1)

(a)What does Rabah bar Rav Huna Amar Rav rule in a case where someone hired a donkey to transport him to a certain town, and the donkey died halfway?

(b)Assuming that donkeys are easy to hire there, then there is no reason to complaint. What problem do we have with Rav's ruling if they are not?

(c)Then why does he have to pay?

(d)Is Rav speaking where the hirer asked for Chamor Zeh' or 'Chamor Stam')?

1)

(a)If someone hired a donkey to transport him to a certain town, and the donkey died halfway, Rabah bar Rav Huna Amar Rav rules that he is obligated to pay half the rental, and all he has against the owner (for providing him with a weak animal) is complaints.

(b)Assuming that donkeys are easy to hire there, then there is no reason to complain. If they are not, the problem with Rav's ruling is that seeing as he did not reach his destination, he ought not to have to pay rental at all.

(c)The reason that he does is because the owner can claim that had the point that he reached been his destination, would he not have had to pay? (meaning that one pays rental per mileage, not for reaching one's destination).

(d)Rav must be speaking where the hirer asked for 'Chamor Zeh', because had he asked for 'Chamor Stam', the owner would have been obligated to provide him with another donkey to complete his journey.

2)

(a)In the current case, why can the hirer not sell the carcass, and use the proceeds ...

1. ... to purchase another donkey?

2. ... to hire another donkey?

(b)What would Shmuel say in this case?

(c)How will Rav then interpret our Mishnah, which rules 'Meisah, Chayav Leha'amid lo Chamor'?

2)

(a)The hirer cannot sell the carcass, and use the proceeds ...

1. ... to purchase another donkey because Rav speaks where the proceeds are not sufficient to pay for another donkey.

2. ... to hire another donkey because Rav holds 'Lo Mechalinan Karna' (even though the carcass of the donkey remains Meshubad to the hirer, he is not permitted to use up the Keren completely.

(b)Shmuel would say that the hirer should sell the carcass and use the proceeds to hire another donkey, because he holds 'Mechalinan Karna'.

(c)Our Mishnah, which rules 'Meisah, Chayav Le'ha'amid lo Chamor') Rav will establish where the donkey died whilst it was still in the owner's domain, and the owner is able to add some money out of his own pocket to purchase a new one.

3)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa that if the tree that the debtor gave the creditor as a Mashkanta de'Sura (which cancels the debt when it is returned at the end of the fixed term) dried up or was cut down before the due date, neither Reuven nor Shimon is permitted to benefit from the wood. So what do they do with it?

(b)What makes this a case of 'Kalya Karna'?

(c)We reconcile this with Rav, who just said that Reuven is forbidden to use up the Keren of something that is Meshubad to him, by citing Rav Chisda Amar Rav Katina. What did he say about a field that is sold for sixty years?

3)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa that if the tree that the debtor gave the creditor as a Mashkanta de'Sura (which cancels the debt when it is returned at the end of the fixed term) dried up or was cut down, neither Reuven nor Shimon is permitted to benefit from the wood. What they do is sell the tree, and from the proceeds, they purchase a small plot of land, from which the creditor eats the fruit.

(b)What makes this a case of 'Kalya Karna' is the fact that the plot of land goes back to the owner in the Yovel.

(c)We reconcile this with Rav, who just said that Reuven is forbidden to use up the Keren of something that is Meshubad to him, by citing Rav Chisda Amar Rav Katina who rules that a field that is sold for sixty years does not go back to the owner in the Yovel.

4)

(a)What is Rav Katina's source?

(b)How do we initially use Rav Katina's ruling to resolve the problem with Rav?

(c)On what grounds do we refute this explanation? Why in fact, will it not resolve our problem at all?

4)

(a)Rav Katina's source is the Pasuk in Behar "ve'ha'Aretz Lo Simacher li'Tzemisus", implying that Yovel only cancels sales that would otherwise be permanent, but not those that are temporary anyway.

(b)We initially use Rav Katina's ruling to resolve the problem with Rav by establishing the Beraisa too, where they purchased the small plot for sixty years, so that Yovel will not cancel the sale.

(c)We refute this explanation however by bearing in mind that the plot of land will have to be returned in sixty years anyway, in which case the problem of Kalya Karna remains.

5)

(a)So how do we finally establish the Beraisa in a way that Yovel will not cancel the sale of the plot of land?

(b)And how do we try to prove this from the basic ruling in the Beraisa?

(c)Whose opinion does this support?

(d)How do we refute this proof (so as not to remain with a Kashya on Shmuel)?

5)

(a)We finally establish the Beraisa in an era when Yovel is not practiced, in which case the debtor will not use up the Keren.

(b)And we try to prove from the basic ruling in the Beraisa that the Tana must be speaking in a time when the Yovel is not practiced, and that 'Lo Mechalinan Karna', because otherwise, why would it be necessary to sell the tree and purchase land? Why can the creditor not simply use the tree as firewood ...

(c)... a support for Rav against Shmuel)?

(d)We refute this proof however, on the grounds that sometimes, the days of the Mashkon will conclude before the arrival of the Yovel, in which case, the debtor too, will benefit from the plot of land until the Yovel arrives (since even Shmuel will concede that we do not finish off the Keren as long as it is possible for the debtor to still derive benefit from it.

6)

(a)What does Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa rule concerning someone who hires a boat, which sinks halfway to its destination?

(b)Why can the Tana not be speaking by ...

1. ... 'Sefinah Zu ve'Yayin Stam'?

2. ... 'Sefinah Stam ve'Yayin Zu'?

(c)So how does Rav Papa therefore establish Rebbi Nasan?

(d)And what will be the Din in the case of 'Sefinah Stam ve'Yayin Stam'?

6)

(a)Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa rules in a case where someone hires a boat to transport wine, which sinks halfway to its destination that if he has already paid, he cannot retrieve the money, whereas if he has not, then he does not need to pay.

(b)The Tana cannot be speaking by ...

1. ... 'Sefinah Zu ve'Yayin Stam' because then, why should the hirer not retrieve his money (seeing as he can argue that if the owner produces the original boat, he will provide more wine to transport)?

2. ... 'Sefinah Stam ve'Yayin Zu' because then, there is no reason why he should not have to pay (seeing as the owner can argue that if he produces the original wine, he will gladly provide him with another boat).

(c)Rav Papa therefore establishes Rebbi Nasan by 'Sefinah Zu ve'Yayin Zu' (in which case whichever is the claimant has the underhand, since the Muchzak can counter that if he (the claimant) produces what he stipulated, then he will produce what he stipulated.

(d)Whereas in the case of 'Sefinah Stam ve'Yayin Stam' (where each one is able to fulfill his half of the condition, and provide what he promised) the hirer must pay half, if he did not yet pay, and he retrieves half, if he did.

79b----------------------------------------79b

7)

(a)What does the Beraisa say about someone who hires a boat and decides to unload it halfway to his destination?

(b)Why can the Tana not be speaking where the owner is unable to find someone to replace the first hirer?

(c)How do we try to resolve the problem, that if he was able to find a replacement, then what complaints could he possibly have?

(d)How do we refute this suggestion?

7)

(a)The Beraisa rules that someone who hires a boat and decides to unload it halfway to his destination pays for half the journey and the owner has nothing against him but complaints.

(b)The Tana cannot be speaking where the owner is unable to find someone to replace the first hirer because then why should the hirer not have to pay in full for the loss that he caused the owner?

(c)We try to resolve the problem, that if he was able to find a replacement, then what complaints could he possibly have, by suggesting that perhaps his complaints are due to the depreciation of the boat caused by the previous hirer unloading his goods and the new hirer loading his.

(d)We refute this suggestion however on the grounds that he would then have the right to charge the first hirer for the unexpected depreciation (and not just have complaints against him).

8)

(a)So we conclude that the Tana cannot be talking about the hirer unloading the boat halfway. Then what is he talking about?

(b)Assuming that the owner's complaint concerned the fact that the hirer changed from his original conditions, what is the basis of his complaint?

(c)What alternative complaint might he have?

(d)What purpose did the ropes serve?

8)

(a)So we conclude that the Tana cannot be talking about the hirer unloading the boat halfway but about the hirer taking on a new load mid-journey.

(b)Assuming that the owner's complaint concerned the fact that the hirer changed from his original conditions, his complaint his complaint is based on the added time to the journey (bearing in mind that it was the owner who generally navigated the boat).

(c)Alternatively, he might be complaining about the extra ropes that he now has to purchase in mid-journey, to cope with moving into mid-river, which is the result of the extra weight. (Note, that if, as Rashi writes, the hirer stipulated that he was free to load additional goods mid-journey, it is difficult to see what complaints the owner could possibly have [see also Tosfos]).

(d)The boats were pulled by animals walking along the river bank which were hitched to the boat by ropes.

9)

(a)The Beraisa rules that someone who hires a donkey is permitted to place his cloak, his water-flask and food for the entire journey on its back. What about the donkey-driver (alias the owner)? What is he permitted to do?

(b)Why can the Tana not be speaking in a case where stocks are difficult to come by along the way?

(c)Since he must therefore be speaking where they are readily available, why is the hirer permitted to place food for the entire journey, whereas the donkey-driver is not?

9)

(a)The Beraisa rules that someone who hires a donkey is permitted to place his cloak, his water-flask and food for the entire journey on its back. The donkey-driver (alias the owner) is allowed barley, straw and food for that day only.

(b)The Tana cannot be speaking in a case where stocks are difficult to come by along the way because if they were, the donkey-driver too, would be allowed to load his donkey for the entire journey, just like the hirer.

(c)Despite the fact that he must therefore be speaking where stocks are readily available, the hirer is permitted to place food for the entire journey because it is not customary for merchants to purchase food on a daily basis, whereas it is the way of donkey-drivers to do so.

10)

(a)What does the Tana say about someone who hires a donkey ...

1. ... for a man to ride on?

2. ... for a woman to ride on?

(b)If the donkey is hired for a woman, does it make any difference whether the woman is ...

1. ... large or small?

2. ... pregnant or with a feeding baby? Why is that?

(c)How does Rav Papa explain the fact that having informed us about a woman with a feeding baby, the Tana needed to add a pregnant woman?

(d)What observation does Abaye make from here with regard to buying a fish?

(e)What are the ramifications of that observation?

10)

(a)The Tana rules that someone who hires a donkey ...

1. ... for a man to ride on may not allow a woman to ride on it (because women generally weigh more than men).

2. ... for a woman to ride on may allow a man to ride on it (see Nimukei Yosef).

(b)If the donkey is hired for a woman, it makes no difference whether the woman is ...

1. ... large or small ...

2. ... pregnant or with a feeding baby, since one of these meet with stipulation of 'a woman'.

(c)Rav Papa explains the fact that having informed us about a woman with a feeding baby, the Tana needed to add a pregnant woman by explaining the Beraisa to mean that she is both pregnant besides already feeding.

(d)Abaye observes from here that the weight of a fish is determined by the size of its stomach.

(e)Consequently if the fish that one is purchasing has a bulging stomach, he should insist that the seller removes its innards before weighing it.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF