Bava Metzia 185

Chapter 185

א הניחא למאן דאמר אין הרב יכול לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך שפיר אלא למאן דאמר יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך מאי איכא למימר
1 That agrees with the view that the master cannot say to his slave, 'Work for me, yet I will not feed you.' But on the view that he can say so, what can you answer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the hypothesis that he eats his own. According to the latter view the slave is supported by charity. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב אלא אידי ואידי בשאין מעלה להן מזונות ובהא פליגי דמר סבר יכול ומר סבר אין יכול ורבי יוחנן דאמר יכול הרב שביק מתניתין ועביד כברייתא
2 — Both [teachings] therefore deal with a case where he does not provide them with food, but they differ on this very matter: one Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג אלא דכולי עלמא משל שמים הוא אוכל ולא מצי קציץ ומאי קוצץ דאמר רבי הושעיא מזונות
3 maintains that he can [demand their work and refuse their food]; and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד דכוותיה גבי בהמתו תבן נקוץ לה אלא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר משלו הוא אוכל ומר סבר משל שמים הוא אוכל:
4 holds that he cannot. Then what of R. Johanan, who ruled that the master can say this: does he forsake the Mishnah and follow the Baraitha?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not, since the former is more authentic than the latter. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> קוצץ אדם על ידי עצמו על ידי בנו ובתו הגדולים על ידי עבדו ושפחתו הגדולים על ידי אשתו מפני שיש בהן דעת אבל אינו קוצץ על ידי בנו ובתו הקטנים ולא על ידי עבדו ושפחתו הקטנים ולא על ידי בהמתו מפני שאין בהן דעת
5 — But all agree that he eats of Heaven's [gift), and he [certainly) cannot stipulate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the slaves shall not eat. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו השוכר את הפועלים לעשות בנטע רבעי שלו הרי אלו לא יאכלו אם לא הודיען פודה ומאכילן נתפרסו עגוליו נתפתחו חביותיו הרי אלו לא יאכלו אם לא הודיען מעשר ומאכילן
6 In what sense then did R. Hoshaia teach that he can stipulate? — [In regard to] food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he may arrange for the owner of the vineyard to feed the slave before he starts work, so that he has no appetite for the grapes. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז שומרי פירות אוכלין מהלכות מדינה אבל לא מן התורה:
7 Then by analogy, in respect of an animal [a similar arrangement is that the hirer should feed it with) straw;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it starts threshing the more valuable grain. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> שומרי פירות אמר רב לא שנו אלא שומרי גנות ופרדסין אבל שומרי גיתות וערימות אוכלין מן התורה קסבר משמר כעושה מעשה דמי
8 then let him stipulate! Hence they must differ therein: one Master [sc. of the Baraitha] maintains that he eats his own; whereas the other holds that he eats of Heaven's [gift].
ט ושמואל אמר לא שנו אלא שומרי גיתות וערימות אבל שומרי גנות ופרדסים אינן אוכלים לא מן התורה ולא מהלכות מדינה קא סבר משמר לאו כעושה מעשה דמי
9 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A MAN MAY STIPULATE [TO RECEIVE PAYMENT INSTEAD OF EATING] FOR HIMSELF, HIS SON OR DAUGHTER THAT ARE OF AGE, HIS MANSERVANT AND MAIDSERVANT THAT ARE OF AGE, AND HIS WIFE; BECAUSE THEY HAVE UNDERSTANDING. BUT HE MAY NOT STIPULATE [THUS] FOR HIS SON OR DAUGHTER THAT ARE MINORS, HIS MANSERVANT OR MAIDSERVANT THAT ARE MINORS, NOR IN RESPECT OF HIS BEASTS; BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 533, n. 7. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י מתיב רב אחא בר רב הונא המשמר את הפרה מטמא בגדים ואי אמרת משמר לאו כעושה מעשה דמי אמאי מטמא בגדים אמר רבה בר עולא גזירה שמא יזיז בה אבר
10 IF ONE ENGAGES LABOURERS TO WORK UPON HIS FOURTH YEAR PLANTINGS, THEY MAY NOT EAT; BUT IF HE DID NOT INFORM THEM [THAT THEY WERE OF THE FOURTH YEAR], HE MUST REDEEM [THE FRUIT] AND LET THEM EAT IT. IF HIS FIG-CAKES WERE BROKEN, OR HIS BARRELS OF WINE BURST OPEN, THEY MAY NOT EAT. BUT IF HE DID NOT INFORM THEM, HE MUST TITHE [THE FRUIT OR WINE] AND LET THEM PARTAKE [THEREOF].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 532. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יא מתיב רב כהנא המשמר ארבע וחמש מקשאות הרי זה לא ימלא כריסו מאחד מהן אלא מכל אחד ואחד אוכל לפי חשבון ואי אמרת משמר לאו כעושה מעשה דמי אמאי אוכל
11 THOSE WHO GUARD FRUITS MAY EAT THEREOF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL CUSTOM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the laws of the land'. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב אמר רב שימי בר אשי בעקורין שנו עקורין והלא נגמרה מלאכתן למעשר שלא ניטל פיקס שלהם
12 BUT NOT BY SCRIPTURAL LAW.
יג אמר רב אשי כוותיה דשמואל מסתברא דתנן ואלו אוכלין מן התורה העושה במחובר לקרקע בשעת גמר מלאכה ובתלוש כו' מכלל דאיכא דלא קא אכיל מן התורה אלא מהלכות מדינה
13 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. THOSE WHO GUARD FRUITS [etc.] Rab said: This was stated only of those who look after gardens and orchards;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their fruits being attached to the soil, and they do not remove them; hence they may not eat by Scriptural law. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יד אימא סיפא ואלו שאינן אוכלין מאי אינן אוכלין אילימא שאין אוכלין מן התורה אלא מהלכות מדינה היינו רישא אלא לאו שאין אוכלין לא מן התורה ולא מהלכות מדינה ומאי ניהו עושה במחובר לקרקע בשעה שאין גמר מלאכה וכל שכן שומרי גנות ופרדסות:
14 but those who guard wine-vats and [grain] stocks may eat [even] by Biblical law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since these are detached. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
טו <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ארבעה שומרים הן שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר שומר חנם נשבע על הכל והשואל משלם את הכל
15 In his [Rab's] opinion guarding is counted as labour. But Samuel said: This was stated only of those who guard wine-vats and [grain] stocks; but those who look after gardens and orchards may eat neither by Biblical law nor by general custom. In his view, guarding is not considered labour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, when it is exercised upon detached fruits, the guardian may eat by general custom; but if they are attached, he may not eat at all. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טז ונושא שכר והשוכר נשבעים על השבורה ועל השבויה ועל המתה ומשלמין את האבידה ואת הגניבה:
16 R. Aha son of R. Huna raised an objection. He who guards the [red] heifer defiles his garments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XIX. All who take part in the preparation of the red heifer, from the slaughter onwards, defile their garments. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאן תנא ארבעה שומרים אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה רבי מאיר היא אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן מי איכא דלית ליה ארבעה שומרין אמר ליה הכי קאמינא לך מאן תנא שוכר כנושא שכר רבי מאיר היא
17 Now should you maintain, Guarding is not considered labour, why does he defile his garments?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not an occupation in the legal sense. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יח והא רבי מאיר איפכא שמעינן ליה דתניא שוכר כיצד משלם ר' מאיר אומר כשומר חנם ר' יהודה אומר כשומר שכר רבה בר אבוה איפכא קתני
18 — Rabbah b. 'Ulla said: As a precautionary measure, lest he move a limb thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would really render him unclean through contact. Thus the defilement of the guardian is only by Rabbinical law, in contradistinction to those who perform a positive action, whose defilement is Scriptural. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יט אי הכי ארבעה שלשה נינהו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ד' שומרין ודיניהם שלשה
19 R. Kahana raised an objection: He who guards four or five cucumber beds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Belonging to as many persons. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
כ ההוא רעיא דהוה קא רעי חיותא אגודא דנהר פפא שריג חדא מינייהו ונפלת למיא אתא לקמיה דרבה ופטריה אמר מאי הו"ל למעבד
20 must not eat his fill of one of them, but proportionately of each. Now if guarding is not considered labour, why eat at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since on this view he may not eat of what is attached, even by general custom. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> — R. Shimi b. Ashi replied: This refers to those which are removed [from the plant].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they are detached. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> But then this work is finished for tithes!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 89a. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> — Their blossom had not yet been cut off.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 88b. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> R. Ashi said: Reason supports Samuel. For we learnt: Now, the following [labourers] may eat by Scriptural law: he who is engaged upon what is attached to the soil, when the labour thereof is completed; and upon what is detached,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 504. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> etc. This implies that some eat not by Scriptural law but in accordance with general custom. Then consider the second clause: But the following do not eat. What is meant by 'do not eat'? Shall we say, they do not eat by Scriptural law, yet eat in accordance with general custom — then is it not identical with the first clause? Hence it must surely mean that they eat neither by Scriptural nor by unwritten law. And who are they? 'He who is engaged upon that which is attached to the soil before its labour is completed.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 504. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> How much more so then they who look after gardens and orchards! <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THERE ARE FOUR BAILEES: A GRATUITOUS BAILEE, A BORROWER, A PAID BAILEE AND A HIRER. A GRATUITOUS BAILEE MUST SWEAR FOR EVERYTHING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the bailment is lost or destroyed through any cause, excepting negligence, the unpaid trustee must swear to the occurrence, and is free from liability. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> A BORROWER MUST PAY FOR EVERYTHING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whatever the mishap, he is liable to pay. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> A PAID BAILEE OR A HIRER MUST SWEAR CONCERNING AN ANIMAL THAT WAS INJURED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'broken'. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> CAPTURED [IN A RAID] OR THAT PERISHED;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A paid bailee is exempt from liability in these cases; therefore he must swear that it really was so. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> BUT MUST PAY FOR LOSS OR THEFT. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Which Tanna [maintains that there are] four bailees? — R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: It is R. Meir. Said Raba to R. Nahman: Does any Tanna dispute that there are four bailees?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! The four bailees enumerated in the Mishnah must exist. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> — He replied: I mean this: Which Tanna holds that a hirer ranks as a paid bailee? R. Meir. But we know R. Meir to hold the reverse? For it has been taught: How does a hirer pay? R. Meir said, As an unpaid bailee. R. Judah ruled, As a paid one! Rabbah b. Abbuha learnt it reversed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., according to his reading of the Baraitha, R. Meir ruled that he ranked as a paid trustee, and R. Judah as an unpaid one. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> If so, are there four? Surely there are only three!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the hirer ranks as a paid bailee. This difficulty arises in any case, and the phrase 'if so' does not imply here that if the hirer ranked as an unpaid bailee there is no difficulty, but is merely introductory (Tosaf.). But in the parallel passage of Shebu. 49a the phrase is absent from Rashi's version. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: There are indeed four bailees, but they fall into three classes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'their laws are three', a hirer and a paid bailee being in the same category. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> A shepherd was once pasturing his beasts by the banks of the River Papa,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, p. 496, n. 1. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> when one slipped and fell into the water [and was drowned]. He then came before Rabbah, who exempted him [from liability], with the remark, 'What could he have done?
Previous ChapterNext Chapter