Torah Community Connections

Week 101 - Thursday - 1 November 2001

BAVA METZIA: CHAPTER 6: MISHNAH 4

If one hired a cow to plow in the hill country, and he plowed in the valley: if the plowshare broke, he is exempt. In the valley, and he plowed in the hill country: if the plowshare broke, he is liable. To thresh pulse, and he threshed grain, he is exempt. To thresh grain, and he threshed pulse, he is liable, since pulse is slippery.

Kehati

If one hired a cow to plow in the hill country - it was customary to also hire the plowing tools of the owner of the cow together with the cow, as well as two of his workers, who would go with the cow and plow with it. If the hirer had said that he would plow with it a field in the hill country, but made a change from what he had said, and he plowed in the valley - i.e., he ordered the workers to plow in the valley: if the plowshare broke, he - the hirer - is exempt - from paying. If the plowshare broke in the valley, it certainly would have broken in the hill country, for the ground in the hill country is harder than that in the valley.

But if he hired the cow to plow - in the valley, and he plowed in the hill country - which is a change for the worse - if the plowshare broke, he - the hirer - is liable - to pay the monetary value of the plowshare. The Gemara states that if the hirer did not change any of the conditions, but acted in accordance with the conditions upon which he had agreed with the owner of the cow, and the plowshare breaks, then the owner of the cow claims the monetary value of the plowshare from the workers who plowed with it. There is a disagreement in the Gemara as to which of the workers is obligated to pay, the worker who led the cow, or the one who held the plow. The law is that the one who holds the plow is obligated to pay, since the plowshare was broken as a result of his negligence: he plowed too deeply in the ground. If the field was filled with stones, then both of them are obligated to pay. Rambam bases the following ruling on this Gemara: If the renter changed the conditions which had been agreed upon, and he changed them for the better, e.g., he hired the cow to plow in the hill country and he plowed in the valley, the renter is exempt, but the owner of the cow has a claim against the workers. If the renter changed the conditions for the worse, e.g., he hired the cow to plow in the valley and plowed in the hill country (and as we learned above, he is liable for the monetary value of the plowshare which broke), he can claim the money for the plowshare which he paid from the workers. Rabbeinu Asher writes, however, that whether the renter changed the conditions for better or worse, the workers are exempt, since they can say in their defense that the plowshare would not have broken if the renter had not changed the conditions.

If one hires a cow - to thresh pulse, and he threshed grain - and the cow slipped and was injured - he is exempt - for the cow certainly would have slipped if it had threshed pulse, since pulse is more slippery than grain.

But if he hired it - to thresh grain, and he threshed pulse - and it slipped - he is liable - for the cow's injuries - since pulse is slippery - and he therefore made a change for the worse.

BAVA METZIA: CHAPTER 6: MISHNAH 5

If one hired an ass to bring wheat on it, and he brought barley on it, he is liable. Grain, and he brought straw on it, he is liable, since the bulk is difficult for the load. To bring a letekh of wheat, and he brought a letekh of barley, he is exempt. If he added to its burden, he is liable. And by how much must he increase its load in order to be liable? Symmachus says in the name of Rabbi Meir, One se’ah for a camel, three kabs for an ass.

Kehati

If one hired an ass to bring - a certain weight of - wheat on it, and he brought - the same weight of - barley - upon which he had agreed with the owner of the ass - on it, he is liable - if the ass is injured, since the volume of the barley is greater than that of the wheat.

Similarly, if one hired an ass to bring - Grain - on it, and he brought - the same weight of - straw - as of the load of grain which had been agreed upon with the owner - on it, he is liable - if the ass is injured - since the bulk is difficult for the load - i.e., the increased volume makes the load heavier in practice, and causes the ass to loose its balance.

If one hired an ass - to bring a letekh of wheat - i.e., one half of a kor (15 se’ahs) - and he brought a letekh of barley - since he did not add to the volume - he is exempt - if the ass were injured, even though he made a change, for the change eased the ass's condition.

If he added - the weight of a letekh of wheat - to its burden - The Gemara explains that he added a se’ah to the letekh, i.e., he brought sixteen se’ahs of barley instead of the fifteen se’ahs of wheat upon which he had agreed with the owner of the ass. In such a case, the two loads are of equal weight, and - He is liable - because of the additional volume, as we have explained above.

And by how much must he increase its load - from the same type of goods as had been agreed upon, e.g., he hired the ass to bring wheat and he brought wheat, or to bring barley and he brought barley - in order to be liable - for damages caused to the animal?

Symmachus says in the name of Rabbi Meir, One se’ah for a camel - e.g., if he hired a camel to bring a letekh (15 se'ahs) of wheat and he added a se’ah (i.e., he brought 16 instead of the 15 which had been agreed upon, an addition of 1/15). Some commentators state that the “One se’ah for a camel" is the addition to the camel's regular load, which is a kor and not a letekh. These commentators therefore interpret this to mean that if he hired the ass to bring a kor and he added one se’ah to this load (i.e., an addition of 1/30), he is liable.

Three kabs for an ass - Or he hired an ass to bring a letekh of wheat and he added three kabs, which are one half a se’ah (an addition of 1/30).

We have interpreted this mishnah in accordance with the opinion of Rava in the Gemara (and the law is in accordance with his opinion); Rambam and Tiferet Yisrael also interpreted the mishnah in this manner. We have therefore used the reading "since the bulk is difficult for the load." Rabbi Obadiah Bartenura, however, uses the reading which is found in several books, "since the bulk is [as] difficult as the load." He interprets the mishnah in accordance with Abbaye: "If one hired an ass to bring wheat on it, and he brought barley on it" therefore means that, instead of a letekh of wheat, he brought a letekh of barley, with an additional three kabs, as is explained in the last part of the mishnah (according to Abbaye, the last part of the mishnah - "And by how much must he increase its load in order to be liable?" - comes to interpret the first part of the mishnah); "he is liable" - if the ass was injured, since he added to its bulk, "since the bulk is [as) difficult as the load" - for even though a load consisting of a letekh of barley is not as heavy as one consisting of a letekh of wheat, the volumes of these two loads are nevertheless equivalent, and volume is considered as a load.

Accordingly, if he added three kabs to the load, he is liable. The mishnah goes on to explain: "To bring a letekh of wheat, and he brought a letekh of barley" - without adding to the volume - "he is exempt. If he added to its burden" - three kabs, as is explained in the last part of the mishnah - "he is liable." If, however, he added less than this amount, he is exempt if the ass is injured, but he must pay for the additional load to the owner of the ass.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives