Question: Now that he did not want to bring it until here (it does not help him), why must he pay wages?

Answer #1: "Really, he cannot rent" means for the same amount of money that he rented from this one. However, for slightly more, he can rent;

He benefited through coming until here. Therefore, he pays half the wage;

The owner need not deduct from his wage the small addition that the renter must pay now, since this was Ones (beyond the owner's control).

Answer #2: The case is, he can sell his merchandise in the place that the donkey died, and profit through it, and there are many merchants who bring their merchandise only until here. Therefore, he pays half the wage.

Implied question: We could have answered that its value [of the carcass] is not enough to rent [another donkey]!

Answer: Usually, its value is enough to rent [another donkey]. He answered the truth (that Rav holds that we do not consume the principal).

Implied question: It says below (103a) that if he said "[I rent to you] this house", and it fell, it went away (the tenant lost);

It does not say that according to Rav, if the value [of the fallen house] is enough to buy [another house], he buys, and according to Shmuel, even if it is enough to rent [another house], he rents!

Answer: There, the house is not destined to be sold, rather, to add to it and rebuild it like initially;

Since he told him "this house", and it fell, [the tenant] may not sell it. Also, [the owner] did not accept the expense of adding to this house. Rather, he rented to him this house, like it is, to live in it as long as he can. When it fell, it went away;

However, a donkey that died is destined only to be sold. Therefore, if the value suffices to buy, he buys, [and according to Shmuel if it is enough] to rent, he rents.

Implied question: Also the Beraisa is difficult, for we say that buying land is called consuming the principal!

Answer: Even so, it makes a difference for the borrower. [The lender] may not cut the tree for its wood, for sometimes the Mashkanta finishes before Yovel, or [the borrower] will happen to acquire money, and he will redeem it and eat [the Peros] two or three years before the Yovel;

However, according to Rav, who says that we do not consume the principal, this is difficult. In any case, he consumes the principal, since in the end, the land will not remain with the borrower!

Explanation: One might have thought that since he sold for such a long time, it is not considered consuming the principal.

Explanation: [If they stipulated about Stam wine and this ship,] not only if he did not give, he need not give, like it taught. Rather, [it should have taught that] even if he already gave, he takes back, since [the renter] can bring wine, and the owner cannot bring this ship that he stipulated.

Implied question: Above, we said "[if you wanted to bring it] until here, you would have needed to pay!"

Answer: There, he benefited him, for it is easy to rent from here until the place he wants, or he can sell there, like I explained above;

Here, it is not applicable to say so, for the wine sank. What will he sell?!

Suggestion: We ask why he doesn't get wages for the second half of the trip that he did not go yet, but it is fine that he doesn't get wages for the half of the trip that he already went.

Rejection: If so, that this that it taught "if he did not give, he need not give", which connotes that he need not give at all, even wages for half of the trip, we should have asked about why he need not give at all.

Explanation: Not only if he already gave, he does not get back. Rather, even if he did not give, he must give the entire rental;

This is because the owner acquired the entire rental through the renter's Meshichah of the ship, since the owner is ready to fulfill his stipulation;

Alternatively, even without Meshichah, since the owner can fulfill his stipulation, and the renter cannot fulfill, this shows that [the renter's] Mazel caused [the boat to sink];

He is like one who retracted. He pays for the half that he did not go, like an idle worker.

Question: Why does he give to him at all for the half that he did not go, even like an idle worker, since an Ones occurred?

We said above (77a) that when Ones occurred to the Socher (i.e. the employer, who corresponds to the Socher), and rain came and the land need not be irrigated, the workers lose;

It connotes above that any Ones that occurred to the employer, that he was not expected to know more than the workers, the workers lose.

Also here, you are forced to say that he asks that he should pay even the wages for the half that he did not go, since he was content with what was taught "if he already gave, he does not get back";

Inference: If he gave the entire rental, he does not get back at all.

Answer (Rivan): Above, the workers did not lose anything, just they were idle. He does not give to them anything;

Here, the owner lost his ship. He receives at least like an idle worker, since he is ready to fulfill his stipulation.

Explanation: The Muchzak says to the other "I do not owe anything to you. Fulfill your stipulation [and then I will pay you]!"

Question #1: In any case, if he gave the entire rental, why doesn't the renter get back the wages for the half that he did not go?

Because the owner is Muchzak, should he profit?!

Question #2: Rental is due only at the end. Why does the renter lose the wages for the half that he did not go?

Answer #1: Since he gave to him his wages, he consented that it be his immediately;

Even though it is due only at the end, he gave it with intent that it be his immediately, if nothing will remain.

Answer #2 (Rivam): The question regarding a Stam ship and this wine "if he did not give, why doesn't he give?" is only why he does not give the wages for the half that he already went;

However, wages for half the journey that he did not go, obviously he need not give, since Ones occurred;

In any case, this that was taught "if he gave, he does not take back", which connotes that he does not take at all, even the reward of half the journey that he did not go, was not difficult to him;

Since he is Muchzak and ready to fulfill his stipulation, it is fine that he does not return at all.

Answer #2 (cont.): He answers that regarding this wine and this ship, whoever holds [the money], we do not take from him;

The Muchzak says to the other "since you cannot fulfill your stipulation, your Mazel caused [the boat to sink]." Ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah;

However, regarding a Stam ship and Stam wine, they divide.

Question: The Rivam was unsure whether they divide the wages only for the half that he went, and [the renter] gives a quarter [of the wage for the entire journey];

Or they divide the entire wages, and he gives [half] the wages of the [entire] journey, since he already went [half-way] and he is still ready to fulfill his stipulation.

Explanation: "All" is not precise. Rather, he gives to him like an idle worker.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He added to the load in the middle of the journey.

Question #1: He should have said "he unloaded it", since he unloaded from elsewhere to the ship!

Question #2: He said that [he has complaints because] he changed his mind. What does [the owner] lose through this? All the more so it is good for him. He profits more!

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): He unloaded the load, i.e. he sold the merchandise on the ship to someone else. This is change of mind, for perhaps the buyer is a tough person;

[The Gemara answered that] alternatively, [he has complaints because] he needs extra ropes. He needs ropes to remove the first owner's Kelim and enter the latter owner's.

Question: Why do we establish it like this? We should say that really, he is able to rent [to others]. He has complaints due to change of mind!

Answer: We cannot say so, for we conclude that wear and tear on the ship is a proper reason [to obligate paying].

Explanation #3 (Rivam): The Gemara means that really, he is able to rent, and there is no wear and tear on the ship. The case is, he unloaded the cargo in it, i.e. he untied the bundle on the ship and removed the merchandise bit by bit;

Also the last one (the buyer) entered his merchandise bit by bit, so there is no wear and tear on the ship. There are complaints due to change of intent, for he was not used to this, and he did not know to conduct according to [the latter's] mindset;

[The Gemara answered that] alternatively, [he has complaints due to] extra ropes. If he increases the load, he will need to buy strong ropes here expensively. Had he known [initially, when he was] in his house, he would have bought there ropes cheaply;

This is only complaints. It is not a proper claim, for correspondingly he receives extra wages for the load, due to its size.

Alternative text: R. Chananel's text says "Kesto". Keses is what he puts under his head, for it is the smaller [of Kar and Keses]. Kar is the bigger one (blanket), like the Mishnah in Kelim (28:5) "if one made a Kar into a sheet, or made a Keses a cloth."

Explanation: It says so because if it were available to toil and buy even in the middle of the day, why may the donkey-driver put his food for the entire day [on the donkey]?

Implied question: Initially, [the Gemara] said that if it were available to buy, also the donkey-driver could stop the renter;

It could have said that also the renter can totally stop the donkey-driver from putting his food for that day on it, since it did not say "if it is available to buy food from lodging place to lodging place"!

Answer: He was not concerned to elaborate so much.

Implied question: Regarding a man, why didn't it teach "whether he is big or small"?

Answer: It is common that men are big. Obviously, he rented to him also with intent for a big man.

Version #1: This is the text in Seforim.

Objection #1 (R. Tam): This is not a question. The Tana taught this (a pregnant woman), and even this (a)!

Objection #2: According to this text, it is problematic what it says "this shows that a fish's weight is according to its stomach."

Version #2: R. Tam found a text that says "you said that a pregnant woman may [ride]. Need you teach about a nursing woman?!

A pregnant woman is heavier than a nursing woman with her son, for one who is alive (i.e. after he was born, partially) carries himself and lightens the load, but when he is in his mother's womb, he weighs down;

Also, [a pregnant woman's] limbs are heavy on her, and she is full of blood.

Support: Now it is fine that it says "this teaches that a fish with a big stomach weighs more." If [the fetus] were outside of her, the total weight would not be so much.

Defense (of Version #1): It is a proper question, for it is not so appropriate to teach in such a case this (a pregnant woman), and even this (a nursing woman), since the former is included in the latter;

This is like "we may clear out four or five boxes" (Shabbos 126b). The Gemara asks "we may clear out five. Need it teach that we may clear out four?!"

It answers "four or five, like people say." However, if people did not say so, we could not answer "it taught this, and even this", since four are included in five, just [five] adds [a bigger Chidush];

Also here, a pregnant woman, who is one body, is included in a nursing woman, who is two bodies.

Defense (cont.): It says "this teaches that a fish with a big stomach weighs more." I.e. since the Reisha taught "whether big or small." This includes when fat or thin;

Why did it need to teach "even if she is pregnant", i.e. fat? She is one body!

Even according to the opinion that a fetus is not considered a limb of its mother (rather, it is independent), regarding the way people speak in business, they are considered one body.

Conclusion: Rather, surely ["even if she is pregnant"] teaches that one who is fat due to a fetus is heavier than one who is fat herself, for the fetus weighs down.