Bava Metzia 165

ואפילו במקום מדרון נמי התינח היכא דליכא ראיה אבל היכא דאיכא ראיה ניתי ראיה ונפטר דתניא איסי בן יהודה אומר (שמות כב, ט) אין רואה שבועת ה' תהיה בין שניהם הא יש רואה יביא ראיה ויפטר

And even on sloping ground, it is reasonable [that the bailee swears] where no evidence is possible;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if it was an unfrequented place. ');">¹</span>

ור' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן שבועה זו תקנת חכמים היא שאם אי אתה אומר כן אין לך אדם המעביר חבית לחבירו ממקום למקום

but where evidence is possible, let him adduce evidence and [only] then be free from liability! For it has been taught: Issi b. Judah said: [If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass&nbsp;… to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away,] no man seeing it: Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 9f. ');">²</span>

היכי משתבע אמר רבא שבועה שלא בכוונה שברתיה ואתא ר' יהודה למימר שומר חנם ישבע נושא שכר ישלם האי כדיניה והאי כדיניה ואתא ר' אלעזר למימר אין גמרא כר"מ ומיהו תמיה אני אם יכולים זה וזה לישבע

hence it follows, if there be a spectator, he must bring evidence and then be free.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But an oath is insufficient. ');">³</span>

בשלמא שומר חנם משתבע שלא פשע בה אלא שומר שכר אמאי משתבע כי לא פשע נמי בעי שלומי ואפילו שומר חנם נמי הא תינח במקום מדרון שלא במקום מדרון מי מצי משתבע שלא פשע

But R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: This oath is a Rabbinical institution. For should you not rule thus, no man would move a barrel for his neighbour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M. omits 'for his neighbour'.] ');">⁴</span>

ואפילו במקום מדרון נמי הא תינח היכא דליכא ראיה היכא דאיכא ראיה ניתי ראיה ויפטר דתניא איסי בן יהודה אומר אין רואה שבועת ה' תהיה בין שניהם הא יש רואה יביא ראיה ויפטר

from one place to another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hiyya does not answer the foregoing difficulties, but reverts to the alleged contradiction in R. Meir's views, and harmonises them. Thus: Both Baraithas have the same author, and, as appears from the second, stumbling is certainly accounted as negligence. Nevertheless, R. Meir holds that in this case the Rabbis freed him from liability, as a measure necessary for the common good. Hence he need only take an oath. ');">⁵</span>

ההוא גברא דהוה קא מעבר חביתא דחמרא בריסתקא דמחוזא ותברה בזיזא דמחוזא אתא לקמיה דרבא א"ל ריסתקא דמחוזא שכיחי בה אינשי זיל אייתי ראיה ואיפטר א"ל רב יוסף בריה כמאן כאיסי א"ל אין כאיסי וסבירא לן כוותיה

What does he swear?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He cannot swear that he was guiltless of negligence, since on the present hypothesis stumbling itself is negligence. ');">⁶</span>

ההוא גברא דא"ל לחבריה זיל זבין לי ארבע מאה דני חמרא אזל זבן ליה לסוף אתא לקמיה א"ל זביני לך ארבע מאה דני חמרא ותקיפו להו

— Raba said: 'I swear that I broke it unintentionally.' And R. Judah comes to teach that an unpaid bailee must swear, whilst a paid bailee must make it good, each in accordance with his own peculiar law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This passage and the following have already been given above. There it was all R. Eliezer's explanation of the Baraitha and the Mishnah; here it is R. Hiyya's. But on R. Hiyya's version, the sentence just given does not bear quite the same interpretation as before (q.v.) Thus: R. Judah disagrees with R. Meir, and holds that stumbling is not negligence but midway between negligence and an accident, and thus analogous to theft and loss, for which an unpaid bailee is not responsible, whereas a paid bailee is. Therefore the paid bailee must make good the damage, whilst the unpaid bailee swears that he was not otherwise negligent and is thereby freed from liability. Hence, there is no particular Rabbinical measure in this case, but each is dealt with in accordance with his own law. ');">⁷</span>

אתא לקמיה דרבא א"ל ארבע מאה דני חמרא תקיפי קלא אית לה למילתא זיל אייתי ראיה דמעיקרא כי מזבנת להו חמרא מעליא הוה ואיפטר א"ל רב יוסף בריה כמאן כאיסי א"ל אין כאיסי וסבירא לן כוותיה

Whereupon R. Eliezer observes: Verily, I have a tradition in accordance With R. Meir; nevertheless, I am astonished that both should swear. As for an unpaid bailee, it is well: he swears that he was guilty of no negligence. But why should a paid bailee swear? Even if not negligent, he is still bound to pay! And even with respect to an unpaid bailee, it [sc. the ruling] is correct [if the accident happened] on sloping ground; but if not on sloping ground, can he possibly swear that he was not negligent! And even on sloping ground, it is reasonable [that the bailee swears] where no evidence is possible; but where it is, let him adduce evidence and [only] then be freed from liability! For it has been taught: Issi b. Judah said: [<i>If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass&nbsp;… to keep: and it die, or be hurt, or driven away,] no man seeing it: Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">⁸</span>

אתקין רב חייא בר יוסף בסיכרא הני דדרו באגרא ואיתבר נשלם פלגא מאי טעמא נפיש לחד וזוטר לתרי קרוב לאונס וקרוב לפשיעה בדיגלא משלם כולה

hence it follows, if there be a spectator, he must bring evidence and then be free.

רבה בר בר חנן תברו ליה הנהו שקולאי חביתא דחמרא שקל לגלימייהו אתו אמרו לרב אמר ליה הב להו גלימייהו אמר ליה דינא הכי אמר ליה אין (משלי ב, כ) למען תלך בדרך טובים יהיב להו גלימייהו אמרו ליה עניי אנן וטרחינן כולה יומא וכפינן ולית לן מידי אמר ליה זיל הב אגרייהו א"ל דינא הכי אמר ליה אין (משלי ב, כ) וארחות צדיקים תשמור

A man was once moving a barrel of wine in the manor of Mahuza,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 60, n. 4. ');">⁹</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך השוכר את האומנין</strong></big><br><br>

and broke it on a projection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a moulding, or perhaps a balcony or a bay window projecting from the wall (Jast. s.v. [H] and [H]). ');">¹⁰</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>השוכר</strong></big> את הפועלים ואמר להם להשכים ולהעריב מקום שנהגו שלא להשכים ושלא להעריב אינו רשאי לכופן מקום שנהגו לזון יזון לספק במתיקה יספק הכל כמנהג המדינה

of Mahuza: so he came before Raba. Said he to him: The manor of Mahuza is a frequented place: go and bring evidence;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Some texts add 'That there was no culpable negligence'. ');">¹¹</span>

מעשה בר' יוחנן בן מתיא שאמר לבנו צא שכור לנו פועלין הלך ופסק להם מזונות

then you are free from liability. Thereupon R. Joseph, his son, said to him: In accordance with whom [is your verdict]? With Issi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in a frequented locality an oath is not accepted. ');">¹²</span>

וכשבא אצל אביו אמר לו בני אפילו אם אתה עושה להם כסעודת שלמה בשעתו לא יצאת ידי חובתך עמהן שהן בני אברהם יצחק ויעקב אלא עד שלא יתחילו במלאכה צא ואמור להם על מנת שאין לכם עלי אלא פת וקטנית בלבד רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לא היה צריך לומר הכל כמנהג המדינה:

— Yes, said he, in accordance with Issi; and we agree with him.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> פשיטא לא צריכא דטפא להו אאגרייהו מהו דתימא אמר להו הא דטפאי לכו אאגרייכו אדעתא דמקדמיתו ומחשכיתו בהדאי קא משמע לן דאמרו ליה האי דטפת לן אדעתא דעבדינן לך עבידתא שפירתא

A man instructed his neighbour. 'Go and buy me four hundred barrels of wine.' So he went and bought [them] for him; subsequently, however, he came before him and said, 'I bought you the four hundred barrels of wine, but they turned sour.' So he came before Raba. 'When four hundred barrels of wine turn sour,' said he to him, 'the facts should be widely known.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where you bought them, where you stored them, when they turned sour etc. ');">¹³</span>

אמר ריש לקיש

Go and bring proof that originally, when bought, the wine was sound, then will you be free from liability.' R. Joseph. his son, observed to him: In accordance with whom [is your verdict]? With Issi? — Yes, said he, in accordance with Issi; and we agree with him. R. Hiyya b. Joseph instituted a measure in Sikara.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Near Mahoza. ');">¹⁴</span> Viz., those who carry burdens on a yoke, and they break, must pay half. Why? Because it [the burden] is too much for one, yet too little for two:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently, one person would carry it. ');">¹⁵</span> therefore it lies midway between accident and negligence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is near to accident and near to negligence.' ');">¹⁶</span> Those who carry on a pole must pay all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi explains that it was a pole made for a two-man burden. Therefore, when one carries it alone, it is culpable negligence, for which he bears full responsibility. ');">¹⁷</span> Some porters [negligently] broke a barrel of wine belonging to Rabbah son of R. Huna.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So according to Alfasi; cur. edd.: 'b. Bar Hanan,' MS.M.: 'b. Bar Hanah.' v. next note.] ');">¹⁸</span> Thereupon he seized their garments; so they went and complained to Rab.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Other texts: 'Raba', according to which preference is to be given to reading: Rabbah. b. R. Hanan, v. D.S.] ');">¹⁹</span> 'Return them their garments,' he ordered. 'Is that the law?' he enquired. 'Even so,' he rejoined: <i>'That thou mayest walk in the way of good men.</i>'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. II, 20. ');">²⁰</span> Their garments having been returned, they observed. 'We are poor men, have worked all day, and are in need: are we to get nothing?' 'Go and pay them,' he ordered. 'Is that the law?' he asked. 'Even so,' was his reply: '<i>and keep the path of the righteous.</i>'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. Actually they were responsible, but Rab told him that in such a case one should not insist on the letter of the law. ');">²¹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ONE WHO ENGAGES LABOURERS AND DEMANDS THAT THEY COMMENCE EARLY OR WORK LATE — WHERE LOCAL USAGE IS NOT TO COMMENCE EARLY OR WORK LATE HE MAY NOT COMPEL THEM. WHERE IT IS THE PRACTICE TO SUPPLY FOOD [TO ONE'S LABOURERS], HE MUST SUPPLY THEM THEREWITH; TO PROVIDE A RELISH, HE MUST PROVIDE IT. EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON LOCAL CUSTOM. IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT R. JOHANAN B. MATHIA SAID TO HIS SON, 'GO OUT AND ENGAGE LABOURERS.' HE WENT AND AGREED TO SUPPLY THEM WITH FOOD. BUT ON HIS RETURNING TO HIS FATHER, THE LATTER SAID, MY SON, SHOULD YOU EVEN PREPARE FOR THEM A BANQUET LIKE SOLOMON'S WHEN IN HIS GLORY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in his time'. ');">²²</span> YOU CANNOT FULFIL YOUR UNDERTAKING, FOR THEY ARE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB. BUT, BEFORE THEY START WORK, GO OUT AND TELL THEM, ''[I ENGAGE YOU] ON CONDITION THAT YOU HAVE NO CLAIM UPON ME OTHER THAN BREAD AND PULSE.'' R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IT WAS UNNECESSARY [TO STIPULATE THUS]; EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON LOCAL CUSTOM. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Is it not obvious? — It is necessary [to teach it] only when he [the employer] pays them a higher wage [than usual]: I might think that he can plead, 'I pay you a higher wage in order that you may start earlier and work for me until nightfall;' we are therefore taught that they can reply, 'The higher remuneration is [only] for better work [but not longer hours].' Resh Lakish said: