Question: Also when he deviated, why doesn't one of the workers pay, i.e. the one who was negligent in breaking the plow? We should ask also [in that case] who pays!

Answer: When he deviated, [the worker] does not pay, for we discuss when the owner of the cow hires the workers to go with his cow and do the renter's work;

Therefore, they do not pay, for they tell the owner "we contracted with you only to plow in the valley. We did not accept to guard the plow in the mountain, only in the valley. Had we plowed in the valley, we would not have broken [it]!"

In any case, we should not lose our wages, for you intended that we do like the owner of the field wants, for you thought that he will plow only in the valley.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Both pay] because it is a Safek who did [improperly].

Objection: We do not hold like Sumchus, rather, like Rabanan, and ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah. If it were a Safek, both would be exempt!

Explanation #2: Rather, here both of them were negligent. Since it was established to be a rocky area, it breaks very easily. Each should have paid attention to his friend like himself, and warned him. Since he did not warn him, also he was negligent.

Question: Our Gemara is difficult for what Rashi explained [elsewhere];

It says in Kesuvos (58a) that Simpon (a blemish to invalidate a sale) does not apply to slaves. If it is an exposed blemish (the buyer saw it, and accepted it);

Citation (58a): Will you say that [the slave] is an armed robber or the kingdom sentenced him to die? These have publicity!

Explanation (Rashi): The buyer knew, and accepted it [to buy him].

Summation of question (R. Tam): Here we say that it is a Mekach Ta'os due to these blemishes! If so, Simpon applies to slaves. How may [a Kohen's slave] eat Terumah? (Perhaps he has such a blemish, and the sale was invalid, and he is not a Kohen's slave!)

Answer (R. Tam): "These have publicity", and if he really was sentenced him to die or a robber, there would have been publicity! Since there was no publicity, we are not concerned for this;

Also these blemishes (a lunatic, epileptic, crazy) have publicity!

Support: The Gemara [there] says "what will you say", i.e. what Simpon can you find to invalidate the sale? He is an armed robber or the kingdom sentenced him to die...

In Bava Basra (92b), a Beraisa explicitly teaches that if he was found to be an armed robber or the kingdom sentenced him to die, [the buyer] says "yours in front of you" (take back your slave. The sale was invalid.)

Explanation: The Beraisa taught "this is a Mekach Ta'os." Perhaps it discusses when she had all the blemishes and it is a Mekach Ta'os even though the buyer did not check even one;

This is because the buyer says "presumably, not all of these blemishes he said are in her. Since this [one] is not true, also this is not true;

When he said "this blemish and another blemish", this is not a Mekach Ta'os." Since he mentions only one, [the buyer] cannot say "since this is not, also this is not."

Or, perhaps what was taught "this is a Mekach Ta'os" is when not all of the blemishes are there, and the buyer checked one and found that it is not true, and he said "since he lied about this, he lied also about the others";

However, if all of them are true, it is not a Mekach Ta'os.

Observation: The Beraisa teaches [if he said] "this blemish and another blemish", and the same applies if he mentioned several blemishes. Since they are all there, it is not a Mekach Ta'os.

Reference: The Tosefta in Kesuvos (7:10) connotes that if he mentioned two blemishes, and one was in her and the other was not, it is not a Mekach Ta'os. Only when he included it among many blemishes that are not in her [it is a Mekach Ta'os].

Citation (Tosefta in Perek 7 of Kesuvos): If Reuven told Shimon "be Mekadesh your daughter to me on condition that she has no blemishes", and [Shimon] said "she is a lunatic, crazy and epileptic":

Citation (cont.): If he said that blemish [that she has] and another blemish with it, it is not a Mekach Ta'os;

Citation (cont.): If she had one blemish, and he included it with many blemishes [that are not in her], it is a Mekach Ta'os.

Explanation: According to Abaye, the Seifa, which teaches how much he must add [to be liable], comes to explain the Reisha;

According to Rava, the Reisha, which teaches "to bring wheat, and he brought barley" means like the weight of the wheat, i.e. [an extra] Se'ah, like is proven in our Sugya, [then] he is liable, for the volume is greater.

[If he stipulated to bring] a Lesech (15 Sa'im) of wheat, and he brought a Lesech of barley, he is exempt, even if he added three Kavim to a donkey, for it is less weight than what he stipulated.

When he did not deviate, rather, he brought the species that he stipulated, how much he must add to be liable? A Se'ah for a camel...

Question: Rashi questioned Teshuvas ha'Ge'onim [who said that it is wormy barley. Since it is the same volume as regular barley, what is the difference if it is wormy? In any case it is lighter than wheat!]

Answer: This is not difficult. If he stipulated to bring iron or rocks, and he brought bran or feathers, will we say that if he added [to the volume] he is liable?! (Wormy barley is much lighter than wheat.)

Inference: The addition is one part in 30. If so, since he taught a Se'ah for a camel, this implies that a camel carries a Kor (30 Sa'im).

Question (Rivam): In Shabbos (155b) Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti said "I saw an Aravi feed [to his camel] a Kor of food, and load it with a Kor";

Inference: Other camels do not carry so much. That one was unusual!

Answer: Rashi explained there that he loaded it with a Kor of food to eat on the way, aside from its other load.

Support: It is unreasonable that one can feed a camel at one time, even though through force-feeding, as much as it can carry.

Explanation: We compare a craftsman to a renter. Just like a craftsman is a Shomer Sachar, even though he does not receive wages for Shemirah, only wages for his toil...

Likewise, a renter is like a Shomer Sachar, even though he does not receive wages for Shemirah, since he benefits from it through the wages paid.

Implied question: We could have asked "don't we discuss [even] when he did not give extra?!"

Answer: Without this, we asked properly.

Question: Our Mishnah teaches "if he lent to him on a security, he is a Shomer Sachar", and the Gemara struggles to find a reason why he is a Shomer Sachar, like Shmuel or Rav Yosef;

It should say that due to the Hana'ah that he holds [the security] for his loan, he is a Shomer Sachar!

Answer: There, the lender does not benefit at all. He does not gain through lending to him more than had he not lent and would not have the security.

Question: Also a renter, with the Hana'ah that he holds [the rental item] for the rent that he paid, he should be a Shomer Sachar!

Answer: Surely, a craftsman is a Shomer Sachar due to holding the item for his wages, for most craftsmen work in the employer's house, and they are not Tofes anything for their wages;

This [craftsman] who works in his [own] house, and he is Tofes the Kli, benefits greatly;

However, a renter has no Hana'ah, for all renters are Tofes the matter they rented. They can do their work only in their own premises!