואפטרך

with his own hands?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he intended to dye it in that colour in which he actually dyed it, whereas in the case of the slaughterer, the damage looks more like an accident. ');">²⁶</span> — The reference therefore must be to the one of R. Meir which was taught: 'If a pitcher is broken and [the potsherds] are not removed, or a camel falls down and is not raised, R. Meir orders payment for any damage resulting therefrom, whereas the [other] Sages say that no action can be instituted in civil courts though there is liability according to divine justice,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 28b-29a. ');">²⁷</span>

לא קשיא כאן בחנם כאן בשכר כי הא דאמר רבי זירא הרוצה שיתחייב לו טבח יקדים לו דינר

and we came to the conclusion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [R. Meir holding that a human being must take greater heed to himself.] ');">²⁸</span> that they differed as to whether or not stumbling implies negligence.

מיתיבי המוליך חטים לטחון ולא לתתן ועשאן סובין או מורסן קמח לנחתום ועשאו פת ניפולין בהמה לטבח וניבלה חייב מפני שהוא כנושא שכר אימא מפני שהוא נושא שכר

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said that R. Johanan stated that an expert slaughterer who did not carry out the slaughter properly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 580, n. 8. ');">²⁹</span> would be liable to pay, even if he was as skilled as the slaughterer of Sepphoris. But did R. Johanan really say so? Did Rabbah b. Bar Hanah not say that such a case came before R. Johanan in the synagogue of Maon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In Judah, I Sam. XXIII, 24.] ');">³⁰</span>

ההוא מגרומתא דאתאי לקמיה דרב טרפיה ופטריה לטבח מלשלומי דמי פגעו ביה רב כהנא ורב אסי בההוא גברא אמרו ליה עביד בך רב תרתי

and he said to the slaughterer. 'Go and bring evidence that you are skilled to slaughter hens, and I will declare you exempt'? — There is, however, no difficulty, as the latter ruling was [in a case where the slaughterer was working] gratuitously whereas the former ruling applies [where the slaughterer works] for hire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 580, n. 10. ');">³¹</span> exactly as R. Zera said: If one wants the slaughterer to become liable to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were the slaughter not carried out effectively. ');">³²</span>

מאי תרתי אילימא תרתי לגריעותא דאיבעי ליה לאכשורי כר' יוסי בר' יהודה וטרפה כרבנן ואי נמי כרבנן דאיבעי ליה חיובא לטבחא ומי שרי למימר כי האי גונא

he shall give him a dinarius beforehand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 580, n. 10. ');">³¹</span> An objection was raised: If wheat was brought to be ground and the miller omitted to moisten it and he made it into branflour or coarse bran, or if flour [was given] to a baker and he made out of it bread which crumbled, or an animal to a slaughterer and he rendered it <i>nebelah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 581, n. 1. ');">³³</span>

והתניא לכשיצא לא יאמר אני מזכה וחבירי מחייבין אבל מה אעשה שחבירי רבו עלי ועל זה נאמר (משלי יא, יג) הולך רכיל מגלה סוד

he would be liable, as he is on the same footing as a worker who receives hire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.K. X, 4 and B.B. 93b. ');">³⁴</span> [Does this not imply that he was working gratuitously? — No.] read: 'Because he is a worker receiving hire.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 580, n. 10. ');">³¹</span>

אלא תרתי למעליותא דלא אוכלך ספק איסורא ומנעך מספק גזילה

A case of <i>magrumeta</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the slaughter was started in the appropriate part of the throat but was finished higher up, in which matter there is a difference of opinion between R. Jose b. Judah and the Rabbis in Hul. 1, 3. ');">³⁵</span> was brought before Rab, who declared it <i>trefa</i> and nevertheless released the slaughterer from any payment. When R. Kahana and R. Assi met that man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the owner of the animal. ');">³⁶</span>

איתמר המראה דינר לשולחני ונמצא רע תני חדא אומן פטור הדיוט חייב ותניא אידך בין אומן בין הדיוט חייב

they said to him: 'Rab did two things with you.' What was meant by these two things? If you say it meant two things to his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the owner of the animal. ');">³⁶</span> disadvantage, one that Rab should have declared it kasher in accordance with R. Jose b. Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. ibid. ');">³⁷</span>

אמר רב פפא כי תניא אומן פטור כגון דנכו ואיסור דלא צריכי למיגמר כלל אלא במאי טעו טעו בסיכתא חדתא דההיא שעתא דנפק מתותי סיכתא

whereas he declared it <i>trefa</i> in accordance with the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. ibid. ');">³⁷</span> and again that since he acted in accordance with the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. ibid. ');">³⁷</span>

ההיא איתתא דאחזיא דינרא לרבי חייא אמר לה מעליא הוא למחר אתאי לקמיה ואמרה ליה אחזיתיה ואמרו לי בישא הוא ולא קא נפיק לי אמר ליה לרב זיל חלפיה ניהלה וכתוב אפנקסי דין עסק ביש

he should at any rate have declared the slaughterer liable, is it permitted to say a thing like that? Was it not taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 29a. ');">³⁸</span> When [a judge] leaves [the court] he should not say, 'I wanted to declare you innocent, but as my colleagues insisted on declaring you liable I was unable to do anything since my colleagues formed a majority against me,' for to such behaviour is applied the verse, A tale-bearer revealeth secrets?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XI, 13. ');">³⁹</span>

ומאי שנא דנכו ואיסור דפטירי משום דלא צריכי למיגמר רבי חייא נמי לאו למיגמר קא בעי רבי חייא לפנים משורת הדין הוא דעבד כדתני רב יוסף (שמות יח, כ) והודעת להם זה

— It must therefore be said that the two things were to his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the owner of the animal. ');">³⁶</span> advantage, first that he did not let you eat a thing which was possibly forbidden, secondly that he restrained you from receiving payment which might possibly have been a misappropriation. It was stated: If a <i>denar</i> was shown to a money changer [and he recommended it as good] but it was subsequently found to be bad, in one Baraitha it was taught that if he was an expert he would be exempt but if an amateur he would be liable, whereas in another Baraitha it was taught that whether he was an expert or an amateur he would be liable. R. Papa stated: The ruling that in the case of an expert he would be exempt refers to such, e.g., as Dankcho and Issur<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two renowned money changers in those days. ');">⁴⁰</span> who needed no [further] instruction whatever, but who made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'But where was their mistake; they made, etc. ');">⁴¹</span> a mistake regarding a new stamp at the time when the coin had just [for the first time] come from the mint. There was a certain woman who showed a <i>denar</i> to R. Hiyya and he told her that it was good. Later she again came to him and said to him, 'I afterwards showed it [to others] and they said to me that it was bad, and in fact I could not pass it.' He therefore said to Rab: Go forth and change it for a good one and write down in my register that this was a bad business. But why [should he be different from] Dankcho and Issur<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 583. n. 8. ');">⁴²</span> who would be exempt because they needed no instruction? Surely R. Hiyya also needed no instruction? — R. Hiyya acted within the 'margin of the judgment,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sake of equity and mere ethical considerations. [On this principle termed lifenim mi-shurath ha-din according to which man is exhorted not to insist on his legal rights. v. Herford, Talmud and Apocrypha, pp. 140, 280. That there was nothing Essenic in that attitude, but that it is a recognised principle in Rabbinic ethics has already been shown by Buchler, Types, p. 37.] ');">⁴³</span> on the principle learnt by R. Joseph: 'And shalt show them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XVIII, 20; the verse continues, the way wherein they must walk and the work. ');">⁴⁴</span> means