Bava Metzia - Daf 80
- Who is responsible for breaking the plow’s blade?
The next Mishnah states: השוכר את הפרה לחרוש בהר וחרש בבקעה – if someone rents a cow to plow on a mountain, and instead he plowed with it in a valley, and the plow’s blade broke, the renter is not responsible, since it is even more likely to have broken on the rockier mountain. If he rented it to plow in a valley and plowed on a mountain, he is liable for the broken blade, which may not have broken if he had kept to terms. The Gemara discusses which worker is liable for the blade where plowing was done in the correct location. Rav Pappa says: דנקיט פרשא משלם – the one holding the handle which guides the cow pays, because he failed to keep the cow in the line of the furrow, causing the blade’s breaking. Rav Shisha the son of Rav Idi says: דנקיט מנא משלם – the one holding the blade pays, because had he not pushed it so deeply into the ground, it would not have broken. If the plowing was done in a rocky area, they are jointly liable, since they should have been especially careful of the enhanced risk. Rashi explains that since it is unknown whose negligence caused the damage, they share responsibility.
- How increased volume impacts a load
The next Mishnah states that if one rented a donkey to carry wheat and loaded it with barley instead (which is lighter), he is liable for the donkey’s injury. The same applies for loading it with straw instead of grain, מפני שהנפח קשה כמשאוי – because the volume of lighter materials is as difficult for the donkey as weight. The Mishnah is explained in two ways: Abaye interprets the Mishnah as saying volume is as detrimental as weight; נפחא כי תקלא – volume is like weight, so a lesech’s volume of barley is as difficult for a donkey as a lesech of wheat, despite being lighter. Therefore, if he adds three kavs to its load, he is liable, just as the end of the Mishnah teaches for one who adds three kavs to a wheat load. Rava interprets the Mishnah to say volume is difficult למשאוי – for the burden, meaning that where the barley is increased until it matches a lesech’s weight of wheat, נפחא הוי תוספת – that added volume is an excess for which he is liable.
- When a craftsman’s responsibility as a שומר שכר ends after finishing his work
The next Mishnah states that all craftsmen have the status of a שומר שכר, and teaches that once he tells the one who hired him: טול את שלך והבא מעות – “Take that which is yours, and bring the money you own me,” he is only responsible as a שומר חנם, since he is not holding the article as security for his pay (by demanding payment before returning the item). A Mishnah teaches that if a borrower told an owner to send the animal he is borrowing, the borrower is liable if the animal dies on the way. The same applies when the borrower is returning it, i.e., if the lender tells the borrower to send it, it becomes the lender’s responsibility, but if not, the borrower remain liable until it is returned to the lender. Rav Chisda said this is only where it was returned during the loan period, but after the loan period ends, he is no longer responsible for the animal as a borrower, even if it is still in his domain. Rav Nachman bar Pappa challenged him from our Mishnah, which implies that if a craftsman merely tells the owner, "גמרתיו" – I completed it, he is still a שומר שכר!? The Gemara proceeds to explain why this inference should not be drawn from the Mishnah.
