Bava Metzia 157

דברי ר"ש בן אלעזר שהיה ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר אם בדרך הילוכה ניטלה אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך ואם לא חייב להעמיד לו חמור

This is the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar; for he used to maintain: If it was taken on the route of its journey, he can say to him, 'Here is yours before you;' if not, he is bound to replace it. But can you possibly assign it [all] to R. Simeon b. Eleazar? Surely, the first clause states, 'If one hires an ass, and it is struck by lightning or turns rabid, he [the owner] can say to him, "Here is yours before you:"' whereas R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: If one hires an ass to ride upon it, and it is struck by lightning or turns rabid, he [the owner] must furnish him with another! — Said Rabbah son of R. Huna: If for riding, the case is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A blind or rabid animal is fit to carry burdens, but not to be ridden upon. ');">¹</span>

ומי מצית מוקמת לה כר"ש בן אלעזר והא קתני רישא השוכר את החמור והבריקה או שנשתטתה אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך ואילו ר"ש בן אלעזר אמר השוכר את החמור לרכוב עליה והבריקה או שנשתטתה חייב להעמיד לו חמור

R. papa said: [And to carry] glassware is the same as for riding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to is fragile nature it must be carried smoothly; but an ass so affected will jolt it violently and break it. ');">²</span>

אמר רבה בר רב הונא לרכוב עליה שאני אמר רב פפא וכלי זכוכית כלרכוב עליה דמי

Rabbah son of R. Huna said in Rab's name: If one hires an ass for riding and it perishes midway, he must pay him his hire for half the journey, and can only bear resentment against him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For having given him a feeble ass; but he has no legal redress. ');">³</span>

אמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רב השוכר את החמור לרכוב עליה ומתה לו בחצי הדרך נותן לו שכרו של חצי הדרך ואין לו עליו אלא תרעומות

How so? If another can be obtained for hire, what cause is there for resentment? If not, is he then bound to render him his hire?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not, seeing that he probably suffers loss through not reaching his destination. ');">⁴</span>

היכי דמי אי דשכיח לאגורי תרעומות מאי עבידתיה אי דלא שכיח לאגורי אגרא בעי למיתב ליה

— In truth, it means that another is not obtainable [here] for hiring, [yet he is bound to pay for half the journey,] because he [the owner] can say to him, 'Had you desired to go as far as this [where it died], would you not have had to pay its hire?' Now, what are the circumstances? If he simply promised him an ass, without specifying which, then surely he is bound to replace it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated above. ');">⁵</span>

לעולם דלא שכיח לאגורי ומשום דאמר ליה אילו בעית למיתי עד הכא לאו אגרא בעית למיתב

whilst if he promised him this ass: if its value [sc. of the carcase] is sufficient to buy another, let him buy one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he hired him this particular ass, it is pledged for the journey, and therefore, if with the value of the carcase one can buy another, even such a poor one that it is fit only to complete the journey, the purchase should be made. ');">⁶</span>

היכי דמי אי דא"ל חמור סתם הא חייב להעמיד לו חמור אחר אי דא"ל חמור זה אם יש בדמיה ליקח יקח

— This [ruling] holds good only when its value is insufficient to purchase [another]. Yet if its value is sufficient for hiring, let him hire another!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, as stated above, in the case of the animal's death another must be provided; and when a particular animal was hired, whatever can be procured for its carcase is part of the original. ');">⁷</span>

לא צריכא בשאין בדמיה ליקח אם יש בדמיה לשכור ישכור רב לטעמיה דאמר רב לא מכלינן קרנא

— Rab follows his view [expressed elsewhere], for Rab said: The principal must not be destroyed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when an animal is hired for a certain task, e.g., to take a man on a journey, one cannot demand that the whole capital value of the animal shall be lost in order to fulfil the engagement. Hence, when the Mishnah states that if it died another must be provided in its place, it means that more money must be added to that realised by the carcase and another bought, so that the value of the carcase ultimately remains with the owner. But he is not bound to hire an animal for the money realised by the carcase for the completion of the task, the whole principal thus being lost to the owner. ');">⁸</span>

דאתמר השוכר את החמור ומתה לו בחצי הדרך אמר רב אם יש בדמיה ליקח יקח לשכור אל ישכור ושמואל אמר אף לשכור ישכור

For it has been stated: If a man hires an ass and it perishes midway — Rab said: If its value [sc. of the carcase] is sufficient to buy [another], he must buy one; [if only] to hire, he [who engaged it] may not hire. But Samuel said: Even if only to hire, he may do so. Wherein do they differ? — Rab maintained: The principal may not be destroyed; Samuel maintained: The principal may be destroyed.

במאי קמיפלגי רב סבר לא מכלינן קרנא ושמואל סבר מכלינן קרנא

An objection is raised: If the tree withered or was broken down, both are forbidden to use it. What then shall be done? Land must be bought therewith, and he takes the usufruct.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to a mortgage. If a tree was mortgaged, it being agreed that the creditor should enjoy its usufruct for a number of years, after which it would revert to the debtor without any further payment, and then it withered, ceasing to yield, or was overthrown by a storm, neither the creditor nor the debtor may use up the wood thereof, because each thereby wholly destroys the other's interest therein. Therefore the wood must be sold and land bought with the proceeds, of which the creditor takes the usufruct in accordance with the original agreement. ');">⁹</span>

מיתיבי יבש האילן או נקצץ שניהם אסורין בו כיצד יעשה ילקח בו קרקע והוא אוכל פירות והא הכא כיון דכי מטי יובל קא הדרא ארעא למרה וקא כליא קרנא

Now here, immediately on the advent of the Jubilee year, the land reverts to its [first] owner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 13, 23. ');">¹⁰</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן דזבין ליה לשיתין שנין דאמר רב חסדא אמר רב קטינא מנין למוכר שדהו לששים שנה שאינה חוזרת ביובל שנאמר (ויקרא כה, כג) והארץ לא תמכר לצמיתות מי שאין שם יובל נצמתת יש שם יובל אינה נצמתת יצתה זו שאע"פ שאין שם יובל אינה נצמתת

and thus the principal is destroyed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nothing whatever being left of the tree by the time it has to revert to the debtor, in case Jubilee precedes it. ');">¹¹</span>

סוף סוף לכי מטו שיתין שנין קא הדרא ארעא למרה וקא כליא קרנא אלא הכא במאי עסקינן בזמן שאין היובל נוהג ה"נ מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך בזמן שהיובל נוהג ומכלינן קרנא נצלחיה לציבי ונשקליה

— Here the reference is to a sixty years' purchase. For R. Hisda said in R. Kattina's name: Whence do we learn that if one sells his field for sixty years, it does not return [to the first owner] in the year of Jubilee? From the verse, The land shall not be sold in perpetuity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 23. ');">¹²</span>

אי משום הא לא קשיא זמנין דשלמו שני משכנתא מקמי יובל אי נמי דמטו ליה זוזי ופריק לה ארבע וחמש שנין מקמי יובל

[shewing that it refers to a sale] which, in the absence of the law of Jubilee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if it is for no specified period. ');">¹³</span>

ת"ר השוכר את הספינה וטבעה לה בחצי הדרך ר' נתן אומר אם נתן לא יטול ואם לא נתן לא יתן

would be for ever; hence, when the law of Jubilee supervenes, it is not in perpetuity; thus excluding this [sale. viz., for sixty years], which, even in the absence of the law of Jubilee, is not for ever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence Jubilee does not affect it, and when the mortgage expires, it reverts to the debtor, and his principal is not destroyed. ');">¹⁴</span>

היכי דמי אילימא בספינה זו ויין סתם אם נתן אמאי לא יטול נימא ליה הב לי ספינתא דאנא מייתינא חמרא אלא בספינה סתם ויין זה אם לא נתן אמאי לא יתן

But after all, on the expiration of the sixty years the land returns to its [first] owner, and thus [the debtor's] principal is destroyed! — But here the reference is to the time when the law of Jubilee is not in force. Reason too supports this. For should you assume that it refers to the time when the law of Jubilee is in force, and that we destroy the principal, let him [the creditor] cut up the wood and take it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the years of usufruct still due to him. Why then trouble to buy a field? ');">¹⁵</span> — As for that, it is no difficulty: the period of mortgage might expire before the Jubilee, or he [the debtor] might obtain money and redeem it four or five years before the Jubilee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that, even if Jubilee is in force and the principal may be destroyed, it is still preferable to buy a field. ');">¹⁶</span> Our Rabbis taught: If one hires a ship, and it sinks in mid-journey; R. Nathan said: If he has paid [the hire], he cannot take [it back]; but if not, he need not pay it [now]. How so? Shall we say [that the agreement was for] this particular ship and an unspecified [cargo of] wine [as freight],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the shipowner engaged to provide this particular ship to carry any cargo of wine a certain distance. ');">¹⁷</span> then [even] if he has already paid, why cannot he claim it back? Let him say, 'Provide me with that ship, and I will bring the wine.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since you undertook to carry any cargo of wine in this particular ship, I can bring another, the first having sunk, but you must furnish the same ship for the entire journey: as you cannot, you must return the hire. ');">¹⁸</span> But if it refers to an unspecified ship and a particular cargo of wine, even if he has not yet paid, why must he not pay now?