Bava Metzia - Daf 79
- A rented donkey which dies midway, the machlokes re: מכלינן קרנא
Rav said that if someone rents a donkey to ride, and it dies midway to his destination, the renter pays proportionally to the distance traveled, and he has only complaints against the owner (for renting him a weak donkey). The Gemara explains the case is where it is not common for him to find another donkey to rent, but he makes the partial payment since it is the cost he would have to pay to rent a donkey for that distance. Furthermore, he did not rent "חמור סתם" – an unspecified donkey, for then the owner would have to provide him another. Rather, he rented only "חמור זה" – this donkey. He has the right to use the carcass to purchase a new donkey for his rental, but the case is where its value is insufficient.
The Gemara ask that he should use the carcass to rent another donkey, and answers that Rav is following his own position, that לא מכלינן קרנא – we do not use up the owner’s principal for the renter’s needs. Shmuel disagrees and says: אף לשכור ישכור – even where the carcass’s value is only sufficient to rent another donkey, he may rent it, and may deplete the principal.
- A boat rental which sinks midway in its journey
In a Baraisa, Rebbe Nassan says that if one rents a boat to transport wine, but it sinks midway in its journey: אם נתן לא יטול – if he already paid, even all of it, he cannot take it back, ואם לא נתן לא יתן – but if he did not yet pay, he does not pay. The Gemara analyzes the case and says that if the agreement was בספינה זו ויין סתם – to rent this boat and to transport unspecified wine, then the renter may demand a refund, because he can still fulfill his part of the agreement (by bringing other wine), and the owner cannot fulfill his (since this boat sank). If the agreement was בספינה סתם ויין זה – to rent an unspecified boat and to transport this specific wine, the renter should pay in full even if he has not paid, since the owner can provide him with another boat, but the renter’s wine was lost. Rav Pappa explains that the agreement was בספינה זו ויין זה – to rent this boat and transport this wine, both of which were lost. Since neither party can fulfill their part, whoever is trying to demand money from the other loses. If the agreement was with an unspecified boat and unspecified wine, and they can both fulfill their respective parts, they divide the rent if they do not.
- השוכר את הספינה ופרקה לה בחצי הדרך
In a Baraisa it was taught: השוכר את הספינה ופרקה לה בחצי הדרך – if one rents a boat to transport merchandise and unloads it midway through his journey, he pays the rental for half the journey, and the owner has only complaints against him. The Gemara asks that if the owner can find another renter at the new location, he should have no complaints, and if he cannot find another renter, the renter should pay the full rent!? The Gemara eventually reinterprets the Baraisa to mean: דפרקה לטועניה בגויה – that he unloaded more cargo from the midway port into [the ship]. The Baraisa means he must also pay for “half the journey” for the additional cargo. The owner’s complaint against the renter is explained in two ways: (1) משום שינוי דעתא – because of changing from the intent of the owner, whose journey was delayed because of the stop at the midway port, (2) לאשלא יתירא – because of the extra rope needed to guide the heavier boat into deeper water.
