Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 12, scan section 24

the name of Rabha must be interpreted, in case it was certain that he has sold his field on account of its infertility, and the insisting upon the payment of the remainder was only because he was afraid he shall retract. It is certain that if one was in need of a hundred zuz, and could not find any one to buy an estate for this amount, and sold out for two hundred (and received a deposit of one hundred zuz), and insisted upon the immediate payment of the remainder, then title is not acquired. But how is it when, if the same would trouble himself to find a buyer for one hundred zuz, he could get one, but he did not, and sold out for two hundred zuz, and was insisting upon the immediate payment of the remainder ? Shall we assume that this case should be considered as the case of selling a field on account of infertility, stated above ; or is it not because, after all, he sold out this field unwillingly, owing to the need of money ? This question remained undecided. If one hired a driver . . . or Ae may deceive them. But to what amount may he hire others on their account ? Said R. Na'hman : To that amount which the employer owes them for the labor done already. Rabha objected to this statement from TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 195 the Boraitha stated above (p. 190), that he may hire on their account to the sum of from forty to fifty zuz ; and R. Na'hman answered : The above Boraitha speaks of a case where the laborers place their instruments to such an amount in the house of the employer. MISHNA //..• If one hired an ass for use on a mountain, and he used it in a valley, or vice versa, although the distance for which it was hired was equal in both ways (as, e.g., ten miles), and the ass dies, the hirer is responsible. If he hired it to use it on the mountain, and he used it in a valley instead, and the ass slipped, he is free (because this could surely occur on the moun- tain, upon which such a case is more frequent) ; if, however, it was overheated, he is responsible. The reverse is the case when he used it on the mountain instead of in the valley : if it slipped, he is responsible ; and if it is overheated, he is free. If, how- ever, it was overheated because of the ascending to the top of the mountain, he is responsible. If one hired an ass and it became blind, or it was taken for an angaria {i.e., taken by the Government for labor), the owner may say : " Yours (which you have hired) is before you." If, however, it dies, or broke a foot, he must furnish him with another ass. GEMARA : Why does the Mishna make a difference in the second part between slipping and overheating, and does not do so in the first part ? In the school of R. Yanai was said : Be- cause in the first part the plaintiff may claim the animal dies owing to the air of the mountain ; (if it was hired for a valley,) he may say that it was not used to the air of a mountain, and if for a mountain, he may claim it was not used to the air of a valley. R. Jose b. Hanina, however, said : The Mishna treats of when it dies owing to overwork, and Rabba says : The Mishna treats of when it dies from the bite of a snake (so the plaintiff may claim : If you had used it for the place hired, such would not have occurred). R. Hyya b. Abba, in the name of R. Johanan, said : The Mishna is in accordance with R. Meier, who holds that one who has done contrary to the agreement with the owner is considered a robber, and is responsible. Where is to be found such a statement by R. Meier ? In the following Boraitha : " If one has given a dinar to a poor man for the purpose of buying himself a shirt, he must not buy a gar- ment, and if for the purpose of a garment, he must not buy a shirt, because this would be contrary to the intention of the donor." 196 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. But perhaps there is another reason ; namely, people shall not say: " So-and-so has promised to furnish a garment for the poor so-and-so," and did not keep his promise ? Then R. Meier should state : Because of suspicion. Why, then, his reason, " because it is contrary to the intention," etc. ? Hence he holds that every change of the intention of the owner is considered robbery. Infer from this that so it is. Or it was taken, etc. Said Rabh : The case is only when it is an angaria which is to be afterwards returned ; but if it is an angaria which is not to be returned, he must furnish him with another ass. Samuel, however, maintains : There is no differ- ence what kind of an angaria it was ; if it was taken for using to the same place where the hirer intends to go, the owner may say to him : " Yours is before you." If, however, it was taken in a contrary direction, then the owner must furnish him with another ass. An objection was raised from the following : If one hired an ass, and it became blind or mad, the owner may say : " Yours which you have hired is before you." If, how- ever, it dies, or it was subject to an angaria, he must furnish him with another ass. This would be correct in accordance with Rabh's theory, as the Boraitha may treat of an angaria which is not to be returned ; but Samuel's statement it contradicts. And lest one say that the Boraitha speaks of when it was taken away in a contrary direction, so that it could agree with Sam- uel's statement also, it cannot hold good, because of the latter part of the same Boraitha, which states : R. Simeon b. Elazar said that if it was taken away for use in the same direction, the owner may say : " Yours is before you " ; and if in a contrary direction, he must furnish him with another ass. Now, from the statement of the latter it is to be inferred that it makes no difference to the first Tana in what direction it was taken ? Sam- uel may say : Is there not a Tana who is in accordance with my theory ? I hold with R. Simeon b. Elazar, and if you wish, it may be said that the whole Boraitha is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Elazar, but it is not complete, and should read thus : If one hires an ass, which becomes blind or mad, the owner may say : " Yours which you hired is before you." If, however, it dies or becomes subject to an angaria, he must furnish him with another ass. This, however, was said if it was taken away in another direction ; but if it was taken away in the same direc- tion he intended to go, the owner may say : " Yours is before you " (you may accompany this one until the officers of the TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 197 Government will meet another ass, and yours will be returned to you). So is the decree of R. Simeon b. Elazar, as he used to say that only if it was taken in another direction must he furnish him with another ass, and not otherwise. But how can you