# snc

lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k67a_1:" When be said, 'I admit that if he removed, etc.'"
,k67a_2:" <i>Supra</i> 51a: though given voluntarily, and hence an erroneous abandonment, it is nevertheless returnable."
,k67a_3:" [H], a woman constitutionally incapable of child-birth."
,k67a_4:" Since the money fraudently taken is given under the mistaken impression that it is due."
,k67a_5:" Keth. 100b."
,k67a_6:" [H], lit., 'a woman who refuses'. If a girl, a minor, was married by her mother or elder brothers, who by Rabbinical law were empowered to marry her, on attaining her majority she could annul the marriage merely by objecting to it."
,k67a_7:" Lit., 'a second'. E.g., the Bible interdicts marriage with one's mother; the Rabbis add, one's grandmother; this is called forbidden relationship in the second degree."
,k67a_8:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k67a_9:" The Rabbis enacted that the usufruct of the wife's <i>melog</i> property (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) belongs to the husband, in return for which he must ransom her, should she ever be taken captive. These are not entitled to this consideration, and yet if divorced cannot demand repayment of the usufruct seized by the husband."
,k67a_10:" The conditions depriving maintenance rights, in respect of an objector, are stated in Keth. 107b thus: If she borrows money in the husband's absence for her maintenance, and then, on his return, she objects, her creditor cannot obtain repayment from him. Tosaf. here states that similar conditions apply to the constitutionally barren woman, her borrowings having been made before she was certified as such. With respect to a 'secondary relation', Tosaf. maintains that the reference is to her widowhood; after her husband's death, she cannot demand maintenance from his estate."
,k67a_11:" If raiment formed part of the dowry she brought her husband, and it became worn out, so that it is no longer in existence, she cannot claim payment for it (Tosaf.). Rashi: She cannot demand even her worn out raiment which is still fit for some use. Now, with respect to a barren woman, though her renunciation of ownership rights in her dowry in favour of her husband was in error, for when marrying him, she did not foresee that she would prove incapable of childbirth, that renunciation is valid, and she cannot demand their return."
,k67a_12:" So that there is no renunciation at all, even in error, and therefore it must be returned."
,k67a_13:" And in return for that she knowingly, not in error, brings in a dowry to her husband, even if she should have to forfeit it eventually."
,k67a_14:" [A proper noun; others: 'and so-and-so,' 'and she'.]"
,k67a_15:" She will certainly permit you to repurchase the land when you are able."
,k67a_16:" Hence the sale is conditional, and the field can always be redeemed."
,k67a_17:" Raised after the sale."
,k67a_18:" Since such a sale is really a loan (v. Mishnah on 65b), the crops which the purchaser enjoys are in the nature of direct interest."
,k67a_19:" V. <i>supra</i>, 61b."
,k67a_20:" If a field was mortgaged and no stipulation made about its crops, and the creditor took them."
,k67a_21:" Hence it is not returnable."
,k67a_22:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: Raba."
,k67a_23:" And until then, he is in possession and enjoys its usufruct."
,k67a_24:" I.e., if the debtor makes the claim, the usufruct is counted as repayment, and the creditor has no further title."
,k67a_25:" Because it is not direct interest."
,k67a_26:" Lit., 'bond.'"
,k67a_27:" I.e., if the debtor owes him more money on another bond, the excess cannot be deducted from it. "
}

txt:
<p>
I was sitting before R. Nahman,<a id="k67a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and wished to refute him from the law of 'overreaching';<a id="k67a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but observing [my intentions] he drew my attention to the case of a barren woman.<a id="k67a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [Raba proceeds to explain.] Now 'overreaching', being as it is [the result] of renunciation in error,<a id="k67a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [we find that it] is not a [legal] renunciation! 'But observing [my intention], he drew my attention to a barren woman,' for a barren woman [makes] renunciation in error, and yet it is valid. For we learnt:<a id="k67a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; An objecting woman,<a id="k67a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; a consanguineous relation in the second degree,<a id="k67a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and a constitutionally barren woman can claim no <i>kethubah</i>,<a id="k67a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; usufruct,<a id="k67a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; alimony,<a id="k67a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; or worn out raiment.<a id="k67a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is not so: neither [the law of] 'overreaching' refutes him, nor [that of] a 'barren woman' supports him. [Thus: the law of] overreaching does not refute him, for he [the victim did not know that he was defrauded at all, that he should forego it.<a id="k67a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Nor does [the law of] a 'barren woman' support him, because she is satisfied to be designated a married woman.<a id="k67a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A woman once instructed a man, 'Go and buy me land from my relatives,' and he went and did so. Said he [the vendor] to him [her agent], 'If I have money, will she return it to me?' 'You and Nawla,'<a id="k67a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; he replied, 'are relatives.'<a id="k67a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah son of R. Huna said: Whenever one says, 'You and Nawla are relatives,' he [the vendor] relies upon it, and does not completely transfer it [the object of sale].<a id="k67a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, the land is [certainly] returnable; but what of the crops?<a id="k67a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it as direct usury, which can be legally reclaimed;<a id="k67a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; or perhaps it is only indirect<a id="k67a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; usury, and cannot be reclaimed? &mdash; Rabbah b. Rab said: It stands to reason that it is considered indirect usury and cannot be reclaimed in court. And thus did Raba say, It is considered indirect usury and cannot be reclaimed in court.
</p><p>
	Abaye inquired of Rabbah: What of a mortgage?<a id="k67a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Is the reason there [in the previous case] that he made no stipulation? Then here too there was no stipulation!<a id="k67a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Or, perhaps, there it is a sale, but here a loan? &mdash; He replied: The reason there is that no stipulation was made; so here too there was no stipulation. R. papi said: Rabina gave a practical decision, calculated [the value of] the crops, and ordered it to be returned, thus disagreeing with Rabbah son of R. Huna.
</p><p>
	Mar,<a id="k67a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; the son of R. Joseph, said in Raba's name: With reference to a mortgage: Where it is customary to make [the creditor] quit [whenever the loan is repaid],<a id="k67a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; if he took the usufruct to the amount of the loan, he must quit it;<a id="k67a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; but if in excess thereof, [the surplus] is not returnable;<a id="k67a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; nor is one loan<a id="k67a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; balanced against another.<a id="k67a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; But when it [the mortgaged estate] belongs to orphans, if he [the creditor] enjoyed its usufruct to the amount of the loan, he must quit it; if it [the usufruct] exceeded it, [the surplus] is returnable, and one loan is balanced against another. R. Ashi said: Now that you rule, If the usufruct exceeded the loan, [the balance] is not returnable; then even if it [merely] equalled it, he must not be dismissed without payment. Why? Because to dismiss him without payment is tantamount to making him return [what he has already had]; whereas it is only indirect interest, which is not reclaimable at law. R. Ashi gave a practical decision in reference to orphans [minors],
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k67b_1:" And did not allow the dismissal of the creditors without payment in spite of the discrimination above in their favour."
,k67b_2:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 2."
,k67b_3:" For every year of possession the creditor must allow a fixed deduction from the debt, even if the usufruct in a particular year amounts to less. This removes it from the category of loans and turns it into a temporary sale, so that even when the usufruct exceeds the allowance it is not interest."
,k67b_4:" This is explained below."
,k67b_5:" Less than the average value of the crops."
,k67b_6:" Converting it into a sale."
,k67b_7:" If the creditor dies, and the usufruct of the estate passes on to his children, his creditor cannot demand repayment out of the usufruct of the field. For since it must be returned whenever the loan is repaid, the heirs have no possible title to the land itself, but to its usufruct, which, regarded as movable property, cannot be distrained upon from the heirs for debt."
,k67b_8:" On the view that a first-born receives no double portion of debts (v. B.B. 124b), and since the creditor may have to quit the land at any moment, this is merely a debt."
,k67b_9:" Like any other loan on a written bond. Though a loan against a pledge consisting of movable property is not cancelled by the seventh year, this is not regarded as such."
,k67b_10:" For in these circumstances he is regarded as having bought the land for the period arranged."
,k67b_11:" Spread on the ground to receive the dates falling 'at gleaning'. He must quit immediately on receiving his money, and may take nothing whatsoever."
,k67b_12:" For the 'lifting up' from the mats effects possession."
,k67b_13:" V. B.B. 85a and b."
,k67b_14:" Because the mats spread by the creditor are his utensils, and the dates falling upon them, become his."
,k67b_15:" I.e., that he shall perform a symbolical act(<i>kinyan</i> q.v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) to bind him to his undertaking."
,k67b_16:" Since usage is otherwise, his mere word may not be binding."
,k67b_17:" Where usage forced the creditor to quit immediately."
,k67b_18:" Since the debtor has the money ready, it is accounted as though he had already repaid him."
,k67b_19:" [H], Lev. XXVII, 16-18: if one sanctified 'a field of his inheritance' from the year of jubilee, it was to be redeemed at a fixed price, as stated; and if he sanctified it some years after the jubilee, the redemption price was proportionate to the number of years left until the next jubilee. "
}

txt:
<p>
just as though they were adults.<a id="k67b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba, the son of R. Joseph, said in Raba's name: With reference to a mortgage, where it is the usage to make [the creditor] quit [whenever] the loan is repaid],<a id="k67b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; one must not enjoy the usufruct without making a [fixed annual] deduction.<a id="k67b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But a scholar must not enjoy the usufruct even at a [fixed] allowance. How else shall he take them? &mdash; By a stipulated time limit.<a id="k67b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, this is well on the view that a stipulated time limit is permitted; but on the view that it is forbidden, what can you say? For it has been stated: As for a stipulated time limit, R. Aha and Rabina differ therein: one maintained that it is permitted &mdash; the other that it is forbidden. What is meant by a 'stipulated time limit'? &mdash; If he [the creditor said], 'For the first five years, the usufruct is mine without deduction; thereafter, I will make you a full allowance for the crops.' Others maintain: Any arrangement involving no deduction is forbidden. What then is meant by a 'stipulated time limit'? &mdash; If he [the creditor] said to him, 'For the first five years the usufruct is mine at a [fixed] deduction;<a id="k67b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; thereafter, I will make you a full allowance for the crops.' Now, he who forbids the first arrangement will permit the second; but he who forbids [even] the second, on what condition may he [a scholar] have the usufruct? &mdash; When it is as the mortgage bonds arranged in Sura, in which it was written, 'On the expiry of a certain number of years this estate reverts [to the debtor] without any payment.<a id="k67b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa and R. Huna, the sons of R. Joshua, said: As for a mortgage, where it is the practice to make [the creditor] quit [whenever the loan is repaid], the [creditor's] creditor cannot exact his debt from it,<a id="k67b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; the first-born receives no double portion therein,<a id="k67b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and the seventh year cancels it [the privilege of usufruct].<a id="k67b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But where the creditor is not obliged to give up possession [whenever the loan is repaid], his creditor can exact his debt from it, the first-born receives a double portion, and the seventh year does not cancel it.<a id="k67b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Mar Zutra also said in R. Papa's name: With reference to mortgaged property, where it is the usage to make [the creditor] quit, he must give up possession [absolutely], even of the dates on the mattings;<a id="k67b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he has already picked them up [and placed them] in baskets, they are his.<a id="k67b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But on the view that the purchaser's utensils effect ownership for him even in the domain of the vendor,<a id="k67b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; even if they have not been gathered into baskets, they are his.<a id="k67b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, it is obvious, where the usage is that the creditor must quit, but he stipulated [when making the loan], 'I will not quit it [before a certain time]' &mdash; then surely he has so stipulated [and it is binding]. But what if he promised to quit [immediately on repayment] where the usage does not compel him to go: is it necessary to submit him to a binding act<a id="k67b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; or not?<a id="k67b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Papa said: It is unnecessary; R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi ruled: It is necessary. And the law is that he must perform a binding act.
</p><p>
	Now, if he [the debtor] states, 'I am about to bring you the money,'<a id="k67b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; he [the creditor] may not take the usufruct [in the meanwhile].<a id="k67b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [Where he however states] 'I will go, make earnest effort [to obtain it], and bring the money' &mdash; Rabina ruled: He may take the usufruct; Mar Zutra, the son of R. Mari, said: He may not. And the law is that he may not take the usufruct.
</p><p>
	R. Kahana, R. Papa and R. Ashi did not take usufruct with deduction; Rabina did. Mar Zutra said: What is the reason of him who takes it with deduction? &mdash; Because it is analogous to '<i>a field of possession'</i>;<a id="k67b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; with respect to this, did not the Divine Law order, even though there may be greater usufruct therefrom,
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k68a_1:" That is the redemption price per annum of a field that requires a <i>homer</i> of barley seed. <i>Shekel</i> (Biblical) = <i>sela'</i> = 4 <i>zuz</i>."
,k68a_2:" I. e., the fixed deduction may be less than the average value of the crops."
,k68a_3:" I.e., to sanctify an inherited field is equivalent to dedicating a certain sum fixed by Scripture."
,k68a_4:" I.e., where no conditions were stipulated as to its length."
,k68a_5:" [H] is derived from [H], 'to abide.'"
,k68a_6:" When a person sells a field, the adjoining neighbour (of this field) has the first option to buy it."
,k68a_7:" V. <i>supra</i> 65a."
,k68a_8:" I.e., they supplied goods to their agents for sale on a profit-sharing basis, calculated their share, and then drew up a note against the agent for the entire amount."
,k68a_9:" Hence they appear to be taking interest."
,k68a_10:" They would simply see the debt, and might not believe the agents."
,k68a_11:" Eccl. X, 5: such an order is nevertheless obeyed."
,k68a_12:" At a fixed rental, paid in produce."
,k68a_13:" Hence it is direct interest thinly disguised."
,k68a_14:" Taking the usufruct at a fixed allowance on the debt."
,k68a_15:" A proverbial expression. Unless the creditor received certain privileges, no man could ever borrow."
,k68a_16:" Hence even this practice is forbidden."
,k68a_17:" I.e., give him goods to sell in his shop and take half a share of the profits. Under this arrangement the retailer generally accepted complete responsibility for half the stock, and even if it depreciated, rendered payment in full. Consequently, the half is a loan, since its owner takes no risk whatsoever therein, and the labour of selling the second half for the owner's benefit is interest on the first, and hence forbidden. V. <i>infra</i> 104b."
,k68a_18:" I.e., one may not give eggs to a fowl keeper for hatching, the latter to receive half the profits, but on the other hand, take full responsibility for half the eggs."
,k68a_19:" As before, one may not commission a farmer to breed them, to receive half the profits, whilst bearing full responsibility for the present value of half the stock."
,k68a_20:" No value was attached to them at all, but when grown, the breeder received half their worth for his labour. On the other hand, when they perished, he bore no responsibility: consequently it did not come within the category of a loan."
,k68a_21:" It was customary to breed them to that stage before the profits were shared."
,k68a_22:" Referring to the Mishnah. "
}

txt:
<p>
that it should be redeemed at four <i>zuz</i>?<a id="k68a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; So here too, it is in no way different.<a id="k68a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But he who holds it forbidden argues thus: 'a field of possession' is a matter of sanctification, which the Divine Law based upon [a fixed] redemption;<a id="k68a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; here, however, it is a loan, and so it looks like interest.
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: The elders of the town Mehasia told me that an unconditional mortgage<a id="k68a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; is for a year. What is the practical outcome [of this fact]? That, if he [the creditor] has enjoyed the usufruct for a year he can be forced to quit, but not otherwise.
</p><p>
	R. Ashi also said: The elders of the town of Mehasia told me, What is the meaning of <i>mashkanta</i> [a pledge]? That it abides with him [the mortagee].<a id="k68a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; In respect to what has this a practical bearing? &mdash; In respect to [the right of] pre-emption.<a id="k68a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: The law permits neither the credit interests of R. papa, nor the bonds of the Mahuzeans, nor the Narshean tenancies. The credit interests of R. Papa means the credit sales arranged by R. Papa.<a id="k68a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The bonds of the Mahuzeans' they add the [estimated] profit to the principal and record it [the whole] in a bond;<a id="k68a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; for who knows that there will be profit?<a id="k68a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Mar, the son of Amemar, said to R. Ashi: My father does so, but when they [his agents] come before him [and declare that they have earned no profit], he believes them. He replied: That is well whilst he is alive: but what if he dies and the notes are transferred to his heirs?<a id="k68a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; (This [supposition] was <i>'an unwitting order which proceedeth from the ruler'</i>,<a id="k68a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and Amemar died.)
</p><p>
	'Narshean tenancies': &mdash; for they wrote thus: A mortgaged his field to B, and then he [the debtor] rented it from him.<a id="k68a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But when did he [the creditor] acquire it, to transfer it to the debtor?<a id="k68a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Nowadays, however, that the note is drawn up thus: He [the creditor] hath acquired it from him, hath been in possession such and such a time,<a id="k68a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and then re-rented it to him, so as not to shut the door in the borrowers' faces;<a id="k68a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; it is well. But, still this is no justification.<a id="k68a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN MAY NOT COMMISSION A TRADESMAN ON A HALF PROFIT BASIS,<a id="k68a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR ADVANCE MONEY FOR PROVISIONS [TO BE SOLD] ON HALF PROFITS, UNLESS HE PAYS HIM A WAGE AS A WORKER. FOWLS MAY NOT BE SET TO BROOD ON HALF PROFITS,<a id="k68a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR MAY CALVES OR FOALS BE ASSESSED THUS,<a id="k68a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; UNLESS HE PAYS HIM FOR HIS LABOUR AND FOODSTUFFS. BUT CALVES AND FOALS MAY BE ACCEPTED [WITHOUT ASSESSING THEIR VALUE AT ALL] ON HALF PROFITS;<a id="k68a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; AND THEY ARE BRED UNTIL A THIRD GROWN; WHILST AN ASS IS BRED UNTIL IT CAN BEAR BURDENS.<a id="k68a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It has been taught: [Unless he is paid] as an unemployed worker.<a id="k68a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by, 'as an unemployed worker'? &mdash; 
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k68b_1:" E.g., if he was originally a carpenter, who works very hard, and accepted a commission to sell provisions instead on half profits, he must be paid in addition as much as the average man would demand for changing over from strenuous labour to work of a lighter nature."
,k68b_2:" The goods being given him."
,k68b_3:" As in addition to selling he has the work of buying too."
,k68b_4:" A few words or letters, each being the catchword of a subject, strung together and generally forming a simple phrase, as an aid to the memory."
,k68b_5:" Referring to the Mishnah."
,k68b_6:" Lit., 'and eats'."
,k68b_7:" I.e., on an arrangement such as is forbidden in the Mishnah; v. p. 397, n. 6. But if it toils for its food, e.g., an ox that ploughs or an ass that bears burdens, the breeder has the profit of its work in return for its food and his own labour, and therefore it does not fall under the ban of usury."
,k68b_8:" Subjected to a vigorous washing, which removed their wool; v. Hul. 137a."
,k68b_9:" In passing through bushes, etc. (Jast.)"
,k68b_10:" Surely not!"
,k68b_11:" [Where the breeder is allowed only these.]"
,k68b_12:" Hence whey and wool refuse are insufficient."
,k68b_13:" I.e., she may receive the eggs from her neighbour, set her own fowl to brood upon them, and receive two fledglings for her trouble."
,k68b_14:" [In this case, the owner of the fowl, while assuming full responsibility for half the eggs, receives no extra compensation for her trouble.]"
,k68b_15:" These cannot be hatched, and the egg-owner receives them in return for her labour. This, of course, is very little, but R. Judah has already stated above that even the smallest payment is sufficient. &mdash; Addled eggs may be eaten, and hence are of some slight value."
,k68b_16:" I.e., where calves and foals are given to breed at half profits, but the breeder is paid for having to carry them on his shoulder whilst they are very small."
,k68b_17:" If both the mother and the young are given to breed on a profit sharing basis, the profit which the breeder receives from the work of the mother is adequate compensation for both, and no further payment is necessary."
,k68b_18:" The objection is raised on the hypothesis that unless the breeder receives some separate payment for the young, the arrangement amounts to usury; v. p. Mishnah 68a."
,k68b_19:" Which has a monetary value."
,k68b_20:" The first Tanna, who insists upon payment."
,k68b_21:" The owner does not want it in any case, and so it constitutes no payment."
,k68b_22:" I.e., a bond whereby R. 'Ilish had undertaken to trade on these terms: this arrangement is forbidden as usury; v. <i>infra</i> 104b."
,k68b_23:" He would not have made an arrangement whereby another should enjoy the illegitimate profits of usury."
,k68b_24:" Lit., 'whatever be your opinion.' "
}

txt:
<p>
Abaye said: As a labourer unemployed in his craft.<a id="k68b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Now they [the first two clauses of the Mishnah] are [both] necessary. For if the case of a tradesman were taught, I would think that only a storekeeper is it sufficient to pay as an unemployed worker, seeing that his efforts are not great;<a id="k68b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but [when one is advanced] money for buying provisions, his toil being great,<a id="k68b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; I would think it insufficient to pay him [merely] as an unemployed artisan. Whilst if [the case of advancing] money to buy provisions were taught, I would think that only there must he be paid as an unemployed worker, since much work is involved; but for a shopkeeper, who makes very little effort, I would think a mere trifle sufficient, e.g., even if he just dipped [his bread] into his vinegar, or ate a dried fig of his, it is enough. Therefore both are necessary.
</p><p>
	(<font style="background-color:#C0FFFF">Mnemonic:<a id="k68b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; How much are goats and fowls assessed?</font>) Our Rabbis taught: How much must he be paid?<a id="k68b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Whether much or little [it matters not]: this is R. Meir's view. R. Judah said: Even if he merely dipped [his bread] into his vinegar, or joined him in a dried fig, that is his pay. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: He must remunerate him in full.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Neither goats, sheep, nor anything which does not toil for its food<a id="k68b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; may be assessed on halfprofits.<a id="k68b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose, son of R. Judah, said: Goats may be assessed, because they yield milk; and sheep, because they yield wool by being shorn, by passing through water<a id="k68b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and by being plucked;<a id="k68b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and fowls, because they lay [eggs] for their food. But [what of] the first Tanna: are the shearings and milk insufficient to pay for his labour and food?<a id="k68b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As for the shearings and milk, all agree [that they are adequate]. The conflict refers to whey and wool refuse:<a id="k68b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; the first Tanna is of R. Simeon b. Yohai's opinion, who maintained that he must remunerate him in full;<a id="k68b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst R. Jose son of R. Judah agrees with his father, who ruled that even if he merely dipped [his bread] into his vinegar, or joined him in a dried fig, that is adequate payment.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A woman may hire a fowl to her neighbour in return for two fledglings.<a id="k68b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; If a woman proposes to her neighbour, 'I have a fowl, and you have eggs: let us equally share the fledglings,'<a id="k68b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Judah permits, whilst R. Simeon forbids it. But [what of] R. Judah: does he not require payment to be made for labour and food? &mdash; There are the addled eggs.<a id="k68b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: Where it is the usage to make a payment for shouldering beasts,<a id="k68b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; such payment may be made, and general custom must not be abrogated. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: A calf may be assessed with its mother, and a foal with its mother, and even where it is customary to make a monetary payment for shouldering.<a id="k68b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Does he not require payment for his labour and food?<a id="k68b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is the dung.<a id="k68b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; But the other?<a id="k68b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The ownership of dung is renounced.<a id="k68b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah; the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Jose son of R. Judah; and the <i>halachah</i> is as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel.
</p><p>
	A bond was issued against the children of R. 'Ilish, stipulating half profits and half loss.<a id="k68b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba: R. 'Ilish was a great man, and he would not have fed [another person] with forbidden food.<a id="k68b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; It must be taken to mean:<a id="k68b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; either half profit and two thirds loss;
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k69a_1:" I.e., the man on whose behalf R. 'Ilish had traded must be content with this arrangement, either to receive half the profits but to bear two-thirds of the loss, or if R. 'Ilish were to stand half the loss, he must receive two-thirds of the profit. That interpretation had to be put upon the bond."
,k69a_2:" That this is sufficient to remove a 50% profit and loss arrangement from the category of usury."
,k69a_3:" Then the rest would have followed automatically. Hence, in fact, such small remuneration is inadequate, and therefore Raba was justified in his assumption."
,k69a_4:" If one gives calves or foals to a breeder on a half profit half loss basis, which, as stated above, is forbidden, but adds that should it appreciate by more than a third of its present value, the excess belongs to the breeder, that constitutes payment, though such appreciation is uncertain."
,k69a_5:" I.e., such a speculation does not obliterate the character of usury."
,k69a_6:" If one accepts a calf for fattening on a fifty-fifty basis, he must receive its head in return for his labour, and the rest is shared."
,k69a_7:" But as there was no excess, he must receive the calf's head instead, proving that Rab admits that the breeder must receive a definite payment that is independent of speculative appreciation."
,k69a_8:" [MS.M. rightly omits 'that he said to him.']"
,k69a_9:" [MS.M. rightly omits 'for the breeder.']"
,k69a_10:" No additional labour is entailed, and therefore a speculative arrangement is permitted."
,k69a_11:" [A suburb of Nehardea, Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 265ff.]"
,k69a_12:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k69a_13:" The arrangement having been on a fifty-fifty basis of profit or loss."
,k69a_14:" I.e., the slight additional work done by the <i>aris</i> is really an unexpressed part of his contract."
,k69a_15:" For breeding. V. Mishnah 68a, and notes a.l."
,k69a_16:" E.g., sheep, goats."
,k69a_17:" Which involves greater expenditure in food."
,k69a_18:" On the contrary, this states the reason."
,k69a_19:" Therefore the owner can insist on his keeping it for two years."
,k69a_20:" The young too are shared as part of the profit. Now, the breeder would naturally wish to divide immediately on birth, since he has no profit in the owner's half."
,k69a_21:" And it is a tacit understanding that the breeder should attend to it until it needs only normal attention."
,k69a_22:" The original arrangement to share in the profits extends to the increased value of the young which he must continue to look after as stated above, and he takes his own half complete, plus half the increased value of the owner's half."
,k69a_23:" Who checked your assessment of the value of half a share?"
,k69a_24:" Hence he is only entitled to his own half, and no more."
,k69a_25:" Samaritans."
,k69a_26:" As in the case of breeding, one investing the money, and the other trading with it."
,k69a_27:" This shews that though by this time Jews regarded them as Gentiles, they nevertheless submitted to Jewish jurisdiction."
,k69a_28:" For last year you upheld his dividing without my knowledge, but now disallow mine without his. "
}

txt:
<p>
or half loss and two thirds profit.<a id="k69a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Kahana said: I repeated this ruling before R. Zebid of Nehardea, whereupon he suggested to me: But perhaps R. 'Ilish had dipped his bread into his vinegar, and R. Nahman has ruled, The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah?<a id="k69a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: It was not stated that such is the <i>halachah</i>, but that [all three proceed on the same] principle. That is logical too; for should you not agree thereto, why enumerate the <i>halachah</i> [of every case]? He should have stated, The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Judah, who is the most lenient of all.<a id="k69a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab said: [If one stipulates, 'Receive] the excess above a third as your remuneration,' it is permitted.<a id="k69a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But Samuel said: And if there was no excess above a third, shall he go home empty handed?<a id="k69a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence, said Samuel, he must stipulate a <i>denar</i> [for his labour]. Now, is it Rab's opinion that a <i>denar</i> need not be fixed? But Rab said: The calf's head is the breeder's.<a id="k69a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely that means that he said to him, 'Receive the excess above a third as your payment'?<a id="k69a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No. It means that he said to him,<a id="k69a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Either the excess above a third, or the calf's head for the breeder.'<a id="k69a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Alternatively, when did Rab rule that [a stipulation], 'Receive the excess above a third as your payment,' is permitted, when he [the breeder] has a cow of his own, for people say, 'It is the same whether one mixes fodder for an ox or for oxen.<a id="k69a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Eleazar of Hagrunia<a id="k69a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; bought a cow and gave it to his <i>aris</i>.<a id="k69a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; The latter fattened it, and received the head in payment and also half the profit.<a id="k69a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Said his [the aris's] wife to him, 'Had you been in partnership with him, he would have given you the tail too [as your share].' So he went and bought [a cow] in partnership with him, but he [R. Eleazar] divided the tail, and then said: 'Come, let us divide the head too.' 'What! Shall I not receive even as much as before?' exclaimed he. 'Until now', he [R. Eleazar] replied, 'the money was [altogether] mine; had I not given you a little more [than half], It would have looked like usury. Now, however, we are partners: what will you plead? I have worked rather more? But people say 'The average <i>aris</i> binds himself to the landowner to find him pasture.'<a id="k69a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If one entrusts his neighbour with cattle on a valuation,<a id="k69a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; how long is he bound to attend thereto? Symmachus said: In the case of asses, eighteen months; small cattle,<a id="k69a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; twenty-four months. Should he wish to divide [the profits] within this period, his partner can prevent it, but the attention of the first year cannot be compared with that of the second.<a id="k69a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Why say 'but'?<a id="k69a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Therefore [say thus]: Because the attention necessary in the first year cannot be compared with that of the second.<a id="k69a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Another [Baraitha] taught: If one entrusts his neighbour with cattle on valuation, how long is he bound to attend to the young?<a id="k69a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; In the case of small cattle, thirty days; large cattle, fifty days. R. Jose said: In the case of small cattle, three months, because they need much attention. How [do they need] much attention? Because their teeth are very small.<a id="k69a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereafter, he [the breeder] receives his own half [of the young] and a half of his neighbour's half.<a id="k69a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Menashia b. Gada took his own half and half of his partner's half. Then he came before Abaye. Said he to him: Who divided for you?<a id="k69a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Moreover, the local usage here is to breed [until fully grown], and we learnt: Where it is the usage to breed, they [the young] must be fully bred.<a id="k69a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Two Cutheans<a id="k69a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; entered on a share partnership.<a id="k69a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Then one went and divided the money without his partner's knowledge. So they came before R. Papa.<a id="k69a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he to him [the plaintiff]: What difference does it make? Thus did R. Nahman rule: Monies are held to be already divided. The following year they bought wine in partnership. Thereupon the other arose and divided it without his partner's knowledge. Again they came before R. Papa. Said he to him: Who divided it for you? &mdash; I see, he replied, that you are biassed in my partner's favour.<a id="k69a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Papa:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k69b_1:" That the litigant doubts my impartiality."
,k69b_2:" Hence there can be no question of unfair division of money, as there may be in respect of wine."
,k69b_3:" Some coins of particular mint were preferred to any others for current use; they were considered 'good'; on the other hand, money-changers, who assessed them by weight, preferred those of full weight. Now, if all are 'good' or of full weight, one partner himself may make the division; but if some are 'good' and the others of full weight, they are not accounted as already divided, since some prefer the first and others the second."
,k69b_4:" I.e., instead of calling it lending, he hired out money, as one hires any other commodity. [Such an arrangement was not without advantage to the borrower, as it exempted him, in the same way as any other hirer, from responsibility in case of an unpreventable accident befalling the money, v. <i>infra</i> 93b (cf. Tosaf.)]."
,k69b_5:" V. <i>infra</i> 71a; the penalty for usury is that one's wealth disappears."
,k69b_6:" One may charge for hiring a spade; why not for hiring out money?"
,k69b_7:" Even if by chance the same coins should be returned."
,k69b_8:" Though the lender thus receives interest."
,k69b_9:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 398, n. 7."
,k69b_10:" V. p. 399, n. 10."
,k69b_11:" This is discussed in the Gemara."
,k69b_12:" In consideration of a loan for stock. In the first case, the money is expended on the field itself and therefore it is the equivalent of renting a better field, and hence worth more, notwithstanding that the 200 <i>zuz</i> must be separately repaid. But here the capital value of the shop and ship is not increased; therefore the money advanced for stock is an ordinary loan, and the higher rental constitutes interest."
,k69b_13:" In each case the money is expended in the shop or ship itself and therefore permitted."
,k69b_14:" I.e., one may hire a ship at the lessee's risk in case it is damaged or sunk."
,k69b_15:" I.e., the two together should be forbidden. For if the ship be assessed and the lessee accepts all responsibility, it is as though he had borrowed money to its value, and the rent is usury."
,k69b_16:" [H] (V. B.B. Sonc. ed. p. 206, n. 3) I.e., one may not accept a business on a profit sharing basis, whilst guaranteeing the investor absolute safety of his money, like 'iron sheep', which cannot come to harm. For if the investor's money is secured, it is a loan, on which he receives half profit as interest."
,k69b_17:" Because one may receive from or give interest to a heathen."
,k69b_18:" Should it perish or come to harm."
,k69b_19:" I.e., only if it perishes is he responsible for it; but should there be a price-drop whilst it is alive, the hirer is not responsible, and this saves it from being considered a loan. Hence in the case of the ship too, since the lessee is responsible only for shipwreck, but not for a drop in its market value, it is not an ordinary loan, and therefore a hiring fee is permissible. "
}

txt:
<p>
In such a case<a id="k69b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; it is certainly necessary to inform him [of the grounds of my verdicts]: As for coins, would he take good coins and leave short-weight ones [for you]? But in the case of wine, everybody knows that some wine is sweet and some is not.<a id="k69b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The above text states: 'R. Nahman said: Monies are held to be already divided.' But that is only if they are all good or of full weight, but not if some are good, and others of full weight.<a id="k69b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hama used to hire out a <i>zuz</i> for a peshita per day.<a id="k69b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [As a result] his money evaporated.<a id="k69b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Now he argued, [Wherein does it differ] from a spade?<a id="k69b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But the analogy is false: the self-same spade is returned, and its depreciation is assessable; whereas the self-same coins are not returned, nor can their depreciation be estimated.<a id="k69b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: One may say to his neighbour, 'Take these four <i>zuz</i> and lend money to so-and-so,'<a id="k69b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [because] the Torah forbade only usury which comes from the borrower to the lender. Raba also said: One may say to his neighbour, 'Here are four <i>zuz</i>, and persuade so-and-so to lend me money.' Why so? He merely receives a fee for his talking; just as Abba Mar, the son of R. Papa, used to take balls of wax from wax dealers, and then persuade his father to lend them money. But the Rabbis protested to R. papa: Your son enjoys usury. He replied: Such interest we may enjoy: the Torah forbade only interest that comes from the borrower [direct] to the lender; but here he receives a fee for his talking, which is permitted.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE MAY ASSESS COWS, ASSES, AND ALL ANIMALS WHICH TOIL FOR THEIR FOOD ON HALF [PROFIT AND LOSS].<a id="k69b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; WHERE IT IS THE USAGE TO DIVIDE THE YOUNG IMMEDIATELY [ON BIRTH], THEY MUST DIVIDE; WHERE IT IS CUSTOMARY TO BREED THEM, THEY MUST BE BRED. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: A CALF MAY BE ASSESSED WITH ITS MOTHER, AND A FOAL WITH ITS MOTHER.<a id="k69b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ONE MAY OFFER AN INCREASED LAND RENTAL WITHOUT FEAR OF USURY.<a id="k69b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught: One may offer an increased land rental without fear of usury. E.g., If one rents a field from his neighbour for ten <i>kor</i> annually, and proposes, 'Give me two hundred <i>zuz</i> to expend thereon [sc. in improving the land], and I will pay you twelve <i>kor</i> annually,' it is permitted. But an increased rental may not be offered for a shop or a ship.<a id="k69b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuhah: Sometimes an increased rental may be offered for a shop, [e.g., in consideration of a loan] for decorations; or for a ship, to build a sail-yard therein. For a shop, in return for decorations, that it may be attractive for customers and thus earn more profit; and for a ship, to build a sail-yard therein; for the more beautiful its sail-yard, the greater is the hire.<a id="k69b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	As for a ship, Rab said: Both hire and loss [is permitted].<a id="k69b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Kahana and R. Assi to Rab: If hire, no loss; if loss, no hire.<a id="k69b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon Rab was silent [being unable to answer]. R. Shesheth observed: Why was Rab silent? Had he never heard what was taught: 'Though it was ruled that one must not accept from an Israelite "iron flock" [investment with absolute immunity for the investor],<a id="k69b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; yet such may be accepted from heathens!<a id="k69b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; It was, nevertheless, ruled that if one assesses a cow for his neighbour, and says to him, "Your cow is charged to me at thirty <i>denarii</i>,<a id="k69b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and I will pay you a <i>sela'</i> per month," &mdash; it is permitted, because he did not assess it as money.' But did he not? &mdash; R. Shesheth said: He did not assess it as money whilst alive, but only in case of death.<a id="k69b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. papa said: The law is: For a ship, both hire and loss [is allowed],
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k70a_1:" Lit., 'the pitchers', those who pitch their boats."
,k70a_2:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k70a_3:" It depends upon whether it is permissible or not, for were the latter the case, such usage would have to be abrogated."
,k70a_4:" <i>Supra</i> 69b end."
,k70a_5:" I.e., if they are minors."
,k70a_6:" R. Nahman assumed that R. 'Anan had not actually heard such a law from Samuel, but must have deduced it from some incident."
,k70a_7:" V. p. 405, n. 2; the same reasoning applies here, and therefore he concluded that interest may be taken on orphan's money."
,k70a_8:" Though the hirer pays for actual loss of weight, yet even the rest loses in value the more often it is placed upon the fire, and therefore the hiring fee is not interest."
,k70a_9:" I.e., the orphans taking a share of the profit, but none of the loss. Though this is forbidden to adults as indirect interest, the Rabbis permitted it in the case of orphans who, being unable to earn money themselves, might soon be reduced to penury if not permitted to put out their money on advantageous terms."
,k70a_10:" 'Near to both' &mdash; taking more than half the profit, and standing more than half the loss; 'far from both' &mdash; less than half the profit or loss."
,k70a_11:" Lit., 'coin by coin.'"
,k70a_12:" Then they are certainly his, for when money is given into the safe-keeping of others, only proper coins are given &mdash; i.e., a wealthy person is sought."
,k70a_13:" [Omitted in some texts, v. Rashal and D.S.]"
,k70a_14:" I.e., any object which a person may claim as his own on the strength of identification marks."
,k70a_15:" [Or, as proof of wealth.]"
,k70a_16:" I.e., whose ownership thereof is universally acknowledged."
,k70a_17:" [MS.M. rightly omits 'of the Bible', there being no distinction between Rabbinic and Biblical law in regard to the obedience expected of a man to be entrusted with orphan's money.]"
,k70a_18:" Who will obey them rather than come under their ban."
,k70a_19:" That he may be duly impressed with the solemnity of his obligations (Asheri). "
}

txt:
<p>
and the practice of shipowners<a id="k70a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is [to receive] the hire at the time of <i>meshikah</i><a id="k70a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and the [payment for] loss when it is shipwrecked. But does such a thing depend upon custom?<a id="k70a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The usage arose as the result of the Baraitha which was taught.<a id="k70a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. 'Anan said in Samuel's name: Orphan's money may be lent out at interest.<a id="k70a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman objected: Because they are orphans we are to feed them with forbidden food! Orphans who eat what is not rightfully theirs may follow their testator! Now tell me, said he, what actually transpired?<a id="k70a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: A cauldron, belonging to the children of Mar 'Ukba [who were orphans], was in Samuel's care, and he weighed it before hiring it out and weighed it when receiving it back, charging for its hire and for its loss of weight: but if a fee for hiring, there should be no charge for depreciation, and if a charge for depreciation, there should be no fee for hiring.<a id="k70a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: Such a transaction is permitted even to bearded men, since he [the owner] stands the loss of wear and tear, for the more the copper is burnt, the greater is its depreciation.<a id="k70a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Shilah said in R. Hisdah's name &mdash; others state, Rabbah b. Joseph b. Hama said in R. Shesheth's name: Money belonging to orphans may be lent on terms that are near to profit and far from loss.<a id="k70a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [One who invests money on terms] near to profit but far from loss is a wicked man; near to loss but far from profit is a pious man; near to both or far from both &mdash; that is the arrangement of the man in the street.<a id="k70a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah asked R. Joseph: What is done with orphan's money? &mdash; He replied: It is entrusted to Court, and paid out to them in instalments.<a id="k70a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But surely the principal will disappear! he urged. What then would you do? he asked. &mdash; He replied: We seek out a man who possesses broken pieces of gold,<a id="k70a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; take the gold from him,<a id="k70a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and entrust to him the orphan's money on terms that are near to profit and far from loss. But an object which bears an identification mark<a id="k70a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; cannot [be taken as a security]<a id="k70a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; lest it was [merely] entrusted to him, and its owner may come, state the mark [which proves his ownership] and take it away. R. Ashi demurred: That is well if you find a man who possesses broken gold; but if you do not, is the orphan's money to be frittered away? &mdash; But, said R. Ashi, we seek out a man whose property is secure,<a id="k70a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; who is trustworthy, obedient to the law of the Bible,<a id="k70a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and will not suffer a ban of the Rabbis,<a id="k70a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and the money is given to him in the presence of a <i>Beth din</i>.<a id="k70a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k70b_1:" V. p. 405, n. 3."
,k70b_2:" Heb. [H], one who, for the sake of acquiring citizenship in Palestine, renounced idolatry and undertook to observe the Seven Noachian laws, the laws binding upon all mankind. [For a full discussion of the term v. Moore, G. F., Judaism I. 338ff.]"
,k70b_3:" The meaning of this is discussed in the Gemara."
,k70b_4:" Since it is regarded as interest."
,k70b_5:" I.e., to divide the profit, whilst guaranteeing the heathen full security against loss."
,k70b_6:" As stated above (Mishnah, 69b), the young are equally divided between the investor and breeder. Now, if the young themselves calved, though half of them belong to the Jew, the obligation of firstlings does not apply to them. This proves that they are regarded as the property of the investor, not the contractor."
,k70b_7:" If the investor accepts these risks ([H]), the property stands under his ownership, and hence the law of firstlings does not apply. If the contractor accepts full risks, there is usury, which in the case of a Jewish investor is forbidden. [Gulak, <i>Tarbiz</i>. III, p. 140, suggests that the phrase [H] means accident due to fall in the market price. Abaye accordingly was referring to the original type of 'iron flock' investment in which the responsibility assumed by the contractor was limited to injuries to the 'body of the investment itself.']"
,k70b_8:" Due pursuant to the agreement."
,k70b_9:" I.e., the heathen retains certain rights therein."
,k70b_10:" Prov. XXVIII, 8."
,k70b_11:" Shapur I, King of Persia, and a contemporary of Samuel (third century), with whom he was on terms of intimacy. He took money from the Jews and made grants thereof to poor heathens. (Rashi: To heathens, who are poor in that they have no fulfilment of precepts and good deeds to their credit.)"
,k70b_12:" Deut. XXIII, 21."
,k70b_13:" V. p. 363, n. 4."
,k70b_14:" This objection is based on the hypothesis that the verse cannot be merely permissive, 'thou mayest give usury to heathens', since there was never any reason for supposing otherwise. Hence it can only mean (on R. Nahman's interpretation), 'thou must give usury to a Gentile', which is absurd."
,k70b_15:" I.e., the law is only permissive, but stated in order to exclude a Jew, by implication."
,k70b_16:" So rendered on R. Nahman's views."
,k70b_17:" By giving usury to a Jew. For the negative implication of 'unto the Gentile thou mayest give usury' is technically a positive command, since cast in that form."
,k70b_18:" Thus distinctly stating that it is permitted. "
}

txt:
<p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ONE MAY NOT ACCEPT FROM AN ISRAELITE AN 'IRON FLOCK' [INVESTMENT WITH COMPLETE IMMUNITY FOR THE INVESTOR], BECAUSE THAT IS USURY. BUT SUCH MAY BE ACCEPTED FROM HEATHENS.<a id="k70b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ONE MAY BORROW FROM AND LEND TO THEM ON INTEREST. THE SAME APPLIES TO A RESIDENT ALIEN.<a id="k70b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; AN ISRAELITE MAY LEND A GENTILES MONEY [ON INTEREST] WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GENTILE, BUT NOT OF THE ISRAELITE.<a id="k70b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Shall we say that it stands under the ownership of the contractor?<a id="k70b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But the following is opposed thereto: If one undertakes [to breed sheep] on 'iron flock' terms for a heathen,<a id="k70b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; the young are exempt from [the law of] firstlings!<a id="k70b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye answered: There is no difficulty; in the one case, he [the owner] accepted [the risk of] unpreventable accident and depreciation; in the other, he did not.<a id="k70b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba to him: If the owner accepts the risk of depreciation and [unpreventable] accidents, do you designate it 'iron flock'? Moreover, instead of the second clause teaching, BUT SUCH MAY BE ACCEPTED FROM GENTILES, let a distinction be drawn and taught in that [sc. the first clause] itself, [thus:] When does this hold good [that 'iron flock' may not be accepted from a Jew], only if he [the investor] does not bear the risk of unpreventable accidents or depreciation; but if the investor accepts these risks, it is permissible? &mdash; But, said Raba, in both cases [viz., as taught in our Mishnah and with reference to firstlings] he [the investor] does not accept the risk of accidental damage or depreciation; but with respect to the firstlings, this is the reason that the young are exempt thereof: since if he [the breeder] did not render the money,<a id="k70b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; the heathen would come and seize the cow [entrusted to the breeder in the first place], and should he not find the cow, seize the young, it is a case of 'the hand of a heathen coming in the middle',<a id="k70b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and wherever that is so, there is exemption from the law of firstlings:
</p><p>
	<i>He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that pitieth the poor</i>.<a id="k70b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Who is meant by, for him that pitieth the poor? &mdash; Rab said: e.g., King Shapur.<a id="k70b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman observed: Huna told me that [this verse] is needed to show that usury [taken] even from a heathen [leads to loss of one's wealth]. Raba objected to R. Nahman: Unto a stranger <i>tashshik</i>:<a id="k70b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; now, what is meant by <i>'tashshik</i>': surely that 'thou mayest receive usury'? &mdash; No: 'thou mayest give usury.'<a id="k70b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; [What!] Cannot one do without?<a id="k70b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is to exclude 'thy brother,' [to whom thou mayest] not [give usury].<a id="k70b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; As for thy brother, is it not explicitly stated, <i>but unto thy brother thou shalt not give usury</i>?<a id="k70b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [To intimate] that both a positive and negative injunction are violated.<a id="k70b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; He [further] raised an objection: ONE MAY BORROW FROM AND LEND MONEY TO THEM ON INTEREST, AND THE SAME APPLIES TO A RESIDENT ALIEN!<a id="k70b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Hiyya, the son of R. Huna, said: This [permission] is granted only [up to]
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k71a_1:" But one may not take usury from a Gentile in order to accumulate wealth."
,k71a_2:" Of forbidding usury from a heathen, on R. Nahman's view. Though R. Nahman based his opinion on a verse of Proverbs, it is obvious that it is only a Rabbinical, not a Biblical interdict."
,k71a_3:" Rashi: Through business intercourse with him."
,k71a_4:" Ex. XXII, 24."
,k71a_5:" Lit., 'descends (in his rage) against his life'."
,k71a_6:" To exact usury in defiance of the Biblical precept is tantamount to rejection of God &mdash; the highest degree of wickedness."
,k71a_7:" Ps. XV, 5."
,k71a_8:" Lit., 'his possessions.'"
,k71a_9:" I.e., he is 'moved'."
,k71a_10:" Translating, <i>he that doeth these things shall not for ever be moved</i>, i.e., shall not sink into penury for good."
,k71a_11:" Hab. I, 13."
,k71a_12:" [ [H] 'Righteous' in the sense of 'upright', 'genuine', 'real'. V. Moore, <i>op. cit</i>. I, 338.]"
,k71a_13:" Lev. XXV, 39."
,k71a_14:" Ibid. 47."
,k71a_15:" Ibid. This deduction is arrived at by treating [H], (proselyte) and [H] (settler, citizen) as two separate substantives, thus: <i>and sell himself unto a proselyte and unto a resident alien</i>. i. e., even as they are treated at the beginning of the verse: <i>and if a proselyte</i> ([H]) <i>or a settler</i> ([H]) <i>wax rich</i> etc. (Rashal)."
,k71a_16:" To hew wood and draw water in its service. This Baraitha is quoted more fully in 'Ar. 20b; the successive depths of degradation are the fate of him who trades in the commodities of the seventh year, this being deduced from the fact that these laws of sale follow those of the seventh year prohibitions."
,k71a_17:" He now proceeds to explain Rabbi's difficulty."
,k71a_18:" V. Lev. XXV, 10. Because a proselyte loses all relationship with his former kin, hence has no family."
,k71a_19:" Lest she be suspected of immoral designs."
,k71a_20:" V. Ex. XXI, 5f."
,k71a_21:" As heirs. Thus, a proselyte can acquire a Hebrew slave under the laws applicable to a heathen owner, so that if he dies his children do not inherit him (the slave), but not as an Israelite, who is able to transmit him as a legacy."
,k71a_22:" I.e., he has a feeling of shame and regard for appearances. Therefore she may be emboldened to an illicit relationship, in the certainty that he will not disclose the fact: hence she may not purchase him."
,k71a_23:" Feeling no shame therein; therefore she fears intimacy with him, lest he boast thereof, and so may buy him."
,k71a_24:" For fear of malicious slander, but not because she is actually suspected of bestiality (Tosaf.)."
,k71a_25:" Why is she then forbidden to breed dogs?"
,k71a_26:" Hence she does not fear to commit bestiality, and though, as stated in n. 3, she is not suspected thereof, yet the mere fact that she can indulge without fear of discovery gives tongue to slander."
,k71a_27:" Lev. XXV, 35f; this implies that usury may not be taken from a citizen proselyte."
,k71a_28:" Which would apply to all the antecedents."
,k71a_29:" ['Proselyte' being mentioned only with reference to assisting him in his need.]"
,k71a_30:" I.e., for one who is borrowing money on interest. "
}

txt:
<p>
the [minimum] requirements of a livelihood.<a id="k71a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabina said: Here [in the Mishnah] the reference is to scholars. For why did the Rabbis enact this precautionary measure?<a id="k71a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Lest he learn of his ways.<a id="k71a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But being a scholar, he will [certainly] not learn of his ways.
</p><p>
	Others referred this statement of R. Huna to [the teaching] which R. Joseph learnt: <i>If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee</i>:<a id="k71a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [this teaches, if the choice lies between] my people and a heathen, <i>'my people'</i> has preference; the poor or the rich &mdash; the 'poor' takes precedence; thy poor [sc. thy relatives] and the [general] poor of thy town &mdash; thy poor come first; the poor of thy city and the poor of another town &mdash; the poor of thine own town have prior rights. The Master said: '[If the choice lies between] my people and a heathen &mdash; "my people" has preference.' But is it not obvious? &mdash; R. Nahman answered: Huna told me it means that even if [money is lent] to the heathen on interest, and to the Israelite without [the latter should take precedence].
</p><p>
	It has been taught: R. Jose said: Come and see the blindness of usurers. If a man calls his neighbour wicked, he cherishes a deep-seated animosity against him;<a id="k71a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst they bring witnesses, a notary, pen and ink, and record and attest, 'So-and-so has denied the God of Israel.'<a id="k71a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: He who has money and lends it without interest, of him Scripture writes. <i>He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved</i>;<a id="k71a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; thus you learn that he who does lend on interest, his wealth<a id="k71a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; dissolves.<a id="k71a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But do we not see [people] who do not lend on interest, yet their wealth dissolves? &mdash; R. Eleazar said: The latter sink [into poverty] but re-ascend, whereas the former sink but do not re-ascend.<a id="k71a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<i>Wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?</i><a id="k71a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna said: 'the man that is [merely] more righteous than he,' he devoureth: but the man that is completely righteous, he cannot devour.
</p><p>
	It has been taught: Rabbi said: The righteous proselyte<a id="k71a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; who is mentioned in connection with the sale [of oneself for a slave], and the resident alien who is mentioned with reference to usury &mdash; I know not their purpose. 'The righteous proselyte who is mentioned in connection with a sale' &mdash; as it is written, <i>And if thy brother that dwelleth with thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee</i>;<a id="k71a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and not only <i>'unto thee'</i> [a Hebrew], but even to a proselyte, as it is written, [<i>and sell himself</i>] <i>unto a proselyte</i>;<a id="k71a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and not alone to a righteous proselyte, but even to a resident alien, as it is written, <i>to a proselyte [and] a settler</i>;<a id="k71a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; or <i>to a family of the proselyte</i> &mdash; i.e., to a heathen; hence, when it is said, <i>or to the stock</i> etc. it must refer to one who sells himself to the service of the idol itself.<a id="k71a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now,<a id="k71a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; the Master said: 'And not only <i>unto thee</i>, but even unto a proselyte,' as it is written, <i>[and sell himself] unto a proselyte.</i>' Are we to say that a proselyte may acquire a Hebrew slave? But the following contradicts it: A proselyte cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, nor may a woman or a proselyte acquire a Hebrew slave. 'A proselyte cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave', for the verse, <i>and he shall return unto his own family</i>, must be applicable. which it is not [in the case of a proselyte];<a id="k71a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; 'nor may a woman or a proselyte acquire a Hebrew slave' &mdash; a woman, because it is not seemly;<a id="k71a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; a proselyte, because it is a tradition that he who can be acquired can himself acquire, but he who cannot be acquired, cannot himself acquire! &mdash; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He cannot acquire [him] under the provisions of an Israelite [owner], but may acquire [him] as a non-Israelite [master]. For it has been taught: He [sc. a Hebrew slave] whose ear is bored,<a id="k71a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and he who is sold to a heathen, serve neither the son nor the daughter.<a id="k71a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'Nor may a woman or a proselyte acquire a Hebrew slave.' Must we assume that this disagrees with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? For it has been taught: A woman may acquire female but not male slaves. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: She may acquire even male slaves! &mdash; It may agree even with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, yet there is no difficulty: the former applies to a Hebrew slave, the latter to a Canaanite slave. A Hebrew slave she deems to be self-respecting;<a id="k71a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas a Canaanite slave she deems unreservedly dissolute.<a id="k71a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; But what of that which R. Joseph learned: A widow may not breed dogs,<a id="k71a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; nor permit a scholar to live with her as a boarder? Now, [the prohibition] of a scholar is intelligible, since she deems him self-respecting; but as for a dog since it will follow her [if she commits bestiality], she will surely be afraid!<a id="k71a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; I will tell you: since it follows her even if she merely throws it a piece of meat, that will be assumed the cause of its attachment.<a id="k71a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'The resident alien who is mentioned with reference to usury:' &mdash; What is it? &mdash; For it is written, <i>And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him; yea, though he be a proselyte or a settler, that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him nor increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee</i>.<a id="k71a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; But the following opposes it: ONE MAY BORROW FROM AND LEND TO THEM ON INTEREST; THE SAME APPLIES TO A RESIDENT ALIEN! &mdash; R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: Is it then written, 'Take thou no usury of them'?<a id="k71a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; 'of him' is written, [meaning] of an Israelite.<a id="k71a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: <i>Take thou no usury of him, or increase</i>, but thou mayest become a surety for him.<a id="k71a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k71b_1:" I.e., on behalf of a Jew borrowing from a Jew."
,k71b_2:" <i>Infra</i> 75b."
,k71b_3:" I.e., a surety on behalf of a Jewish borrower to a Gentile lender."
,k71b_4:" [I.e., according to Persian law, v. B.B. 173b.]"
,k71b_5:" From the point of view of Jewish law there are two transactions in this loan: the surety borrows money from the Gentile and pays interest thereon, and lends money to the Jew, upon which he receives interest. Hence it should be forbidden."
,k71b_6:" Should the debtor fail to repay, he would bring an action against him first."
,k71b_7:" I.e., obtained the Gentile's authority for the transaction."
,k71b_8:" For then the Jew is merely the agent of the Gentile, and it is the latter who makes the loan, not the former."
,k71b_9:" For then the Gentile is merely the agent of the Jew."
,k71b_10:" There is a well-defined principle in Jewish law that a man's agent is legally as himself. But this does not hold good between a Jew and a heathen. Now, in the second clause, where the heathen presents the Jewish borrower to the Jewish lender, yet actually gives his own money, the transaction should be permitted, because he cannot be legally regarded as the Jew's agent. Nevertheless, since the transaction does appear as between two Jews, the heathen acting merely as a vehicle of delivery, the Rabbis recognised the principle of agency, and forbade it. But in the first clause, where the Jew actually gives the money to his fellow-Jew, why should he be regarded as an agent of the heathen, and the transaction rendered legal?"
,k71b_11:" So that the second Jew does not receive it from the first."
,k71b_12:" I.e., that he is merely the means of the actual loan from one Jew to another."
,k71b_13:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> A Jew cannot appoint a heathen to separate his <i>terumah</i> for him."
,k71b_14:" [H] V. <i>Supra</i>, p. 47, n. 1."
,k71b_15:" Num. XVIII, 28. It would have been sufficient to state, <i>'Thus ye shall offer</i> etc.'; it is a general principle of exegesis that 'also' ([H]) denotes extension; hence 'ye also' implies that someone besides yourselves may separate your <i>terumah</i>. At the same time, since the extension is directly applied to 'ye', those whom it includes must be similar to 'ye'."
,k71b_16:" In Kid. 41b; hence just as a heathen cannot be deputed to separate <i>terumah</i>, so he is invalid in all other matters."
,k71b_17:" Hence in the first clause under discussion the loan is permissible, if the second Jew was presented to the heathen, even if the money passed directly from one Jew to another."
,k71b_18:" I.e., the same exegesis which shows that the agents must be Jews, also shews that the principals must be Jews. "
}

txt:
<p>
A surety to whom? Shall we say to an Israelite?<a id="k71b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But we learnt: The following violate the negative precept: The lender, the borrower, the surety, and the witnesses!<a id="k71b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Again if it means to a heathen:<a id="k71b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; since, however, it is the law of the heathen<a id="k71b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; to claim direct from the surety, it is he [the surety] who borrows from him!<a id="k71b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Shesheth answered: It means that he engaged himself to bring his actions in accordance with Jewish law.<a id="k71b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But if he engaged to abide by Jewish law, he should not take usury either! &mdash; R. Shesheth replied: He pledged himself for the one but not for the other.
</p><p>
	AN ISRAELITE MAY LEND A HEATHEN'S MONEY [ON INTEREST] WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HEATHEN, BUT NOT OF THE ISRAELITE. Our Rabbis taught: An Israelite may lend a heathen's money [on interest] with the knowledge of the heathen, but not of the Israelite. E.g., if an Israelite borrowed money from a heathen on interest, and was about to repay it, when another Israelite met him and proposed. 'Give it to me and I will pay you as you pay him' &mdash; that is forbidden; but if he presented him to the heathen,<a id="k71b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; it is permitted.<a id="k71b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Similarly, if a heathen borrowed money from an Israelite on interest, and was about to repay it, when another Israelite met him and proposed. 'Give it to me, and I will pay you as you pay him,' it is permitted; but if he presented him to the Israelite, it is forbidden.<a id="k71b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, the second clause is well, for there the ruling is in the direction of greater stringency; but as for the first clause, since the law of agency does not apply to a heathen, it is he [the Israelite] who takes interest from him [his fellow-Israelite]!<a id="k71b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Huna b. Manoah said in the name of R. Aha, the son of R. Ika: Here it is meant that he [the heathen] said to him [the Israelite], 'put it [the money] on the ground and you may go.'<a id="k71b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, why state it? &mdash; But, said R. Papa, it means, e.g., that he [the heathen] took it [from the first creditor] and personally gave it [to the second]. Yet even so, why state it? &mdash; I might think that the heathen himself, in acting so, transfers the money pursuant to the wish of the Israelite,<a id="k71b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore it is taught otherwise. R. Ashi said: When do we maintain that agency cannot be vested in a heathen, only in reference to <i>terumah</i>;<a id="k71b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but in all other Biblical matters the principle of agency holds good in the case of a heathen. This [distinction], however, of R. Ashi must be rejected.<a id="k71b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; For why does <i>terumah</i> differ, that [agency] is not [allowed to a heathen]? Because it is written, [<i>Thus</i>] <i>ye, ye also</i> [<i>shall offer an heave offering</i> etc.],<a id="k71b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [teaching], just as ye are members of the Covenant, so also must your deputies be members of the Covenant! But [is not] the principle of agency, as applied to all Biblical matters, derived from <i>terumah</i>!<a id="k71b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence R. Ashi's distinction is to be rejected.
</p><p>
	Others state: R. Ashi said: In what sense do we maintain that agency cannot be vested in a heathen, only that they cannot be agents for us; but we can be agents for them.<a id="k71b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But this [distinction] of R. Ashi is to be rejected. For why the difference, that they cannot be agents for us? Because it is written, 'Ye, ye also', which teaches the inclusion of your agents; just as 'ye' are members of the Covenant, so must your agents be members of the Covenant? But with reference to ourselves being agents to them, does not the same [exegesis] apply: by 'just as "ye" [who appoint agents],' members of Covenant are meant.<a id="k71b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence R. Ashi's distinction is non-acceptable.
</p><p>
	Rabina said: Though a heathen has no power of agency, yet, by Rabbinical law, one can obtain possession on his behalf. For this is similar to a minor: surely, a minor, though excluded from the principle of agency,
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k72a_1:" I.e., an adult may take possession on behalf of a minor."
,k72a_2:" Hence in the first clause, where the second borrower is presented to the heathen, the first Jew takes possession of the money which he was about to repay on behalf of the heathen, and therefore it is the latter's money that is lent on interest, and hence permissible."
,k72a_3:" For to take possession on another man's behalf is akin to becoming his agent. Thus the Rabbis conferred upon a minor the privilege of being so benefited, because he is potentially an agent or a principal, but a heathen is not even potentially so. [Levinthal, I.H., JQR, (N.S.) XIII, p. 150, suggests the principal reason swaying the Rabbis in their decision barring the heathen from acting as agent to have been the fact that the agent in Jewish law is frequently compelled to take an oath, and the oath being considered a most sacred role in the life of the people there was no desire to force a heathen to comply with the strictness of that act.]"
,k72a_4:" I.e., drew up a bond in which the combined principal and interest figured as the principal."
,k72a_5:" Since the bond was drawn up when he was forbidden usury."
,k72a_6:" To evade the payment of interest."
,k72a_7:" Sheb. X, 5; v. <i>supra</i> 17a."
,k72a_8:" Though it is only right that the creditor should not seize land sold after the date of the bond but prior to the actual loan, why should he not seize land sold after the loan was made?"
,k72a_9:" Who maintains that we inflict the forfeiture of what is permissible on account of what is forbidden. So here too."
,k72a_10:" To prevent this, such a bond was declared entirely invalid."
,k72a_11:" [So according to some texts; v. D.S.]"
,k72a_12:" Three years' possession of an estate establishes a presumptive title thereto, even without a deed of sale, the onus of disproof lying upon the first owner."
,k72a_13:" Because it no longer belonged to the debtor (Rashi)."
,k72a_14:" When one sold land, he indemnified the purchaser against its possible seizure for the vendor's debt by mortgaging his other property to him, which he could in turn seize even if subsequently sold. Similarly, in a written loan the debtor's estates were held to be pledged, even if subsequently sold; but if the loan was merely verbal, the debt could be exacted only from the free estate. Now the question arises whether the purchase money in this case, which of course, the vendor must return, ranks as a written debt, or only as a verbal one. "
}

txt:
<p>
is nevertheless, by Rabbinical law, eligible to [vicarious] possession;<a id="k72a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; so here too, there is no difference.<a id="k72a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But the analogy is false; an Israelite [minor] comes [eventually] within the principle of agency, but a heathen never does.<a id="k72a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If an Israelite borrowed money on interest from a heathen and then recorded them [Viz., the principal and the interest] against him as a loan,<a id="k72a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and he [the creditor] became a proselyte: if this settlement preceded his conversion, he may exact both the principal and the interest; if it followed his conversion, he may collect the principal, but not the interest.<a id="k72a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Similarly, if a heathen borrowed money on interest from an Israelite, and then recorded them [the principal and the interest] against him as a loan, and became a proselyte: if the settlement preceded his conversion, he [the Israelite] may exact both the principal and the interest; if it followed his conversion, he may exact the principal but not the interest. R. Jose ruled: If a heathen borrowed money from an Israelite on interest, then in both cases [whether conversion preceded the settlement or the reverse] he may collect both the principal and the interest. Raba said in the name of R. Hisda in the name of R. Huna: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Jose. Raba said: What is the reason of R. Jose? That it should not be said that he turned a proselyte for the sake of money.<a id="k72a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If a bond contains interest written therein, he [the note-holder] is penalised and can collect neither the principal nor the interest; this is R. Meir's view. The Sages maintain: He may exact the principal, but not the interest. Wherein do they differ? &mdash; R. Meir is of the opinion that we inflict the forfeiture of what is permissible on account of what is forbidden; whilst the Sages hold that we do not inflict the forfeiture of the permissible on account of the forbidden.
</p><p>
	We learnt elsewhere: Ante-dated bonds are invalid; post-dated bonds are valid.<a id="k72a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But why invalid? Though a seizure cannot be made by means of them as from the earlier [incorrect] date, why not seize [estate for repayment] as from the later [correct] date?<a id="k72a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Simeon b. Lakish said: This was taught as a matter of dispute, and agrees with R. Meir.<a id="k72a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said: It may agree even with the Rabbis; but it is a precautionary measure, lest he exact [his debt from sold property] as from the earlier date.<a id="k72a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A man once pledged an orchard to his neighbour for ten years.<a id="k72a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; After he [the creditor] had taken its usufruct for three years, he proposed to him [the debtor], 'If you sell it to me, it is well; if not, I will hide the mortgage deed and claim that I have bought it.'<a id="k72a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon he [the debtor] went, arose, transferred it to his young son [a minor], and then sold it to him. Now, the sale is certainly no sale;<a id="k72a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but is the [purchase-]money accounted as a written debt, and collectable from [sold] mortgaged property, or perhaps it is [only] as a verbal debt, which cannot be collected from mortgaged property?<a id="k72a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye: Is this not covered by R. Assi's dictum? Viz.,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k72b_1:" For if the debtor asserts that it is forged, the signatories thereto must attest their signatures."
,k72b_2:" [V. <i>supra</i> 7a. Similarly here, since he admits having written the deed, the money liability involved ought to rank as a written debt!]"
,k72b_3:" [Since the sale was invalid.]"
,k72b_4:" With reference to an ante-dated bond of indebtedness."
,k72b_5:" V. <i>supra</i> 14b."
,k72b_6:" He is empowered to collect the principal even from sold property in virtue of the deed of sale, which guarantees to indemnify the purchaser in the event of its being seized and mortgages the vendor's estates for that purpose."
,k72b_7:" Hence should be invalid."
,k72b_8:" V. <i>supra</i> 15b."
,k72b_9:" I.e., when selling the field, it is his intention to compensate the first owner, so that the deed drawn up for the second may be valid. Consequently, it is genuine, and the purchaser can act thereon."
,k72b_10:" Surely not! Hence its writing was unwarranted, and therefore it may be regarded as invalid."
,k72b_11:" I.e., for the grain already in stacks, though no market price has been established."
,k72b_12:" A basket used for carrying grapes during the vintage; the meaning is that one may fix a price for the wine to be manufactured from grapes already vintaged in baskets."
,k72b_13:" As in the preceding note."
,k72b_14:" I.e., for the earthenware to be manufactured thereof."
,k72b_15:" In all these cases the vendor is held to be in possession of the articles he is selling, though they are not completely manufactured. Consequently, a price may be agreed upon and paid, and though delivery will not be effected until later, by which time the market price may have advanced (for in all these cases the reference is to a sale before a market price has been established at all), it is nevertheless permissible, the lower pre-payment not ranking as interest."
,k72b_16:" Lit., 'the high price', i.e., the price at the height of the market when the commodity is cheap. After fixing a price, the vendor may contract to supply stock throughout the year at the lowest price prevailing at the time of each delivery. Thus, the first price fixed is only to be regarded as a maximum, not to be exceeded if the market price advances."
,k72b_17:" In the whole Mishnah the reference is to advance payment at a fixed rate. R. Judah maintains that even without a definite stipulation it is always implied, therefore the purchaser can insist upon the advantage of a price-drop or rescind the sale, without being deemed dishonourable and subject to the curse. (V. <i>supra</i> 44a.)"
,k72b_18:" I.e., to supply for a certain period at the market price prevailing at the time of the contract. This prohibition naturally refers only to the case where the vendor himself lacks supplies when making the contract."
,k72b_19:" That one may not contract at the market price ruling in great fairs, though such are generally stable, and a fair indication of value. &mdash; Durmos, the word in the text, is a disguise of [G], or Mercurius, the divinity of commerce to whom a great annual fair, probably of Tyre, was dedicated (Jast.). [Krauss, <i>Lehnworter</i>, connects it with the [G], race-course, which was also the market-place.]"
,k72b_20:" Lit., 'are not fixed.'"
,k72b_21:" When the wheat has been stored, or sufficient has been imported, its price is stabilised and there is no fear of appreciation, which may result in an appearance of interest."
,k72b_22:" New supplies were cheaper, because they were not yet fully dried. Now the purchaser, though paying early, does not receive the wheat until that too becomes old, and if he contracts for the whole at the price of new, he receives interest. Therefore he must wait until the same market price is fixed for both."
,k72b_23:" I.e., grains gleaned in small quantities from many fields, and consequently of inferior quality and cheaper."
,k72b_24:" Lit., 'of all men'."
,k72b_25:" I.e., the petty trader in gleanings."
,k72b_26:" Though a contract may not be made until the prices are equalised, that is only if the vendor may supply gleanings or ordinary stock; but if the vendor is a gleaner, supplying only gleanings, the transaction is permitted."
,k72b_27:" That you permit it."
,k72b_28:" Lit., 'a householder', 'landlord'."
,k72b_29:" Hence the transaction should be universally permitted, for even an ordinary factor may obtain supplies of gleanings when his own stock is exhausted."
,k72b_30:" Hence, if he pays the lower price of gleanings, he receives interest for advancing the money."
,k72b_31:" Rashi: One may not borrow money with the stipulation that if it is not repaid by a certain date, provisions will be supplied in its stead at the market price prevailing at the time of the loan, which is lower than that which will prevail later. Others: One may not borrow a <i>se'ah</i> of corn to repay a <i>se'ah</i> later, when its value will have advanced, in reliance upon the fact that the corn has a fixed market price, and it is possible for the borrower to obtain a <i>se'ah</i> now or at any time that the price remains unaltered, either by cash or on credit, and keep it until repayment is due."
,k72b_32:" Tishri is the seventh month of the Jewish year, Tebeth the tenth. If they borrow money in Tishri and repay in kind in Tebeth at the prices of Tishri; or (taking the second interpretation, p. 420, n. 11) if they borrow provisions in Tishri and return the same quantity in Tebeth, is the transaction permitted?"
,k72b_33:" V. p 377, n. 3."
,k72b_34:" Hence the transaction is not usurious. This contradicts R. Huna's former ruling."
,k72b_35:" To sell, its value there being greater. "
}

txt:
<p>
If he [the debtor] admits the genuineness of a bond, he [the creditor] need not confirm it'<a id="k72b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and can collect [his debt] from mortgaged property [sold after the debt was contracted]!<a id="k72b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon Raba said to him: How compare? There it is permissible to write it, but here it is not permissible to write it at all!<a id="k72b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, Meremar sat and recited this discussion, whereupon Rabina said to Meremar: If so, when R. Johanan said;<a id="k72b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; It is a precautionary measure, lest he exact his debt as from the earlier date, &mdash; let us say that it was not permissible to write it at all! &mdash; Said he: Is there the least analogy? There, granted that it was not permissible to write it from the earlier date, it was permissible to write it from the later date; but here it was not permissible to write it at all. But surely with respect to that which has been taught: As to claims for land improvement,<a id="k72b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; e.g., if one took away unlawfully a field from his neighbour and sold it to another, who effected improvements therein, and then it was seized from him [by the first owner], when he [the buyer] exacts [his due from the robber], he may collect the principal [even] from mortgaged property [that has since been sold], but the improvements only from the free [i.e., unsold] property<a id="k72b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; let us say that it [the deed of sale] was not permissible to be written at all!<a id="k72b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; How now? There, whether on the view that he [the vendor] is anxious not to be called a robber, or on the view that he is desirous of retaining his [the purchaser's] trust,<a id="k72b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; he seeks to pacify the first owner, so as to validate the deed.<a id="k72b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Here, however, it was his purpose to save it from his clutches, shall he then validate the deed?<a id="k72b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN MUST NOT FIX A PRICE FOR PRODUCE UNTIL THE MARKET PRICE IS KNOWN; ONCE THE MARKET IS ESTABLISHED, A FIXED PRICE MAY BE AGREED UPON, FOR EVEN IF ONE HAS NO STOCK, ANOTHER HAS. IF HE WAS OF THE FIRST HARVESTERS, HE [THE BUYER] MAY ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR [THE CROPS IN] THE STACK,<a id="k72b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; THE BASKET OF GRAPES,<a id="k72b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; THE VAT OF OLIVES,<a id="k72b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; POTTERS' LUMPS OF CLAY,<a id="k72b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; AND FOR LIME WHEN IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PLACED IN THE KILN.<a id="k72b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE MAY ALSO MAKE A FIXED CONTRACT FOR MANURE FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. R. JOSE MAINTAINED: NO CONTRACT FOR MANURE MAY BE ENTERED INTO UNLESS HE [THE VENDOR] HAS THE MANURE IN DUNG PITS; BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT. AND ONE MAY ALSO BARGAIN FOR THE LOWEST PRICE.<a id="k72b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAID: EVEN IF HE DID NOT STIPULATE FOR THE LOWEST PRICE, HE MAY DEMAND, 'SUPPLY ME AT THIS PRICE, OR RETURN MY MONEY.'<a id="k72b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Assi said in R. Johanan's name: One may not fix a contract at market prices.<a id="k72b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zera questioned R. Assi: Did R. Johanan rule thus even of a great fair?<a id="k72b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: R. Johanan referred only to town markets, where values fluctuate.<a id="k72b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, on the original hypothesis that R. Johanan referred even to a great fair, how is our Mishnah conceivable, which teaches, A MAN MUST NOT FIX A PRICE FOR PRODUCE UNTIL THE MARKET PRICE IS KNOWN; ONCE THE MARKET PRICE IS ESTABLISHED, A FIXED PRICE MAY BE AGREED UPON? &mdash; Our Mishnah relates to wheat in granaries and ships, whose fixed price extends over a long period.<a id="k72b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: One may not contract for commodities until the market price is out; once the market price is established, a contract may be entered into, for even if one [the vendor] has no stock, another has. If the new supplies were at four [se'ahs per <i>sela'</i>] and the old at three, a contract may not be made until the price has been equalised for the new and old.<a id="k72b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; If the gleaned grains<a id="k72b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; were [priced] at four [se'ahs and upward per <i>sela'</i>], whilst ordinary stock<a id="k72b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; at three, a contract must not be entered into [at a fixed maximum price] until the same market price has been established for the gleaner<a id="k72b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and the merchant.
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said: One may contract for gleanings at the price of gleanings.<a id="k72b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba to R. Nahman: Why does the gleaner differ?<a id="k72b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Because if he lacks stock, he will borrow from his fellow gleaner? Then even a merchant<a id="k72b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; can borrow from a gleaner!<a id="k72b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: A merchant deems it undignified to borrow from a gleaner. Alternatively, he who pays money to a merchant expects to receive best quality produce.<a id="k72b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Shesheth said in R. Huna's name: One may not borrow upon the market price.<a id="k72b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon R. Joseph b. Hama said to R. Shesheth &mdash; others say, R. Jose b. Abba said to R. Shesheth: Did R. Huna actually rule thus? But a problem was propounded of R. Huna: The students who borrow in Tishri and repay in Tebeth &mdash; is it permitted or forbidden?<a id="k72b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: Wheat may be procured in Hini and Shili:<a id="k72b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; if they wish, they can buy [in Tishri] and repay!<a id="k72b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; At first R. Huna held that one must not borrow, but on hearing that R. Samuel b. Hiyya said in R. Eleazar's name that one may, he too ruled likewise.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If a man was transporting a load from place to place,<a id="k72b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; when his neighbour met him and proposed: 'Let me have it, and I will pay you for it the price you would obtain there,'
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k73a_1:" I.e., if the vendor bears the risk of carriage thither, it is not a loan, the vendee really selling it there on his behalf, and hence permitted. But if the vendee assumes responsibility, it immediately passes into his possession, and he is indebted for its value as a loan. Hence, since he repays more than it is worth where he receives it, it is usury."
,k73a_2:" For it is as though they were immediately transferred to the lender, and if they appreciate, it is the lender's which appreciates."
,k73a_3:" Lit., 'ass drivers.'"
,k73a_4:" They receive money in the dearer place to supply provisions at a later date at the lower price of elsewhere."
,k73a_5:" For through the ready money they thus have in hand they are recognised as traders and receive credit, and this is ample repayment for their labour of bringing the provisions at their risk from one place to another (Rashi). Tosaf. in name of R. Han.: They are satisfied by being kept informed, by those who advance them money, of any rise in the market price in the dearer place during their absence, and thus aided in their sales."
,k73a_6:" [In consideration of the fact that they supply the produce in the dearer place at cheap rates.]"
,k73a_7:" I.e., if the carrier has only just begun to trade thus. On the first view, that it is permitted because they are satisfied to be known as merchants and receive credit, it is permitted here too, since the same reason operates; (according to Tosaf., being new traders and inexperienced in price fluctuations, they are sufficiently compensated by being informed thereon). But on the second view, being new, they lack the farmer's confidence, who may not believe that they are supplying the produce in the dear place at cheap rates, and hence receive no additional discount. Therefore the transaction is forbidden, for his labour of carriage is merely on account of the money advanced, and thus partakes of the nature of usury."
,k73a_8:" [South of Sura, Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 316.]"
,k73a_9:" To bring the produce from Kafri."
,k73a_10:" As above; the more so in that since he accepted the risks of the road, it was an ordinary purchase."
,k73a_11:" He must be more considerate."
,k73a_12:" Does the above law of carriers hold good for all merchandise, or only for wheat? For it may be argued that the two reasons stated apply only to wheat, in which there are frequent price fluctuations and a constant demand. But in other merchandise the prices are more stable, which disposes of the first reason as explained by Tosaf., and the demand is less constant, and hence he is not likely to receive a greater discount, for the demand having been satisfied, it will not recur for a considerable time; nor is he, for the same reason, likely to receive recognition as a trader."
,k73a_13:" Rashi: 'vineyard'. I.e., to advance money at a fixed price for the fruits of the orchard before they are ripe, to be delivered when ripe. The fixed price is naturally less than that of ripe fruit."
,k73a_14:" V. <i>supra</i> 63b."
,k73a_15:" If the orchard is smitten with hail, or the plants with disease, the risks of which are borne by the purchaser. [Others: 'a mishap may befall it.]"
,k73a_16:" But as a speculation. He may (and probably will) receive more than his money's worth, but on the other hand he may lose it."
,k73a_17:" V. <i>supra</i> 30a top. Hence there is a greater element of risk which converts it into a speculation. [Tosaf.: Cattle breeders (who buy the offspring before it is born) since the risks are great.]"
,k73a_18:" Rashi and Jast. Tosaf.: who advance money for loads of faggots, to be delivered at vintage time. Lit., 'who cut grapes or branches.'"
,k73a_19:" Lit., 'turn over.'"
,k73a_20:" On which the grain grows; hence the grain, or, as Tosaf. interprets, the growing faggots are already yours. To do some work in a field was a method of obtaining a title thereto."
,k73a_21:" Lit., 'turn over.'"
,k73a_22:" I.e., until you have finished those self-imposed tasks."
,k73a_23:" Lit., 'remit in your favour' (what they pay you over and above the stipulated wage). These watchers were not paid until the corn was winnowed, though wages were due to them immediately after harvesting; but in consideration thereof they were given something above their due. Now this has the appearance of interest, therefore Raba advised them to find some small tasks in the barn, so that their wages should not be legally payable until they actually received them, in which case the 'tip' would be a gift, not interest. [So according to some texts; cur. edd.: 'They reduce the price in your favour. According to this reading the watchers received payment in kind at a cheaper rate in compensation for waiting for their wages; hence Raba's advice.]"
,k73a_24:" The first month of the Jewish Year. They insist that he shall reap then and quit the field. [This haste in harvesting the corn before it was quite ripe was due to the unsettled state of the country during the Persian &mdash; Roman wars. Funk, S., Die Juden in Babylonian, II, p. 85.]"
,k73a_25:" The second month."
,k73a_26:" The protest was based on the assumption that the additional two was payment for waiting the extra month."
,k73a_27:" I.e., he has a title thereto until the crops are fully ripe."
,k73a_28:" Hence I am entitled to a greater rental in return for the greater value they receive [Raba's prominence assured his property of government protections and he could safely 'allow his crops to remain in the field until they ripened fully. Funk, <i>loc. cit</i>.] "
}

txt:
<p>
if the vendor retains the title thereto, it is permitted; if the vendee, it is forbidden.<a id="k73a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; If he was transporting provisions from place to place, when his neighbour met him and proposed, 'Let me have them, and I will supply you [later] with provisions that I have there,' if he actually possesses provisions there, it is permitted;<a id="k73a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; if not, it is forbidden. But carriers<a id="k73a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; supply in the dearer place at the prices of the cheaper,<a id="k73a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; without fear [of incurring the guilt of usury]. Why? &mdash; R. Papa said: They are satisfied by being informed of the market price.<a id="k73a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: They are satisfied with the extra discount they receive.<a id="k73a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Wherein do they differ? &mdash; In respect of a new trader.<a id="k73a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	In Sura four [se'ahs] went [to the <i>zuz</i>]; in Kafri,<a id="k73a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; six. So Rab gave money to the carrier,<a id="k73a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; accepted himself the risks of carriage, and received five [se'ahs per <i>zuz</i>]. But why not take six?<a id="k73a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; For a man of great repute it is different.<a id="k73a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Assi propounded of R. Johanan: May this be done with small ware?<a id="k73a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: R. Ishmael son of R. Jose wished to do so with linen garments, but was not allowed by Rabbi. Others say, Rabbi wished to do so with small ware, but R. Ishmael son of R. Jose did not allow him.
</p><p>
	An orchard:<a id="k73a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab forbade it; Samuel permitted it. Rab forbade it: Since it is worth more later on, it looks like payment for waiting.<a id="k73a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel permitted it: Since there may be cause for regret,<a id="k73a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; it does not look like payment for waiting.<a id="k73a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Shimi b. Hiyya said: But Rab agrees [where the ploughing is done] with [the aid of] oxen, since great loss is caused.<a id="k73a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Samuel said to those who advance seed grain to be returned in new grain:<a id="k73a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Busy yourselves<a id="k73a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; in the field, that ye may have a title to the soil itself;<a id="k73a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; for if not, it will be accounted as a loan to you, and forbidden.
</p><p>
	Raba advised those who keep watch over the cornfields: Go out and find some occupation<a id="k73a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; in the barn, that your wages may not be payable until then;<a id="k73a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; since wages are not payable until the end [of one's task], and it is only then that they make you the gift.<a id="k73a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Rabbis protested to Raba: You enjoy usury. For everyone [who leases a farm] accepts four [<i>kor</i> as annual rent] and dismisses the tenant in Nisan;<a id="k73a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst you wait until Iyar<a id="k73a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; and receive six.<a id="k73a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; He retorted: It is you who act contrary to the law; the land is in bond to the tenant;<a id="k73a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; if you make him quit in Nisan [before the crops are ripened], you cause him much loss. Whereas I wait until Iyar, thus greatly enhancing his profits.<a id="k73a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k73b_1:" V. <i>supra</i> 67b."
,k73b_2:" He was the son of a Jewess and a proselyte, conceived before conversion and born after, and was therefore called by his mother's name."
,k73b_3:" For the coming year, but not for the past."
,k73b_4:" Therefore I was entitled to live rent-free in the house. V. <i>supra</i> 67b."
,k73b_5:" Lit., 'make (the creditor) quit."
,k73b_6:" Lit., 'until I cause you to quit by (payment of) money,' i.e., until I compel the heathen to repay you. This was not forbidden as usury, since not Raba but the heathen owed him money (Rashi)."
,k73b_7:" [Near Matha Mahasia, a suburb of Sura, Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>. p. 297.]"
,k73b_8:" Lit., 'devour'."
,k73b_9:" Whereas had they taken it in Tishri, it might have turned sour by Tebeth. Thus in return for their advancing the money before the receipt of the goods the vendor takes the risk of deterioration, which is usury. Now, though it was stated, <i>supra</i> 72b, that one may buy wheat ahead if the buyer has stock when the money is paid, Raba of Barnesh thought that wine is different, because it is liable to turn sour. (Rashi)."
,k73b_10:" I.e., good wine remains good; if it turns now, it was poor from the very beginning, already containing the germs of deterioration, as it were, but its faultiness was not then discernible."
,k73b_11:" And they insist on receiving it, because only if it is sound now was it sound then."
,k73b_12:" [Fort of Shanutha, 4 parasangs west of Bagdad, and identical with Be-Kufai; v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 120, n. 8, the former being the Arabic, the latter the Aramaic name of the Fort, Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 268.]"
,k73b_13:" Lit., 'they poured'."
,k73b_14:" [So Jast. Others: an additional jug, measure.]"
,k73b_15:" Or is it usury for having paid the money in advance?"
,k73b_16:" The right of giving you exactly the stipulated quantity."
,k73b_17:" By paying the land tax on behalf of the original owners, who, being unable to pay it, had fled, they had become possessed thereof, and it is questionable whether they have the right to dispose of the wine."
,k73b_18:" So Jast. Rashi: the service-warrant."
,k73b_19:" [So according to some texts; cur. edd.: 'we learnt'. The quotation however is not from a Mishnah.]"
,k73b_20:" Lev. XXV, 46."
,k73b_21:" Ibid. The verse, of course, is not actually thus interpreted, but merely cited in support of his practice, with the caveat that men of good standing must not be molested."
,k73b_22:" Walshafat, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 409, n. 6. Having neglected to buy a vintage, when wine is cheap, so that it must now be bought at ordinary market prices, he must duly compensate him. [Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>. p. 185, renders: he pays him (the agent) only in accordance with the (low) price current in the wine market of Balash-Abad.]"
,k73b_23:" Even had he not been negligent, he might have failed to obtain the particular wine ordered."
,k73b_24:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> Even if the agent undertook to forfeit the loss, should he not buy the wine, his pledge is invalid, not having been meant seriously."
,k73b_25:" V. <i>infra</i> 104a."
,k73b_26:" Therefore his undertaking is not an <i>asmakta</i>, but seriously meant. "
}

txt:
<p>
	A certain heathen gave a house in pledge<a id="k73b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; to R. Mari b. Rachel,<a id="k73b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and then sold it to Raba. Thereupon he [R. Mari] waited a full year, took the rent, and offered it to Raba.<a id="k73b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he to him: 'The reason that I have not offered you rent before this is that an unspecified pledge is a year. Had the heathen wished to make me quit [within the year], he would have been unable;<a id="k73b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but now you must take rent for the house'. He replied: 'Had I known that it was pledged to you, I should not have bought it. Now I will treat you according to their laws; for until they redeem the pledge<a id="k73b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; they receive no rent; so I will take no rent from you until you are paid out'.<a id="k73b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba of Barnesh<a id="k73b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; said to R. Ashi: See, Sir, the Rabbis enjoy<a id="k73b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; usury. For they advance money for wine in Tishri, and receive choice quality in Tebeth!<a id="k73b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: They too pay their money for wine, not vinegar, and from the very beginning, wine is wine, and vinegar, vinegar;<a id="k73b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; it is then [when they pay] that they select choice wine.<a id="k73b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabina gave money [for wine] to the residents of Akra dishanwatha,<a id="k73b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and they supplied<a id="k73b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; a liberal addition.<a id="k73b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; So he went to R. Ashi and asked him: Is it permitted?<a id="k73b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Yes, he replied; they but forego [their rights] in your favour.<a id="k73b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But, said he, the land is not theirs!<a id="k73b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The land is pledged for the land tax, he replied, and the king has decreed: He who pays the land tax is entitled to the usufruct.
</p><p>
	R. Papa said to Raba: See, there are some scholars who advance money for people's poll tax and then put them to much service! &mdash; He replied: I might have died, without telling you this thing. Thus said R. Shesheth: The surety<a id="k73b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; of these people lies in the king's archives, and the king has decreed that he who does not pay his poll tax is made the servant of him who pays it [on his behalf].
</p><p>
	R. Se'oram, Raba's brother, used to seize people of disrepute and make them draw Raba's litter. Said Raba 'to him: You have done well. For it has been taught:<a id="k73b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; If you see a man who does not behave in a seemly fashion, whence do we know that you may make him your servant? From the verse, They [sc. Canaanite slaves] shall be your bondmen for ever and your brethren the children of Israel [likewise].<a id="k73b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; I might think that this is so even of one who behaves in a seemly fashion; therefore it is taught, but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.<a id="k73b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hama said: If a man gives his neighbour money to buy wine for him, and he negligently fails to do so, he must compensate him as it is sold in the market of Belshafat.<a id="k73b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Amemar said: I repeated this ruling before R. Zebid of Nehardea, whereupon he observed: R. Hama's dictum applies only to unspecified wine, but not to a particular wine, [for] who knows that he could have obtained it for him?<a id="k73b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: Even for unspecified wine it is also not [correct]. Why? Because it is an <i>asmakta</i>, and an <i>asmakta</i> establishes no legal claim.<a id="k73b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; But in R. Ashi's view, how does this differ from what we learnt: [If the tenant-farmer declares], 'If I let it lie waste without cultivating it, I will pay with the best [of produce,'<a id="k73b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; he is bound to do so]? &mdash; There it is in his power [to cultivate it];<a id="k73b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k74a_1:" For he might have failed to procure the wine at the stipulated price in any case. Hence his undertaking was an <i>asmakta</i>."
,k74a_2:" All three must share it."
,k74a_3:" [H]. When merchants bought wine, they left it in the cellars of the growers, taking out barrel by barrel according to need, and affixed a mark on each that they had bought. [Asheri in name of R. Han. explains it as 'handshake', a recognised method among traders of closing a deal.]"
,k74a_4:" That by affixing a mark it passes completely into the possession of the merchant, as though <i>meshikah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) had taken place, and henceforth he must bear all risks."
,k74a_5:" Lit., 'He who punished etc.'; v. <i>supra</i> 44a. It still belongs to the wine-grower (the payment of money not effecting a change of ownership), but should he desire to rescind the sale, as he may legally do, he must submit to the curse."
,k74a_6:" I.e., a method of acquisition based on local usage receives full legal recognition."
,k74a_7:" I.e., processes not dependent on man."
,k74a_8:" This refutes both Rab and Samuel, for three processes are wanting, one of which, at least, sc. drying by the sun, is not in man's power."
,k74a_9:" This was done by throwing the corn to the wind, which separated the grain from the chaff."
,k74a_10:" prior to manufacture the grapes were heated and caused to shrink by exposure to the sun."
,k74a_11:" This too refutes Rab and Samuel."
,k74a_12:" Hence only two processes are wanting."
,k74a_13:" Before it is fit for use."
,k74a_14:" I.e., when he has the materials for making the lime, the fuel, etc., with which the kiln was fired."
,k74a_15:" Which is rare and difficult to obtain."
,k74a_16:" Both in Galilee."
,k74a_17:" But not while it is still earth."
,k74a_18:" So that Amemar could have given money even sooner."
,k74a_19:" Upon the transaction, which cannot be rescinded without submission to a curse."
,k74a_20:" And each may retract."
,k74a_21:" V. Mishnah, 72b. "
}

txt:
<p>
here it does not rest with him.<a id="k74a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: If three men gave money to one person to purchase something for them, and he purchased on behalf of one only, he has purchased [it] for all three.<a id="k74a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; This is so only if he [the agent] did not make up a separate sealed package of each man's money; but if he did, then for whom he has bought, he has bought, and for whom he has not bought, he has not bought.
</p><p>
	R. papi said in Raba's name: The mark [on the wine-barrels]<a id="k74a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; gives possession. In respect of what [does it effect a title]? &mdash; R. Habiba said: In respect of actual possession.<a id="k74a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; The Rabbis said: For the acceptance of the curse.<a id="k74a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And the law is that [it gives possession only] in respect of submission to the curse. But where it is the usage that this gives actual possession, it does so [with full legal recognition].<a id="k74a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF HE WAS OF THE FIRST HARVESTERS. Rab said: If [only] two [processes] are wanting [before the crops are ready for delivery] a contract may be made; if three, no contract may be made. Samuel said: [If they are to be done] by man, even if a hundred [are lacking] an agreement may be effected; if by Heaven,<a id="k74a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; even when one [is lacking] no contract may be made. We learnt: HE MAY ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR [THE CROPS IN] THE STACK. But it still wants spreading out in the sun to dry, threshing, and winnowing?<a id="k74a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It means that it had already been spread out [and dried] in the sun. But on Samuel's view, that if dependent on Heaven, even when one [process is lacking] no contract may be made, does it not need winnowing, which is in the power of Heaven?<a id="k74a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It can be done with a fan.
</p><p>
	AND FOR THE BASKET OF GRAPES. But they yet need heating,<a id="k74a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; placing in the press, treading, and being drawn [into the pit]!<a id="k74a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; As R. Hiyya learnt: [A contract may be made] in respect of the heated mass of olives; so here too, it is for the heated mass of grapes. But three processes are still wanting! &mdash; [It refers] to a place where the buyer draws [the wine into the pit].<a id="k74a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND FOR THE VAT OF OLIVES. But it must yet be heated, placed between the boards [of the olive press], pressed, and conducted [into the oil pit]! &mdash; As R. Hiyya taught: [The contract may be made] in respect of the heated mass of olives. [So here too.] But three processes are still wanting! &mdash; [It refers] to a place where the buyer draws [the oil into the pit].
</p><p>
	AND FOR POTTERS' LUMPS OF CLAY. But why? Surely it requires moulding, drying, placing in the oven, burning, and taking out! &mdash; [It means,] when they have been moulded and dried. But there are still three [processes wanting]! &mdash; [It refers] to a place where the buyer removes [the earthenware from the oven.]
</p><p>
	AND FOR LIME, WHEN IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PLACED IN THE KILN. But it requires to be burnt, removed [from the kiln], and crushed!<a id="k74a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [It refers] to a place where the purchaser crushes it. But on the view of Samuel, who maintained that if they are to be done by man, even when a hundred [processes are wanting] a contract may be made, why must it have 'BEEN PLACED IN THE KILN? &mdash; Say thus: when it is ready for placing in the kiln.<a id="k74a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND FOR POTTERS' LUMPS OF CLAY. Our Rabbis taught: Contracts may not be entered into for potters' lumps of clay until they are kneaded [into lumps]: this is R. Meir's view. R. Jose said: This refers only to white earth;<a id="k74a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but for black earth, such as that of Kfar Hanania and its environs, Kfar Sihin<a id="k74a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and its environs, an agreement may be concluded, for even if one [merchant] has none, another has.
</p><p>
	Amemar paid money [for earthenware] when he [the manufacturer] had stocked himself with the earth. In accordance with whom [did he do this]? If in accordance with R. Meir? Surely R. Meir ruled [that no contract may be made] until they are kneaded [into clay]!<a id="k74a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; If with R. Jose, surely he said, Even if one has none, another has?<a id="k74a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In truth, it was In accordance with R. Jose, but in Amemar's locality earth [for this purpose] was rare; hence, if he is stocked therewith, each places full reliance;<a id="k74a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; if not, they place no reliance.<a id="k74a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	ONE MAY ALSO MAKE A FIXED CONTRACT FOR MANURE FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. But are not the Sages identical with the first Tanna?<a id="k74a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba said:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k74b_1:" When very little dried manure for fertilising is available. The first Tanna permits a contract even for winter ('FOR THE WHOLE YEAR'); but the Sages, who permit the transaction because even if one has none another may have it, refer only to summer, when it is plentiful, but not to winter, when there may be a shortage amongst all merchants."
,k74b_2:" Which the father in-law was to provide, the father-in-law having made him his agent."
,k74b_3:" Before delivery."
,k74b_4:" In respect of both the vendor and purchaser; v. <i>supra</i> 44a."
,k74b_5:" Or rescind the sale only on submission to a curse."
,k74b_6:" In respect of the purchaser, viz., that he cannot rescind the bargain at all, even on pain of submission to the curse."
,k74b_7:" Since the Rabbis maintain that the vendee may rescind the sale even without a drop in price, but that he is subject to the curse, it may be that if the price falls, he is even morally entitled to retract, for a 'most favoured-sale' is implicit in every such transaction."
,k74b_8:" I.e., if the price fell."
,k74b_9:" For if the sale is always legally binding upon the purchaser there is no possibility of his ever having to submit to the curse."
,k74b_10:" V. <i>supra</i> 48a; this was said by R. Simeon."
,k74b_11:" Since the father-in-law provides the dowry, the son-in-law merely acted on his behalf in placing the order. The latter is not subject to the curse, since he does not retract, whilst the former may repudiate his agent for not having fulfilled his task in a proper manner by making the necessary stipulation."
,k74b_12:" The son-in-law did not act as an agent, but bought on his own account, to sell to his father-in-law."
,k74b_13:" <i>Aris</i>, a tenant who pays a percentage of the crops as rent."
,k74b_14:" I.e., if he lent them grain when it was cheap, and then it advanced, he would only accept current value, hence a smaller quantity."
,k74b_15:" Therefore the Tanna finds it necessary to state the true <i>halachah</i>."
,k74b_16:" I.e., has not commenced any work in the field."
,k74b_17:" Even if he has ploughed the field, he can be forced to quit."
,k74b_18:" Since he could have been forced to leave the field altogether, the seed which the owner provides is not regarded as a loan but as an addition, as it were, to the land he leases him; and in consideration thereof the <i>aris</i> is to pay him the same quantity over and above what he would otherwise have to pay him. Therefore, even if the seed advances in price, there is no interest on a loan."
,k74b_19:" I.e., normally; but in this case, owing to the superior quality of the soil, the owner had stipulated that the <i>aris</i> was to provide it."
,k74b_20:" And then agreed to provide the seed himself, contrary to local usage, and then the owner advanced it, the same quantity to be repaid later."
,k74b_21:" For in that case, the land already having been leased, it cannot be maintained that the seed advanced is an addition to the field. "
}

txt:
<p>
They differ with respect to winter.<a id="k74b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND ONE MAY ALSO BARGAIN FOR THE LOWEST PRICE. A man once paid money [in advance] for his father-in-law's dowry,<a id="k74b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [i.e., the trousseau comprised therein.] Subsequently the dowry fell in price.<a id="k74b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; So they came before R. Papa. Said he to him [the purchaser]: If you have contracted for the lowest price, you can take at present prices; if not, you must accept at the original price. But the Rabbis protested to R. Papa: Yet if he did not stipulate [thus], must he accept at previous prices? Surely it is only money [that has passed between them], and money gives no title! &mdash; He replied: I too spoke only with reference to submission to the curse. If he stipulated for the lowest price, and the vendor wishes to retract, the vendor must submit to the curse; if no stipulation has been made, and the purchaser wishes to retract, the purchaser must submit to the curse. Rabina said to R. Papa: Whence do you know that it [our Mishnah under discussion] accords even with the Rabbis who disagree with R. Simeon and maintain that money does not effect possession;<a id="k74b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and yet even so, [only] if he stipulated for the lowest price does he receive at the present value, but if not, he must accept it at the previous price?<a id="k74b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Perhaps it accords [only] with R. Simeon, who maintained that money effects possession,<a id="k74b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; so that, if he stipulated for the lowest price, he receives it at current values, but if not, he must accept it at previous prices, because his money has effected possession for him; whereas in the opinion of the Rabbis, whether he stipulated or not, he can take it at present prices, for a man's intention is for the lowest price?<a id="k74b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: You must assume that R. Simeon ruled [that the purchaser is morally in possession after paying money] only if the price remained uniform; but did he rule thus when there were two prices?<a id="k74b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; For should you not admit this, does R. Simeon maintain that the provision of the curse never applies to the purchaser?<a id="k74b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you rejoin, That indeed is so &mdash; surely it has been taught: At all events, such is [merely] the <i>halachah</i>; but the Sages said, He who punished etc.<a id="k74b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by 'at all events'? Surely that it matters not whether the vendor or the purchaser [retracts], he must submit to the curse? Hence R. Simeon gave his ruling [that the vendee cannot legally cancel the sale] only if the price remained uniform, but if not there were two prices.
</p><p>
	R. Aha, the son of Raba, said to Raba: But does it not follow [that there is no curse in the case under discussion], since in the first place he [the father-in-law] had only appointed him [the son-in-law] as his agent?<a id="k74b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: This refers to a merchant who buys and sells.<a id="k74b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN MAY LEND HIS TENANTS<a id="k74b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; GRAIN FOR [AN EQUAL QUANTITY OF] GRAIN [TO BE RETURNED] FOR SOWING PURPOSES, BUT NOT FOR FOOD. FOR RABBAN GAMALIEL USED TO LEND HIS FARMER-TENANTS GRAIN FOR GRAIN FOR SOWING; AND IF IT WAS DEAR AND BECAME CHEAP, OR CHEAP AND BECAME DEAR, HE WOULD ACCEPT [A RETURN] ONLY AT THE LOWER PRICE;<a id="k74b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; NOT BECAUSE THE <I>HALACHAH</I> IS SO, BUT BECAUSE RABBAN GAMALIEL DESIRED TO SUBMIT HIMSELF TO GREATER STRINGENCY.<a id="k74b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught: A MAN MAY LEND HIS TENANTS GRAIN FOR GRAIN FOR SOWING. That is only if he [the tenant] has not entered therein;<a id="k74b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he has entered therein, it is forbidden. Why does our Tanna draw no distinction whether he has entered therein or not, whereas the Tanna of the Baraitha does?Raba replied: R. Idi explained the matter to me: In the locality of our Tanna the <i>aris</i> provided the seed, and whether he has yet entered therein or not, as long as he has not provided the seed he [the landlord] can make him quit;<a id="k74b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; hence, when he enters therein [and the owner provided the seed] it is [straightway] for a lower return.<a id="k74b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; But in the locality of the Tanna of the Baraitha the landowner provided the seed;<a id="k74b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; hence, if he [the <i>aris</i>] has not yet entered therein, so that he [the landlord] can make him quit, when he does enter, it is for a lower return; but if he has already<a id="k74b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; entered, so that he cannot force him to quit, it is forbidden.<a id="k74b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A man may propose to his neighbour,
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k76a_1:" Thus, in the first instance, if labour costs increased after they retracted, the employer may deduct the increase that he will have to pay from the wages due for the work already done. If, on the other hand, they decrease, the profit is the employer's, and the workers cannot demand the whole sum originally agreed upon less the (diminished) cost of completing the work. In the second instance, the employer must pay his workmen for what they have already done pro rata even if labour costs advance, and he must pay more for the rest. Should they decrease, however, he is bound to pay the whole sum originally agreed upon less only the diminished cost of the rest."
,k76a_2:" E.g., if a dyer was ordered to dye wool red, and dyed it black, he can only demand either his own expenses for dyeing or the increased value of the wool, whichever is less."
,k76a_3:" Because to denote that the employer and employees deceived each other, the Mishnaic idiom requires the first phrase."
,k76a_4:" And when an employer instructs a foreman to engage labourers at three sins, and he engages them at four, it is as though he had engaged them for himself but directed them to his employer's work."
,k76a_5:" For if four <i>zuz</i> is the usual wage. the foreman has a right to claim that sum from the employer, as stated in the Baraitha just cited, he receives the value whereby he benefitted him. If, on the other hand, three is the usual wage, the workers must accept this without any resentment, since he explicitly stipulated that the responsibility for their wages rested on the employer."
,k76a_6:" Hence they have righteous cause for resentment. Yet, since he stipulated that the employer was responsible for their wages, they have no legal redress."
,k76a_7:" I.e., who works for himself, but if offered a high wage, is willing to work for another."
,k76a_8:" To see if it is really worth the higher wage, in which case the employer must pay four, notwithstanding his instructions. This, however, is only when some receive four <i>zuz</i> for superior work, but if none do, they have no legal claim. (H.M. CXXXII, 1 and [H], a.l.)"
,k76a_9:" They were engaged to dig a dyke."
,k76a_10:" Prov. III, 27. Though they undertook to work for three they are justified in resenting that the employer's agent offered them less than he might have done."
,k76a_11:" I.e., they certainly did not stipulate for less."
,k76a_12:" I.e., by saying, 'Be it as the employer instructed', they meant to stipulate that if he had stated more than three, they were to receive the higher wage."
,k76a_13:" A woman is not divorced until the divorce actually reaches her hand or the hand of an agent appointed by her for the express purpose of accepting it on her behalf: further, an agent's powers are strictly limited to the terms of his appointment, and he may not exceed them in the least. Now, in this case, the wife merely authorised the agent to bring it to her, whereas the agent stated to the husband that he was delegated to accept it on her behalf; whilst the husband, in handing him the divorce, asserted that he was giving it in accordance with her instructions. Now, no man can take a divorce to a woman on her husband's behalf, unless her husband appoints him for that purpose; and a husband cannot authorise a man to accept a divorce on his wife's behalf, i.e., that by his acceptance she shall be divorced, for such appointment is the wife's prerogative. Hence, when the husband said, 'Take it in accordance with her instructions', he must have meant, 'I believe that she appointed you to accept it on her behalf, that by your acceptance she should become divorced'; consequently he did not appoint him as agent to take it to his wife. (For though the wife had appointed him as her agent to bring it to her, the husband too must appoint him as his agent to take it to her; otherwise the divorce is invalid. But in this case, the husband, believing that he was agent for acceptance, would naturally not instruct him to take it to her.) Therefore, she is not divorced at all, neither by his acceptance, since she did not authorise him to accept it for her, nor even by her own, since he had not been authorised by the husband to take it to her. Now, this holds good on the hypothesis that the husband relied on the agent's statement only. But, if it be assumed that he meant, 'I give it to you exactly in accordance with her instructions, and not merely in accordance with your word,' that is tantamount to saying, 'As she has instructed you to be her agent to bring it to her, so do I instruct you to be my agent to carry it to her'; and therefore, when it reaches her hand, she should certainly be divorced. This proves that the husband relied on the agent's statement only, and by analogy, the workers rely upon the employer's delegate. "
}

txt:
<p>
IF THE EMPLOYER RETRACTS, HE IS AT A DISADVANTAGE.<a id="k76a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; HE WHO ALTERS [THE CONTRACT] IS AT A DISADVANTAGE,<a id="k76a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HE WHO RETRACTS IS AT A DISADVANTAGE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It is not stated, One or the other retracts. but THEY DECEIVE EACH OTHER, implying the artisans deceive each other:<a id="k76a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; viz., the employer instructed him [sc. his employee]. 'Go and hire me workers;' whereupon he went and deceived them. How so? If the employer's instructions were at four [<i>zuz</i> per day], and he went and engaged them for three, what cause have they for resentment? They understood and agreed! Whilst if the employer's instructions were for three, and he went and engaged them at four, what then were the conditions? If he [who engaged them] said to them, 'I am responsible for your wages.' he must pay them out of his [pocket]. For it has been taught: If one engages an artisan to labour on his [work], but directs him to his neighbour's, he must pay him in full, and receive from the owner [of the work actually done] the value whereby he benefitted him!<a id="k76a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is necessary to teach this only if he said to them, 'The employer is responsible for your pay.' But let us see at what rate workers are engaged?<a id="k76a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is necessary [to teach this] only when some [workmen] engage themselves for four [<i>zuz</i>] and others for three. Hence they can say to him, 'Had you not told us that it is for four <i>zuz</i>, we would have taken the trouble to find employment at four.'<a id="k76a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Alternatively, this may refer to a householder.<a id="k76a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence he can say to him, 'Had you not promised me four, it would have been beneath my dignity to accept employment.' Or again, it may refer, after all, to [normal] employees. Yet they can say to him [the foreman], 'Since you told us it was for four, we took the trouble of doing the work particularly well.' But then let us examine the work?<a id="k76a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This refers to a dyke.<a id="k76a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But even [in] a dyke, it [superior workmanship] may be distinguished! &mdash; It means that it is filled with water, and so not noticeable. Another possibility is this: In truth, it means that the employer gave instructions for four, and he went and engaged them for three; but as to your objection, 'They understood and accepted!' &mdash; they can remonstrate with him. 'Do you not believe in, <i>Withhold not good from them to whom it is due</i>?'<a id="k76a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It is obvious, if the employer instructed him [to engage labourers] for three [<i>zuz</i> per day], and he went and promised them four, but they stipulated, 'According to the employer's instructions', that their reliance was upon him [who engaged them],<a id="k76a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But what if the employer instructed him [to engage them] at four, and he went and promised them three, and they said, 'Be it as the employer instructed'? Did they rely on his [the agent's] words, saying to him, 'We believe you that the employer has instructed you thus'; or perhaps they relied upon the words of the employer?<a id="k76a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear: [If a woman said to a man.] 'Bring me my divorce,' and [he went and stated to her husband,] 'Your wife authorised me to accept the divorce on her behalf;' [to which] he replied. 'Take it, in accordance with her instructions,' &mdash; R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuhah in Rab's name: Even when the divorce reaches her hand, she is not divorced. This proves that he [the husband] relies upon his [the agent's] statement. For should you maintain that he relies upon hers, then at least when the divorce reaches her hand, let her be divorced!<a id="k76a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Ashi:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k76b_1:" Since the divorce takes effect immediately the agent accepts it."
,k76b_2:" And thus himself appointing him an agent to take the divorce to his wife."
,k76b_3:" Lit., 'uprooted'."
,k76b_4:" By claiming that he was an agent for acceptance when in fact he was merely authorized to bring her the divorce, he shewed unwillingness to take all that trouble, and so ipso facto cancelled his own authority. Therefore, even if the husband's assertion meant that he relied upon his wife, and the agent, moreover, subsequently changed his mind and did deliver it, the delivery is invalid, since he himself had destroyed his authority. But in the hypothetical reverse case posited by R. Ashi, the agent's statement that he was empowered only to bring it to the wife, when in fact he was authorised to accept it, did not annul his powers; if he was willing to go so far as to deliver it, he was certainly prepared for the lesser service of accepting it on the wife's behalf."
,k76b_5:" I.e., the Mishnah means that the deceit was between the employer and the labourers, one side having retracted from the agreement, and this too is called 'deceiving'."
,k76b_6:" I.e., though the labourers can claim for the loss of the day's work, and the ass-drivers likewise, a man is always prepared to accept somewhat less than a full day's wages if he is permitted to be idle that day, and it is only to that lesser sum that they are entitled."
,k76b_7:" In the first clause the reference is to time workers: here, to workers who contracted for the whole task, e.g., to plough a field for a fixed remuneration."
,k76b_8:" I.e., if the half done is now worth six <i>denarii</i>, labour costs having advanced, so that the employer must pay six <i>denarii</i> for the other half, he must nevertheless give them the <i>sela'</i> (four <i>denarii</i>) for their half, although he thereby loses on the whole: for this Tanna rejects the view of our Mishnah that he who breaks the agreement is at a disadvantage, as explained on p. 437. n. 8."
,k76b_9:" v. <i>infra</i> 77a."
,k76b_10:" R. Dosa agreeing with the Tanna of our Mishnah."
,k76b_11:" I.e., he may even pay fresh workers for the remainder much more then the first were to receive for the whole, and recoup himself from the first batch."
,k76b_12:" Hence he must pay far above the normal."
,k76b_13:" In any case the term 'deceiving' is employed in this Baraitha to denote 'retracting' and so likewise in our Mishnah."
,k76b_14:" In connection with the above: 'if the ass-drivers went and found no grain etc.'"
,k76b_15:" As explained on p. 441, n. 6; cf. also p. 398, n. 2."
,k76b_16:" I.e., when the tanna recited the Baraitha and said 'he must pay in full', he went no further, whereupon Rab observed that his uncle's view differed."
,k76b_17:" I.e., the Tanna had added, 'but travelling with a load etc.', and yet Rab observed that his uncle differed."
,k76b_18:" It was their misfortune that the field proved to be a marsh."
,k76b_19:" Rashi: if the labourer inspected the field the previous evening, he has no claim now, since when he undertook to plough it, he saw the condition of the field. Maim: If the land owner inspected it the previous evening, found it fit, and engaged workers, but overnight heavy rains turned it into a swamp, the labourers have no redress, since it was not the employer's fault. "
}

txt:
<p>
How now! That were well, had the reverse been taught, thus: [If a woman said to a man,] 'Accept the divorce on my behalf;' and he [went and stated to her husband.] 'Your wife instructed me, Bring me my divorce,' [to which] he replied. 'Take it, in accordance with her instructions: and had R. Nahman ruled [thereon] in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha in Rab's name that immediately the divorce comes into his [the agent's] hands, she is divorced; that would have proved that he [the husband] relied upon her word.<a id="k76b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Again had he ruled that [only] when the divorce reaches her hand, is she divorced; that would shew that he relied upon the agent's statement.<a id="k76b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But there [where R. Nahman did state his ruling], it is because the agent himself entirely cancelled<a id="k76b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; his appointment, by declaring, 'I am willing to be an agent for acceptance, but not for delivery.'<a id="k76b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[Reverting to the Mishnah:] If you prefer I can say, this Tanna designates retracting too, 'deceiving'.<a id="k76b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; For it has been taught: If one hires labourers and they deceive the employer, or the employer deceives them, they have nothing but resentment against each other [but no legal redress]. Now, this holds good only if they have not gone [to the scene of their labour]; but if ass-drivers [are engaged to convey a load of grain from a certain place and] go [there] and find no grain, or labourers [hired to plough a field] go and find the field a swamp [unfit for ploughing], he must pay them in full; yet travelling with a load is not the same as travelling empty-handed, nor is working the same as sitting idle.<a id="k76b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [Moreover,] this holds good only if they have not commenced work; but if they have commenced work, the portion done is assessed for them.<a id="k76b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; E.g., if they contract to harvest [a field of] standing corn for two <i>sela's</i> and they harvest half, and leave half; or to weave a garment for two <i>sela's</i>, and they weave half and leave half, the portion done is assessed: if it is worth six <i>denarii</i>, he must pay them a <i>sela'</i> [Four <i>denarii</i>], or they can complete the work and receive two <i>sela's</i>;<a id="k76b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; if it is worth a <i>sela'</i>, he must pay them a <i>sela'</i>.<a id="k76b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Dosa said: That which still remains to be done is assessed. [Thus:] if it is worth six <i>denarii</i>, he pays them a <i>shekel</i> [two <i>denarii</i>], or they can complete their work and receive two <i>sela's</i><a id="k76b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; if a <i>sela'</i>, he must pay them a <i>sela'</i>. Now, this holds good only if there is no irretrievable loss [if the work is postponed until fresh labourers are found]; but if there is, he can engage [workers] at their cost, or deceive them. How does he deceive them? He says to them, 'I have promised you a <i>sela'</i>; come and receive two.' To what extent may he engage [workers] against them? Even to forty or fifty <i>zuz</i>.<a id="k76b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But when is this said, [only] if no artisans are available for hiring;<a id="k76b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; but if there are, and he [the first worker] says to him, 'Go out and engage one of these,' he has nothing but resentment against him.<a id="k76b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A tanna recited before Rab:<a id="k76b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; He must pay them in full. Whereupon he [Rab] observed: My uncle [R. Hiyya] said, 'Were it I, I would have paid them only as unemployed labourers:'<a id="k76b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; yet you say. 'he must pay them in full'! But surely, it is taught thereon: But travelling with a load is not the same as travelling empty-handed, nor is working the same as idling! &mdash; Now it [the Baraitha] had not been completed before him [Rab].<a id="k76b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Others say, it had been completed before him,<a id="k76b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and he [Rab] observed thus: My uncle said, 'Were it I, I would not have paid him at all';<a id="k76b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; yet you say [he must pay him] as an unemployed labourer! But this [Baraitha] opposes it! &mdash; There is no difficulty: the latter ruling is if he viewed the field the previous evening; the former, if he did not.<a id="k76b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Just as Raba said: If one engaged labourers to cut dykes, and rain fell and rendered it [the land] waterlogged [making work impossible], if he inspected it the previous evening,
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k77a_1:" If the labourer had not inspected the land beforehand, he can plead. 'You know the nature of your soil and that work is impossible upon it after a heavy rain, and so should have informed me in time to find other work'; therefore the employer must bear the loss. If the labourer had seen it he should have known himself, therefore the loss is his. (So one interpretation of Asheri.) It may also refer to the employer's inspection, as in the previous note. (The weight of authority is in favour of referring the inspection to the employer himself. V. H.M. CCCXXX, 1 and [H], a.l.)"
,k77a_2:" Since rain is bound to obviate the need of irrigation, it is an implied condition that the employer may dispense with their services on account thereof."
,k77a_3:" Lit., 'came'."
,k77a_4:" Because the worker cannot know that the field is so situated, by means of canals leading thereto, that the river's overflow irrigates it."
,k77a_5:" The employer not being responsible for an unforeseen event."
,k77a_6:" It is a general principle that if something happens which might be foreseen by both employer and employee, the latter bears the loss of time. H.M. CCCXXXIV, 1"
,k77a_7:" Having been engaged for the whole day."
,k77a_8:" Jast.: public labourers: Maim.: field diggers: Rashi: navvies accustomed to continual portering. [Mahoza. where Raba had his school, was an important loading centre on the Tigris near Ktesiffon. V. Obermeyer. <i>op. cit</i>. p. 173.]"
,k77a_9:" Idleness is a trial to them; therefore they are entitled to full pay."
,k77a_10:" v. p. 442, n. 2."
,k77a_11:" But not pay you more."
,k77a_12:" I.e., by the time they had done half the work."
,k77a_13:" To work for less than a <i>sela'</i>."
,k77a_14:" To receive it. I cannot pay more, as that is my maximum."
,k77a_15:" v. p. 437. n. 8."
,k77a_16:" Than the present price, hence, a <i>zuz</i> below the agreed figure."
,k77a_17:" If a labourer engages himself by the day or week, he can retract and lose nothing; but if he contracts to do a particular piece, he is thereby at a disadvantage; for the reason of the first (stated <i>supra</i> 10a, q.v.) does not apply to a contractor, since not being tied he is his own master."
,k77a_18:" Lit., 'one had died unto him', viz., one of the relatives for whom a week of mourning must be observed, during which all labour is forbidden. "
}

txt:
<p>
the loss is the workers; if not, the loss is the employer's, and he must pay them as unemployed workers.<a id="k77a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba also said: If one engaged labourers for irrigation, and there fell rain [rendering it unnecessary], the loss is theirs.<a id="k77a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But if the river overflowed,<a id="k77a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; the loss is the employer's,<a id="k77a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and he must pay them as unemployed labourers.
</p><p>
	Rab also said: If one engaged labourers for irrigation, and the river [whence the water was drawn] failed at midday; if such failure is unusual, the loss is theirs;<a id="k77a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; if usual: if [the labourers] are of that town [and so would know about it] the loss is theirs; if not, the loss is the employer's.<a id="k77a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba also said: If one engaged labourers for a piece of work, and they completed it in the middle of the day;<a id="k77a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; if he has some [other] work easier than the first, he can give it to them, or even if of equal difficulty, he can charge them [with it]; but if it is more difficult, he cannot order them to do it, and must pay them in full. But why? Let him pay them as unemployed workers! &mdash; Raba referred to the workers<a id="k77a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; of Mahuza, who, if they do not work, feel faint.<a id="k77a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'The portion done is assessed for them. E.g., if it is worth six <i>denarii</i>, he must pay them a <i>sela'</i>.<a id="k77a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; The Rabbis hold that the workers [always] have the advantage.
</p><p>
	'Or they can complete the work and receive two <i>sela's</i>.' Is this not obvious? &mdash; This is necessary only when labour costs advanced, and the workers retracted. Thereupon the employer went and persuaded them [to return]. I might think that they can say to him, 'When we allowed ourselves to be persuaded, it was on the understanding that you would increase our remuneration.' Therefore we are informed that he [the employer] can answer them, 'It was on the understanding that I should take particular pains over your food and drink.'<a id="k77a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'If it is worth a <i>sela'</i>, he must pay them a <i>sela'</i>.' Is this not obvious? &mdash; This is necessary only if labour was cheap originally [when he hired them], whilst he engaged them for a <i>zuz</i> above [the usual cost], but subsequently<a id="k77a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; labour appreciated and stood at more than a <i>zuz</i>; I might think that they can plead. 'You promised us a <i>zuz</i> above [the usual price]; give us a <i>zuz</i> more [than was stipulated, since that is now the usual wage].' We are therefore told that he [the employer] may answer them,' When did I promise you an extra <i>zuz</i>, only when you did not agree;<a id="k77a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but now you have agreed.'<a id="k77a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'R. Dosa said: That which still remains to be done is assessed [thus]: if it be worth six <i>denarii</i>, he pays them a <i>shekel</i>.' In his opinion, the labourer is at a disadvantage.<a id="k77a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'Or they can complete their work and receive two <i>sela's</i>.' Is this not obvious? &mdash; This is necessary only when labour costs diminished, and the employer retracted; whereupon the labourers went and persuaded him. I might think, he can say to them, '[I re-engaged you] on the understanding that you allow a rebate on your wages': therefore we are taught that they can answer him, 'It was on the understanding that we perform our work particularly well.'
</p><p>
	'If a <i>sela'</i>, he must pay them a <i>sela'</i>.' Is this not obvious? &mdash; R. Huna. the son of R. Nathan, said: It is necessary only in a case where they [the labourers] contracted for a <i>zuz</i> below [the usual wage] in the first place, and subsequently labour costs fell. I might think that [the employer can plead.] 'You agreed with me for a <i>zuz</i> less [than usual], hence I will give you a <i>zuz</i> less;'<a id="k77a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; so we are taught that they can reply. 'We agreed upon a <i>zuz</i> less only when you would not agree [to pay the full price]; but now you have agreed.'
</p><p>
	Rab said: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Dosa. But did Rab really rule thus? Did not Rab say: A worker can retract even in the middle of the day? And should you answer, R. Dosa draws a distinction between time work and piece work,<a id="k77a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [I can rejoin,] Did he really admit a distinction? Has it not been taught: If one engages a labourer, and in the middle of the day he [the labourer] learns that he has suffered a bereavement,<a id="k77a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; or is smitten with fever: then if he is a time worker,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k77b_1:" I.e., pro rata, according to the time worked, but without making any further deduction on account of his breaking the agreement. For since he is unable to continue, he is not penalised and put at a disadvantage, as are others."
,k77b_2:" All agree that the labourer is in this case at a disadvantage, unless he is unavoidably prevented from adhering to his bargain."
,k77b_3:" Lit., 'The Tanna of the Mishnah states anonymously the view of R. Judah,' indicating that he agrees with it, teaching it as the general opinion. For the reference v. <i>infra</i> 78b."
,k77b_4:" Since that is implied in the whole Mishnah. It is axiomatic that if a Mishnah states a general principle after the detailed case in which it is embodied, its purpose is extension."
,k77b_5:" For the first clause of the Mishnah would appear to refer to a contract worker; therefore the general principle is added to shew that the same holds good of a time worker too. And that can agree with none but R. Dosa, since the Rabbis maintain that the advantage is on the side of the labourers. Thus it is proved that R. Dosa draws no distinction between a time worker and a contractor."
,k77b_6:" The reasons are discussed below."
,k77b_7:" The point is that the other 800 <i>zuz</i> are described on this bond not as the balance due but as an ordinary debt, and therefore does not affect the ownership of the field, which passes to the buyer on payment of money."
,k77b_8:" I.e., not particularly of the field sold, but the best of any land that the vendor might own."
,k77b_9:" If the debtor does not repay, the creditor can exact payment only from his medium quality fields, not from the best. And even that is a special privilege."
,k77b_10:" Referring to the second case where the buyer retracts."
,k77b_11:" Very few people possessed such large sums in actual cash; hence the purchaser would have to sell off much of his own estate to raise it, and, as is natural under the circumstances, below its value."
,k77b_12:" If the vendor subsequently retracts, the purchaser has sold his own estate cheaply for no purpose."
,k77b_13:" Lit., 'those who suffer damage.'"
,k77b_14:" I.e., describing the balance as an ordinary debt."
,k77b_15:" V. <i>supra</i> 48b. This shews that the transaction is binding though the balance was not arranged as an ordinary debt."
,k77b_16:" Lit., 'was going in and out.'"
,k77b_17:" Lit., 'comes in and out for money'. This proves that he sold his field through financial pressure, and therefore, unless he explicitly arranged for the balance to be treated as an ordinary loan, he can cancel the sale if full payment is delayed."
,k77b_18:" [Even if there was <i>meshikah</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>); so according to the majority of authorities. Cf. Tosaf. and H.M., CXC. 11.]"
,k77b_19:" And the purchase money is regarded as an ordinary debt."
,k77b_20:" A hundred <i>zuz</i> in a lump sum can be put to business use; one <i>zuz</i> at a time is spent as received, with no visible or tangible advantage."
,k77b_21:" The text is [H], which may mean 'ass' or 'wine', and Rashi translates 'ass'. The reason is that in Rashi's opinion, this assumption, viz. that the vendor's repeated demand for money proves that he sold the article only because he was hard pressed, applies only to land or such articles which are not normally sold, such as an ass which is kept for work on the land; but in the case of wine, which is a normal article of sale, it proves nothing, and hence the consequences drawn from it do not hold good (Maharam). [Alternatively: In the case of wine there would be no reason for cancelling the whole sale for the sake of the single <i>zuz</i>, the buyer surely being entitled to retain wine for the amount he had paid up; Maharsha, [H].]"
,k77b_22:" Since the balance is so small. "
}

txt:
<p>
he must pay him his wages;<a id="k77b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; if a contract worker, he must pay him his contract price. Now, with whom does this agree? If with the Rabbis, why particularly if he learns that he has suffered a bereavement or is smitten with fever and so unfortunately compelled [to break the agreement]? Even if he is not compelled, surely the Rabbis maintain that the labourer has the advantage! Hence it must agree with R. Dosa, thus proving that he allows no distinction between time work and contract work! &mdash; Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Here the reference is to a thing of irretrievable loss, and therefore it agrees with all.<a id="k77b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learnt: HE WHO ALTERS [HIS CONTRACT] IS AT A DISADVANTAGE, AND HE WHO RETRACTS IS AT A DISADVANTAGE. Now, it is well [to state]. HE WHO ALTERS [HIS CONTRACT] IS AT A DISADVANTAGE, as thereby R. Judah's opinion is given as a general view;<a id="k77b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but what is added by, HE WHO RETRACTS IS AT A DISADVANTAGE?<a id="k77b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely [its purpose is] to extend the law to a [time] worker, and in accordance with R. Dosa?<a id="k77b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But R. Dosa refers to both cases [alike], whereas Rab agrees with him in one and disagrees in the other.
</p><p>
	Alternatively, HE WHO RETRACTS IS AT A DISADVANTAGE [is stated] for this purpose. Viz., It has been taught: He who retracts &mdash; how is that? If A sold a field to B for a thousand <i>zuz</i>, and B paid a deposit of two hundred <i>zuz</i>, if the vendor retracts, the purchaser has the advantage; if he desires, he can demand, 'Either return me my money or give me land to the value thereof.' And from what part [of the estate] must he satisfy his claim? From the best. But if the purchaser retracts, the vendor has the advantage; if he desires, he can say to him, 'Here is your money.' Alternatively, he can say. 'Here is land for your money.' And what [part of the field] may he offer him? The worst.<a id="k77b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: They are instructed [so to act as] to make it impossible [for either] to withdraw. How so? He [the vendor] must draw up a deed, stating. 'I [so-and-so] have sold such and such a field to so-and-so for a thousand <i>zuz</i>, upon which he has paid me two hundred <i>zuz</i>, and now I am his creditor for eight hundred <i>zuz</i>.' Thus he [the vendee] acquires the title thereto, and must repay him the rest, even after many years.<a id="k77b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'And from what part [of the estate] must he satisfy his claim? From the best.' Now, this was assumed to mean, 'from the best part of his estate.'<a id="k77b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; But let him [the buyer] be even as an ordinary creditor! And we learnt: A creditor is entitled to medium quality!<a id="k77b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Moreover, here is the land for which he paid money! &mdash; R. Nahman b. Isaac said: [It means,] From the best therein [sc. the field bought] and<a id="k77b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; the worst therein. R. Aha, the son of R. Ika. said: It may even mean the best part of his estate; yet the average person, when buying a field for a thousand <i>zuz</i>, must sell off his other property cheaply.<a id="k77b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and hence he is as one who has sustained damage.<a id="k77b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; And we learnt: For damages<a id="k77b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; we assess [and collect] the best [of the offender's estate].
</p><p>
	'R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: They are instructed [so to act as] to make it impossible [for either] to withdraw. How so? He [the vendor] must draw up a deed, stating. "I [so-and-so have sold such and such a field to so-and-so for a thousand <i>zuz</i>, etc."' Hence, it is only because he writes thus;<a id="k77b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but if not, he [the purchaser] does not acquire it. But has it not been taught: If a man gives a deposit to his neighbour and stipulates. 'If I retract, this deposit be forfeited to you.' and the other stipulates. 'If I retract, I will double you your deposit.' the conditions are effective: this is R. Jose's view, R. Jose [ruling here] in accordance with his general opinion that an <i>asmakta</i> is valid. R. Judah said: It is sufficient that he [the purchaser] shall gain possession [of the object sold] in proportion to his deposit. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: This holds good only if he stipulates, 'Let my deposit effect possession'; but if he sells him a field for a thousand <i>zuz</i>, of which he pays him five hundred, he acquires [it all], and must repay him the balance even after many years?<a id="k77b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no difficulty: The former refers to a case where he [the vendor] repeatedly dunned<a id="k77b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [the buyer] for his money;<a id="k77b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; the latter, where he did not repeatedly demand his money. For Raba said: If one sold an article to his neighbour, and repeatedly demanded payment, it does not become his [the purchaser's];<a id="k77b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but if not, he [the buyer] acquires it.<a id="k77b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba also said: If one lent a hundred <i>zuz</i> to his neighbour, who repaid him a <i>zuz</i> at a time, it is [valid] repayment, but he may bear resentment against him, for he can complain, 'You have destroyed it for me.'<a id="k77b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A man once sold an ass<a id="k77b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; to his neighbour, and one <i>zuz</i> [of the purchase price] being left [unpaid], he [the vendor] made repeated calls for it. Now, R. Ashi sat and cogitated thereon: What [is the law] in such a case? Does he [the purchaser] acquire it or not?<a id="k77b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi: Thus did Abimi of Hagronia say in Rab's name: One <i>zuz</i> is as [many] <i>zuz</i>, and he does not acquire it. R. Aha, the son of R. Joseph, protested to R. Ashi: But we have stated in Raba's name that he does acquire it! &mdash; He replied: You must interpret your teaching [as referring] to one who sells his field
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k78a_1:" Then we may assume that he willingly sold it, and his repeated demands for payment are due not to financial need, but to fear that the purchaser might retract."
,k78a_2:" For it is certain that he sold only under pressure, though a hundred would have sufficed him, and now he presses for money to buy a smaller field with the surplus."
,k78a_3:" Since he took but little trouble to find a purchaser for a small field, it may well be that he was not altogether displeased with selling the larger one."
,k78a_4:" If the first labourers had done part of the work, but received no wages yet, he may offer the whole sum agreed upon to fresh workers, and pay the first nothing."
,k78a_5:" V. p. 442. n. 5."
,k78a_6:" Only if actually in possession of property belonging to the workers may he engage fresh ones at their expense up to the value thereof, even if it exceeds the original amount; but not otherwise."
,k78a_7:" A <i>mil</i> = 2000 cubits."
,k78a_8:" Because there is less likelihood of slipping on the plain than on the mountain top, therefore he has minimised the risk."
,k78a_9:" Because it is warmer on the plain than on the mountain top."
,k78a_10:" The ascent to the top of the mountain heating and affecting it."
,k78a_11:" This is the literal meaning of [H]; but it is discussed in the Gemara (78b), and other meanings are suggested."
,k78a_12:" [H], [G], forced labour, to which man or beast were liable."
,k78a_13:" I.e., he is not bound to supply another in its stead."
,k78a_14:" I.e., the climate of either of these places did not suit it."
,k78a_15:" Thus, if it was driven on the mountain instead of on the plain, the owner can plead that the ascent had overtaxed its strength. Contrariwise, if driven through the plain instead of on the mountain, it can be urged that the bracing air of the mountain, which is lacking on the plain, would have revived it."
,k78a_16:" And the owner can plead, 'Had you kept to the place agreed upon, that fate would not have met it.' "
}

txt:
<p>
because of its poor quality.<a id="k78a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now if a man wished to sell [a small field] for a hundred <i>zuz</i>, but finding [no purchaser for so small a field in spite of much seeking] he sold [a larger one] for two hundred [<i>zuz</i>] and made repeated calls for his money, it is obvious that he [the purchaser] does not acquire it.<a id="k78a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But what if he wished to sell for a hundred, did not find [a purchaser], though had he taken pains he could have found one; but he took no trouble and sold a field for two hundred, and now he makes repeated calls for his money? Is he as one who sells a field because of its poor quality, or not?<a id="k78a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This problem remains unsolved.
</p><p>
	IF HE HIRES AN ASS-DRIVER OR A WAGGONER&nbsp;&hellip; HE MAY HIRE [LABOURERS] AGAINST THEM, OR DECEIVE THEM. How far may he hire [labourers] against them? &mdash; R. Nahman said: Up to their wages.<a id="k78a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba raised an objection to R. Nahman: Even to forty or fifty <i>zuz</i>.<a id="k78a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: That was taught only if the bundle [of the workers, tools, etc.] had come into his possession.<a id="k78a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF ONE HIRES AN ASS TO DRIVE IT ON THE MOUNTAIN [TOP]. BUT DRIVES IT ON THE PLAIN, OR TO DRIVE IT ON THE PLAIN BUT DRIVES IT ON THE MOUNTAIN. EVEN IF BOTH ARE TEN MILS,<a id="k78a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; AND IT PERISHES, HE IS LIABLE [FOR DAMAGES]. IF HE HIRES AN ASS TO DRIVE IT ON THE MOUNTAIN [TOP], BUT DRIVES IT ON THE PLAIN, IF IT SLIPS [AND SUSTAINS INJURIES], HE IS EXEMPT;<a id="k78a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF IT IS [INJURIOUSLY] AFFECTED BY THE HEAT, HE IS LIABLE.<a id="k78a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF HE HIRES IT] TO DRIVE ON THE PLAIN, BUT DRIVES IT ON THE MOUNTAIN, IF IT SLIPS, HE IS LIABLE; IF AFFECTED BY THE HEAT, HE IS NOT; YET IF IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE ASCENT,<a id="k78a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; HE IS LIABLE. IF ONE HIRES AN ASS, AND IT IS STRUCK BY LIGHTNING,<a id="k78a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; OR SEIZED AS A [ROYAL] LEVY:<a id="k78a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; HE [THE OWNER] CAN SAY TO HIM, 'BEHOLD, HERE IS YOUR [HIRED] PROPERTY BEFORE YOU.'<a id="k78a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF IT PERISHES OR IS INJURED, HE [THE OWNER] MUST SUPPLY HIM WITH A SUBSTITUTE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Why is no distinction drawn in the first clause [between the causes of death], whilst it is in the second? &mdash; The School of R. Jannai said: In the first clause it means that it died on account of the air, and so we say, The mountain air killed it, [or] the air of the plain killed it.<a id="k78a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose b. Hanina said: It means, e.g., that it died through fatigue.<a id="k78a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah said: It means that it was bitten by a serpent.<a id="k78a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: This [the first clause] agrees with R. Meir, who ruled: Whoever disregards the owner's stipulation
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k78b_1:" Who is responsible for whatever happens; hence no distinction is drawn: whereas the second clause agrees with the Rabbis."
,k78b_2:" B.K. 100b. And it is assumed that R. Meir's ruling is because he regards the dyer as a robber, since he disobeyed the owner's instructions, and therefore he must pay for the wool."
,k78b_3:" V. B.K. <i>loc. cit</i>.; an opinion is there stated that if one steals an article and makes some change in it, it becomes his, in that he must pay for it but cannot be compelled to return the article itself. So here too, having changed the wool from white to black or red, it becomes the dyer's, who must therefore pay for the wool. But in the Mishnah no change is wrought in the ass itself before death; how do we know that here too R. Meir regards the mere change of locality as a theft, to render him responsible for whatever happens?"
,k78b_4:" The minor festival on the fourteenth of Adar, instituted in memory of Haman's downfall and the rescinding of the decree of destruction against the Jews. Est. IX, 21, 26."
,k78b_5:" It was customary to make collections for distribution to the poor for Purim. These must be entirely devoted to this purpose, and even if the collection is very large none of it may be diverted to any other charity."
,k78b_6:" As before: collections for local relief may not be diverted, even if they exceed the need."
,k78b_7:" Whether the poor really need it all."
,k78b_8:" I.e., calves must be bought with the entire sum, and that which cannot be eaten by the poor on Purim is resold, the money going to the general charity fund."
,k78b_9:" [Some texts omit 'but calves&nbsp;&hellip; (only)'. Cf. text, <i>infra</i> 106b.]"
,k78b_10:" It is assumed that the reason of R. Meir's stringency is that the poor, by disregarding the donor's wish, become robbers, and therefore all such diversions are forbidden."
,k78b_11:" Consequently, when the poor man wishes to divert it to some other use, it is not a case of robbery, but simply that it is not his for that purpose, and is deemed never to have come into his possession."
,k78b_12:" The reasoning is as above. But the same refutation cannot be given as there, for in that case, why should R. Meir state two laws which are both based on exactly the same principle? Maharsha [H]"
,k78b_13:" Affection of the eye-sight occasioned by lightning ([H]). prob. Gutta Serena (Jast.)."
,k78b_14:" Caused by vermin."
,k78b_15:" Lit., 'silver covering'. i.e., white."
,k78b_16:" Lit., gold covering', i.e., woollen garments dyed golden."
,k78b_17:" Because these worms do not attack linen garments; therefore it was said merely to disgrace the king."
,k78b_18:" Hence the owner can say. 'It is your misfortune that it was seized, and you must wait until it is returned.'"
,k78b_19:" For it is just as though it had perished."
,k78b_20:" When an animal was seized as a levy, it was driven along until another was overtaken, when the first was returned (even in the case of nonreturnable seizure, which means nonreturnable unless replaced by another). Hence, if driven in the direction for which it was hired, the owner can say, 'Go along with it, until another replaces it.' But otherwise he must replace it himself, as he cannot expect the hirer to go out of his way until it is returned (Rashi). Tosaf.: If the levy is made haphazardly, whatever is met with on the road being taken (i.e., if it is taken as it goes along), the owner can say, 'Your misfortune is responsible, for had I kept it at home, it would not have been seized.' But if there is systematic searching in people's houses and fields, so that it cannot be regarded as the ill-luck of the hirer, the owner must replace it."
,k78b_21:" Because it is still fit to bear loads."
,k78b_22:" This ruling contradicts the Mishnah. "
}

txt:
<p>
is treated as a robber.<a id="k78b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Which [ruling of] R. Meir [shews this opinion]? Shall we say, R. Meir's [view] in respect to a dyer? For we learnt: If one gives wool to a dyer to be dyed red, but he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, R. Meir said: He must pay him for his wool. R. Judah said: If its increased value exceeds the cost [of dyeing], he [the wool owner] must pay him the cost: if the cost [of dyeing] exceeds the increase in value, he must pay him for the increase.<a id="k78b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But how do you deduce this? perhaps there it is different, for he gained possession thereof by the change [wrought by his] act!<a id="k78b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is R. Meir's ruling on Purim<a id="k78b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; collections. For it has been taught: The Purim collections must be distributed for purim;<a id="k78b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; local collections belong to the town,<a id="k78b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and no scrutiny is made in the matter,<a id="k78b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but calves are bought therewith [in abundance], slaughtered, and eaten, and the surplus goes to the charity fund.<a id="k78b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eliezer said: The purim collections must be utilised for purim [only],<a id="k78b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and the poor may not buy [even] shoestraps therewith, unless it was stipulated in the presence of the members of the community [that such shall be permitted]: this is the ruling of R. Jacob, stated on R. Meir's authority; but R. Simeon b. Gamaliel is lenient [in the matter].<a id="k78b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But perhaps there too, the reason is that he [the donor] gave it only [that it be used] for purim and not for any other purpose?<a id="k78b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But it is this dictum of R. Meir. For it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said on R. Meir's authority: If one gives a <i>denar</i> to a poor man to buy a shirt, he may not buy a cloak therewith; to buy a cloak, he must not buy a shirt, because he disregards the donor's desire.<a id="k78b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But perhaps there it is different, because he may fall under suspicion. For people may say. 'So-andso promised to buy a shirt for that poor man, and has not bought it;' or, 'so-and-so promised to buy a cloak for that poor man, and has not bought it!' &mdash; If so, it should state, 'because he may be suspected': why state 'because he disregards the donor's desire?' This proves that it is [essentially] because he makes a change, and he who disregards the owner's desire is called a robber.
</p><p>
	IF ONE HIRES AN ASS, AND IT IS STRUCK BY LIGHTNING [WE-HIBRIKAH]. What is meant by we-hibrikah? &mdash; Here [in Babylon] it is translated, nehorita.<a id="k78b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: paralysis of the feet.<a id="k78b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; A man once said, '[I saw] vermin in the royal garments.' Said they to him, 'In which: in linen<a id="k78b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; or in wool<a id="k78b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; garments?' Some say: He replied. 'In linen garments;' whereupon he was executed.<a id="k78b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Others maintain: He replied. 'In wool garments;' so he was set free.
</p><p>
	OR SEIZED AS A [ROYAL] LEVY, HE CAN SAY TO HIM, 'BEHOLD, HERE IS YOUR PROPERTY BEFORE YOU.' Rab said: This was taught only in respect of a levy that is returned;<a id="k78b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but if it is a nonreturnable levy, he [the owner] must provide him with [another] ass [in its stead].<a id="k78b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel said: Whether it is a returnable levy or not, if it is taken on the route of its journey, he [the owner] can say to him, 'Behold, here is yours before you;' but if it is not taken on its route, he is bound to supply him [with another] ass in its stead.<a id="k78b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: If one hires an ass, and it is struck by lightning or turns rabid, he [the owner] can say to him, 'There is yours before you.'<a id="k78b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; If it perished or was seized as a levy, he must supply him with [another] ass.<a id="k78b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, on Rab's view, it is well, and there is no difficulty: there [in the Mishnah] the reference is to a levy that is returned; here [in the Baraitha], to one that is not. But on Samuel's view, is there not a difficulty? And should you answer, On Samuel's view too there is no difficulty: there [in the Mishnah] it means that it was seized on the route of its journey, whilst here [in the Baraitha] that it was not; yet surely, since the second clause states, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: If it was taken on the route of its journey, he [the owner] can say to him, 'Behold here is yours before you.' but if not, he must supply him with [another] ass-does it not follow that according to the first Tanna there is no difference? &mdash; Samuel can answer you: Is there not R. Simeon b. Eleazar who agrees with me? Then my ruling is based on his. Alternatively, the whole [Baraitha] is based on R. Simeon b. Eleazar, but its text is defective, and was thus taught: If one hires an ass, and it is struck by lightning, or becomes rabid, he [the owner] can say unto him, 'Behold, here is yours before you.' If it perished, or was seized as a levy, he must supply him with [another] ass. This holds good [only] if it was not seized on the route of its journey; but if it was, he can say to him, 'Behold, here is yours before you.'
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k79a_1:" A blind or rabid animal is fit to carry burdens, but not to be ridden upon."
,k79a_2:" Owing to is fragile nature it must be carried smoothly; but an ass so affected will jolt it violently and break it."
,k79a_3:" For having given him a feeble ass; but he has no legal redress."
,k79a_4:" Surely not, seeing that he probably suffers loss through not reaching his destination."
,k79a_5:" As stated above."
,k79a_6:" Since he hired him this particular ass, it is pledged for the journey, and therefore, if with the value of the carcase one can buy another, even such a poor one that it is fit only to complete the journey, the purchase should be made."
,k79a_7:" Since, as stated above, in the case of the animal's death another must be provided; and when a particular animal was hired, whatever can be procured for its carcase is part of the original."
,k79a_8:" I.e., when an animal is hired for a certain task, e.g., to take a man on a journey, one cannot demand that the whole capital value of the animal shall be lost in order to fulfil the engagement. Hence, when the Mishnah states that if it died another must be provided in its place, it means that more money must be added to that realised by the carcase and another bought, so that the value of the carcase ultimately remains with the owner. But he is not bound to hire an animal for the money realised by the carcase for the completion of the task, the whole principal thus being lost to the owner."
,k79a_9:" The reference is to a mortgage. If a tree was mortgaged, it being agreed that the creditor should enjoy its usufruct for a number of years, after which it would revert to the debtor without any further payment, and then it withered, ceasing to yield, or was overthrown by a storm, neither the creditor nor the debtor may use up the wood thereof, because each thereby wholly destroys the other's interest therein. Therefore the wood must be sold and land bought with the proceeds, of which the creditor takes the usufruct in accordance with the original agreement."
,k79a_10:" Lev. XXV, 13, 23."
,k79a_11:" Nothing whatever being left of the tree by the time it has to revert to the debtor, in case Jubilee precedes it."
,k79a_12:" Ibid. 23."
,k79a_13:" I.e., if it is for no specified period."
,k79a_14:" Hence Jubilee does not affect it, and when the mortgage expires, it reverts to the debtor, and his principal is not destroyed."
,k79a_15:" For the years of usufruct still due to him. Why then trouble to buy a field?"
,k79a_16:" So that, even if Jubilee is in force and the principal may be destroyed, it is still preferable to buy a field."
,k79a_17:" I.e., the shipowner engaged to provide this particular ship to carry any cargo of wine a certain distance."
,k79a_18:" Since you undertook to carry any cargo of wine in this particular ship, I can bring another, the first having sunk, but you must furnish the same ship for the entire journey: as you cannot, you must return the hire. "
}

txt:
<p>
This is the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar; for he used to maintain: If it was taken on the route of its journey, he can say to him, 'Here is yours before you;' if not, he is bound to replace it. But can you possibly assign it [all] to R. Simeon b. Eleazar? Surely, the first clause states, 'If one hires an ass, and it is struck by lightning or turns rabid, he [the owner] can say to him, "Here is yours before you:"' whereas R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: If one hires an ass to ride upon it, and it is struck by lightning or turns rabid, he [the owner] must furnish him with another! &mdash; Said Rabbah son of R. Huna: If for riding, the case is different.<a id="k79a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. papa said: [And to carry] glassware is the same as for riding.<a id="k79a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah son of R. Huna said in Rab's name: If one hires an ass for riding and it perishes midway, he must pay him his hire for half the journey, and can only bear resentment against him.<a id="k79a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; How so? If another can be obtained for hire, what cause is there for resentment? If not, is he then bound to render him his hire?<a id="k79a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In truth, it means that another is not obtainable [here] for hiring, [yet he is bound to pay for half the journey,] because he [the owner] can say to him, 'Had you desired to go as far as this [where it died], would you not have had to pay its hire?' Now, what are the circumstances? If he simply promised him an ass, without specifying which, then surely he is bound to replace it;<a id="k79a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst if he promised him this ass: if its value [sc. of the carcase] is sufficient to buy another, let him buy one.<a id="k79a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This [ruling] holds good only when its value is insufficient to purchase [another]. Yet if its value is sufficient for hiring, let him hire another!<a id="k79a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab follows his view [expressed elsewhere], for Rab said: The principal must not be destroyed.<a id="k79a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; For it has been stated: If a man hires an ass and it perishes midway &mdash; Rab said: If its value [sc. of the carcase] is sufficient to buy [another], he must buy one; [if only] to hire, he [who engaged it] may not hire. But Samuel said: Even if only to hire, he may do so. Wherein do they differ? &mdash; Rab maintained: The principal may not be destroyed; Samuel maintained: The principal may be destroyed.
</p><p>
	An objection is raised: If the tree withered or was broken down, both are forbidden to use it. What then shall be done? Land must be bought therewith, and he takes the usufruct.<a id="k79a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Now here, immediately on the advent of the Jubilee year, the land reverts to its [first] owner,<a id="k79a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and thus the principal is destroyed!<a id="k79a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here the reference is to a sixty years' purchase. For R. Hisda said in R. Kattina's name: Whence do we learn that if one sells his field for sixty years, it does not return [to the first owner] in the year of Jubilee? From the verse, The land shall not be sold in perpetuity.<a id="k79a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [shewing that it refers to a sale] which, in the absence of the law of Jubilee,<a id="k79a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; would be for ever; hence, when the law of Jubilee supervenes, it is not in perpetuity; thus excluding this [sale. viz., for sixty years], which, even in the absence of the law of Jubilee, is not for ever.<a id="k79a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But after all, on the expiration of the sixty years the land returns to its [first] owner, and thus [the debtor's] principal is destroyed! &mdash; But here the reference is to the time when the law of Jubilee is not in force. Reason too supports this. For should you assume that it refers to the time when the law of Jubilee is in force, and that we destroy the principal, let him [the creditor] cut up the wood and take it!<a id="k79a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As for that, it is no difficulty: the period of mortgage might expire before the Jubilee, or he [the debtor] might obtain money and redeem it four or five years before the Jubilee.<a id="k79a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If one hires a ship, and it sinks in mid-journey; R. Nathan said: If he has paid [the hire], he cannot take [it back]; but if not, he need not pay it [now]. How so? Shall we say [that the agreement was for] this particular ship and an unspecified [cargo of] wine [as freight],<a id="k79a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; then [even] if he has already paid, why cannot he claim it back? Let him say, 'Provide me with that ship, and I will bring the wine.'<a id="k79a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; But if it refers to an unspecified ship and a particular cargo of wine, even if he has not yet paid, why must he not pay now?
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k79b_1:" So that neither can fulfil his contract; therefore the plaintiff is at a disadvantage."
,k79b_2:" Only half the fee is payable, whether it has been delivered or not, since each is theoretically in a position to fulfil his part of the agreement."
,k79b_3:" Since he loses nothing."
,k79b_4:" I.e., the damage done by trampling upon it in loading and unloading."
,k79b_5:" Rashi: he loaded it with a great cargo, i.e., though he is bound to pay the shipowner extra, the agreement being based on the freightage, yet the latter has cause for resentment, in that the journey occupies a longer time than he expected. Tosaf. rejects the interpretation and substitutes: he unloaded it from himself, and reloaded it (upon another) within the ship. i.e., in the middle of the journey he sold the cargo to another; the shipowner has cause for complaint, because he may find the second awkward to deal with. This interpretation is accepted by Asheri a.l. and in H.M. CCCXI, 6."
,k79b_6:" V. preceding note. Either his intentions to return quickly (Rashi). or to have this man particularly as the hirer."
,k79b_7:" For the extra load (which the second may wish to add, according to Tosaf., or quite simply, on Rashi's interpretation). The shipowner having failed to provide himself with additional cordage, may have to pay a higher price for the cordage on his voyage than in the ship's home port, and therefore he has cause for resentment."
,k79b_8:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: his pillow for sleeping."
,k79b_9:" The owner."
,k79b_10:" He can object to a greater burden being placed upon the ass, seeing that it was hired only for riding, but these being neccesities are included therein."
,k79b_11:" It appears that the ass-driver had to provide the ass's food for the journey. The ass-driver can therefore place upon it the food for one day only. But the latter cannot insist on loading it at the outset with all the necessary provisions, for such a heavy load might retard the rate of progress."
,k79b_12:" Sc. the hirer, from loading it with the whole of the provisions required for the journey."
,k79b_13:" That being part of his work."
,k79b_14:" I.e., if an ass is hired for a woman, any woman may ride upon it."
,k79b_15:" Which means with the child she is feeding (Rashi)."
,k79b_16:" Since it is mentioned that a pregnant woman is heavier than another."
,k79b_17:" If one buys a fish by weight, he should first have the belly removed. "
}

txt:
<p>
Let him [the shipowner] say, 'Bring me that wine, and I will provide a ship!' &mdash; Said R. Papa: It is possible only in the case of 'This ship' and 'This wine'.<a id="k79b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; But in the case of an unspecified ship and unspecified wine, they must divide.<a id="k79b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If one hires a ship and unloads it in mid-route, he must pay him for half the journey, and he [the owner] has nothing but resentment against him. What are the circumstances? Shall we say, that he can find someone to whom to hire it? Why bear resentment?<a id="k79b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Whilst if he can find no one to whom to hire it, he must surely pay him the whole hiring-fee! &mdash; In truth, it means that he can find someone to whom to hire it; and the reason that he has cause for resentment is because of the trampling of the ship.<a id="k79b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, it is a just complaint, and he is entitled to financial compensation! &mdash; But what is meant by 'he unloaded it' is that he unloaded [more of] his cargo within it.<a id="k79b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Then what ground has he for complaint? &mdash; Because his intentions were thwarted;<a id="k79b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; or on account of the additional cordage necessary.<a id="k79b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If one hires an ass for riding, the hirer may put upon it his clothing,<a id="k79b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; water bottle, and provisions for that journey; beyond that, the ass-driver<a id="k79b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; can prevent him.<a id="k79b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; The ass-owner can place upon it the fodder, straw and provisions for one day; but beyond that, the hirer can prevent him.<a id="k79b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; How is it meant? If [food] can be purchased, let the ass-driver too prevent him;<a id="k79b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst [if provisions] are not obtainable [on the road], the hirer too should not be able to prevent him! &mdash; R. Papa answered: This arises when it is indeed possible to procure it, after some trouble, from stage to stage. Now, for the ass-driver it is a normal matter to take trouble and purchase [his stores at various places],<a id="k79b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; but not for the hirer.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If one hires an ass for a man to ride upon it, It may not be ridden by a woman; if for a woman, it may be ridden by a man; and a woman [includes] both large and small, and even if pregnant or one giving suck.<a id="k79b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Seeing that you permit a woman giving suck,<a id="k79b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; is it necessary to state a pregnant woman? &mdash; R. Papa said: It means, even a pregnant woman who is at the same time feeding [another infant]. Abaye said: This proves that the weight of a fish depends on the size of its belly.<a id="k79b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; What does this matter? &mdash; In respect of buying and selling.<a id="k79b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k80a_1:" Because mountain soil is rockier and harder. &mdash; The implements were supplied by the owner of the cow."
,k80a_2:" If the animal slipped and was injured."
,k80a_3:" Two labourers were needed for the ploughing; one who used the goad to direct the animal, and one who forced the coulter into the earth. These workers were furnished by the owner. Now, the Talmud asks, if the agreement was not broken, so that the hirer is free from liability, which of these two workers is liable?"
,k80a_4:" For even if the other had directed the plough badly, yet had not the coulter been forced too deeply into the soil, it would not have broken."
,k80a_5:" For then the slightest deviation from the right course endangers the plough."
,k80a_6:" Which the purchaser can cancel. For the vendor, in enumerating a string of defects, which the buyer himself sees are absent, wishes him to assume that the one it actually has is also absent."
,k80a_7:" For since he actually mentioned the defect by name, and no other specifically, the buyer should have examined the animal."
,k80a_8:" For the buyer cannot plead that he thought that the vendor was enumerating many fictitious defects in order to deceive him about a real one."
,k80a_9:" If the ass breaks down or is injured by the load. Barley is lighter than wheat, therefore an equal weight of barley is bulkier, and that imposes a greater strain on the ass."
,k80a_10:" Therefore a greater bulk imposes a greater strain."
,k80a_11:" Half a <i>kor</i>."
,k80a_12:" The bulk being the same, and the weight less."
,k80a_13:" [Where however the bulk is equal, an additional weight of three <i>kabs</i> of barley involves no liability.]"
,k80a_14:" Though even there, the total weight is less. This refutes Raba."
,k80a_15:" Whereby the weights are equalised. "
}

txt:
<p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN HIRES A COW FOR PLOUGHING ON THE MOUNTAIN AND PLOUGHS [THEREWITH] ON THE PLAIN, IF THE COULTER BROKE, HE IS NOT LIABLE; FOR PLOUGHING ON THE PLAIN, BUT PLOUGHS ON THE MOUNTAIN, IF THE COULTER BROKE, HE IS LIABLE.<a id="k80a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF HE HIRES IT] TO THRESH PULSE, BUT THRESHES GRAIN, HE IS NOT LIABLE;<a id="k80a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF TO THRESH PULSE AND HE THRESHES GRAIN, HE IS LIABLE, BECAUSE PULSE IS SLIPPERY.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. But if he did not change [the conditions of the contract], who must pay?<a id="k80a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Papa said: He who handles the share; R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said: He who handles the coulter; and the law is that he who handles the coulter must pay.<a id="k80a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But if the place was known to abound in stony clods, both are responsible.<a id="k80a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: If one sold a cow to his neighbour and informed him, 'This cow is a butter, a biter, a habitual kicker, and prone to break down [under a load],' and it possessed one of these defects, which he inserted amongst the other blemishes [of which it was free], it is a sale in error.<a id="k80a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [But if the vendor said.] 'It has this defect,' [which it actually had] 'and another too,' [not specifying which,] it is not a sale in error.<a id="k80a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been taught likewise: If one sold a maidservant to his neighbour. and informed him, 'This maidservant is an idiot, an epileptic, and a dullard;' and she possessed one of these defects, which he inserted amongst the others [which she did not have]; it is a sale in error. [But if the vendor said, 'She has] this defect' [which she actually possessed], 'and another too' [not specifying which], it is not a sale in error. Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: What if she had all these defects? &mdash; R. Mordecai observed to R. Ashi: Thus do we say in Raba's name: If she had all these defects, it is not a sale in error.<a id="k80a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN HIRES AN ASS FOR BRINGING [A CERTAIN QUANTITY OF] WHEAT, AND HE BRINGS WITH IT [AN EQUAL WEIGHT OF] BARLEY INSTEAD, HE IS RESPONSIBLE.<a id="k80a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [FOR CARRYING] CORN, AND HE BRINGS WITH IT STRAW, HE IS LIABLE [FOR DAMAGE]. BECAUSE BULK IS [AS GREAT] A STRAIN AS WEIGHT;<a id="k80a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; TO BRING A <I>LETHECH</I><a id="k80a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; OF WHEAT, AND HE BRINGS WITH IT A <I>LETHECH</I> OF BARLEY, HE IS EXEMPT.<a id="k80a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF HE INCREASES THE WEIGHT, HE IS LIABLE. BY HOW MUCH MUST HE INCREASE IT IN ORDER TO BE LIABLE? SYMMACHUS SAID ON R. MEIR'S AUTHORITY: BY A SEAH IN THE CASE OF A CAMEL, AND THREE <I>KABS</I> IN THE CASE OF AN ASS. 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It has been stated: Abaye said: We learnt, IS [AS GREAT] A STRAIN AS WEIGHT; Raba said: We learnt, IS A STRAIN [WHEN ADDED TO] WEIGHT. [Thus:] 'Abaye said: We learnt, IS [AS GREAT] A STRAIN AS WEIGHT:' bulk is equal to weight; therefore if he added three <i>kabs</i> [the bulk being equal], he is liable. 'Raba said: We learnt, IS A STRAIN [WHEN ADDED TO] WEIGHT: i.e., the weight being equal, the [greater] bulk is an additional strain.<a id="k80a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; We learnt: TO BRING A <I>LETHECH</I> OF WHEAT, AND HE BRINGS A <I>LETHECH</I> OF BARLEY, HE IS EXEMPT. BUT IF HE INCREASES THE WEIGHT, HE IS LIABLE. Surely that means, by three <i>kabs</i>?<a id="k80a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No. It means by a <i>se'ah</i>.<a id="k80a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; But thereon it is stated, BY HOW MUCH MUST HE INCREASE IT, IN ORDER TO BE LIABLE? &mdash; SYMMACHUS SAID ON R. MEIR'S AUTHORITY: A <I>SE'AH</I> IN THE CASE OF A CAMEL, AND THREE <I>KABS</I> IN THE CASE OF AN ASS! &mdash; It is thus meant: But if he did not alter [the terms of hiring]. I.e., [he engaged to] bring wheat, and brought wheat; barley, and brought barley: BY HOW MUCH MUST HE INCREASE IT [SC. THE WHEAT], IN ORDER TO BE LIABLE? &mdash; SYMMACHUS SAID ON R. MEIR'S AUTHORITY: BY A <I>SE'AH</I> IN THE CASE OF A CAMEL, AND THREE <I>KABS</I> IN THE CASE OF AN ASS.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: [It has been taught: If he hired an ass] to bring a <i>lethech</i> of wheat, and he brought
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k80b_1:" I.e., an additional <i>se'ah</i>."
,k80b_2:" This contradicts Abaye."
,k80b_3:" [Instead of a load of 15 se'ahs of wheat liberally measured, he brought one consisting of barley counted by levelled measures, in which case there is no liability unless the addition was a <i>se'ah</i> (Rashi); others: reduced in weight by being worm-eaten.]"
,k80b_4:" Lit., 'the shoulder', I.e., if a man is engaged to carry a certain burden, which is increased by a <i>kab</i>, and he breaks down, his employer is liable."
,k80b_5:" Persian measure. [Rashi: a <i>lethech</i>.]"
,k80b_6:" A small boat."
,k80b_7:" [G]; a light, fast-sailing vessel (Jast.)."
,k80b_8:" As soon as he took it up, and before realising that it was too heavy for him, fell under it."
,k80b_9:" If the load exceeds the weight agreed upon by a <i>kab</i>, he is entitled to additional remuneration."
,k80b_10:" I.e., actually it means that he broke down under the additional weight, yet, though an intelligent being, he did not throw it away, thinking that the fault was in his own weakness, and being unaware that the weight was greater than stipulated."
,k80b_11:" Because the overload is assessed at a thirtieth of the legitimate freight."
,k80b_12:" If one sells a ship, without specifying its capacity, it must be at least thirty <i>kors</i>, and otherwise the sale is invalid."
,k80b_13:" I.e., contractors who accept material for manufacture, e.g., a carpenter who receives wood for making up into a table, rank as a paid trustee thereof, in that, if it is stolen, they are held responsible."
,k80b_14:" After the work is completed."
,k80b_15:" Who are responsible only for negligence, but not for theft."
,k80b_16:" Which the lender takes into his own keeping."
,k80b_17:" The grounds for the various rulings of this Mishnah are discussed in the Gemara."
,k80b_18:" R. Meir maintains: since he pays for the benefit he receives, he is taking care of it gratuitously; whilst in R. Judah's view, since it comes into his hands for his benefit, he is a paid trustee, notwithstanding that he pays for that benefit. Superficially, the same reasoning applies to an artisan: the object comes into his keeping for his own benefit, viz., that he may earn money thereby; but at the same time, he gives his labour for that benefit."
,k80b_19:" Rashi: it is impossible to assess exactly in the case of a contractor the value of the actual labour involved, and therefore he is assumed to be slightly overpaid. Tosaf., observes that this answer might have been refuted by a reference to those who do not overpay, but that it is refuted in another way."
,k80b_20:" I.e., the dispute between R. Meir and R. Judah does not differentiate between normal and better value, e.g., if the owner accepts less than the usual hire; but there too R. Meir should say: In return for the benefit received by the remission of part of the hiring fee he becomes a paid bailee."
,k80b_21:" The insistent attempts to prove that the Mishnah does agree with R. Meir, even though, as in the last reply, it is only at the cost of assuming that it does not agree with R. Judah, are due to the fact that our Mishnah was taught anonymously, and it is a general rule that an anonymous Mishnah must agree with R. Meir."
,k80b_22:" <i>Infra</i> 98b. A gratuitous borrower is liable for every mishap. Now, if he explicitly instructs the lender to send it to him, he is responsible for it immediately the lender entrusts it to a person for delivery, and therefore if it perishes on the road, he must make it good. Likewise, if the borrower entrusts it to his agent for return, without receiving explicit instructions to that effect from the lender, he remains responsible for it until it is actually returned."
,k80b_23:" For when that period has expired, he ceases to bear the responsibilities of a borrower. "
}

txt:
<p>
sixteen [se'ahs] of barley,<a id="k80b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; he is liable. This implies, [if he merely added] three <i>kabs</i>, he is exempt!<a id="k80b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye interpreted it [as referring] to levelled measures [of corn].<a id="k80b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A <i>kab</i> [is a culpable overload] for a porter:<a id="k80b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; an <i>artaba</i><a id="k80b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for a canoe;<a id="k80b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; a <i>kor</i> for a ship; and three <i>kors</i> for a large<i> liburna</i>.<a id="k80b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master said: 'A <i>kab</i> [is a culpable overload] for a porter.' But if it is too heavy for him, is he not an intelligent being? Let him throw it down! &mdash; Said Abaye: It means that it [the weight] struck him down immediately.<a id="k80b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: You may even say that it did not strike him down immediately, but this is taught only with regard to extra pay.<a id="k80b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: He might have thought that he had been seized with weakness.<a id="k80b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'A <i>kor</i> for a ship, and three <i>kors</i> for a large<i> liburna'</i>. R. Papa said: From this it follows that the average ship takes a load of thirty <i>kors</i>.<a id="k80b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; What practical difference does it make? &mdash; In respect of buying and selling.<a id="k80b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. ALL ARTISANS ARE REGARDED AS PAID BAILEES;<a id="k80b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IF THEY DECLARE,<a id="k80b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 'TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN BRING US MONEY, THEY RANK AS UNPAID BAILEES.<a id="k80b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF A MAN SAID TO ANOTHER] 'KEEP THIS ARTICLE [FOR ME], AND I WILL KEEP [ANOTHER] FOR YOU,' HE RANKS AS A PAID BAILEE. [IF HE REQUESTED,] 'KEEP [THIS] FOR ME,' AND HE REPLIED, 'PUT IT DOWN BEFORE ME,' HE IS AN UNPAID BAILEE. IF A MAN LENDS ANOTHER ON A PLEDGE,<a id="k80b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; HE RANKS AS A PAID TRUSTEE. R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE LENDS HIM MONEY [ON A PLEDGE], HE IS AN UNPAID TRUSTEE; IF PROVISIONS, HE IS A PAID BAILEE. ABBA SAUL SAID: ONE MAY HIRE OUT A PLEDGE TAKEN FROM A POOR MAN, FIXING A HIRING FEE AND PROGRESSIVELY DIMINISHING THE DEBT, BECAUSE IT IS LIKE RETURNING A LOST ARTICLE.<a id="k80b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Must we say that our Mishnah does not accord with R. Meir? For it has been taught: One who hires [e.g., an animal], how does he pay [if it comes to harm]? R. Meir said: As an unpaid trustee; R. Judah said: As a paid trustee.<a id="k80b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You may assume [it to agree] even with R. Meir: in return for that benefit, that he [the employer] forsakes everyone else and engages him, he becomes a paid bailee in respect thereof. If so, the same applies to a hirer: in return for that benefit, in that he forsakes everyone else and hires [it] to him, he becomes a paid trustee in respect thereof! But [say thus:] You may assume [it to agree] even with R. Meir: in return for that benefit, that he pays him somewhat more [than his due], he becomes a paid bailee in respect thereof.<a id="k80b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, the same applies to a hirer; may one not be referring to a case where he gives him slightly better value?<a id="k80b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But [say thus]: You may assume [it to agree] even with R. Meir: in return for that benefit, that he holds it against his remuneration and is not forced to go seeking for money, he ranks as a paid bailee in respect thereof. Alternatively, it is as Rabbah b. Abbuha reversed [the Baraitha] and learnt: How does a hirer pay? R. Meir said: As a paid bailee; R. Judah said: As an unpaid bailee.<a id="k80b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BUT IF THEY DECLARE, 'TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN BRING US MONEY.' THEY RANK AS UNPAID BAILEES. We learnt elsewhere: If the borrower instructed him [sc. the lender] to send [the animal], and he sent it, and it died [on the road, before reaching him], he is liable for it. The same holds good when he returns it.<a id="k80b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Rafram b. Papa said in R. Hisda's name: This was stated only if he returned it within the period for which he borrowed it; but if after, he is not liable.<a id="k80b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman b. Papa raised an objection: BUT IF THEY DECLARE, 'TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN BRING US MONEY,' THEY RANK AS UNPAID BAILEES:
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k81a_1:" Though the owner knows that it is ready for removal, the artisan remains as responsible as before. Then by analogy, in the case of a borrower, even when the period of the loan expires he remains just as responsible as within the period."
,k81a_2:" Because they benefit by holding the article until the money is paid."
,k81a_3:" Without stating that they hold it against payment."
,k81a_4:" Viz., that even then he ranks as an unpaid bailee."
,k81a_5:" If he ranks as an unpaid bailee even when he merely informs him that he has completed it. without stating that he relinquishes his hold upon it, surely the same holds good when he explicitly informs the owner that he can take it!"
,k81a_6:" For 'Take your property' may imply that he refuses all further responsibility &mdash; an unpaid bailee is liable for negligence."
,k81a_7:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 464 and notes."
,k81a_8:" And hold himself responsible until it reaches the owner."
,k81a_9:" I.e., for the benefit I derive from my father-in-law's knowledge that I desired to make him a present."
,k81a_10:" Having undertaken to pay for them in case they are accepted, they are accounted in the meantime his property."
,k81a_11:" [Since he has no longer any intention of buying them, the goods cannot be accounted any more his property, and his liability can arise only in consequence of the goodwill he enjoyed, which makes him rank as a paid bailee, even though the tradesman had actually received payment for this benefit. How much more should this be the case with a gratuitous borrower.]"
,k81a_12:" V. <i>infra</i> 94a; so here too: whilst the bailee has the article in his care, the owner is, under the conditions of trusteeship agreed upon, in the service of the bailee."
,k81a_13:" So that the trusteeship and the owner's reciprocal service are not contemporaneous."
,k81a_14:" Lit., 'dealers in aloe'."
,k81a_15:" I.e., he had not yet commenced baking, so was not in their service. Thus R. Papa's verdict was just, after all."
,k81a_16:" V. <i>infra</i> 95a."
,k81a_17:" Hence they became paid trustees. "
}

txt:
<p>
surely this implies, [if they inform him.] 'I have completed it,' they rank as paid bailees.<a id="k81a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No. [Deduce thus:] But if they say. 'Bring money and then take your property,' they are paid bailees.<a id="k81a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But what if they declare, 'I have completed it.'<a id="k81a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [do] they rank as unpaid bailees? If so, instead of teaching. BUT IF THEY DECLARE, 'TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN BRING US MONEY,' THEY RANK AS UNPAID BAILEES; let it teach the case of 'I have completed it',<a id="k81a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; from which 'take your property follows <i>a fortiori</i>!<a id="k81a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is particularly necessary to state the case of 'Take your property,' for I might think that he is not even an unpaid bailee;<a id="k81a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; hence we are told [that he is].
</p><p>
	Others say, R. Nahman b. Papa said: We too have learnt likewise: BUT IF THEY DECLARE, 'TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN BRING US MONEY'. THEY RANK AS UNPAID BAILEES. Surely the same holds good if he says. 'I have completed it'!<a id="k81a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No. The case of 'Take your property' is different.
</p><p>
	Huna Mar, the son of Meremar, [sitting] before Rabina, opposed two Mishnahs to each other and reconciled them. We learnt, BUT IF THEY DECLARE, 'TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN BRING US MONEY,' THEY RANK AS UNPAID BAILEES, and [presumably], the same holds good if he informs him, 'I have finished it.' But the following contradicts it: If the borrower instructs him [Sc. the lender] to send [the animal], and he does so, and it dies [on the road before reaching him], he is responsible for it. The same holds good when he returns it! &mdash; And he reconciled them by the dictum of Rafram b. Papa in R. Hisda's name: This was stated only if he returned it within the period of the loan; but if after, he is not liable.
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: [Does it mean,] He is not liable as a borrower, yet liable as a paid bailee; or perhaps, he is not even a paid bailee? &mdash; Said Amemar: Logically it means that he is exempt from the liabilities of a borrower, but is responsible as a paid bailee; for since he has benefited, he must give benefit in return.<a id="k81a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been taught in accordance with Amemar: If one takes goods from a tradesman [on approval] to send them [as a gift] to his father-in-law, and stipulates. 'If they are accepted, I will pay you their value, but if not, I will pay you its goodwill benefit;'<a id="k81a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; if they are accidentally damaged on the outward journey, he is liable;<a id="k81a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but exempt if on the return journey, because he is regarded as a paid bailee.<a id="k81a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A man once sold an ass to his neighbour. Said the latter, 'I will take it to that place, if it is sold, it is well; if not, I will return it to you.' He went, but it was not sold, and on his way back it was accidentally injured. On his going before R. Nahman, he held him liable. Thereupon Raba raised an objection to R. Nahman: If they are damaged on the outward journey, he is liable; but exempt if on the return journey, because he is regarded as a paid bailee! &mdash; He answered: The return journey of this person is an outward journey. Why so? &mdash; It is common-sense. For if he found a purchaser on his return, would he not sell it?
</p><p>
	'KEEP [THIS ARTICLE] FOR ME, AND I WILL KEEP [ANOTHER] FOR YOU.' HE RANKS AS A PAID BAILEE. But why so? Is it not a trusteeship wherein the owner [is pledged to the service of the bailee]?<a id="k81a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Papa said: It means that he proposed to him, 'KEEP [THIS ARTICLE] FOR ME to-day, AND I WILL KEEP [ANOTHER] FOR YOU to-morrow.'<a id="k81a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: [If A proposes to B,] 'Keep [this article] for me and I will keep [an article] for you'; 'lend me, and I will lend you'; 'keep [this article] for me, and I will lend you [another]'; 'lend me, and I will keep [an article] for you' &mdash; in all these cases they rank as paid trustees. But why so? Is it not a trusteeship wherein the owner [is pledged to the service of the bailee]? &mdash; Said R. Papa: it means that he proposed to him, 'Keep [this article] for me to-day, and I will keep [an article] for you to-morrow.'
</p><p>
	There was a company of perfume sellers<a id="k81a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; of whom each day a [different] one baked for all. One day they said to one of them, 'Go and bake for us.' 'Then guard my robe,' he rejoined. Before his return it was stolen through their negligence; so they went before R. Papa, who held them responsible. Said the Rabbis to R. Papa: But why? Is it not a trusteeship wherein the owner [is pledged to the service of the bailee]? Thereupon he was ashamed. Subsequently it was discovered that just then he [the owner] had been drinking beer.<a id="k81a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, on the view that he [sc. the bailee] is not liable for negligence when the owner [is pledged to the service of the bailee], it is well: on that account he was ashamed. But on the view that he is,<a id="k81a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; why was he ashamed? &mdash; But [it happened thus:] That day was not his [for baking], yet they requested him 'Go bake for us,' to which he rejoined, 'In return for my baking for you guard my robe.'<a id="k81a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k81b_1:" Not through their negligence."
,k81b_2:" Because a paid trustee is responsible for theft even if not due to negligence."
,k81b_3:" Because wool is more absorbent than linen, therefore much heavier when saturated."
,k81b_4:" For whilst the short man had the sheet, the tall man was pledged to guard his cloak."
,k81b_5:" In which case he is certainly liable."
,k81b_6:" [West of Mahuza, identical with Nehar Malka, situated on the canal of the same name on the west bank of the Tigris. Obermeyer. op cit., pp. 273. 275.]"
,k81b_7:" [The canal might overflow its banks, with dangerous consequences for the ass; Obermeyer. p. 275.]"
,k81b_8:" Identical with Nahras or Nahr-sar, on the canal of the same name, on the East bank of the Euphrates. Obermeyer. p. 307."
,k81b_9:" It was summer, and the river bed was dried up."
,k81b_10:" For it is well known that that road is never free of water."
,k81b_11:" Because that is simply a refusal to take care of it."
,k81b_12:" V. B.K. 47b. If a potter brought his pots into a stranger's courtyard, and the latter's ox trampled upon and broke them, or if a man brought his ox or provisions into another's court, and an ox belonging to the latter killed it or consumed them, &mdash; the Rabbis rule, if the courtyard owner had given him permission to enter, it is regarded as though he had undertaken to guard them, and therefore he is responsible. Rabbi, however, maintained that he must explicitly undertake to guard it; otherwise he bears no liability. Hence, by analogy, in the case under discussion, in the view of the Rabbis, when he says 'Put it down', he becomes an unpaid bailee, but not in the view of Rabbi."
,k81b_13:" Lit., 'take his money'."
,k81b_14:" Shebu. 43b. A paid bailee is responsible for loss, but not an unpaid bailee, who is liable only for negligence. Now, R. Eliezer maintains that when money is lent on a pledge without a written bond, it is not meant as a security for the money in case the debtor defaults, but merely as a proof of loan; but should the debtor fail, some other property might be seized by the creditor. Consequently the creditor is merely a bailee, and since R. Eliezer does not hold him responsible for loss, he obviously regards him as an unpaid bailee, and thus disagrees with the Mishnah. R. Akiba, on the other hand, holds that the pledge is a security for the money; hence, if that is lost, the money is lost too. If, however, a bond is indited, it cannot be asserted that the pledge was intended merely as proof, therefore all agree that if lost, the money is lost too."
,k81b_15:" Then R. Eliezer regards it as merely a proof of loan."
,k81b_16:" But afterwards, payment falling due and the debtor being unable to repay, the creditor obtained a court order to take a pledge. That pledge is certainly a security for the money, and the benefit of being thereby certain of repayment renders the creditor a paid bailee. "
}

txt:
<p>
Before he returned, it was stolen,<a id="k81b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and they went before R. Papa, who held them responsible.<a id="k81b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; The Rabbis protested to R. Papa: Why so? Is it not a trusteeship wherein the owners [are pledged to the service of the bailee]? So he was ashamed. But subsequently it was discovered that just then he had been drinking beer.
</p><p>
	Two men were travelling together on a road, one [of whom] was tall, and the other short. The tall one was riding an ass, and had a [linen] sheet, whilst the short one was wearing a [woollen] cloak, and walked on foot. On coming to a river, he took his cloak, placed it upon the ass, and took the other man's linen and covered himself therewith.<a id="k81b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Then the water swept the sheet away: so they came before Raba, who ruled him [the short man] liable. But the Rabbis protested to Raba: Why so? Is it not a case of borrowing wherein the owner [is pledged to service]?<a id="k81b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; So he was ashamed, subsequently it was learnt that he had taken it [the linen sheet] and put [his own on the ass] without his knowledge.<a id="k81b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A man hired an ass to his neighbour and said to him, 'See that you do not go by way of Nehar Pekod,<a id="k81b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; where there is water,<a id="k81b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but by the way of Naresh,<a id="k81b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; where there is none.' But he did go by way of Nehar Pekod, and the ass died. When he returned, he pleaded. 'True, I took the route of the Nehar Pekod, but there was no water.'<a id="k81b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rabbah to him [the owner]: Why should he have lied? Had he wished, he could have said, 'I went by way of Naresh.' But Abaye observed: We do not reason, 'What is the purpose of lying,' if there are witnesses [to the contrary].<a id="k81b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[IF HE REQUESTS,] 'KEEP [THIS] FOR ME,' AND HE REPLIES, 'PUT IT DOWN BEFORE ME.' HE IS AN UNPAID BAILEE. R. Huna said: If he replies. 'Put it down before you,' he is neither an unpaid nor a paid bailee.<a id="k81b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: What if he simply said, 'Put it down'? &mdash; Come and hear: [IF HE REQUESTS,] 'KEEP [THIS] FOR ME' AND HE REPLIES, 'PUT IT DOWN BEFORE ME,' HE IS AN UNPAID BAILEE. From which it follows that if he does not particularise at all there is no obligation at all. On the contrary, since R. Huna said: If he replied. 'Put it down before you' &mdash; it is [only] then that he is neither an unpaid nor a paid bailee; it follows that if he does not particularise he is a paid bailee. But no conclusions are to be drawn from this.
</p><p>
	Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim? [For we learnt:] If he brought them in with [the owner's] permission, the courtyard owner is liable. Rabbi said: In all these cases he is not liable unless he explicitly undertook to guard.<a id="k81b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But how does this follow? Perhaps the Rabbis rule [that he becomes a bailee] only there, in the case of a courtyard, which is a guarded place. so that when he [the owner] said to him, 'Bring it in', he meant, 'Bring it in, and I will take care of it for you'; but here, in a market place, which is unguarded, he may have meant, 'Put it down, take a seat, and guard it. Contrariwise, perhaps Rabbi rules [that he does not become a bailee] only there, in the case of a [private] courtyard, to enter wherein permission is necessary, so that when he gave him permission to enter, he meant, '[Come in,] sit down, and guard it.' But here, he must have meant, 'Put it down and I will guard it;' for should you think, he meant, 'Put it down, take a seat, and guard it' &mdash; does he require his permission to put it down?
</p><p>
	IF A MAN LENDS ANOTHER ON A PLEDGE, HE RANKS AS A PAID TRUSTEE. Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Eliezer? For it has been taught: If one lends his neighbour [money] against a pledge and the pledge is lost, he must swear [that it was not due to his negligence], and then be repaid:<a id="k81b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; this is R. Eliezer's opinion. R. Akiba ruled: He [the debtor] can say to him: 'Did you lend me against aught but the pledge? the pledge being lost, your money [too] is lost.' But if he lends him a thousand <i>zuz</i> against a note and a pledge is deposited for it, all agree that if the pledge is lost, the money is lost!<a id="k81b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You may say that it agrees even with R. Eliezer, yet there is no difficulty: in the latter case he took the pledge when the loan was made;<a id="k81b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; in the former, he did not take the pledge at the time of the loan.<a id="k81b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But in both cases,
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k82a_1:" Which implies that it was given at the time of the loan."
,k82a_2:" Since provisions deteriorate, the creditor derives a benefit from lending them, as he will have fresh provisions returned, and consequently he ranks as a paid bailee."
,k82a_3:" Since R. Akiba maintains that if the pledge is lost the money too is lost, he treats him as a paid bailee even in the case of money. Whereas it is a general principle that an anonymous Mishnah is R. Meir's, and taught on the basis of R. Akiba's view; V. Sanh. 86a."
,k82a_4:" I.e., the distinction between money and provisions cannot be maintained, the text of the Mishnah being correct, and therefore it definitely does not agree with R. Eliezer."
,k82a_5:" Shebu. 43b. Thus, R. Akiba agrees with it; whilst R. Eliezer maintains, since the pledge is not worth the loan, it must have been meant merely as evidence of the loan. But if the pledge is worth the loan, all agree that it is a security, and therefore, if lost, the loan too is lost."
,k82a_6:" According to R. Eliezer he bears no responsibility at all, according to R. Akiba his responsibility is limited to the value of the pledge."
,k82a_7:" That whilst it is in his possession it is his, and hence he is responsible for all accidents."
,k82a_8:" Deut. XXIV, 13."
,k82a_9:" There is no particular righteousness in returning what does not belong to one."
,k82a_10:" R. Eliezer disagrees. R. Akiba agrees with this."
,k82a_11:" V. <i>infra</i> 113a, where the verse is interpreted as relating to such a case; the pledge then is obviously a surety for the money."
,k82a_12:" V. <i>supra</i> 29a. R. Akiba, reasoning on the same lines as R. Joseph, regards the creditor as a paid bailee, since it is a positive duty to assist a fellow-man with a loan (cf. Lev. XXV, 35), whilst R. Eliezer regards him as an unpaid bailee. "
}

txt:
<p>
IF A MAN LENDS ANOTHER ON A PLEDGE is taught!<a id="k82a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [say thus:] There is no difficulty: in the latter case, he lent him money; in the former [sc. our Mishnah], provisions.<a id="k82a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But since the following clause states, R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE LENDS HIM MONEY ON A PLEDGE, HE IS AN UNPAID TRUSTEE; IF PROVISIONS, HE IS A PAID BAILEE; that proves that the first Tanna admits no distinction! &mdash; The whole [Mishnah] is according to R. Judah, but it is defective, and should read thus: IF A MAN LENDS ANOTHER ON A PLEDGE, HE RANKS AS A PAID TRUSTEE; this holds good only if he lends him provisions; but if money, he is an unpaid trustee. For R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE LENDS HIM MONEY ON A PLEDGE, HE IS AN UNPAID TRUSTEE; IF PROVISIONS, HE IS A PAID BAILEE. But if so, does not the Mishnah disagree with R. Akiba?<a id="k82a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it is perfectly clear that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Eliezer.<a id="k82a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Shall we say [that the dispute arises] when the pledge is not worth the money lent, and that they differ in regard to Samuel's dictum? For Samuel said: If a man lends his neighbour a thousand <i>zuz</i>, and the latter deposits the handle of a saw against it, If the saw handle is lost, the thousand <i>zuz</i> is lost.<a id="k82a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [No!] When the pledge is worth less than the loan, all reject Samuel's ruling.<a id="k82a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But here [the dispute arises] only if it is worth the loan, and they differ with respect to R. Isaac's dictum. For R. Isaac said: Whence do we know that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge?<a id="k82a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; From the verse, [<i>In any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth down&hellip;</i>] <i>and it shall be righteousness unto thee</i>:<a id="k82a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; if he has no title thereto, whence is his<i> 'righteousness'</i>?<a id="k82a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence it follows that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge.<a id="k82a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But is this reasonable? Verily, R. Isaac's dictum refers to a pledge, not taken when the loan was made;<a id="k82a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but did he say it with reference to a pledge taken at the time of the loan? &mdash; Hence where the pledge was not taken when the loan was made, all agree with R. Isaac. But here the reference is to a pledge taken at the time of the loan, and they differ as to the guardian of lost property. For it has been stated: He who is in charge of lost property &mdash; Rabbah said: He ranks as an unpaid bailee; R. Joseph maintained: As a paid bailee.<a id="k82a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we say that R. Joseph's view is disputed by Tannaim? &mdash; No. With respect to one who guards lost property, all agree with R. Joseph. But here
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k82b_1:" For use of which he remits a portion of the debt."
,k82b_2:" Nor does his use of it make him a paid bailee, since he makes an allowance on the debt in return."
,k82b_3:" That it was due to negligence."
,k82b_4:" To be freed from responsibility. The grounds for his astonishment are discussed below,"
,k82b_5:" [MS.M. omits 'for his neighbour'.]"
,k82b_6:" Even if it was not caused by his negligence."
,k82b_7:" For if the barrel was broken in the course of being moved, at the very least it is as though it were damaged through his stumbling; and since R. Meir rules that he must swear that he had not been negligent, it follows that stumbling is not negligence."
,k82b_8:" V. B.K. 29a."
,k82b_9:" R. Meir maintains that it does; consequently, if his pitcher broke &mdash; due to his stumbling or any other similar cause &mdash; he is culpably negligent. and therefore liable for damages. Thus this contradicts his ruling in the Mishnah!"
,k82b_10:" Lit., 'he who taught this one did not teach the other.' They are irreconcilable and reflect two opposing views on R. Meir's opinion."
,k82b_11:" On the assumption of the first Baraitha that R. Meir does not regard stumbling as negligence. R. Judah agrees with R. Meir. Consequently the unpaid bailee must swear that there was no negligence; but the paid bailee is responsible for damage caused by stumbling even though it is not accounted as negligence; hence he does not agree with R. Meir that both bailees must swear."
,k82b_12:" As explained in n. 2."
,k82b_13:" For stumbling on level ground is certainly negligence. "
}

txt:
<p>
they differ where the creditor needs the pledge;<a id="k82b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; one Master [sc. R. Akiba] maintaining that he fulfils a religious precept in making the loan, and therefore ranks as a paid bailee; whereas the other Master [sc. R. Eliezer] holds that he fulfils no religious precept thereby, since he desires his own benefit; therefore he is an unpaid bailee.<a id="k82b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	ABBA SAUL SAID: ONE MAY HIRE OUT THE PLEDGE OF A POOR MAN, FIXING A PRICE AND PROGRESSIVELY DIMINISHING THE DEBT. R. Hanan b. Ammi said in Samuel's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as Abba Saul. But even Abba Saul ruled thus only in respect of a hoe, mattock, and axe, since their hiring fee is large whilst their depreciation is small.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN [A BAILEE] MOVED A BARREL FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER AND BROKE IT, WHETHER HE IS A PAID OR AN UNPAID BAILEE, HE MUST SWEAR.<a id="k82b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. ELIEZER SAID: [I TOO HAVE LEARNT THAT] BOTH MUST SWEAR, YET I AM ASTONISHED THAT BOTH CAN SWEAR.<a id="k82b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Our Rabbis taught: If a man moved a barrel for his neighbour<a id="k82b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; from one place to another and [in doing so] broke it, whether a paid or an unpaid bailee, he must swear; this is R. Meir's view. R. Judah ruled: An unpaid bailee must swear; whereas a paid trustee is responsible.<a id="k82b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. ELIEZER SAID: [I TOO HAVE LEARNT THAT] BOTH MUST SWEAR, YET I AM ASTONISHED THAT BOTH CAN SWEAR. Shall we say that in R. Meir's opinion one who stumbles [and thereby does damage] is not regarded as [culpably] negligent?<a id="k82b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But it has been taught: If his pitcher was broken, and he did not remove it; or if his camel fell down, and he did not raise it up &mdash; R. Meir holds him liable for any damage they may cause; whilst the Sages rule: He is exempt by laws of man, but liable by the laws of Heaven;<a id="k82b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is an established fact that they differ on the question whether stumbling amounts to negligence!<a id="k82b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Eleazar: Separate them! The two [Baraithas] are not both by the same teacher.<a id="k82b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Judah comes to teach that an unpaid bailee must swear, whilst a paid bailee must make it [sc. the damage] good, each in accordance with his own peculiar law.<a id="k82b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Whereupon R. Eliezer observes: Verily, I have a tradition in accordance with R. Meir; nevertheless I am astonished that both should swear. As for an unpaid bailee, it is well; he swears that he was guilty of no negligence. But why should a paid bailee swear? Even if not negligent, he is still bound to pay!<a id="k82b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; And even with respect to an unpaid bailee it [the ruling] is correct [only] if [the accident happened] on sloping ground; but if not on sloping ground, can he possibly swear that he was not negligent!<a id="k82b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k84a_1:" Jose b. Halafta fled to Asia Minor in consequence of his having been ordained by Judah b. Baba (Sanh. 14a) in defiance of the Hadrianic edict."
,k84a_2:" Their waists were so large that as they stood waist to waist there was room for a yoke of oxen to pass beneath them!"
,k84a_3:" Judges VIII, 21."
,k84a_4:" Prov. XXVI, 4."
,k84a_5:" [A rich agricultural town in the Mesene district S. of Babylon, famous for its manufacture of baskets made of fibres of palm leaves. V. Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>. p. 200. This humourous and exaggerated description of the figures of these Rabbis has been stated to prevent any stigma being attached to the offspring of people of large contour, Tosaf.]"
,k84a_6:" I.e., immediately it leaves the silversmith's hands, whilst it is still glowing with heat."
,k84a_7:" Lit., 'facial glory'."
,k84a_8:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k84a_9:" Lit., 'meet'."
,k84a_10:" Gen. XLIX, 22."
,k84a_11:" [H], a play on [H]."
,k84a_12:" Ibid. XLVIII, 16."
,k84a_13:" I.e., devoted to study."
,k84a_14:" His mere decision to turn to the study of the Torah had so weakened him that he lacked the strength to don his heavy equipment."
,k84a_15:" Before that they are not complete articles or utensils, and only such can become unclean."
,k84a_16:" This was quoted only proverbially, though in later times it was taken literally, and Resh Lakish was held to have been a robber. Actually, he had been a circus attendant, to which his necessitous circumstances had reduced him, and these weapons were used in the course of that calling. (Graetz, Geschichte, IV, 238, n. 6). Weiss, Dor, III, p. 83, n. 2, understands the phrase literally, but translates [H] as 'thief-catcher.' If that be correct, Resh Lakish at one time helped the Roman government, just as R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon and R. Ishmael b. R. Jose had done"
,k84a_17:" Heb. [H] is equally applicable to a captain of a gang and a Rabbi (Rashi)."
,k84a_18:" By the remark of Resh Lakish that he had not benefited him."
,k84a_19:" Lit., 'do'."
,k84a_20:" Jer. XLIX, 11."
,k84a_21:" Ibid."
,k84a_22:" The full name of Resh Lakish was R. Simeon b. Lakish. Weiss, Dor, II, 71 deduces from the use of Lakisha here that Lakish was not a patronym but the name of a town, [H] meaning 'a citizen of,' i.e., R. Simeon, a townsman of Lakish. But Bacher, Ag. der Pal. Am. I, 340, 1 defends Lakish as a patronym. "
}

txt:
<p>
[One day] Elijah met him and remonstrated with him: 'How long will you deliver the people of our God to execution!' &mdash; 'What can I do', he replied, 'it is the royal decree.' 'Your father fled to Asia,'<a id="k84a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; he retorted, 'do you flee to Laodicea!'
</p><p>
	When R. Ishmael son of R. Jose and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon met, one could pass through with a yoke of oxen under them and not touch them.<a id="k84a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Said a certain [Roman] matron to them, 'Your children are not yours!' They replied, 'Theirs [sc. our wives'] is greater than ours.' '[But this proves my allegation] all the more!' [She observed]. Some say, they answered thus: 'For as a man is, so is his strength.'<a id="k84a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Others say, they answered her thus: 'Love suppresses the flesh.' But why should they have answered her at all; is it not written, Answer not a fool according to his folly?<a id="k84a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; To permit no stigma upon their children.
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: The waist of R. Ishmael son of R. Jose was as a bottle of nine <i>kabs</i> capacity. R. papa said: R. Johanan's waist was as a bottle containing five <i>kabs</i>; others say, three <i>kabs</i>. That of R. papa himself was as [large as] the wicker-work baskets of Harpania.<a id="k84a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: I am the only one remaining of Jerusalem's men of outstanding beauty. He who desires to see R. Johanan's beauty, let him take a silver goblet as it emerges from the crucible,<a id="k84a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; fill it with the seeds of red pomegranate, encircle its brim with a chaplet of red roses, and set it between the sun and the shade: its lustrous glow is akin to R. Johanan's beauty.
</p><p>
	But that is not so; for did not a Master say: R. Kahana's beauty is a reflection of R. Abbahu's; R. Abbahu's is a reflection of our Father Jacob's; our Father Jacob's was a reflection of Adam's; whereas R. Johanan is omitted! &mdash; R. Johanan is different, because he lacked a beard.<a id="k84a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan used to go and sit at the gates of the mikweh.<a id="k84a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 'When the daughters of Israel ascend from the bath',said he, 'let them look upon<a id="k84a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; me, that they may bear sons as beautiful and as learned as I.' Said the Rabbis to him: 'Do you not fear an evil eye?' &mdash; 'I am of the seed of Joseph', he replied, 'against whom an evil eye is powerless.' For it is written, Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well:<a id="k84a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; whereon R. Abbahu observed: Render not [by a well] but, 'above the power of the eye.'<a id="k84a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose son of R. Hanina deduced it from the following: and let them multiply abundantly like fish in the midst of the earth:<a id="k84a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; just as fish in the seas are covered by water and the eye has no power over them, so also are the seed of Joseph &mdash; the eye has no power over them.
</p><p>
One day R. Johanan was bathing in the Jordan, when Resh Lakish saw him and leapt into the Jordan after him. Said he [R. Johanan] to him, 'Your strength should be for the Torah.'<a id="k84a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'Your beauty,' he replied, 'should be for women.' 'If you will repent,' said he, 'I will give you my sister [in marriage], who is more beautiful than I.' He undertook [to repent]; then he wished to return and collect his weapons, but could not.<a id="k84a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Subsequently, [R. Johanan] taught him Bible and Mishnah, and made him into a great man. Now, one day there was a dispute in the schoolhouse [with respect to the following. Viz.,] a sword, knife, dagger, spear, hand-saw and a scythe &mdash; at what stage [of their manufacture] can they become unclean? When their manufacture is finished.<a id="k84a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; And when is their manufacture finished? &mdash; R. Johanan ruled: When they are tempered in a furnace. Resh Lakish maintained: When they have been furbished in water. Said he to him: 'A robber understands his trade.'<a id="k84a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Said he to him, 'And wherewith have you benefited me: there [as a robber] I was called Master, and here I am called Master.'<a id="k84a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; 'By bringing you under the wings of the <i>Shechinah</i>,' he retorted. R. Johanan therefore felt himself deeply hurt,<a id="k84a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [as a result of which] Resh Lakish fell ill. His sister [sc. R. Johanan's, the wife of Resh Lakish] came and wept before him: 'Forgive him<a id="k84a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; for the sake of my son,' she pleaded. He replied: <i>'Leave thy fatherless children. I will preserve them alive</i>.'<a id="k84a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; 'For the sake of my widowhood then!' '<i>And let thy widows trust in me</i>,'<a id="k84a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; he assured her. Resh Lakish died, and R. Johanan was plunged into deep grief. Said the Rabbis, 'Who shall go to ease his mind? Let R. Eleazar b. Pedath go, whose disquisitions are very subtle.' So he went and sat before him; and on every dictum uttered by R. Johanan he observed: 'There is a Baraitha which Supports you.' 'Are you as the son of Lakisha?'<a id="k84a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; he complained: 'when I stated a law, the son of Lakisha used to raise twenty-four objections, to which I gave twenty-four answers, which consequently led to a fuller comprehension of the law; whilst you say, "A Baraitha has been taught which supports you:" do I not know myself that my dicta are right?' Thus he went on rending his garments and weeping, 'Where are you, O son of Lakisha, where are you, O son of Lakisha;' and he cried thus until his mind was turned. Thereupon the Rabbis prayed for him, and he died.
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k84b_1:" Notwithstanding that his fat did not putrefy; v. <i>supra</i> 83b."
,k84b_2:" Lit., 'his mind was not at rest', that he had not ensnared innocent men too."
,k84b_3:" Made of figs (Rashi)."
,k84b_4:" His pains and sores personified."
,k84b_5:" By illness."
,k84b_6:" Lit., 'rebelled'."
,k84b_7:" The Heb. expression means her father's house after his death."
,k84b_8:" These seamen had encountered a violent storm at sea, and had prayed to be delivered for the sake of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. This gift then was a thanksgiving offering to him (Tosaf.)."
,k84b_9:" Prov. XXXI, 14. 'she' is referred to the Torah; for the sake of his learning, in the merit of which the seamen had been delivered, his 'food' &mdash; i.e. wealth &mdash; had been brought to him from afar."
,k84b_10:" I.e., the children of those women whose blood he had declared clean."
,k84b_11:" R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon having been appointed by the state to track down malefactors, could not come to the school, where, by his wide knowledge of what is clean or unclean he would have permitted many women to their husbands."
,k84b_12:" Instead of being buried."
,k84b_13:" I.e., that people know that he is dead yet unburied."
,k84b_14:" It dishonours him."
,k84b_15:" Josephus (Wars, II, XX, 6) mentions that he fortified a place of that name in Upper Galilee; it was probably identical with Akhbura, a town to the south of Safed. Neubauer p. 226f."
,k84b_16:" A neighbouring town. [Either Bira, S.E., or Kfar Bir'im, N.W. of Gush Halab; Klein, Neue Beitrage, p. 39.]"
,k84b_17:" This was the usual way of study, the master sitting on a seat, the disciples on the ground."
,k84b_18:" He feared that his son's promotion &mdash; he was Rabbi's father &mdash; would excite the evil eye and react to his injury."
,k84b_19:" R. Simeon b. Yohai, the father of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, was dead."
,k84b_20:" Whilst he thought himself higher. &mdash; This proves the point that he was a greater scholar than Rabbi; v. also further."
,k84b_21:" I.e., R. Eleazar anticipated all his objections and answered them by shewing that there was no reality in the proposed difficulties and consequently in the answer given, and thus he accused Rabbi of being the cause of many answers which are quite unimportant."
,k84b_22:" He has a greater scholastic ancestry than you, R. Simeon b. Yohai, his father, having been more learned than I. "
}

txt:
<p>
	[Reverting to the story of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon] yet even so,<a id="k84b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's fears were not allayed,<a id="k84b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and so he undertook a penance. Every evening they spread sixty sheets for him, and every morning sixty basins of blood and discharge were removed from under him. In the mornings his wife prepared him sixty kinds of pap,<a id="k84b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; which he ate, and then recovered. Yet his wife did not permit him to go to the schoolhouse, lest the Rabbis discomfort him. Every evening he would exhort them,<a id="k84b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Come, my brethren and familiars!' whilst every morning he exclaimed, 'Depart, because ye disturb my studies!' One day his wife, hearing him, cried out, 'You yourself bring them upon you; you have [already] squandered the money of my father's house!'<a id="k84b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; So she left him<a id="k84b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and returned to her paternal home.<a id="k84b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Then there came sixty seamen who presented him with sixty slaves, bearing sixty purses.<a id="k84b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; They too prepared sixty kinds of pap for him, which he ate. One day she [his wife] said to her daughter, 'Go and see how your father is faring now.' She went, [and on her arrival] her father said to her, 'Go, tell your mother that our [wealth] is greater than theirs' [sc. of his father-in-law's house]. He then applied to himself the verse, <i>She is like the merchant's ships; she bringeth her food from afar</i>.<a id="k84b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; He ate, drank, and recovered, and went to the schoolhouse. Sixty specimens of blood were brought before him, and he declared them all clean. But the Rabbis criticised him, saying, 'Is it possible that there was not [at least] one about which there was some doubt!' He retorted, 'If it be as I [said], let them all be males; if not, let there be one female amongst them.'<a id="k84b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; They were all males, and were named 'Eleazar', after him.
</p><p>
	It has been taught: Rabbi said: How much procreation did this wicked [state] prevent in Israel.<a id="k84b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	On his death-bed he said to his wife, 'I know that the Rabbis are angry with me, and will not properly attend to me. Let me lie in an upper chamber,<a id="k84b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and do you not be afraid of me.' R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: R. Jonathan's mother told me that she was informed by the wife of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: 'I kept him lying in that upper chamber not less than eighteen nor more than twenty-two years. Whenever I ascended there, I examined his hair, and [even] if a single hair had fallen out, the blood would well forth. One day, I saw a worm issue from his ear, whereat I was much grieved, but he appeared to me in my dream and told me that it was nothing. ["This has happened," said he,] "because I once heard a scholar insulted and did not protest, as I should have done." Whenever two people came before him [in a lawsuit], they stood near the door, each stated his case, and then a voice issued from that upper chamber, proclaiming, "So-and-so, you are liable; so-and-so, you are free."' Now, one day his wife was quarrelling with a neighbour, when the latter reviled [her, saying,] 'Let her be like her husband, who was not worthy of burial!' Said the Rabbis: 'When things have gone thus far,<a id="k84b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; it is certainly not meet.'<a id="k84b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Others say: R. Simeon b. Yohai appeared to them in a dream, and complained: 'I have a pigeon amongst you which you refuse to bring to me.' Then the Rabbis went to attend to him [for burial], but the townspeople of Akabaria<a id="k84b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; did not let them; because during all the years R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon slept in his upper chamber no evil beast came to their town. But one day &mdash; it was the eve of the Day of Atonement, when they were busily occupied, the Rabbis sent [word] to the townspeople of Biri,<a id="k84b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and they brought up his bier, and carried it to his father's vault, which they found encircled by a serpent. Said they to it, 'O snake, O snake, open thy mouth, and let the son enter to his father.' Thereupon it opened [its mouth] for them. Then Rabbi sent [messengers] to propose [marriage] to his wife. She sent back: 'Shall a utensil, in which holy food has been used, be used for profane purposes!' There [sc. in Palestine] the proverb runs: Where the master hung up his weapons, there the shepherd hung up his wallet. He sent back word, 'Granted that he outstripped me in learning, was he [also] my superior in good deeds?' She returned, 'Yet at least he outstripped you in learning, though I did not know it. But I do know [that he exceeded you] in [virtuous] practice, since he submitted himself to mortification.'
</p><p>
	'In learning'. To what is the reference? &mdash; When Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Joshua b. Karhah sat on benches, R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and Rabbi sat in front of them on the ground,<a id="k84b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; raising objections and answering them. Said they, 'We drink their water [i.e., benefit from their learning], yet they sit upon the ground; let seats be placed for them!' Thus were they promoted. But R. Simeon b. Gamaliel protested: 'I have a pigeon amongst you, and ye wish to destroy it!'<a id="k84b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; So Rabbi was put down. Thereupon R. Joshua b. Karhah said: 'Shall he, who has a father, live, whilst he who has no father<a id="k84b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; die!' So R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon too was put down, whereat he felt hurt saying, 'Ye have made him equal to me!'<a id="k84b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, until that day, whenever Rabbi made a statement, R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon supported him. But from then onward, when Rabbi said, 'I have an objection,' R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon retorted, 'If you have such and such an objection, this is your answer; now have you encompassed us with loads of answers in which there is no substance.'<a id="k84b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi, being thus humiliated, went and complained to his father. 'Let it not grieve you,' he answered, 'for he is a lion, and the son of a lion, whereas you are a lion, the son of a fox.'<a id="k84b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; To this Rabbi alluded when he said, Three were humble; viz., my father,
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k85a_1:" The father of Rabbi."
,k85a_2:" The Patriarch, head of Palestinian Jewry."
,k85a_3:" The story is given in full in Pes. 66a. On one occasion the eve of Passover fell on the Sabbath, and none knew whether the Paschal sacrifice might be offered or not. Thereupon Hillel proved by argument and tradition that it was permissible, upon which the Bene Bathyra, the then heads of Palestinian Jewry, voluntarily resigned their leadership in his favour."
,k85a_4:" I Sam. XXIII, 17."
,k85a_5:" I.e., though the action of the other two might be explained away as not due to humility, that of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel could not."
,k85a_6:" Because he saw that as a reward for the suffering to which R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon had submitted his body remained intact, defying decomposition and decay for many years."
,k85a_7:" Or, in the bladder, Jast."
,k85a_8:" V. p. 408, n. 5."
,k85a_9:" V. <i>supra</i> 84a bottom: he summoned his sufferings, loving them as a means of ennoblement and likewise dismissed them, that he might be free to study."
,k85a_10:" Ps. CXLV, 9."
,k85a_11:" Everything growing without rain."
,k85a_12:" Owing to the inconvenience and discomfort to which people are put."
,k85a_13:" Though no rain fell."
,k85a_14:" After his death."
,k85a_15:" On account of his beauty."
,k85a_16:" That the honour and the title might turn him to the Torah."
,k85a_17:" Prov. XI, 30."
,k85a_18:" I.e., a line of righteous men."
,k85a_19:" I.e., the father was greater than the son, who was therefore unworthy to he buried with him."
,k85a_20:" R. Simeon b. Yohai and his son Eleazar were hidden in a cave from the Roman authorities for thirteen years, Shab. 33b."
,k85a_21:" [He frequently used the oath 'May I bury my children' &mdash; e.g. Oh. XVI, 1]"
,k85a_22:" Jer. XV, 19."
,k85a_23:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k85a_24:" Ibid."
,k85a_25:" Isa. LIX, 21: thus, once the Torah has been in thy own mouth, thy seed's, and thy seed's seed &mdash; i.e., three generations &mdash; it shall not depart for ever."
,k85a_26:" I.e., it becomes hereditary in that family."
,k85a_27:" That the Torah should always remain with him."
,k85a_28:" The Palestinian method of study was far simpler than the Babylonian, and R. Zera was anxious that his keen dialectic method acquired in Babylon should not interfere with the clearer course adopted in Palestine. Cf. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 138, n. 11. [On the term 'Gemara' v. <i>supra</i> p. 206, n. 6. Kaplan, <i>op. cit</i>., pp. 258ff., on the basis of his definition, explains that Gemara texts as recorded by different schools frequently presented variations in substance, style and phraseology to the confusion of the student, and it was for freedom from this handicap that R. Zera prayed when he decided to join the school in Palestine.]"
,k85a_29:" [Of Tiberias, where R. Zera was a communal leader and finally became the head of the School.]"
,k85a_30:" He was of short stature."
,k85a_31:" Jer. IX, 11."
,k85a_32:" Lit., 'thing'. "
}

txt:
<p>
the Bene Bathyra, and Jonathan, the son of Saul. 'R. Simeon b. Gamaliel,'<a id="k85a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; as has been said, 'The Bene Bathyra,' as a Master said: They placed him at the head and appointed him Nasi<a id="k85a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; over them.<a id="k85a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Jonathan, the son of Saul,' for he said to David, And thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee.<a id="k85a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But how does this prove it: perhaps Jonathan the son of Saul [spoke thus] because he saw that the people were flocking to David? The Bene Bathyra too, because they saw that Hillel was their superior [in learning]? But R. Simeon b. Gamaliel was certainly very modest.<a id="k85a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbi observed: Suffering is precious.<a id="k85a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon he undertook [to suffer likewise] for thirteen years, six through stones in the kidneys<a id="k85a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and seven through scurvy: others reverse it. Rabbi's house-steward was wealthier than King Shapur.<a id="k85a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; When he placed fodder for the beasts, their cries could be heard for three miles, and he aimed at casting it [before them] just then when Rabbi entered his privy closet, yet even so, his voice [lifted in pain] was louder than theirs, and was heard [even] by sea-farers. Nevertheless, the sufferings of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon were superior [in virtue] to those of Rabbi. For whereas those of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon came to him through love, and departed in love,<a id="k85a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; those of Rabbi came to him through a certain incident, and departed likewise.
</p><p>
	'They came to him through a certain incident.' What is it? &mdash; A calf was being taken to the slaughter, when it broke away, hid his head under Rabbi's skirts, and lowed [in terror]. 'Go', said he, 'for this wast thou created.' Thereupon they said [in Heaven], 'Since he has no pity, let us bring suffering upon him.'
</p><p>
	'And departed likewise.' How so? &mdash; One day Rabbi's maidservant was sweeping the house; [seeing] some young weasels lying there, she made to sweep them away. 'Let them be,' said he to her; 'It is written, and his tender mercies are over all his works.'<a id="k85a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Said they [in Heaven], 'Since he is compassionate, let us be compassionate to him.'
</p><p>
	During all the years that R. Eleazar suffered, no man died prematurely. During all those of Rabbi the world needed no rain;<a id="k85a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; for Rabbah son of R. Shilah said: The day of rain is as hard [to bear]<a id="k85a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; as the day of judgment. And Amemar said: But that it is necessary to the world, the Rabbis would have prayed that it might cease to be. Nevertheless,<a id="k85a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; when a radish was pulled out of its bed, there remained a cavity full of water.
</p><p>
	Rabbi chanced to visit the town of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon.<a id="k85a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Did that righteous man leave a son?' he inquired. 'Yes,' they replied; 'and every harlot whose hire is two [<i>zuz</i>], hires him for eight.'<a id="k85a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; So he had him brought [before him], ordained him a Rabbi,<a id="k85a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and entrusted him to R. Simeon b. Issi b. Lakonia, his mother's brother [to be educated]. Every day he would say, 'I am going to my town; to which he [his instructor] replied, 'They have made you a Sage, spread over you a gold trimmed cloak [at the ceremony of ordination] and designated you "Rabbi", and yet you say, I am going back to my town!' Said he, 'I swear that this [my desire] has been abandoned.' When he became a great [scholar], he went and sat in Rabbi's academy. On hearing his voice, he [Rabbi] observed: 'This voice is similar to that of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon.' 'He is his son,' they [his disciples] told him. Thereupon he applied to him the verse, <i>The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise</i>.<a id="k85a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [Thus:] <i>'The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life'</i> &mdash; this refers to R. Jose, the son of R. Eleazar, the son of R. Simeon;<a id="k85a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>'And he that winneth souls is wise'</i> &mdash; to R. Simeon b. Issi b. Lakonia. When he died, he was carried to his father's burial vault, which was encompassed by a snake. 'O snake, O snake,' they adjured it, 'open thy mouth and let the son enter to his father;' but it would not uncoil for them. Now, the people thought that one was greater than the other,<a id="k85a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but there issued a Heavenly Voice, proclaiming: 'It is not because one is greater than the other, but because one underwent the suffering of the cave, and the other did not.'<a id="k85a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbi chanced to visit the town of R. Tarfon. Said he to them: 'Has that righteous man, who used to swear by the life of his children,<a id="k85a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; left a son?' They replied: 'He has left no son, but a daughter's son remains, and every harlot who is hired for two [<i>zuz</i>] hires him for eight.' So he had him brought before him and said to him: 'Should you repent, I will give you my daughter.' He repented. Some say, he married her [Rabbi's daughter] and divorced her; others, that he did not marry her at all, lest it be said that his repentance was on her account. And why did he [Rabbi] take such [extreme] measures? &mdash; Because, [as] Rab Judah said in Rab's name &mdash; others Say, R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name &mdash; others say, R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: He who teaches Torah to his neighbour's son will be privileged to sit in the Heavenly Academy, for it is written, <i>If thou</i> [sc. Jeremiah] <i>wilt cause [Israel] to repent, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me</i>.<a id="k85a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; And he who teaches Torah to the son of an 'am ha-arez,<a id="k85a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; even if the Holy One, blessed be He, makes a decree, He annuls it for his sake, as it is written, <i>and if thou shalt take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth</i>.<a id="k85a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Parnak said in R. Johanan's name: He who is himself a scholar, and his son is a scholar, and his son's son too, the Torah will nevermore cease from his seed, as it is written, <i>As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.</i><a id="k85a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by <i>'saith the Lord'</i>? &mdash; The Holy one, blessed be He, said, I am surety for thee in this matter. What is the meaning of '<i>from henceforth and for ever'</i>? &mdash; R. Jeremiah said: From henceforth [i.e., after three generations] the Torah seeks its home.<a id="k85a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joseph fasted forty fasts,<a id="k85a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; when he was made to read [in his dream], '<i>They shall not depart out of thy mouth.</i>' He fasted another forty, and was made to read, <i>'They shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed.'</i> He fasted another forty, and was made to read, '<i>They shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed.</i>' Henceforth, said he, I have no need [to fast]; the Torah seeks its home.
</p><p>
	When R. Zera emigrated to Palestine, he fasted a hundred fasts to forget the Babylonian Gemara, that it should not trouble him.<a id="k85a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; He also fasted a hundred times that R. Eleazar might not die in his lifetime, so that the communal cares<a id="k85a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; should not fall upon him. And yet another hundred, that the fire of Gehenna might be powerless against him. Every thirty days he used to examine himself [to see if he were fireproof]. He would heat the oven, ascend, and sit therein, but the fire had no power against him. One day, however, the Rabbis cast an [envious] eye upon him, and his legs were singed, whereafter he was called, 'Short and leg-singed.'<a id="k85a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Rab's name: What is meant by, <i>Who is the wise man, that may understand this? and who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord hath spoken, that he may declare it, why the land perisheth</i>?<a id="k85a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; This question<a id="k85a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k85b_1:" Ibid. 12."
,k85b_2:" The Ran in Ned. 81a explains that it is assumed that the Torah was studied; for otherwise, the question would easily have been answered by the Sages and Prophets. Yet it was studied not for its own sake but only for the preferment it might give. This is expressed by saying that they recited no benediction before studying it, i.e., it was not in itself dear to them. The selfish motive could be known to none but God."
,k85b_3:" Prov. XIV, 33."
,k85b_4:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> His scholarship then stands out, and 'is made known'."
,k85b_5:" But when the Pitcher is filled with stones they have no room for rattling. So also, one scholar in a family of fools achieves fame, whilst a whole family of scholars are taken for granted."
,k85b_6:" Job III, 19."
,k85b_7:" That priests should not go there and become defiled, thus transgressing the law through the instrumentality of righteous men."
,k85b_8:" He could not find its exact spot."
,k85b_9:" The Talmud is divided into six 'orders', viz.: Seeds, Festivals, Women, Damages, Sacred Objects and Purity."
,k85b_10:" Scholars dispute whether Rabbi wrote down the Mishnah after compiling it. It is perhaps noteworthy in this connection that, whereas in this story it is stated that R. Hiyya wrote the five books of Moses, nothing is said about his writing the Mishnah for his pupils. [Though possibly these activities of R. Hiyya cover a period before the final compilation of the Mishnah by Rabbi.]"
,k85b_11:" R. Johanan's cognomen was Bar Nappaha, lit., 'the smith's son'."
,k85b_12:" By which I may distinguish between the carriages of the other Rabbis and R. Hiyya's."
,k85b_13:" His merit being so great, he is not in need of the angel's assistance."
,k85b_14:" There were several sets of Baraithas &mdash; laws not included by Rabbi in his compilation of the Mishnah &mdash; the most important and authentic of which were those by R. Hiyya and R. Oshaia."
,k85b_15:" Yet the redness of the burning was still perceptible."
,k85b_16:" If they prayed simultaneously."
,k85b_17:" In the synagogue of Talmudic times the reading-desk was on a lower level than the rest of the building. On fast days, according to the Midrash Tanhuma on [H], three men led the congregation in prayer, instead of one, as usual."
,k85b_18:" V. P. B. p. 44."
,k85b_19:" That R. Hiyya's prayers are so efficacious."
,k85b_20:" [H], the Lunar Expert or Astronomer. The word is an epithet of Samuel, the Babylonian amora, on account of his great astronomical skill, v. R.H. 20b."
,k85b_21:" The vapour being sufficiently powerful to penetrate to the eye, though not applied directly."
,k85b_22:" Lit., 'grieved'."
,k85b_23:" Possibly he could not assemble the Ordination Board."
,k85b_24:" [Cf. Gen. V, 1. This is not to be confused with the Apocryphal Book of Adam known in many versions (v. J. E. I, 179f), but a book which God showed to Adam containing the genealogy of the whole human race, and which is the Jewish form of the view prevalent among Babylonians (v. Ginszberg, Legends, VI, p. 82), though this does not mean to imply that there was no Jewish version of the Book of Adam current in the days of Rabbi. Funk, Monumenta, I, p. 324, however, on the basis of Babylonian parallels, where the stars are described as the 'writing of Heaven', renders the statement of Rabbi simply to mean, 'I have seen it written in the stars'.] "
}

txt:
<p>
was put by the Sages, but they could not answer it; by the prophets, but they [too] could not answer it, until the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself resolved as it is written, <i>And the Lord said, Because they have forsaken my law which I set before them</i>.<a id="k85b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah said in Rab's name: [That means] that they did not first utter a benediction over the Torah [before studying it].<a id="k85b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hama said: What is meant by, Wisdom resteth in the heart of him that hath understanding; but that which is in the midst of fools is made known?<a id="k85b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Wisdom resteth in the heart of him that hath understanding' &mdash; this refers to a scholar, the son of a scholar; 'but that which is in the midst of fools is made known' &mdash; to a scholar, the son of an 'am ha-arez.<a id="k85b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Said 'Ulla: Thus it is proverbial, One stone in a pitcher cries out 'rattle, rattle.'<a id="k85b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Jeremiah questioned R. Zera: What is meant by, The small and great are there [sc. the next world]; and the servant is free from his master?<a id="k85b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Do we then not know that 'the small and great are there'? &mdash; But [it means that] he who humbles himself for the sake of the Torah in this world is magnified in the next; and he who makes himself a servant to the [study of the] Torah in this world becomes free in the next.
</p><p>
	Resh Lakish was marking the burial vaults of the Rabbis.<a id="k85b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But when he came to the grave of R. Hiyya, it was hidden from him,<a id="k85b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; whereat he experienced a sense of humiliation. 'Sovereign of the Universe!' he exclaimed, 'did I not debate on the Torah as he did?' Thereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out in reply: 'You did indeed debate on the Torah as he did, but did not spread the Torah as he did.' Whenever R. Hanina and R. Hiyya were in a dispute, R. Hanina said to R. Hiyya: 'Would you dispute with me? If, Heaven forfend! the Torah were forgotten in Israel, I would restore it by my argumentative powers.' To which R. Hiyya rejoined: 'Would you dispute with me, who achieved that the Torah should not be forgotten in Israel? What did I do? I went and sowed flax, made nets [from the flax cords], trapped deers, whose flesh I gave to orphans, and prepared scrolls [from their skins], upon which I wrote the five books [of Moses]. Then I went to a town [which contained no teachers] and taught the five books to five children, and the six orders [of the Talmud] to six children<a id="k85b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; And I bade them: "Until I return, teach each other the Pentateuch and the Mishnah;" and thus I preserved the Torah from being forgotten in Israel.'<a id="k85b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; This is what Rabbi [meant when he] said, 'How great are the works of Hiyya!' Said R. Ishmael son of R. Jose to him, '[Are they] even [greater] than yours?' 'Yes,' he replied, 'And even than my father's.' 'Heaven forfend!' he rejoined, 'Let not such a thing be [heard] in Israel!'
</p><p>
	R. Zera said: Last night R. Jose son of R. Hanina appeared to me [in a dream], and I asked him, 'Near whom art thou seated [in the Heavenly Academy]?' &mdash; 'Near R. Johanan.' 'And R. Johanan near whom?' &mdash; 'R. Jannai.' 'And R. Jannai?' &mdash; 'Near R. Hanina.' 'And R. Hanina?' &mdash; 'Near R. Hiyya.' Said I to him, 'And is not R. Johanan [worthy of a seat] near R. Hiyya?' &mdash; He replied, 'In the region of fiery sparks and flaming tongues, who will let the smith's son enter?<a id="k85b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Habiba said: R. Habiba b. Surmakia told me: I saw one of the Rabbis whom Elijah used to frequent, whose eyes were clear in the morning, but in the evening they looked as though burnt in fire. I questioned him, 'What is the meaning of this?' And he answered me [thus]: 'I requested Elijah to shew me the [departed] Rabbis as they ascend to the Heavenly Academy. He replied: "Thou canst look upon all, excepting the carriage of R. Hiyya: upon it thou shalt not look." "What is their sign?"12 "All are accompanied by angels when they ascend and descend, excepting R. Hiyya's carriage, who ascends and descends of his own accord."13 But unable to control my desire, I gazed upon it, whereat two fiery streams issued forth, smote and blinded me in one eye. The following day I went and prostrated myself upon his grave, crying out, "It is thy Baraitha that I study!"14 and I was healed.'<a id="k85b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Elijah used to frequent Rabbi's academy. One day &mdash; it was New Moon &mdash; he was waiting for him, but he failed to come. Said he to him [the next day]: 'Why didst thou delay?' &mdash; He replied: '[I had to wait] until I awoke Abraham, washed his hands, and he prayed and I put him to rest again; likewise to Isaac and Jacob.' 'But why not awake them together?' &mdash; 'I feared that they would wax strong in prayer<a id="k85b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and bring the Messiah before his time.' 'And is their like to be found in this world?' he asked. &mdash; 'There is R. Hiyya and his sons', he replied. Thereupon Rabbi proclaimed a fast, and R. Hiyya and his sons were bidden to descend [to the reading desk].<a id="k85b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; As he [R. Hiyya] exclaimed, 'He causeth the wind to blow', a wind blew; he proceeded, 'he causeth the rain to descend', whereat the rain descended. When he was about to say, 'He quickeneth the dead',<a id="k85b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; the universe trembled, [and] in Heaven it was asked, 'Who hath revealed our secret to the world?'<a id="k85b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Elijah', they replied. Elijah was therefore brought and smitten with sixty flaming lashes; so he went, disguised himself as a fiery bear, entered amongst and scattered them.
</p><p>
	Samuel Yarhina'ah<a id="k85b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; was Rabbi's physician. Now, Rabbi having contracted an eye disease, Samuel offered to bathe it with a lotion, but he said, 'I cannot bear it.' 'Then I will apply an ointment to it,' he said. 'This too I cannot bear,' he objected. So he placed a phial of chemicals under his pillow, and he was healed.<a id="k85b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi was most anxious<a id="k85b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; to ordain him, but the opportunity was lacking.<a id="k85b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Let it not grieve thee, he said; I have seen the Book of Adam,<a id="k85b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; in which is written, 'Samuel Yarhina'ah
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k86a_1:" [According to Sherira Gaon, Letter, p. 95, (ed. Lewin) the reference is to Rabina II, son of R. Huna.]"
,k86a_2:" Rashi: Before Rabbi, the Mishnah was in no systematic order, each Tanna teaching in which order he desired. Rabbi compiled and arranged these teachings in a systematized order, admitting those which he considered authentic and rejecting others. This compilation formed the basic code of Jewish law (though Weiss, Dor. II, p. 183, maintains that he never intended it to be authoritative); subsequently scholars might define and explain it, and deduce new laws from it, but not dispute with it. In the course of time the discussions on the Mishnah grew to very large dimensions, and it was the work of Rabina and R. Ashi to compile the huge mass of accumulated material and give it an orderly arrangement. This is expressed by saying that they were at the end of authentic teaching (hora'ah), i.e., they edited the Talmud. [The signification of the term hora'ah is obscure and has been variously explained: (a) transmission of the oral Law; (b) the insertion by scholars of halachic matter in the Talmud; (c) the right to change the Talmud whether in substance or form; (d) legislative activity, v. Kaplan, <i>op. cit</i>., pp. 34 and 289ff.]"
,k86a_3:" Ps. LXXIII, 17; [H] ('sanctuary') bears a slight resemblance to [H] (Ashi), and [H] ('understood') to [H] (Rabina): thus R. Ashi and Rabina are 'their end', sc. of the Talmud."
,k86a_4:" <i>Var. lec</i>.: Hama."
,k86a_5:" [Sherira, letter, P. 87: 'persecution of the Law'.]"
,k86a_6:" They used to flock to the academy in Nisan and Tishri, the months of popular lectures, and in consequence the tax-collectors could not obtain their taxes for these months. So Rashi. [The Karasa (poll-tax) appears to have been payable monthly, and the absence of so many tax-payers during these two months in the year (according to Sherira, Adar and Elul, litter, p. 87) was responsible for a drop in the monthly royal revenue. There was, however, no question of evading the tax, as the arrears could in any case be collected with subsequent payments. Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 237. For another explanation connecting it with the exemption of scholars from taxes, (cf. B.B. 8a) v. J. Kaplan. Horeb (New York 1934), I.; 1, pp. 42ff. 1.]"
,k86a_7:" There is only an [H] (Akra di Agama) mentioned elsewhere in the Talmud (v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 529, n. 11), and Neubauer p. 368, n. 2, suggests that the same should be read here too."
,k86a_8:" [All these places appear to be in the neighbourhood of Pumbeditha. 'Ena Damim is probably to be identified with the village Dimima on the canal Nahr 'Isa on the Euphrates; Sahin and Zarifa cannot be exactly located. Obermeyer, <i>loc. cit</i>. n. 3.]"
,k86a_9:" To drink an even number of glasses would excite the ill-will of certain demons; he had thus been unintentionally placed in danger."
,k86a_10:" V. Lev. XIII, 1-3. As stated here, the bright spot must appear first, and then the white hair."
,k86a_11:" It is a daring fancy to picture the Almighty disputing with the Heavenly Academy on one of His own laws, but is in keeping with the spirit of Talmudic inquiry that the Law once having been given, it is for man to interpret it. Cf. <i>supra</i> 59b."
,k86a_12:" Lit., 'prove it'."
,k86a_13:" Lit., 'unique'."
,k86a_14:" I.e., uncleanliness caused by the dead."
,k86a_15:" Lit., 'his mouth'."
,k86a_16:" As though the subject of the Heavenly controversy had already been communicated to him."
,k86a_17:" Lit., 'sought for'."
,k86a_18:" [The canal passing through Pumbeditha. Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 237.]"
,k86a_19:" Because the beginning of this narrative portion (<i>aggadah</i>) deals with R. Eleazar b. Simeon, who was very fat, a story is related about another fat man (Rashi)."
,k86a_20:" When a particular law is followed by a general proposition in this form, it is axiomatic that its purpose is to extend the law to a case that does not obviously follow from the first."
,k86a_21:" [Lit., 'to wrap the bread', to break a piece of bread and place some relish in between. For a discussion of the phrase, v. Krauss, T.A. III, 51.]"
,k86a_22:" [H] = 1 <i>log</i>."
,k86a_23:" That the workmen should eat and drink before their day starts."
,k86a_24:" After stating that everything depends on local custom, the Tanna narrates a story which contradicts this, for custom certainly fixed the limits of the meals. "
}

txt:
<p>
shall be called "Sage'', but not "Rabbi'', and Rabbi's healing shall come through him. Rabbi and R. Nathan conclude the Mishnah, R. Ashi and Rabina<a id="k86a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; conclude [authentic] teaching,<a id="k86a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and a sign thereof is the verse, <i>Until I went to the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end</i>.'<a id="k86a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Kahana said: R. Hama, the son of the daughter of Hassa,<a id="k86a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; related to me [that] Rabbah b. Nahmani died through persecution,<a id="k86a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; information having been laid against him to the State. Said they [the informers]: There is an Israelite who keeps back twelve thousand Israelites from the payment of the royal poll-tax one month in summer and one in winter.<a id="k86a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon a royal officer was sent for him, but did not find him. He [Rabbah] then fled from Pumbeditha to Akra, from Akra to Agama,<a id="k86a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; from Agama to Sahin, from Sahin to Zarifa, from Zarifa to 'Ena Damim,<a id="k86a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and thence back to Pumbeditha. In Pumbeditha he found him; for the royal officer chanced to visit the same inn where Rabbah [was hiding]. Now, they placed a tray before him [the royal officer], gave him two glasses of liquor, and then removed the tray;<a id="k86a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; whereupon his face was turned backward [by demons]. 'What shall we do with him?' said they [the inn attendants] to him [Rabbah]; 'he is a royal officer.' 'Offer him the tray again,' he replied, 'and let him drink another goblet; then remove the tray, and he will recover.' They did so, and he recovered. 'I know,' said he, 'that the man whom I require is here;' he searched for and found him. He then said, 'I will depart from here; if I am slain, I will not disclose [his whereabouts]; but if tortured, I will.' He was then brought before him, and he led him into a chamber and locked the door upon him [to keep him there as a prisoner]. But he [Rabbah] prayed, whereupon the wall fell down, and he fled to Agama; there he sat upon the trunk of a [fallen] palm and studied. Now, they were disputing in the Heavenly Academy thus: If the bright spot preceded the white hair, he is unclean; if the reverse, he is clean.<a id="k86a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; If [the order is] in doubt &mdash; the Holy One, blessed be He, ruled, He is clean; whilst the entire Heavenly Academy maintained, He is unclean.<a id="k86a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Who shall decide<a id="k86a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; it? said they. &mdash; Rabbah b. Nahmani; for he said, I am pre-eminent<a id="k86a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; in the laws of leprosy and tents.<a id="k86a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; A messenger was sent for him, but the Angel of Death could not approach him, because he<a id="k86a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; did not interrupt his studies [even for a moment]. In the meantime, a wind blew and caused a rustling in the bushes, when he imagined it to be a troop of soldiers. 'Let me die,' he exclaimed, 'rather than be delivered into the hands of the State. As he was dying, he exclaimed, 'Clean, clean!'<a id="k86a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; when a Heavenly Voice cried out, 'Happy art thou, O Rabbah b. Nahmani, whose body is pure and whose soul had departed in purity!' A missive fell from Heaven in Pumbeditha, [upon which was written,] 'Rabbah b. Nahmani has been summoned<a id="k86a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; by the Heavenly Academy. So Abaye and Raba and all the scholars went forth to attend on him [at his burial], but they did not know his whereabouts. They went to Agama and saw birds stationed there and overshadowing it [to give protection]. 'This', said they, 'proves that he is there. They bewailed him for three days and three nights; but there fell a missive from Heaven, 'He who [will now] hold aloof [from the lamentations] shall be under a ban.' So they bewailed him for seven days, and then there fell a missive from Heaven, 'Return in peace to your homes.' On the day that he died a hurricane lifted an Arab who was riding a camel, and transported him from one bank of the River Papa<a id="k86a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; to the other. 'What does this portend?' he exclaimed. &mdash; 'Rabbah b. Nahmani has died,' he was told. 'Sovereign of the Universe!' he cried out. 'The whole world is Thine, and Rabbah b. Nahmani too is Thine. Thou art [the Friend] of Rabbah, and Rabbah is Thine; why dost Thou destroy the world on his account!' Thereupon the storm subsided.
</p><p>
	R. Simeon b. Halafta was a fat man.<a id="k86a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; One day, feeling hot, he climbed up, sat on a mountain boulder, and said to his daughter, 'Daughter, fan me with a fan, and I will give you bundles of spikenard.' Just then, however, a breeze arose, whereat he observed, 'How many bundles of spikenard [do I owe] to the Master of the [breeze]?'
</p><p>
	EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON LOCAL CUSTOM. What does EVERYTHING add?<a id="k86a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The case where it is customary to break bread<a id="k86a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; and drink a small measure [of liquor];<a id="k86a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; if he [the employer] demanded of them, 'Come early, that I may bring it to you,'<a id="k86a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; they can answer, 'You have no power [to demand this].'
</p><p>
	IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT R. JOHANAN B. MATHIA SAID TO HIS SON, 'GO OUT AND ENGAGE' etc. A story [is quoted] contradicting [the stated law]!<a id="k86a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The text is defective, and should read thus: But if he stipulates to provide them with food,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k86b_1:" I.e., where local usage is to give food, no stipulation need be made. Hence, if it was, it can only mean that he was to give them more than usual."
,k86b_2:" I Kings V, 2f."
,k86b_3:" Cooks used to place dough above the pot, to absorb the steam and vapour."
,k86b_4:" Gen. XVIII, 7."
,k86b_5:" I.e., each adjective denotes another. Hence the two passages prove that Solomon's meals were infinitely larger than Abraham's."
,k86b_6:" I Kings IV, 20."
,k86b_7:" The idleness made them extra fat."
,k86b_8:" I.e., had no brood."
,k86b_9:" R. Johanan treats the adj. 'fatted' as referring to all the animals enumerated."
,k86b_10:" Be Botni; so Rashi. Jast. conjectures this to be a geographical term."
,k86b_11:" Through fatness. This is Amemar's explanation of 'fatted fowl'."
,k86b_12:" I.e., implying another."
,k86b_13:" Since the first adjective has no copulative."
,k86b_14:" Gen. XVIII, 7; thus the singular is used."
,k86b_15:" Ibid. 8; thus there was only one young man."
,k86b_16:" This was esteemed as a great delicacy."
,k86b_17:" Thus conforming to, 'When in Rome, do as Rome does'."
,k86b_18:" Lit., 'a servant'."
,k86b_19:" Num. XI, 31."
,k86b_20:" Ex. XVI, 4."
,k86b_21:" Ibid. XVII, 6."
,k86b_22:" Gen. XVIII, 16."
,k86b_23:" Ex. XIII, 21."
,k86b_24:" Gen. XVIII, 4; this implies an order to a servant."
,k86b_25:" Ex. XVII, 6."
,k86b_26:" [H], lit., 'the standing (column) of cloud.'"
,k86b_27:" Miriam's well corresponds to the verse quoted above: and thou shalt smite the rock, etc. The dispute is in respect of 'and he stood by them': according to Rab, his reward was the promise contained in 'behold, I will stand before thee there by the rock'; whereas in R. Hama b. R. Hanina's opinion, it was the 'pillar of cloud'. [This is an illustration of the principle 'measure for measure', which is God's guiding rule for reward and punishment.]"
,k86b_28:" Gen. XVIII, 4;"
,k86b_29:" I.e., thine own son does so."
,k86b_30:" Gen. XVIII, 1."
,k86b_31:" When one is particularly weak. Cf. Gen. XXXIV, 25."
,k86b_32:" I.e., He made it pour forth all its heat."
,k86b_33:" Gen. XVIII, 3. He called himself 'thy servant', because he was speaking to God."
,k86b_34:" Ibid. 2."
,k86b_35:" So they removed to a distance; hence it is first said that they 'stood by him', and then that 'he ran to meet them'."
,k86b_36:" Heb. [H] means 'healer of God'."
,k86b_37:" Gabriel means 'strength of God'."
,k86b_38:" Gen. XIX, 1."
,k86b_39:" Ibid. 25."
,k86b_40:" Ibid. XVIII, 5: they immediately accepted the invitation. "
}

txt:
<p>
he thereby increases [his obligations] to them.<a id="k86b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; And IT ONCE HAPPENED LIKEWISE THAT R. JOHANAN B. MATHIA SAID TO HIS SON, 'GO OUT AND ENGAGE LABOURERS.' HE WENT, AND AGREED TO SUPPLY THEM WITH FOOD. BUT WHEN HE RETURNED TO HIS FATHER, HE SAID TO HIM, 'MY SON, SHOULD YOU EVEN PREPARE A BANQUET FOR THEM LIKE SOLOMON'S, WHEN IN HIS GLORY, YOU CANNOT FULFIL YOUR DUTY, FOR THEY ARE THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB.'
</p><p>
	Shall we say that the meals of Abraham, the Patriarch, were superior to those of Solomon; but is it not written, <i>And Solomon's provisions for one day were thirty measures of fine flour and three score measures of meal. Ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of the pastures, and an hundred sheep, besides harts, and roebucks, and fallowdeer, and fatted fowl</i>:<a id="k86b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; whereon Gorion b. Astion said in Rab's name: These were for the cook's dough;<a id="k86b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Isaac said: These [animals] were but for the [mincemeat] puddings. Moreover, said R. Isaac, Solomon had a thousand wives, and each prepared this quantity in her own house. Why? Each reasoned, 'He may dine in my house to-day.' Whereas of Abraham it is said, <i>And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good</i>:<a id="k86b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; whereon Rab observed: <i>'A calf</i>,' means one; <i>'tender'</i> &mdash; two; <i>and 'good'</i> &mdash; three!<a id="k86b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There the three calves were for three men, whereas here [the provisions enumerated] were for all Israel and Judah, as it is written, <i>Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude</i>.<a id="k86b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What is meant by <i>'fatted fowl'</i>? &mdash; Rab said: [Fowls] fed against their will. Samuel said: [Fowls] naturally fat. R. Johanan said: Oxen which had never toiled<a id="k86b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; were brought from the pastures, and likewise fowls [that had never toiled]<a id="k86b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; from their dungheaps.<a id="k86b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: The best of cattle is the ox; the best of birds is the fowl. Amemar said: A fattened black hen<a id="k86b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; which moves about the vats, and which cannot step over a stick.<a id="k86b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<i>And Abraham ran unto the herd and fetched a calf, tender and good</i>. Rab said: <i>'A calf'</i>, means one; <i>'tender'</i> &mdash; two; and <i>'good'</i> &mdash; three. But perhaps it [all means] one, as people say, a tender and good [calf]? &mdash; If so, Scripture should have written, [a calf] tender, good; why 'and' good? This proves that it is for exegesis.<a id="k86b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Then perhaps it means two?<a id="k86b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Since 'good' is for exegesis, 'tender' [too] is for the same purpose. Rabbah b. 'Ulla &mdash; others say, R. Hoshaia &mdash; and others again Say, R. Nathan son of R. Hoshaia objected: And he gave unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it?<a id="k86b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He gave each to one young man. [But is it not written] And he took butter and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them?<a id="k86b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [This means,] each, as soon as it was ready, was brought before them. But why three? Would not one have sufficed? &mdash; R. Hanan b. Raba said: In order to offer them three tongues with mustard.<a id="k86b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Tanhum b. Hanilai said: One should never break away from custom. For behold, Moses ascended on High and ate no bread, whereas the Ministering Angels descended below and ate bread.<a id="k86b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; 'And ate' &mdash; can you really think so! &mdash; But say, appeared to eat and drink.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Everything which Abraham personally did for the Ministering Angels, the Holy One, blessed be He, did in person for his sons; and whatever Abraham did through a messenger,<a id="k86b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; the Holy One, blessed be He, did for his sons through a messenger. [Thus:] And Abraham ran unto the herd &mdash; And there went forth a wind from the Lord;<a id="k86b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and he took butter, and milk<a id="k86b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you;<a id="k86b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and he stood by them under the tree &mdash; Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock, etc.;<a id="k86b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; And Abraham went with them to bring them on the way<a id="k86b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; And the Lord went before them by day;<a id="k86b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched<a id="k86b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink.<a id="k86b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; But he is thus in conflict with R. Hama son of R. Hanina. For R. Hama son of R. Hanina said, and the School of Ishmael taught likewise: As a reward for three things [done by Abraham] they [his descendants] obtained three things. Thus: As a reward for, [and he took] butter and milk, they received the manna; as a reward for, And he stood by them, they received the pillar of cloud;<a id="k86b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; as a reward for, Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, they were granted Miriam's well.<a id="k86b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<i>Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet</i>:<a id="k86b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jannai son of R. Ishmael said: They [the travellers] protested to him [Abraham], 'Dost thou suspect us of being Arabs, who worship the dust on their feet? Ishmael has already issued from thee.'<a id="k86b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<i>And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day.</i><a id="k86b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by <i>'in the heat of the day'</i>? &mdash; R. Hama son of R. Hanina said: It was the third day from Abraham's circumcision,<a id="k86b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Holy One, blessed be He, came to enquire after Abraham's health; [moreover,] he drew the sun out of its sheath,<a id="k86b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; so that the righteous man [sc. Abraham] should not be troubled with wayfarers. He sent Eliezer out [to seek travellers], but he found none. Said he, 'I do not believe thee'. (Hence they say there &mdash; sc. in Palestine &mdash; slaves are not to be believed.) So he himself went out, and saw the Holy One, blessed be He, standing at the door; thus it is written, <i>Pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant</i>.<a id="k86b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; But on seeing him tying and untying [the bandages of his circumcision], He said, 'It is not well that I stand here'; hence it is written, <i>And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and lo, three men stood by him, and when he saw them, he ran to meet them</i>:<a id="k86b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; at first they came and stood over him, but when they saw him in pain, they said, 'It is not seemly to stand here.'<a id="k86b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Who were the three men? &mdash; Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. Michael came to bring the tidings to Sarah [of Isaac's birth]; Raphael, to heal Abraham;<a id="k86b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; and Gabriel, to overturn Sodom.<a id="k86b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; But is it not written, <i>And there came the two angels to Sodom at even</i>?<a id="k86b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Michael accompanied him to rescue Lot. [The Writ] supports this too, for it is written, <i>And</i> he <i>overthrew those cities</i>,<a id="k86b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; not, and <i>they</i> overthrew: this proves it.
</p><p>
	Why is it written in the case of Abraham, [<i>And they said</i>,] <i>So do, as thou hast said</i>;<a id="k86b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas of Lot it is written,
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k87a_1:" Ibid. XIX, 3."
,k87a_2:" In declining his invitation."
,k87a_3:" Ibid. XVIII, 5."
,k87a_4:" Ibid. 7 &mdash; very much more than he offered."
,k87a_5:" Ibid. XXIII, 15."
,k87a_6:" Ibid. 16."
,k87a_7:" <i>Centenarius</i> = 100 <i>manehs</i>; a <i>maneh</i> = 100 <i>zuz</i> = 25 <i>shekels</i>."
,k87a_8:" Hence he gave him 400 <i>centenaria</i>, instead of ordinary <i>shekels</i> as he demanded at first: this is deduced from the phrase 'current money with the merchant', implying that it was recognised everywhere as a <i>shekel</i>."
,k87a_9:" Ibid. XVIII, 6: <i>And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of</i> [H]; the two words being apparently mutually exclusive."
,k87a_10:" [Thus Abraham had to give her clear and specific instructions to provide fine meal; v. Meklenburg, J.Z. [H] a.l.]"
,k87a_11:" Ibid."
,k87a_12:" Ibid. 8."
,k87a_13:" Probably the disputant. [Or perhaps name of a place; v. Klein, <I>MGWJ</I>, 1920, P. 192.]"
,k87a_14:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k87a_15:" I.e., he treated <i>hullin</i> as consecrated food, which may not he eaten when defiled."
,k87a_16:" And so defiled the bread she had baked. As she was already old, the phenomenon was an earnest of the rejuvenation which was to make the birth of Isaac possible."
,k87a_17:" Ibid. 9."
,k87a_18:" And therefore kept herself secluded."
,k87a_19:" By impressing him with her modesty."
,k87a_20:" [The wine-cup over which the Grace after meals is recited and which is partaken by all the guests. V. Ber. 51a.]"
,k87a_21:" And they said unto him, [H], is written [H]; [H] means, 'where is he?'"
,k87a_22:" Thus they asked Sarah, Where is he (sc. Abraham)' just as they asked him about her (Tosaf.). [Rashi interprets: that a man should enquire (of the host) about the hostess. On dotted letters, v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 285, n. 3.]"
,k87a_23:" According to Tosaf.'s interpretation of the preceding dictum, this question cannot refer to it, but to the literal meaning of the verse, that they enquired after Sarah."
,k87a_24:" Ibid. 12."
,k87a_25:" Ibid. 12."
,k87a_26:" Ibid. 13."
,k87a_27:" [I.e., God did not report that part of her statement which referred to Abraham's old age, [H], a.l.]"
,k87a_28:" Ibid. XXI, 7."
,k87a_29:" Seeing that she had only one."
,k87a_30:" Ibid. XXV, 19."
,k87a_31:" I.e., old age did not mark a Person."
,k87a_32:" Because they looked exactly alike."
,k87a_33:" Gen. XXIV, 1. He is the first mentioned to have been ill."
,k87a_34:" One lived his allotted years in full health and then died suddenly."
,k87a_35:" Ibid. XLVIII, 1; v. preceding note."
,k87a_36:" II Kings XIII, 14."
,k87a_37:" Lit., 'with a different sickness'."
,k87a_38:" V. Sanh. 107b."
,k87a_39:" V. II Kings II, 23f."
,k87a_40:" I.e., bread and beans."
,k87a_41:" Libruth, a river or canal, unidentified. [For various attempts to explain the phrase. v. Perles, J. Beitrage z. rab. Sprach u. Alter., 1893, p. 6.]"
,k87a_42:" V. p. 496, n. 3."
,k87a_43:" And R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's principle teaches the view of the Sages."
,k87a_44:" I.e., when it is removed from the soil."
,k87a_45:" I.e., before it reaches the stage of being liable to tithes or the 'separation of dough'. "
}

txt:
<p>
<i>And he pressed upon them greatly</i>?<a id="k87a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Eleazar said: This teaches that one may shew unwillingness to an inferior person,<a id="k87a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but not to a great man.
</p><p>
	It is written, <i>And I will fetch a morsel of bread</i>;<a id="k87a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but it is also written, <i>And Abraham ran unto the herd</i>:<a id="k87a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Eleazar: This teaches that righteous men promise little and perform much; whereas the wicked promise much and do not perform even little. Whence do we know [the latter half]? &mdash; From Ephron. At first it is written, <i>The land is worth four hundred <i>shekels</i> of silver</i>;<a id="k87a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but subsequently, <i>And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred <i>shekels</i> of silver, current money with the merchant</i>;<a id="k87a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; indicating that he refused to accept anything but <i>centenaria</i>,<a id="k87a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; for there is a place where <i>shekels</i> are called <i>centenaria</i>.<a id="k87a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Scripture writes, [<i>ordinary</i>] <i>meal</i>, and [it is then written], <i>fine meal</i>!<a id="k87a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Isaac: This shews that a woman looks with a more grudging eye upon guests than a man.<a id="k87a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It is written, <i>Knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth</i>;<a id="k87a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but it is also written, <i>And he took butter and milk, and the calf</i>;<a id="k87a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; yet he brought no bread before them! &mdash; Ephraim Maksha'ah,<a id="k87a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; a disciple of R. Meir, said in his teacher's name: Our Patriarch Abraham ate <i>hullin</i><a id="k87a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; only when undefiled,<a id="k87a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and that day our mother Sarah had her menstrual period.<a id="k87a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<i>And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, She is in the tent</i>:<a id="k87a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; this is to inform us that she was modest.<a id="k87a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The Ministering Angels knew that our mother Sarah was in the tent, but why [bring out the fact that she was] in her tent? In order to make her beloved to her husband.<a id="k87a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: In order to send her the wine-cup of Benediction.<a id="k87a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been taught on the authority of R. Jose: Why are the letters <i>ejw</i> in <i>elajw</i> dotted?<a id="k87a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; The Torah thereby taught etiquette, that a man must enquire of his hostess [about his host].<a id="k87a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; But did not Samuel say: One must not inquire at all after a woman's well-being?<a id="k87a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [When enquiry is made] through her husband, it is different [and permitted].
</p><p>
	<i>After I have waxed old, I have had youth</i>.<a id="k87a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda said: After the flesh is worn and the wrinkles have multiplied, the flesh was rejuvenated, the wrinkles were smoothed out, and beauty returned to its place.
</p><p>
	It is written, <i>And</i> my lord is<i> old</i>;<a id="k87a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; but it is also written, [<i>And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child,] seeing that I am old</i>?<a id="k87a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; the Holy One, blessed be He, not putting the question in her words! &mdash; The School of Ishmael taught: Peace is a precious thing, for even the Holy One, blessed be He, made a variation for its sake, as it is written, <i>Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old, shall I have pleasure, my Lord being old also</i>; whereas it is further written,<i> And the Lord said unto Abraham</i> etc&hellip;<i>seeing that I am old</i>.<a id="k87a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<i>And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck</i>?<a id="k87a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; How many children then did Sarah suckle?<a id="k87a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Levi said: On the day that Abraham weaned his son Isaac, he made a great banquet, and all the peoples of the world derided him, saying, 'Have you seen that old man and woman, who brought a foundling from the street, and now claim him as their son! And what is more, they make a great banquet to establish their claim!' What did our father Abraham do? &mdash; He went and invited all the great men of the age, and our mother Sarah invited their wives. Each one brought her child with her, but not the wetnurse, and a miracle happened unto our mother Sarah, her breasts opened like two fountains, and she suckled them all. Yet they still scoffed, saying, 'Granted that Sarah could give birth at the age of ninety, could Abraham beget [child] at the age of a hundred?' Immediately the lineaments of Isaac's visage changed and became like Abraham's, whereupon they all cried out, Abraham begat Isaac.<a id="k87a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Until Abraham there was no old age;<a id="k87a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; whoever wished to speak to Abraham would speak to Isaac, and the reverse.<a id="k87a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon he prayed, and old age came into existence, as it is written, <i>And Abraham was old and well-stricken in age</i>.<a id="k87a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; Until Jacob there was no illness:<a id="k87a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; then Jacob came and prayed, and illness came into being, as it is written, And one told Joseph, Behold, thy father is sick.<a id="k87a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Until Elisha no sick man ever recovered, but Elijah came and prayed, and he recovered, for it is written, Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness whereof he died,'<a id="k87a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; thus proving that he had been sick on previous occasions too,<a id="k87a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; [but had recovered].
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: On three occasions did Elisha fall sick: once when he repulsed Gehazi with both hands;<a id="k87a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; a second time when he incited bears against children;<a id="k87a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; and a third with the sickness whereof he died, as it is written, Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness whereof he died.<a id="k87a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</p><p>
	BUT, BEFORE THEY BEGIN WORK, GO OUT AND TELL THEM, '[I ENGAGE YOU] ON CONDITION THAT YOU HAVE NO OTHER CLAIM UPON ME BUT BREAD AND PULSE' etc.
</p><p>
	R. Aha, the son of R. Joseph, said to R. Hisda: Did we learn, 'Bread [made] of pulse,' or 'bread and pulse'? &mdash; He replied: In very truth, a <i>waw</i> ['and'] is necessary<a id="k87a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; as large as a rudder on the Libruth.<a id="k87a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IT WAS UNNECESSARY [TO STIPULATE THUS]: EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON LOCAL CUSTOM. What does EVERYTHING add?<a id="k87a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It adds that which has been taught: If one engages a labourer, and stipulates, '[I will pay you] as one or two townspeople [are paid],' he must remunerate him with the lowest wage [paid]: this is R. Joshua's view. But the Sages say: An average must be struck.<a id="k87a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. NOW, THE FOLLOWING [LABOURERS] MAY EAT [OF THAT UPON WHICH THEY ARE EMPLOYED] ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURAL LAW: HE WHO IS ENGAGED UPON THAT WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE SOIL WHEN ITS LABOUR IS FINISHED,<a id="k87a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; AND UPON THAT WHICH IS DETACHED FROM THE SOIL BEFORE ITS LABOUR IS COMPLETED,<a id="k87a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; PROVIDING THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT GROWS FROM THE EARTH. BUT THE FOLLOWING MAY NOT EAT: HE WHO IS ENGAGED UPON THAT WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE SOIL
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k87b_1:" In the sense stated in n. 2."
,k87b_2:" E.g., one who milks cows or makes cheeses may not partake of the milk or cheese."
,k87b_3:" Deut. XXIII, 25. Further on it is explained that the verse refers to a labourer."
,k87b_4:" I.e., when the grapes are vintaged."
,k87b_5:" That the law applies to other products too."
,k87b_6:" Ibid. 26."
,k87b_7:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k87b_8:" E.g., crops of beans, which are not liable to <i>hallah</i>."
,k87b_9:" Ibid. XVI, 9. The reference is to the <i>'omer</i> of barley brought on the second day of Passover. cf. Lev. XXIII, 10: barley is liable to <i>hallah</i>."
,k87b_10:" Wine for libations and meal for meal offerings."
,k87b_11:" Most of the meal offerings were mingled with oil."
,k87b_12:" The word translated 'vineyard' in Deut. XXIII, 25."
,k87b_13:" Judg. XV, 5."
,k87b_14:" That the common feature is that they are employed in connection with the altar."
,k87b_15:" I.e., when the cereals are ready to be cut off with the sickle."
,k87b_16:" Deut. XXIII, 25. This shews that the reference is to those which can be put in a vessel. sc. removed from the soil."
,k87b_17:" E.g., the harvesting of dates. How do we know that the labourer may eat of them?"
,k87b_18:" Lit., 'standing', E.V.: standing corn."
,k87b_19:" I.e., all crops."
,k87b_20:" V. <i>supra</i>."
,k87b_21:" For the vineyard too may be deduced thus."
,k87b_22:" Ibid. XXIV, 14, 15."
,k87b_23:" The text has [H], Cuthean, but under the influence of the censorship this word was frequently substituted for Gentile. The deduction is, only in an Israelite's vineyard is the labourer enjoined, <i>but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel</i>, but not in a Gentile's."
,k87b_24:" The robbery of a heathen, even if permitted, is only so in theory, but in fact it is forbidden as constituting a 'hillul hashem', profanation of the Divine Name. But the consensus of opinion is that it is Biblically forbidden too, i.e., even in theory; v. H.M. 348, 2, and commentaries a.l.; Yad, Genebah, 1, 2; 6, 8; v. however, n. 9."
,k87b_25:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> The labourer is not permitted to pluck and eat grapes from a vineyard belonging to the sanctuary. [The interpretation of the passage follows Rashi, who was driven to adopt it, having regard to the text he had before him. The difficulty of this interpretation is, however, evident. It not only involves a difference in the explanation of the same deduction as applying to a heathen (v. n. 7) and as applying to <i>hekdesh</i>, but it runs counter to the passage in Sanh. (v. Sonc. ed. pp. 388f), which makes it clear that robbery of a heathen was never condoned, hut always regarded as an offence, though it was non-actionable. Moreover, the condemnation of taking usury from a heathen (<i>supra</i> 70b) should be sufficient to dispel all doubt as to the Rabbinic attitude on the matter. A solution to the Problem is supplied by the variant (v. D.S. a.l.): 'Now on the view that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden, it is well; but if it is held to be permitted, what can be said?' The argument would accordingly run as follows: 'If it is held that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden (to be kept) and is then on all fours with that of an Israelite, it is understood that the Law has permitted the employee to pluck and eat the grapes only in an Israelite's vineyard, but not if the vineyard belonged to a heathen; but if the robbery of a heathen is permitted, i.e., to be kept, is it possible that the Law, whilst allowing a delinquent to enjoy the property stolen from a heathen, should forbid the employee to pluck the grapes from the employer's vineyard?']"
,k87b_26:" I.e., the labourer must not make a meal of bread and grapes."
,k87b_27:" To whom the grapes belong."
,k87b_28:" Until the grapes have been turned into wine and conducted into the pit, whither the expressed juice runs, their owner may eat of them without tithing. Should he, however, sell them before that, they are immediately subject to tithes, which must be rendered by the purchaser before eating. Now, I might think that since the employee eats them in part remuneration for his labour, they are as bought with his labour, and therefore may not be eaten without tithing. Therefore this word [H] (lit., 'as thy own soul,' 'person') intimates that he is on the same footing in this respect as the owner."
,k87b_29:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 505, n. 9."
,k87b_30:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> "
}

txt:
<p>
BEFORE ITS LABOUR IS COMPLETED, UPON THAT WHICH IS DETACHED FROM THE SOIL AFTER ITS LABOUR IS COMPLETED,<a id="k87b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; AND UPON THAT WHICH DOES NOT GROW FROM THE SOIL.<a id="k87b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Whence do we know these things? &mdash; It is written, When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat.<a id="k87b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; We have found [this law to be true of] a vineyard: whence do we know it of all [other] things? We infer [them] from the vineyard: just as the vineyard is peculiar in that it [sc. its products] grow from the earth, and at the completion of its labour<a id="k87b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; the labourer may eat thereof; so everything which grows from the soil, the labourer may eat thereof at the completion of its work. [But, might it not be argued:] As for a vineyard, [the worker's privilege may be due to the fact] that it is liable to [the law of] gleanings, [which other cereals are not]? &mdash; We, deduce it<a id="k87b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; from the standing corn. But how do we know it of standing corn itself? &mdash; Because it is written, When thou comest into the kamath [standing corn] of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand.<a id="k87b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But [may you not argue:] as for standing corn, that is because it is liable to <i>hallah</i>?<a id="k87b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; (And how do you know that this kamah means [only] such standing crops as are liable to <i>hallah</i>: perhaps Scripture means all standing crops?<a id="k87b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That is derived from the use of kamah in two places. Here it is written, When thou comest into the kamath [standing corn of] thy neighbour; whilst elsewhere it is written, from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the kamah [corn]:<a id="k87b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; just as there, a kamah which is liable to <i>hallah</i> is meant, so here too.) [Hence, repeating the difficulty] one may refute [the analogy drawn from standing corn]: as for standing corn, that is because it is liable to <i>hallah</i>! &mdash; Then let the vineyard prove it. As for a vineyards that is because it is liable to [the law of] gleanings! &mdash; Let the standing corn prove it. And thus the argument revolves: the peculiarity of one is not that of the other, and vice versa. The feature common to both is, they grow from the soil, and the worker may [thus] eat of them when their labour is being finished; so also, everything which grows from the soil, when at the completion of its labour, the worker may eat of it. [No, this does not follow, as it might be argued that] their common feature is that both are used in connection with the altar;<a id="k87b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and so olives will be inferred too, since they also are thus used?<a id="k87b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; (But are olives inferred through [partaking of] a common feature? They themselves are designated kerem,<a id="k87b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; as it is written, And he burnt up both the shocks and the standing corn, and also the olive kerem.<a id="k87b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Papa said: It is designated olive kerem, but not simply kerem.) But still, the difficulty remains!<a id="k87b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Samuel answered: Scripture saith, and a sickle [thou shalt not move unto thy neighbour's standing corn], which [i.e., the 'and'] extends the law to everything which requires a sickle. But this word 'sickle' is needed [to intimate that] when the sickle [is used] you may eat, but not otherwise!<a id="k87b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That follows from, but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.<a id="k87b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, this [deduction] is satisfactory in respect of that which requires the sickle, but what of that which does not?<a id="k87b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, said R. Isaac, the Writ says, kamah,<a id="k87b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; to extend the law to everything which stands upright [from the soil].<a id="k87b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; But have you not employed the analogy of kamah, written twice, to shew that it means [only] such standing crops as are liable to <i>hallah</i>?<a id="k87b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That was only before the word 'sickle' was adduced: now, however, that 'sickle' has been quoted, everything which needs a sickle is embraced, even if not liable to <i>hallah</i>; hence, what is the purpose of kamah? To include everything which stands upright.
</p><p>
	But now that we infer [these laws] from <i>'sickle</i>' and <i>kamah</i>, what is the need of, <i>'When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard'</i>?<a id="k87b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; To teach its [detailed] laws, replied Raba. As it has been taught: <i>When thou comest</i> &mdash; 'coming' is mentioned here; and elsewhere too it is said, [<i>Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant&nbsp;&hellip; At this day thou shalt give him his hire,</i>] <i>neither shall the sun come down upon it</i>:<a id="k87b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; just as there Scripture refers to an employee, so here too. '<i>Into</i> thy neighbour's <i>vineyard</i>', but not into a heathen's vineyard.<a id="k87b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, on the view that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden, it is well: but if it be held permitted &mdash; does an <i>employee</i> need [a verse to grant him permission]!<a id="k87b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He interprets '<i>into</i> thy neighbour's <i>vineyard</i>', as excluding a vineyard of <i>hekdesh</i>.<a id="k87b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>
</p><p>
	'<i>Then thou mayest eat</i>', but not suck out [the juice]; <i>'grapes</i>', but not grapes and something else;<a id="k87b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>'as thine own person'</i>, as the person of the employers, so the person of the employee: just as thou thyself<a id="k87b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; mayest eat [thereof] and art exempt [from tithes], so the employee too may eat and is exempt.<a id="k87b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; '<i>To thy satisfaction</i>': but not gluttonously; <i>'but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel</i>': [only] when thou canst put it into thine employer's baskets, thou mayest eat, but not otherwise.<a id="k87b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Jannai said: <i>Tebel</i><a id="k87b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; is not liable to tithes
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k88a_1:" I.e., unless it is taken into the house through the front door, not through the roof or backyard."
,k88a_2:" Ibid. XXVI, 13: the deduction presumably is thus: as it is openly brought out of the house through the front, so it must have been taken in, in order to become 'hallowed', i.e., tithed."
,k88a_3:" Ibid. 22: 'they' refers to the Levite etc., who eat the tithes 'at thy gates', which implies that the crops had not entered the house but remained at 'thy gate', i.e., in the courtyard."
,k88a_4:" But if free and open to all, it establishes no liability."
,k88a_5:" [The Modern Khuzistan, province S. W. Persia, Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>. pp. 204ff.]"
,k88a_6:" V. P. 507, n. 3."
,k88a_7:" For just as the employee eats it on the field, by implication, if a purchaser desires to eat thereof on the field, he is liable, though it has not yet seen the front of the house or the courtyard."
,k88a_8:" So that immediately the fruit is plucked it sees the front thereof."
,k88a_9:" For immediately it is plucked it fulfils the conditions of liability by seeing the front of the house or court."
,k88a_10:" I.e., the owner does not regard a single branch; therefore, since the whole tree does not face the house, he is exempt. But the purchaser is interested only in his purchase; hence, if the branch from which his figs are gathered faces the house or courtyard, he is liable."
,k88a_11:" Bethania, a place near Jerusalem; Jast. [The parallel passage in J. <i>Pe'ah</i> I, has the bazaars of Beth Hanan, v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 267, n. 4. These were stores set up on the Mount of Olives for the supply of pigeons and other commodities required for sacrifices, and owned by the powerful priestly family, to whom they proved a source of wealth. They were destroyed three years before the fall of Jerusalem; v. Derenbourg, Essai, p. 468, and Buchler, Priester und Cultus, p. 189.]"
,k88a_12:" Disregarding Rabbinical law. "
}

txt:
<p>
until it sees the front of the house,<a id="k88a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is written, I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house.<a id="k88a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan said: Even a courtyard establishes liability to tithes, for it is written, that they may eat at thy gates and be filled.<a id="k88a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But according to R. Johanan, is it not written, out of mine house? &mdash; He can answer you: [It teaches that] the court yard must be similar to the house [in order to impose liability]: just as a house is guarded, so also must the courtyard be guarded.<a id="k88a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Jannai! Is it not written, 'in thy gates'? &mdash; That is required [to shew] that it must be brought into [the house] through the gates, but not over the roof or through [back] enclosures, when no liability is established.
</p><p>
	R. Hanina of Be-Hozae<a id="k88a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; raised an objection: As thine own person: as the person of the employer, so the person of the employee; just as thou thyself mayest eat [thereof] and art exempt [from tithes], so also the employee may eat, and is exempt. This thus implies that a purchaser is liable:<a id="k88a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and does it not mean even in the field?<a id="k88a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Papa said: This refers to a fig tree growing in a garden, but with its branches inclining to the court-yard,<a id="k88a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; or, to the house, on the view that [it must see the front of] the house. If so, even the [first] owner should be liable!<a id="k88a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The owner's eyes are upon the [whole] fig-tree, whereas the buyer has eyes only for his purchase.<a id="k88a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But is a purchaser at all liable by Biblical law? Has it not been taught: Why were the bazaars of Beth Hini<a id="k88a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; destroyed? Because they based their actions upon Scripture.<a id="k88a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; They used to say,
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k88b_1:" V. Deut. XIV, 22f. Hence, only when the farmer consumes his crops himself must he tithe it, but not if he sells it; likewise, only the increase of one's own seed is liable, but not bought grain. And this is designated Biblical law."
,k88b_2:" Sc. [H], exempting the labourer."
,k88b_3:" V. p. 507, n, 3 end. Since, however, a purchaser is exempt by Biblical law, it follows, even without a verse, that a labourer is exempt."
,k88b_4:" I.e., although the labourer is entitled to eat, yet if the employer stipulates that he shall not, or forcibly prevents him &mdash; metaphorically referred to as muzzling, cf. Deut. XXV, 4: <i>Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn</i> &mdash; he is not punished for transgressing the injunction just quoted."
,k88b_5:" Ma'as. I, 5."
,k88b_6:" Though they have not yet faced the courtyard or the house."
,k88b_7:" 'As soon as etc.,' implies that wherever they are the shedding renders them liable. The suggested emendation, however, would imply, even when brought into the house, they are still not liable until, etc."
,k88b_8:" Sc. if one eats anything thereof without tithing it. Before it becomes liable to tithes it is permissible to make a light meal of it, without transgressing the prohibition of <i>tebel</i>."
,k88b_9:" 'Brought in' being understood in the sense of 'collected into a stack'."
,k88b_10:" <i>Supra</i> 87b, bottom."
,k88b_11:" Hence the liability to tithes is established only when they 'see the face of the house.'"
,k88b_12:" Num. XVIII, 30: Then it shall be counted unto the Levites as the increase of the threshing floor. This shews that in the case of cereals the threshing floor establishes the Levite's right to the tithe."
,k88b_13:" Deut. XXV, 4. Threshing follows reaping, when the crops are no longer in the earth."
,k88b_14:" As stated in the Mishnah."
,k88b_15:" I.e., which Scripture does not explicitly permit to do so, though it is inferred below."
,k88b_16:" I.e., permission is explicitly granted: Deut. XXIII, 25f."
,k88b_17:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 509, n. 5."
,k88b_18:" V. Lev. XXV, 36."
,k88b_19:" It being unnecessary to state 'standing corn' twice for that purpose."
,k88b_20:" I.e., for carrying the cut-off grapes to the press or elsewhere; for Scripture does not specify the nature of the work."
,k88b_21:" V. p. 510, n. 7."
,k88b_22:" I.e., until it is actually needed for food, one should be bidden to keep it in good health and save it from an unnecessary death."
,k88b_23:" The repetition of 'thy neighbor'."
,k88b_24:" Deut. XXV, 4. "
}

txt:
<p>
<i>Thou shalt truly tithe&nbsp;&hellip; And thou shalt</i> eat, [implies] but not if thou sellest it; <i>the increase of thy</i> seed, but not if it is purchased!<a id="k88b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [the liability of a purchaser] is only by Rabbinic law, and the verse<a id="k88b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is a mere support. Then what is the purpose of, <i>'as thine own person</i>?<a id="k88b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As has been taught: <i>'As thine own person</i>': just as if thou muzzlest thine own [mouth], thou art guiltless, so also, if thou muzzlest [the mouth of] thy labourer, thou art free [from transgression].<a id="k88b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Mar Zutra raised an objection: What is their harvesting time for [liability to] tithes? In the case of cucumbers and gourds, when they are blossomed.<a id="k88b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; And R. Assi interpreted this: As soon as their blossoms are shed. Now, does that not mean, as soon as their blossoms are shed even in the field?<a id="k88b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No, only in the house. If so, instead of saying, 'as soon as', etc., he [the Tanna] should state [they are not liable] 'until their blossoms are shed'.<a id="k88b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Had he stated 'until etc.', I would think that it means until the shedding of their blossom is complete; therefore we are taught, by stating 'as soon as' etc., that it means as soon as the shedding commences.
</p><p>
	Mar Zutra, the son of R. Nahman, raised an objection: Its harvesting time in respect of tithes, in that the prohibition of <i>tebel</i> is transgressed,<a id="k88b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; is when its work is finished. And what is the finishing of its work? When it is brought in. Now, surely, 'when it is brought in' means, even in the field?<a id="k88b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; when it is brought into the house, that is the completion of its work. Alternatively, R. Jannai's dictum<a id="k88b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; refers only to olives and grapes, which are not gathered into a threshing floor;<a id="k88b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the case of wheat and barley, the threshing floor is distinctly stated.<a id="k88b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We now know that man [may eat when employed upon] what is attached to the soil, and an ox of what is detached;<a id="k88b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; whence do we know that man may eat of what is detached?<a id="k88b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It follows a <i>minori</i>, from an ox: if an ox, which does not eat of what is attached,<a id="k88b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; may nevertheless eat of what is detached; then a man, who may eat of what is attached,<a id="k88b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; may surely eat of what is detached! As for an ox, [it may be argued] that [sc. the privilege mentioned] is because you are forbidden to muzzle him; can you assume the same of man, whom you are not forbidden to muzzle?<a id="k88b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; (But then let the muzzling of man be interdicted, <i>a fortiori</i>, from an ox: if you must not muzzle an ox, whose life you are not bidden to preserve, then man, whose life you are bidden to preserve,<a id="k88b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; you must surely not muzzle him! &mdash; Scripture teacheth, 'As thine own person', so is the person of the labourer: just as 'thine own person', if you muzzle [yourself], you are free [from penalty], so also, if you muzzle the labourer, you are free.) Then [the question remains], whence do we know that man [may eat when engaged upon] what is attached? &mdash; Scripture saith, '[When thou comest into] the standing corn&nbsp;&hellip; [but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's] standing corn,' &mdash; twice: since its purpose is not to teach that man may eat of what is attached,<a id="k88b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; apply it to man, in respect of what is detached. R. Ammi said: That man may eat of what is detached, no [redundant] verse is necessary. For it is written, 'When thou contest into thy neighbour's vineyard': does this not hold good even if he was hired for porterage?<a id="k88b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; And yet the Torah states that he may eat [of the grapes].
</p><p>
	Whence do we know than an ox [may eat] of what is attached? &mdash; It follows, a <i>minori</i>, from man: if man, who does not eat of what is detached,<a id="k88b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; may eat of what is attached; then an ox, which may eat of what is detached, may surely eat of what is attached! &mdash; As for man, [may it not be argued,] that [sc., the privilege mentioned] is because you are bidden to preserve his life; will you say the same of an ox, whose life you are not bidden to preserve? (But then infer a duty to preserve the life of an ox,<a id="k88b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; a <i>minori</i>: if man, though you are not forbidden to muzzle him, you are commanded to preserve his life; then an ox, which you may not muzzle, you are surely commanded to keep it alive! &mdash; Scripture saith, <i>That thy brother may live with thee</i>, &mdash; thy brother, but not an ox.) Then [the question remains,] whence do we know that an ox may eat of what is attached? &mdash; Scripture saith, '[When thou contest into] thy neighbour's [vineyard]&nbsp;&hellip; [When thou comest into the standing corn of] thy neighbour' &mdash; twice: since it<a id="k88b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; is unnecessary for man in respect of what is attached, apply it to an ox in respect of what is attached.
</p><p>
	Rabina said: Neither for a man, in respect of what is detached, nor for an ox, in respect of what is attached, are the [above] verses necessary; because it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox, when he treadeth out the corn.<a id="k88b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k89a_1:" V. B.K. 54b. Just as 'ox' is singled out in connection with the Sabbath, yet at the same time Scripture adds that all animals must rest (Deut. V. 14), so by 'ox' here all animals are meant."
,k89a_2:" I.e., the law forbidding the muzzling of an ox during 'threshing', 'treading out the corn', from which it was deduced that both man and beast may eat of that upon which they labour."
,k89a_3:" In the process of making a certain kind of cheese,"
,k89a_4:" V. <i>supra</i>."
,k89a_5:" Sc. of harvesting."
,k89a_6:" Of producing these vegetables."
,k89a_7:" Sc. the analogy from threshing."
,k89a_8:" Deut. XXIII, 25. V. p. 505, n. 9."
,k89a_9:" I.e., onions which never grow to a large size. These were removed to give the others room for more vigorous growth. Now, although these are 'Put into the employer's basket,' the labourer may not eat, not being engaged upon the completion of the work."
,k89a_10:" I.e., a kind of date and fig which does not fully ripen on the tree but only in the house. The 'separating' spoken of here means before they have ripened in the house, and so are not finished in respect of tithes."
,k89a_11:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k89a_12:" And, as stated above, that alone forbids the worker to eat; why then base the ruling upon <i>hallah</i>?"
,k89a_13:" Lit., 'outside the land,' sc. Palestine."
,k89a_14:" Though a small Portion of dough is separated and burnt even in the Diaspora, that is only symbolical; but the real law of <i>hallah</i> requires that a definite portion be given to the priests, and that is not practised outside Palestine."
,k89a_15:" I.e., the Baraitha treats of the fourteen years during which Palestine was conquered and allotted to the tribes by Joshua."
,k89a_16:" As deduced by analogy from 'threshing'. And therefore, whether the law of tithes is in force or not, once the stage of threshing or its equivalent is reached, when there would be a liability to tithes if the law were in force, the labourer may not eat. And so the difficulty remains: why exclude kneading on the grounds of liability to <i>hallah</i>, seeing that threshing preceded it?"
,k89a_17:" Hence, if it is a process which completes the work for tithes, and there is no further stage to subject it to <i>hallah</i>, e.g., the separating of dates, the labourer may not eat. If, however, its final stage is liability to <i>hallah</i>, e.g., wheat, the last stage of which is the kneading, when it is subject to <i>hallah</i>, if the worker is engaged upon an earlier stage, though it is already liable to tithes, he may eat. Rashi and Tosaf."
,k89a_18:" Which is forbidden. <i>Supra</i>."
,k89a_19:" For it may be argued that since grapes may not be eaten with bread, because thereby an unreasonably large quantity is consumed, the same holds good of parched corn, which is more palatable than unparched."
,k89a_20:" The moistened bread creating an appetite. So, by analogy, a labourer may parch the corn. "
}

txt:
<p>
Now consider: everything is included in this prohibition of muzzling, because we employ the analogy of 'ox' written here and in the case of the Sabbath:<a id="k89a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; then Scripture should have written, 'Thou shalt not thresh with muzzled [animals]:' why write, 'ox'? To assimilate the muzzler [sc. man] to the muzzled [sc. ox and animals in general], and vice versa. Just as the muzzler [man] may eat of what is attached, so the muzzled may eat of what is attached; and just as the muzzled may eat of what is detached, so the muzzler may eat of what is detached.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: 'Threshing':<a id="k89a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; just as threshing is peculiar in that it applies to what is grown in the earth, and the labourer may eat whilst employed thereon; so also, of everything which is grown in the earth, the labourer may eat. Hence milking, pressing thick milk,<a id="k89a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and cheese-making are excluded: since they are not earth-grown, the labourer may not partake thereof. But why is this needed? Does it not follow from, 'When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard'? &mdash; It is necessary: I might think, since 'kamah' is written to include everything that stands upright,<a id="k89a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; it also embraces what is not earth-grown; therefore we are taught otherwise.
</p><p>
	Another [Baraitha] teaches: 'Threshing': just as threshing is peculiar in that it is an employment at the completion of its labour,<a id="k89a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and the worker may eat whilst engaged thereon; so during every thing which is done at the completion of its labour, the worker may eat. Hence weeding amongst garlic and onions is excluded: as it is not the completion of the work,<a id="k89a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the labourer may not eat. But why is this necessary?<a id="k89a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Does it not follow from, but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel?<a id="k89a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is necessary, [to intimate that he may not eat] even when removing small onions from amongst large ones.<a id="k89a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Another [Baraitha] taught: 'Threshing': just as threshing is peculiar as being a process which does not complete its work [to render it liable] to tithes, and the labourer may eat thereof; so also during everything which does not complete the work [to subject it] to tithes, the labourer may eat. Hence separating dates and dried figs [sticking together] is excluded: since its work is finished in respect of tithes, the worker may not eat. But has it not been taught: When separating dates and dried figs, the worker may partake thereof? &mdash; R. Papa replied: That refers to half-ripe dates.<a id="k89a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Another [Baraitha] taught: 'Threshing': just as threshing is peculiar in that it is a process which does not finish its work for <i>hallah</i>,<a id="k89a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and the labourer may eat whilst engaged thereon; so during every process which does not finish its work in respect of <i>hallah</i>, the labourer may eat. Thus kneading, shaping [the dough] and baking are excluded; since its work is completed in respect of <i>hallah</i>, the worker may not eat whilst engaged thereon. But its work is complete in respect of tithes!<a id="k89a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no difficulty: the reference is to the Diaspora,<a id="k89a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; where there are no tithes. If so, <i>hallah</i> too is not practised!<a id="k89a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But after all, this refers to Palestine, yet there is no difficulty. For the reference is to the seven years of conquest and seven years of division.<a id="k89a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; For a Master said: In the seven years of conquest and the seven of division there was a liability to <i>hallah</i>, but not to tithes. But is it the tithing that is responsible? It is the finishing of the work that is responsible!<a id="k89a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, said Rabina, combine [the two Baraithas] and read [thus]: 'Threshing': just as threshing is peculiar in that its work is not complete in respect of tithes and <i>hallah</i>, and the worker may eat whilst engaged thereon, so during everything, the work of which is not complete in respect of tithes and <i>hallah</i>, the labourer may eat.<a id="k89a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: Is the labourer permitted to parch [the ears of corn] at a fire and eat them? Is it the equivalent of [eating] grapes together with something else,<a id="k89a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; or not?<a id="k89a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear: An employer may give his employees wine to drink, that they should not eat many grapes; [on the other hand,] the labourers may dip their bread in brine, that they should eat many grapes!<a id="k89a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k89b_1:" Lit., 'fit'."
,k89b_2:" They may conserve their appetite till they reach these, which being more exposed to the sun than the lower ones, are sweeter (Rashi)."
,k89b_3:" Lit., 'cessation of work'."
,k89b_4:" There is no loss of time, as they can singe it."
,k89b_5:" By placing them in warm soil."
,k89b_6:" I.e., the Prohibition referred to."
,k89b_7:" V. <a href=\"babamezia_87.html#87b_28\">p. 507, n. 3</a>."
,k89b_8:" Now, it was assumed that dipping in salt is forbidden because it renders it more appetising, and therefore parching too will be forbidden."
,k89b_9:" I.e., no deduction may be drawn from this, for salt is an addition. Yet it may be permissible to parch corn, since nothing is added."
,k89b_10:" Of the olives, because it is not the finish of the work."
,k89b_11:" Two together count as a store, therefore are subject to tithes. Since the labourer stipulates that he is to eat, it is part of his payments and hence ranks as bought, and therefore he may not eat them; v. <i>supra</i> 88a."
,k89b_12:" Where no stipulation was made: hence it contradicts the first Baraitha."
,k89b_13:" When one dips an olive in salt he shews that he attaches value to it, which renders it completely ready for eating, and precludes further storing. Hence, in Palestine, where tithing is Biblical, the dipping imposes a liability. But in the Diaspora, where it is only Rabbinical and consequently less stringent, it does not."
,k89b_14:" Sc. to partake thereof without having rendered the tithes. Though tithes in the Diaspora are only Rabbinical, the Rabbis formulated the law on the same conditions as in Palestine, and therefore, whatever establishes a liability there establishes it in the Diaspora too."
,k89b_15:" Being of insufficient value."
,k89b_16:" For otherwise, not having stipulated, he may not salt them at all, as stated above."
,k89b_17:" V. p. 515, n. 7. Only when the stage of liability is reached it is called <i>tebel</i>. &mdash; Thus the first Baraitha refers to eating two at a time; no stipulation having been made, they may not be dipped in salt, But the second refers to a case where a stipulation was made; since the mere stipulation establishes a liability for two, it follows that he must eat the fruit singly, and that being so, the Tanna can state in general terms that he may salt them."
,k89b_18:" Mic. IV, 12. Thus there can be no threshing floor, i.e., storage, the final stage of which imposes liability, without gathering, and there cannot be gathering of less than two (actually, the Heb. has [H] sing., but the plural must be understood)."
,k89b_19:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> Barley grain was soaked in water, dried in an oven, and threshed by the treading of cows, which removed the husks. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; As for making the man fit [to eat more], of that there is no question: our problem is only whether the food may be rendered more appetising?<a id="k89b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the ruling? &mdash; Come and hear: Labourers may eat the top most grapes of the [vine-] rows,<a id="k89b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but must not parch them at the fire! &mdash; There it [the prohibition] is on account of loss of time:<a id="k89b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but our problem arises when he has his wife or children with him; what then?<a id="k89b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear: He [the labourer] may not parch [the crops] at the fire and eat, nor warm them in the earth,<a id="k89b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; nor crush them on a rock; but he may crush them between his hands and eat them! &mdash; There [too] it is on account of loss of time. That too is logical: for should you think it<a id="k89b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; is because he [thereby] makes the fruit tasteful, what tastefulness is there [acquired by crushing them] on a rock? &mdash; [No; the reasoning is incorrect,] because it is impossible for it not to become slightly [more] tasteful.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: Workers engaged in picking figs, harvesting dates, vintaging grape, or gathering olives, may eat, and are exempt [from tithes],<a id="k89b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; because the Torah privileged them. But they must not eat these with their bread, unless they obtain permission from the owner, nor dip them in salt and eat!<a id="k89b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Salt is certainly the same as grapes and something else.<a id="k89b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[It has just been stated:] 'Nor dip them in salt and eat.' But the following contradicts it: if one engages a labourer to hoe and to cover up the roots of olive trees, he may not eat.<a id="k89b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But if he engages him to vintage [grapes], pluck [olives], or gather [fruit], he may eat, and is exempt [from tithes], because the Torah privileged him. If he [the labourer] stipulates [that he is to eat], he may eat then, singly, but not two at a time.<a id="k89b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; And be may dip them in salt and eat. Now, to what [does this refer]? Shall we say, to the last clause? But having stipulated, he can [obviously] eat just as he wishes! Surely then it must refer to the first clause!<a id="k89b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye answered: There is no difficulty: here it [the second Baraitha] refers to Palestine; there [the first] to the Diaspora. In Palestine, dipping [in salt] establishes [a liability to tithes]; in the Diaspora, it does not.<a id="k89b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba demurred: Is there aught for which dipping establishes [a liability] in Palestine, but not in the Diaspora, so that it is permitted from the very outset?<a id="k89b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; But, said Raba, both in palestine and without, for one [fig] salting does not establish [liability],<a id="k89b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but for two it does. But if he [sc. the labourer] stipulates [that he is to eat], whether he salts or not, he may eat [them] one by one, but not in twos. [Hence:] If he neither stipulates nor salts them, he may eat them two by two; if he salts them, he may eat them one by one, but not two by two, even if he obtained the employer's permission,<a id="k89b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; because they become <i>tebel</i> in respect of tithes, the salting establishing [that liability].<a id="k89b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; And whence do we know that salting establishes [liability only for] two? &mdash; Said R. Mattena: Scripture saith, For he hath gathered them as the sheaves to the threshing floor.<a id="k89b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: When cows stamp [<i>hullin</i>] grain<a id="k89b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k90a_1:" Though stated above that at the stage of threshing there is no liability of tithes, yet the owner can separate the <i>terumah</i> and the tithes, if he wishes, whilst the grain is in the ear; in that case the cows thresh ears of corn that are actually <i>terumah</i> or tithes."
,k90a_2:" Deut. XXV, 4; stamping, because that is a later stage. With respect to <i>terumah</i>, (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>) etc., two reasons are given: (i) Since threshing of <i>terumah</i> is not usual, the injunction could not have applied to it (Rashi); (ii)&nbsp;&hellip; when he treadeth out his corn, excludes <i>terumah</i>, which is entirely prohibited to an Israelite (i.e., not a priest), and tithes, which are considered as sacred property, though not forbidden, and therefore not 'his' (Tosaf.)."
,k90a_3:" That one who sees it should not think he is transgressing."
,k90a_4:" I.e., the Jew does not transgress by permitting the Gentile to muzzle his cow."
,k90a_5:" With respect to the former there is no prohibitions as explained on p. 516, n. 7. But if it were sown and produced a further crop, Biblically speaking it is not <i>terumah</i> at all, but ordinary <i>hullin</i>, though by a Rabbinical enactment it ranks as such. Since the Rabbis cannot nullify a Scriptural prohibition, the injunction, Thou shalt not muzzle, remains in force. The reason for this Rabbinical measure was that otherwise the Israelite might evade his obligations by separating <i>terumah</i> and then resowing it. Also, should a priest possess defiled <i>terumah</i>, which may not be eaten, he might keep it for resowing, when likewise it reverts to <i>hullin</i> by Scriptural law; but whilst keeping it he might forget its defiled nature and eat it."
,k90a_6:" As in the case of <i>terumah</i>."
,k90a_7:" I.e., by Rabbinical law, and therefore it is necessary to teach that in this respect the Scriptural law applies."
,k90a_8:" Two tithes were separated; the first, given to the Levite, and the second, which was retained by the Israelite and eaten in Jerusalem, v. Deut. XIV, 22ff."
,k90a_9:" As stated above, p. 516, n. 3, the crops are called <i>tebel</i> only when the stage of liability to this has been reached. Before that it is permissible to make a light meal thereof even without tithing, but not after. Now, if the stage of liability was reached, so that it became <i>tebel</i>, and it was resown, the produce is not <i>tebel</i> but <i>hullin</i>, and one may enjoy a light meal thereof before tithing. As for the second tithe, the Rabbis did not enact that its produce shall be second tithe too, as in the case of <i>terumah</i>, because there was no fear that the Israelite would keep and resow it, in order to evade his obligations, since the second tithe might be redeemed and eaten outside palestine, v. Ter. IX. 4."
,k90a_10:" The first tithe is regarded as his corn, since an Israelite may eat it too, and without restriction of place, hence the prohibition of muzzling applies. But the second tithe, since it must be eaten in Jerusalem, is regarded as sacred property, and so not included in the prohibition (Tosaf.)."
,k90a_11:" Lit., 'property of the (Most) High.'"
,k90a_12:" Kid. 24a."
,k90a_13:" That it should be a tithe before threshing: &mdash; The bracketed 'and' ([H]) is absent from our text and Rashi's, but given in Tosaf."
,k90a_14:" I.e., since he tithed the crops in ear, nothing thereof is to be consumed &mdash; not even by beasts &mdash; outside the walls of Jerusalem. How then may the animal thresh it unmuzzled?"
,k90a_15:" The outer wall of Jerusalem, added to the original limits of the town; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 67, n. 9."
,k90a_16:" Heb. [H]. Corn purchased from the ignorant peasants, who were very lax in their rendering of tithes, had to be tithed by the purchaser, for fear that the vendor had not done so. This was called a doubtful tithe, and required only by Rabbinical law; therefore the prohibition of muzzling applies; v. p. 517, n. 2."
,k90a_17:" Sc. John Hyrcanus."
,k90a_18:" Lit., 'confession'; v. Deut. XXVI, 1-15. The declaration referred to is called <i>widuy</i>. But John Hyrcanus abolished it, because of the verse, <i>I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, and also have given them unto the Levite</i>, 'Them' refers to the first tithe, but according to the Talmud, after the return from Babylon Ezra enacted that it should be given to the priests, as a punishment to the Levites for their reluctance to return to the Holy Land. Since one could not truthfully say, <i>I have given them unto the Levite</i>, the recital was abolished."
,k90a_19:" Because of the dread of the penalty involved &mdash; death at the hands of Heaven. The separation of <i>terumah</i> made by the Israelites and given to the priests was called 'the great terumah', to distinguish it from 'the <i>terumah</i> of the tithe', i.e., a tenth part given by the Levite, of the tithe he received, to the priest, and which had the higher sanctity of <i>terumah</i>. Since, then, even the irreligious rendered the great <i>terumah</i>, the law of <i>demai</i> would not have been enacted in respect thereto."
,k90a_20:" Through suffering with diarrhoea."
,k90a_21:" Lit., 'rest, abstention from work', and is mainly applied to types of work which, though not falling within the definition of labour forbidden on the Sabbath, are nevertheless prohibited as being out of keeping with its sacredness. To instruct a Gentile to work on the Sabbath is a shebuth, i.e., not actual labour, yet interdicted as not harmonising with the Sabbath. This is an instance where one may not instruct a Gentile to do what is forbidden to oneself, and the problem here is whether this prohibition applies to all forbidden acts."
,k90a_22:" Hence it is unseemly to bid a Gentile do it."
,k90a_23:" In the sense that he incurs punishment."
,k90a_24:" For an Israelite to bid him to do this."
,k90a_25:" And is punished. "
}

txt:
<p>
or thresh <i>terumah</i> and tithes,<a id="k90a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; there is no prohibition of, <i>Thou shalt not muzzle [the ox when he treadeth out</i> &mdash; i.e., threshes &mdash; <i>his corn</i>];<a id="k90a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but for the sake of appearances<a id="k90a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; he must bring a handful of that species and hang it on the nosebag at its mouth. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: He must bring vetches and hang them up for it, because these are better for it than anything else. Now the following contradicts it: When cows are stamping on grain, there is no prohibition of, Thou shalt not muzzle; but when they thresh <i>terumah</i> or tithes, there is. When a heathen threshes with an Israelite's cow, that prohibition is not transgressed;<a id="k90a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; but if an Israelite threshes with a heathen's beast, he does. Thus the rulings on <i>terumah</i> are contradictory, and likewise those on tithes. Now, as for the rulings on <i>terumah</i>, it is well, and there is no difficulty: the one refers to <i>terumah</i> [itself]; the other to the produce of <i>terumah</i>;<a id="k90a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; but as for the rulings on tithes, these are certainly difficult. And should you answer, there is no contradiction in the rulings on tithes either, one referring to tithes and the other to the produce of tithes<a id="k90a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; as for the produce of <i>terumah</i>, the answer is fitting, since it is <i>terumah</i>;<a id="k90a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but the produce of tithes is <i>hullin</i>. For we learnt: The produce of <i>tebel</i> and the produce of the second tithe<a id="k90a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; are <i>hullin</i>!<a id="k90a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But there is no difficulty: the one refers to the first tithe; the other to the second.<a id="k90a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Alternatively, both refer to the second tithe, yet there is no difficulty: the one [sc. the first Baraitha] agrees with R. Meir; the other with R. Judah. [Thus:] The one agrees with R. Meir, who maintained that the second tithe is sacred property;<a id="k90a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; the other with R. Judah, who held it secular property.<a id="k90a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [And] how is it conceivable?<a id="k90a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; E.g., if he [the owner] anticipated [the tithing] whilst it was yet in ear. But [even] on R. Judah's view, does it not require the wall [of Jerusalem]?<a id="k90a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He threshed it within the walls of Beth Pagi.<a id="k90a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Another alternative is this: there is no difficulty: one refers to a certain tithe, the other to a doubtful tithe.<a id="k90a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Now that you have arrived at this [solution], there is no contradiction between the two rulings on <i>terumah</i> too: the one refers to certain <i>terumah</i>, the other to doubtful <i>terumah</i>. Now, that is well with respect to a doubtful tithe, which exists. But is there a doubtful <i>terumah</i>? Has it not been taught: He<a id="k90a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; also abolished the widuy<a id="k90a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and enacted the law of <i>demai</i>. Because he sent [messengers] throughout the territory of Israel, and saw that only the great <i>terumah</i> was rendered!<a id="k90a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But there is no difficulty: the one refers to <i>terumah</i> of the certain tithe; the other to <i>terumah</i> of the doubtful tithe.
</p><p>
	The scholars put a problem to R. Shesheth: What if it ate and excreted?<a id="k90a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it [sc. the prohibition of muzzling] because it [the crops] benefits her, whereas here it does not; or because it sees and is distressed [through inability to eat], and here too it is distressed [if muzzled]? &mdash; R. Shesheth replied: We have learnt it: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: He must bring vetches and hang them up for her, because these are better for her than anything else. This proves that the reason is that it benefits her. This proves it.
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: May one say to a heathen, 'Muzzle my cow and thresh therewith'? Do we say, the principle that an instruction to a heathen is a shebuth<a id="k90a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; applies only to the Sabbath, [work] being forbidden on pain of stoning;<a id="k90a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; but not to muzzling, which is prohibited merely by a negative precept: or perhaps there is no difference? &mdash; Come and hear: If a heathen threshes with the cow of an Israelite, he [the Israelite] does not infringe the precept, Thou shalt not muzzle! [This implies,] He merely does not infringe it,<a id="k90a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; yet it is forbidden!<a id="k90a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Actually, it is not even forbidden; but because the second clause states that if an Israelite threshes with a heathen's cow, he does infringe;<a id="k90a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; the first clause too teaches that he does not infringe.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: For they [the scholars] sent to Samuel's father: What of those oxen
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k90b_1:" [From the third century onward the Babylonian heathens, the Mandeans or Sabeans, were designated Arameans, v. Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>. p. 75.]"
,k90b_2:" [This was a device resorted to by Jewish owners in order to evade the relevant prohibition; Lev. XXII, 24.]"
,k90b_3:" This proves that one may not even instruct a heathen to perform that which is forbidden merely by a negative precept, as castration."
,k90b_4:" Lit., 'children of the West'."
,k90b_5:" Lev. XIX, 14. But muzzling is not forbidden to heathens."
,k90b_6:" Which brings less than when sold for work."
,k90b_7:" Without insisting that they lose part of their value."
,k90b_8:" To whom it may be sold."
,k90b_9:" To sell them to him."
,k90b_10:" Lit., 'pious men', a designation of men known for their extreme piety."
,k90b_11:" I.e., their oxen having been castrated without their knowledge (Tosaf.)."
,k90b_12:" To prevent it from eating; is it the equivalent of muzzling or not?"
,k90b_13:" Surely there can be no doubt that it is forbidden."
,k90b_14:" Is the owner bound to remove it or not?"
,k90b_15:" Thereby frightening off the animal from eating."
,k90b_16:" Is the owner bound to chase it away or not?"
,k90b_17:" And the mother in her yearning toward it could not eat. Here the Talmud does not object that this is actual muzzling, because yearning is not as strong a preventive as terror. But other texts read: what if its young stationed itself, etc.? (Tosaf.)"
,k90b_18:" So that it might not see the grain."
,k90b_19:" Who hires it out."
,k90b_20:" Thus, one may do something to prevent the cow from eating, and it is assumed that this is analogous to spreading a leather over the grain."
,k90b_21:" Whereas the problem is whether a leather may be spread when it is threshing."
,k90b_22:" I.e., before it entered the field."
,k90b_23:" I.e., the muzzling must be done then."
,k90b_24:" I.e., from the law appertaining to priests, R. Jonathan being one. [The reference is to R. Jonathan b. Joseph, the Tanna, a disciple of R. Ishmael, and not to R. Jonathan. the disciple of R. Hiyya, who certainly was no priest; v. Sanh. 71a. The question he put to R. Simai who, as a younger contemporary of Rabbi was considerably his junior, would then be merely to test him. It is, however, preferable to read with MS. Venice, 'R. Simeon (b. Yohai)' instead of 'R. Simai'; v. Hyman Toledoth, II. p. 698.]"
,k90b_25:" Lev. X, 9."
,k90b_26:" Ibid. 20; and for that it does not signify whether one drinks before entering or after."
,k90b_27:" But leaves them for another to plough with."
,k90b_28:" Tosef. Kel. V."
,k90b_29:" Lit., 'muzzled it'."
,k90b_30:" Punishment is incurred for the violation of a negative precept only when it entails a positive action, and R. Johanan and Resh Lakish dispute whether speech is such. "
}

txt:
<p>
which Arameans<a id="k90b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; steal [at the instance of the owners] and castrate?<a id="k90b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: Since an evasion was committed with them, turn the evasion upon them [their owners], and let them be sold!<a id="k90b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Papa replied: The Palestinian scholars<a id="k90b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; hold with R. Hidka, viz., that the Noachides are themselves forbidden to practise castration, and hence he [the Israelite, in instructing the heathen to do it,] violates, Ye shall not put a stumbling block before the blind.<a id="k90b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, Raba thought to interpret: They must be sold for slaughter.<a id="k90b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon Abaye said to him: It is sufficient that you have penalised them to sell.<a id="k90b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now, it is obvious that an adult son is as a stranger;<a id="k90b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but what of a minor son? &mdash; R. Ahi forbade it;<a id="k90b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst R. Ashi permitted it. Meremar and Mar Zutra &mdash; others state, certain two hasidim &mdash; 10 interchanged with each other.<a id="k90b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rami b. Hama propounded: What if one put a thorn in its [sc. the animal's] mouth?<a id="k90b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [You ask, What] if one put [a thorn in its mouth]? Surely that is real muzzling!<a id="k90b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But [the problem is], what if a thorn stuck in its mouth?<a id="k90b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [Similarly,] What if one caused a lion to lie down outside [the field in which the ox was threshing]?<a id="k90b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; 'What if one caused a lion to lie down?' Surely that is actual muzzling! &mdash; But [the problem is], What if a lion lay down outside [of its own accord]?<a id="k90b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; What if one placed its [sc. the animal's] young outside the field?<a id="k90b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; What if it thirsted for water [and so could not eat]? What if he spread a leather cover over the grain to be threshed?<a id="k90b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Solve one of these problems from the following [Baraitha]. For it has been taught: The owner of the cow<a id="k90b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; may let it go hungry, that it should eat much of the grain it threshes; whilst on the other hand, the landowner may untie a bundle of [trodden] sheaves before the cow, that it should not eat much of the threshing!<a id="k90b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There it is different, because it does eat nevertheless. Alternatively [it means], the field owner may untie a bundle of [trodden] sheaves in front of the cow before the commencement [of the threshing], so that it should not eat much of the corn that is threshed.<a id="k90b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Jonathan asked R. Simai: What if he muzzled it outside?<a id="k90b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Does Scripture mean, <i>[Thou shalt not muzzle] an ox when</i> [i.e., at the time that] <i>it thresheth</i>, id="k90b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst this is not [done] when it thresheth? Or perhaps Scripture meant, Thou shalt not thresh with a muzzled ox? &mdash; He replied: You may learn from your father's house.<a id="k90b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; <i>Do not drink wine or strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye enter</i> [into the tabernacle etc.].<a id="k90b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, is it forbidden only when ye enter, yet one may drink before and then enter? But Scripture saith, <i>And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy</i>!<a id="k90b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence, just as there, when the priest has entered there must be no drunkenness, so here too: when threshing, the ox must not be in a muzzled state.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: He who muzzles an ox or harnesses together [two] heterogeneous animals<a id="k90b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; is exempt [from punishment], and only he who threshes or drives them is flagellated.<a id="k90b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been stated: If one frightened it off<a id="k90b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; with his voice, or drove them [sc. the yoke of heterogeneous animals] with his voice: R. Johanan held him liable to punishment, the movement of the lips being an action; Resh Lakish ruled that he is not, because [the use of] the voice is not an action.<a id="k90b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan raised an objection to Resh Lakish:
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k91a_1:" Tem. 2a. This refers to Lev. XXVII, 33; neither shall he change it (sc. the consecrated animal): and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy. The first clause of the passage states that all have power to exchange, and then it goes on to say that that does not mean that one may exchange, but merely that his action is valid, the substitute too becoming holy, and that his action is punished by flagellation. Now, this offence consists only of speech, and hence this Mishnah refutes Resh Lakish's view that speech is an unsubstantial action."
,k91a_2:" But those who require an action do not consider speech sufficient."
,k91a_3:" V. <a href=\"babamezia_86.html#86a_20\">p. 496, n. 3</a>."
,k91a_4:" I.e., if the heir exchanged the animal consecrated by his deceased father, the substitute is valid."
,k91a_5:" Upon certain sacrifices the owner laid his hands prior to its slaughter. If the owner died, R. Judah maintained that the heir could not perform this ceremony."
,k91a_6:" Viz., that a person is flagellated for a negative precept involving no action."
,k91a_7:" Maintaining against R. Judah that the heir can exchange."
,k91a_8:" That is the estimated quantity they eat per day. V. H.M. 338. 4. Isserles."
,k91a_9:" V. B.K 71a."
,k91a_10:" [MS. Rome inserts: 'It may even be in accordance with the Rabbis, but this is stated if he wishes to appear justified before Heaven (lit., 'at the hands of Heaven'), even as is the case with the hire, for the Torah forbade, etc.' This renders clearer the argument that follows, v. Tosaf.]"
,k91a_11:" V. Deut. XXIII, 19: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore&nbsp;&hellip; into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow. Now, 'hire' and 'whore' are quite unspecified, even if the latter is his own mother, in which case he is liable to death for incest. This proves that notwithstanding his liability to death, in which the money payment is merged, he strictly speaking (should he wish 'to appear justified before Heaven') must pay her the fee. For if she has no claim upon him at all, then even if he does pay her, it is not the hire of a harlot, but an ordinary gift to her which is not forbidden as a vow. Again, since it is recognised as a debt, if the harlot forcibly seized it from him, he cannot demand its return. So here too: though he is flagellated for threshing with a muzzled ox, he is morally indebted to its owner, and that is the meaning of the Baraitha, 'and pays.' etc. Or, if the owner seized it from him, he need not return it."
,k91a_12:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k91a_13:" Though two penalties cannot be imposed, that is only when incurred simultaneously. But these two are not, the one preceding the other."
,k91a_14:" Lit., 'I answered them in the direction of prohibition.'"
,k91a_15:" But merely with an extra degree of stringency."
,k91a_16:" The bread may not be eaten with meat, consequently it is altogether forbidden, even with non-meat foods."
,k91a_17:" Which is forbidden fat."
,k91a_18:" To glow heat to remove all traces of the fat."
,k91a_19:" The question is whether this is a transgression of Lev. XIX, 19: Thou shalt not cause thy cattle to gender with a diverse kind. Does 'cause' mean to give the opportunity only, as here, or actually to make the two copulate?"
,k91a_20:" I.e., when witnesses testify to adultery, it is not necessary for them to witness fornication in order to impose punishment."
,k91a_21:" Only then is Lev. XIX, 19, quoted in n. 4 infringed; hence, R. Papa's ruling that they may not even be led into one stable was merely a matter of additional stringency, not the Biblical law."
,k91a_22:" Without adding 'with a diverse kind'."
,k91a_23:" Therefore it will not lead to impure thoughts. But one may not look upon the animals copulating, because the spectacle may excite evil passions. "
}

txt:
<p>
Not that one is permitted to make an exchange, but that if he did the exchange is valid, and he receives forty [lashes]!<a id="k91a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: That accords with R. Judah, who maintained that one is flagellated for [violating] a negative precept which involves no action.<a id="k91a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But can you make this agree with R. Judah? Does not the first clause state: All have power to exchange, both men and women. Now, we pondered thereon, what is 'all' intended to add?<a id="k91a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [And we answered,] An heir.<a id="k91a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; And this does not agree with R. Judah: for if it did, surely he maintained that an heir can neither exchange nor lay hands?<a id="k91a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This Tanna agrees with R. Judah in one ruling,<a id="k91a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and disagrees in another.<a id="k91a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: If one muzzles a beast and threshes therewith, he is flagellated, and pays [to the owner of the cow] four <i>kabs</i> in the case of a cow, and three <i>kabs</i> for an ass.<a id="k91a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; But [is it not a principle], one is not flagellated and executed; nor is one flagellated and made to pay? &mdash; Abaye replied: This is in accordance with R. Meir, who maintained, One is flagellated and also made to pay.<a id="k91a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said:<a id="k91a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; The Torah forbade the hire [of a harlot], even if one had relations with his mother.<a id="k91a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa said: He becomes liable for its food from the moment of <i>meshikah</i>,<a id="k91a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas flagellation is not incurred until muzzling.<a id="k91a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa said: The following problems were propounded to me by the disciples of R. Papa b. Abba, and I gave stringent rulings,<a id="k91a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; one in accordance with the law, the other not in accordance with the law.<a id="k91a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; They asked of me: May dough be kneaded with milk? And I ruled that it was forbidden, this being in accordance with the law. For it has been taught: Dough may not be kneaded with milk, and if it is, the whole loaf is forbidden, because it may lead to transgression.<a id="k91a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Likewise, an oven may not be greased with tail fat,<a id="k91a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and if it is, the whole loaf [baked therein] is forbidden, until the oven is heated through.<a id="k91a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; The other problem they propounded of me was: May two heterogeneous animals [of opposite sexes] be led into a stable?<a id="k91a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; And I answered them that it is forbidden, this not being in accordance with the law. For Samuel said: In the case of adulterers, they [sc. the witnesses] must have seen them in the posture of adulterers;<a id="k91a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but in respect to diverse species, they must have seen him assisting [the copulation] even as [one places the] painting stick in the tube.<a id="k91a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ahadboi b. Ammi raised an objection: Had Scripture stated, Thou shalt not cause thy cattle to gender,<a id="k91a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; I might have thought [it to mean], One must not hold a beast when the male [even of its own kind] copulates with it; therefore it is said, with a diverse kind. Surely then this proves that in the case of different species one may not even hold [the female]! &mdash; By 'holding', 'assisting' is meant, and why is it designated 'holding'? As a more delicate term.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said: In animals of the same species, one may 'assist' [at copulation] even as [one places the painting] stick in the tube, and it is not even forbidden on account of obscenity. Why? Because he is engaged in his work.<a id="k91a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ahadboi b. Ammi raised an objection:
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k91b_1:" So the text as emended by Rashal: Rabbana was a Babylonian title."
,k91b_2:" V. p. 387, n. 8."
,k91b_3:" Which might receive an impetus by such an act."
,k91b_4:" Deut. XXIII, 25."
,k91b_5:" V. top of 89a."
,k91b_6:" I.e., with its fore and hind-feet, both of course, being employed in threshing."
,k91b_7:" May their beaks be muzzled or not?"
,k91b_8:" Labourers trod out the wine from the grapes by walking upon them lengthwise and crosswise. Now, when they have walked only in one direction, the wine is not yet visible, therefore they must confine themselves to the grapes, since the labourer may eat only of that upon which he is engaged. But when they have walked in both directions, the expressed wine is visible, and therefore they may drink thereof."
,k91b_9:" I.e., he is not bound to eat as soon as he feels hungry, but may wait until he reaches the best."
,k91b_10:" But not to finish their work and then eat."
,k91b_11:" Lit., 'to restore lost property to the owners.'"
,k91b_12:" The Rabbis."
,k91b_13:" Though they are not actually working then."
,k91b_14:" This is discussed in the Gemara."
,k91b_15:" I.e., cut a cluster of grapes from one vine of choicer quality and then come and work upon another."
,k91b_16:" The phraseology is based upon Deut. XXIII, 25: but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel, which implies that the labourer may eat only of that which he does put into the employer's vessel."
,k91b_17:" For, as stated <i>supra</i> 89a, the same conditions govern both man and beast. Now, as the ox stands in front of the cart into which the grapes are laden the labourers naturally gather the grapes not from the vine in front of the ox, but behind it, which is level with the cart. Hence, the ox cannot possibly eat of the vine upon which it is employed (Rashi). Tosaf.: When the ox is threshing grain attached to the soil, its mouth cannot reach the ears upon which it actually treads. Now, in the case of detached corn, that does not matter, because the whole is regarded as one bundle; but in the case of growing corn, each little tuft is regarded as separate."
,k91b_18:" A vine which stretches from behind the ox to in front of it, so Rashi. Tosaf.: A luxuriant growth, i.e., long ears of corn which reach from the feet of the ox to its mouth. Hence, the Talmudic objection being answered, the problem remains."
,k91b_19:" I.e., on a different tree."
,k91b_20:" I.e., when one vine overhangs another, and when a vine overhangs a fig-tree. Actually, he has to work upon both, since one must be disentangled from the other. In that case he may eat of the overhanging vine whilst working on the other, but not of the overhanging fig-tree."
,k91b_21:" It is certainly forbidden."
,k91b_22:" There is no loss of time, as they can bring it. "
}

txt:
<p>
Had Scripture stated, Thou shalt not cause thy cattle to gender, I should have thought [it to mean], One must not hold a beast for the male to copulate with it; therefore it is said, with a diverse kind. Hence, only in regard to different species is it forbidden; but in the same species,it is permitted. Yet even there, only holding is permitted &mdash; but not 'assisting'. &mdash; What is meant by 'holding'? 'Assisting'. And why is it called 'holding'? As a delicate term.
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: This question was put to me by the scholars of Rabbana<a id="k91b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Nehemiah, the Resh Galutha:<a id="k91b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; May an animal be led into a stable together with one of its own species and another heterogeneous to it? [Do we argue,] Having its own kind, it will be attracted thereto; or perhaps, even so, it is not [permitted]? And I answered them that it is forbidden; not because the law is so, but on account of the licentiousness of slaves.<a id="k91b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF HE [THE LABOURER] WORKS WITH HIS HANDS BUT NOT WITH HIS FEET, OR WITH HIS FEET BUT NOT WITH HIS HANDS; [AND] EVEN IF HE WORKS WITH HIS SHOULDERS [ONLY], HE MAY EAT. R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH SAID: [HE MAY NOT EAT] UNLESS HE WORKS WITH HIS HANDS AND FEET.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is the reason [of the first Tanna]? &mdash; <i>When thou comest into they neighbour's vineyard</i><a id="k91b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; implies, for whatever work he may do.
</p><p>
	R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH SAID: [HE MAY NOT EAT] UNLESS HE WORKS WITH HIS HANDS AND FEET. What is the reason of R. Jose son of R. Judah? &mdash; He [the labourer] is likened to the ox:<a id="k91b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; just as the ox [does not eat unless] it works with its hands and feet,<a id="k91b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; so the labourer too must work with his hands and feet.
</p><p>
	Rabbah son of R. Huna propounded: According to R. Jose son of R. Judah, what if one threshes with geese and fowls?<a id="k91b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it necessary that [the work shall be done] with all its [sc. the creature that threshes] strength, which provision is complied with? Or perhaps, it must work with its fore-feet and hind-feet, which is here absent? &mdash; The problem remains unsolved.
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: Labourers, before they walk both lengthwise and crosswise in the winepress, may eat grapes but drink no wine. Having walked lengthwise and crosswise in the winepress, they may eat grapes and drink wine.<a id="k91b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. WHEN HE [THE LABOURER] IS WORKING AMONG FIGS, HE MUST NOT EAT OF GRAPES; AMONG GRAPES, HE MUST NOT EAT OF FIGS. YET HE MAY RESTRAIN HIMSELF UNTIL HE COMES TO THE CHOICE QUALITY [FRUIT] AND THEN EAT.<a id="k91b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; NOW, WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THEM [SC. THE LABOURERS], PERMISSION WAS GIVEN ONLY WHEN THEY ARE ACTUALLY AT WORK;<a id="k91b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT IN ORDER TO SAVE THE EMPLOYER'S TIME,<a id="k91b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY<a id="k91b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; RULED, LABOURERS MAY EAT AS THEY WALK FROM ROW TO ROW,<a id="k91b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; AND WHEN RETURNING FROM THE WINEPRESS. AND AS FOR AN ASS, [IT MAY EAT] WHILST BEING UNLADEN.<a id="k91b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The scholars propounded: Whilst working on one vine, may he [the labourer] eat of another?<a id="k91b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Is it merely necessary [that thou shalt eat only] of the kind which thou puttest into the employer's baskets,<a id="k91b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; which [requirement] is fulfilled; or is it stipulated that [thou shalt eat only] that [i.e., the tree from] which thou puttest into the employer's baskets, which is here lacking? [But] should you say, when working on one vine he may not eat of another, how can an ox eat of what is attached to the soil?<a id="k91b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Shisha the son of R. Idi replied: It is possible in the case of a straggling branch.<a id="k91b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: IF HE [THE LABOURER] IS WORKING AMONG FIGS, HE MUST NOT EAT OF GRAPES. This implies that he may eat of figs [when working] on figs, on the same conditions that [he may not eat of] figs [when working] on grapes:<a id="k91b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but should you say, If he works on one vine he may not eat of another, how is this possible? &mdash; R. Shisha, the son of R. Idi said: It is possible in the case of an overhanging branch.<a id="k91b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: BUT HE MAY RESTRAIN HIMSELF UNTIL HE COMES TO THE CHOICE QUALITY [FRUIT], AND THEN EAT. But should you say: Whilst employed on one vine he may eat of another, let him go, bring [the choice fruit] and eat it [and why restrain himself]? &mdash; There it is [forbidden] because of loss of time; [in that case,] there is no question.<a id="k91b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Our problem arises only if he has his wife and children with him:<a id="k91b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; what then? &mdash; Come and hear: NOW, WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THEM [SC. THE LABOURERS], PERMISSION WAS GIVEN ONLY WHEN THEY ARE ACTUALLY AT WORK, BUT IN ORDER TO SAVE THE EMPLOYER'S TIME, THEY RULED, LABOURERS MAY EAT AS THEY WALK FROM ROW TO ROW, AND WHEN RETURNING FROM THE WINE-PRESS. Now, it was assumed that walking [from vine to vine] is regarded as actual work [it being necessary thereto], yet he may eat only in order to save the employer's time, but not by Scriptural law; thus proving that whilst engaged on one vine he may not eat of another! &mdash; No. In truth I may assert that whilst engaged on one vine he may eat of another; but walking is not regarded as actual work. Others say, it was assumed that walking is not regarded as actual work, and only on that account may he not eat by Scriptural law, because he is not doing work; but if he were doing actual work, he might eat even by Biblical law, thus proving that whilst engaged on one vine he may eat of another! &mdash; No; in truth I may assert that whilst engaged on one vine he may not eat of another;
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k92a_1:" And yet were it not for the consideration of the employer's time, he would not be permitted to eat."
,k92a_2:" Its whole burden is removed at once, and then it is led away."
,k92a_3:" I.e., as long as it is laden, it may eat of its burden."
,k92a_4:" I.e., he will be unable to obtain employment, if he eats too greedily."
,k92a_5:" The Sages."
,k92a_6:" The first Tanna accepts this, and means thus: A labourer may eat cucumbers even if he was engaged only to work on these which he actually eats, whilst the Sages permit him to eat more than his wage (for which reason the Rabbis make mention of his wage, whilst the first Tanna omits all reference thereto), but not all that for which he was engaged."
,k92a_7:" And Scripture having permitted the labourer to eat, he cannot be bidden to refrain."
,k92a_8:" Viz., the putting into the employer's utensils."
,k92a_9:" I.e., if he was engaged only for that cluster, and he eats it."
,k92a_10:" [H]: Oral law being unwritten, when one particularly desired to remember a <i>halachah</i>, he recorded it but kept it secret (Rashi). [Kaplan, J. <i>op. cit</i>., p. 277, argues with great plausibility that the concealment of the scroll had nothing to do with the interdict of writing <i>halachah</i> records, but was due to its contents which, as will be seen, were not well adapted to unrestricted publicity. The same scroll contained another teaching by the same Tanna, which likewise was liable to abuse. Shab. 6b; 96b.]"
,k92a_11:" Deut. XXIII, 25."
,k92a_12:" Not only a labourer."
,k92a_13:" Social life is impossible if any person may enter and eat of one's crops. &mdash; Now, the first Tanna agrees with Rab, and hence says, only A LABOURER MAY EAT etc.; but the Sages maintain that any person may enter; hence they say that the labourer may eat more than his wage, since even if no wage is due at all &mdash; i.e., if he is not an employee he may still eat."
,k92a_14:" [Following reading of Alfasi and Asheri. Cur. edd. omit 'he observed'. Render accordingly: 'R. Ashi said, I put the (following) question (lit., 'discussion') to R. Kahana. Perhaps etc.' Cf. B.B. 114a; v. Strashun, S.]"
,k92a_15:" I.e., any man, even when not engaged by the owner, may enter a vineyard, assist in the vintaging, and eat. But it is unreasonable to suppose that Issi b. Judah permitted all and sundry to enter any man's vineyard, eat his fill, and make no return."
,k92a_16:" If that be the correct interpretation, why does Rab object?"
,k92a_17:" I.e., is it actually part of his salary, and in the nature of a bonus, or a special Divine favour bestowed upon the labourer?"
,k92a_18:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k92a_19:" Surely it is unreasonable that the additional bonus shall far exceed the wage actually stipulated."
,k92a_20:" For it is likewise unreasonable that the privilege conferred by Scripture shall exceed his actual due."
,k92a_21:" Notwithstanding that it exceeds his wage."
,k92a_22:" I.e., even if he is assumed to eat his own."
,k92a_23:" To eat even more than his wages, and still it is an addition thereto."
,k92a_24:" And therefore the bonus cannot exceed the principal."
,k92a_25:" I.e., the Sages."
,k92a_26:" Lit., 'soul'. I.e., in return for ascending the tree to gather the fruit, thereby endangering his life, the labourer may eat, That being so, there is no limit to the quantity."
,k92a_27:" V. p. 509, n. 5."
,k92a_28:" There thus being no warrant for the labourer to eat more than his wage."
,k92a_29:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> The reference is to a labourer, a nazirite, engaged on vintaging. A nazirite is forbidden to eat grapes."
,k92a_30:" This was proverbial: a man must not venture into temptation. Hence while it may be that the labourer eats of his own, here he is penalised for having accepted employment in a vineyard at all."
,k92a_31:" Both refer to the same, but were not taught together. V. <i>supra</i> 34a."
,k92a_32:" I.e., only he may eat, but none on his behalf."
,k92a_33:" But merely as a support, the law itself being Rabbinical, as stated in n. 7."
,k92a_34:" Figs were dried in the field and then pressed into cakes, the labourer being engaged for this purpose. "
}

txt:
<p>
and walking is regarded as actual work.<a id="k92a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND AS FOR AN ASS, [IT MAY EAT] WHILST BEING UNLADEN. But when it is unladen, whence can it eat?<a id="k92a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Say until it is unladen.<a id="k92a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; We have [thus] learnt [here] what our Rabbis taught: An ass and a camel can eat of the load on their backs, providing that he [the driver] does not personally take thereof and feed them.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A LABOURER MAY EAT CUCUMBERS, EVEN TO THE VALUE OF A <I>DENAR</I>, OR DATES, EVEN TO THE VALUE OF A <I>DENAR</I>. R. ELEAZAR HISMA SAID: A LABOURER MUST NOT EAT MORE THAN HIS WAGE. BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT; YET ONE IS ADVISED NOT TO BE GREEDY, AND THUS SHUT THE DOOR IN HIS FACE.<a id="k92a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Are not the Sages identical with the first Tanna? &mdash; They differ as to whether [the labourer] is advised [not to be greedy]. The first Tanna holds that he is not advised; whilst the Rabbis<a id="k92a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; maintain that he is. Alternatively, they differ in respect of R. Assi's dictum. For R. Assi said: Even if engaged merely to gather a single cluster, he may eat it.<a id="k92a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Assi also said: Even if he [as yet] vintaged only one cluster, [having been engaged for the day,] he may eat it. Now, both [dicta] are necessary. For if the first [only] were stated,I would think that that is so, since there is nothing [else] to put into the employer's vessels;<a id="k92a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but when there is something to put into the employer's vessels, I would think that he must first put [some there] and then eat. Whilst if the second statement [only] were made, I would think that the reason is that it can be eventually fulfilled;<a id="k92a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but where it cannot be eventually fulfilled,<a id="k92a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; I might think that he may not eat. Hence both are necessary.
</p><p>
	[Reverting to the Mishnah:] Alternatively, I can say, they differ in respect of Rab's dictum. For Rab said: I found a secret scroll of the School of R. Hiyya<a id="k92a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; wherein it was written, Issi b. Judah said: <i>When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard</i><a id="k92a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Scripture refers to the coming in of any man.<a id="k92a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Whereon Rab commented: Issi makes life impossible for any one.<a id="k92a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: I repeated the [above] teaching before R. Kahana. [Thereupon] he observed:<a id="k92a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Perhaps [Issi b. Judah referred] to those who labour for their food, working and eating.<a id="k92a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; And Rab?<a id="k92a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Even then, a man prefers to engage labourers to vintage his vineyard, rather than that any one should enter.
</p><p>
	The scholars propounded: Does the labourer eat his own [sc. when partaking of the fruit upon which he is engaged], or does he eat of Heaven's [gift]?<a id="k92a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; What practical difference does this make? If he said, 'Give it [the fruit that I might have eaten] to my wife and children.' Now, should you say that he eats his own, we must give it to them. But if he eats of Heaven's [gift], then upon him Scripture conferred this privilege, but not upon his wife and children. What is our ruling? &mdash; Come and hear: A LABOURER MAY EAT CUCUMBERS, EVEN TO THE VALUE OF A <I>DENAR</I>, OR DATES, EVEN TO THE VALUE OF A <I>DENAR</I>. Now, should you say that he eats of his own, when he is engaged for a <i>danka</i>,<a id="k92a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; shall he eat for a <i>denar</i>?<a id="k92a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; What then: he eats of Heaven's [gift]? Yet after all, being engaged for a <i>danka</i>, shall he eat for a <i>denar</i>!<a id="k92a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Hence, what must you reply? That the All-Merciful privileged him;<a id="k92a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; so here too,<a id="k92a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; the All-Merciful conferred that privilege upon him.<a id="k92a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: R. ELEAZAR HISMA SAID: A LABOURER MUST NOT EAT MORE THAN HIS WAGE. BUT THE SAGES PERMIT IT. Now, surely they differ in respect of this: one [sc. R. Eleazar Hisma] maintains that he eats his own,<a id="k92a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst the other holds that he eats the [gift] of Heaven! &mdash; No. All agree that he eats his own, but here they differ with respect to the interpretation of [then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill] according to thy soul. One Master<a id="k92a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; maintains, 'according to thy soul' means that for which thou riskest thy life;<a id="k92a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; whilst the other Master [R. Eleazar] interprets, 'As thyself': just as if thou muzzlest thyself thou art exempt [from punishment], so the labourer, if thou muzzlest him,<a id="k92a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; thou art exempt.<a id="k92a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If a <i>nazir</i><a id="k92a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; said, 'Give [the grapes I might have eaten] to my wife and children,' he is not heeded. Now should you say, he eats his own, why is he disregarded? &mdash; There it is because, 'Go, go, thou nazirite,' say we, 'take the most devious route, but approach not the vineyard.'<a id="k92a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If a labourer said, 'Give [the grapes] to my wife and children,' we do not heed him. Now should you say, he eats his own, why not? &mdash; What is meant by 'a labourer'? A <i>nazir</i>. But the case of a <i>nazir</i> has been taught, and also that of a labourer! &mdash; Were they then taught together?<a id="k92a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: Whence do we know that if a labourer said, 'Give [the fruit] to my wife and children,' he is not heeded? From the verse, But thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.<a id="k92a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; And should you reply, This too refers to a <i>nazir</i>; if so, is it on account of 'but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel': surely it is because, 'Go, go, thou nazirite', we say, etc.! &mdash; That is indeed so, but since he is referred to as a labourer, the verse relating to a labourer is cited.<a id="k92a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If one engages a labourer to dry figs,<a id="k92a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k92b_1:" Having yet to be dried, their work is not finished, v. <i>supra</i> 87a."
,k92b_2:" Rashi: for the wage stipulated, so that he would draw no pay. Tosaf: instead of me."
,k92b_3:" For it is as though he bought them (Ma'as. II, 7). V. <i>supra</i> 88a-b; cf. p. 507, n. 3."
,k92b_4:" For then it is part of his wage, still the Bible exempted him, though eating fruit as part of one's wage is akin to purchase. Then surely the same should hold good of his son!"
,k92b_5:" More so than when he himself eats, regard being had to the stipulation he made."
,k92b_6:" The fruit of a tree in the fourth year of its planting was to be eaten in Jerusalem, like the second tithe; v. Lev. XIX, 24."
,k92b_7:" Whilst working, since it must be taken to Jerusalem."
,k92b_8:" These fruits, just as those of the second tithe, could be redeemed, the redemption money to be expended in Jerusalem, whilst the fruit could then be eaten anywhere as ordinary <i>hullin</i> (v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>)."
,k92b_9:" V. <i>infra</i> 93a."
,k92b_10:" I.e., after having been pressed into cakes, the cakes were accidentally broken up, and labourers were engaged to re-press them."
,k92b_11:" And he hired labourers to re-fill them."
,k92b_12:" Since, as stated <i>supra</i> 89a, when fruit is already liable to tithes, the labourers may not eat."
,k92b_13:" That they had been pressed once, and so were liable to tithes."
,k92b_14:" V. <i>infra</i> 93a."
,k92b_15:" In which wine is stored, so that the labourer might have thought that it had not been barrelled yet."
,k92b_16:" And the labourers could have then known that they were liable to tithing."
,k92b_17:" [Var. lec.: R. Zebid son of R. Hoshaia. V. A. Z, (Sonc. ed.) p. 27, n. 4.]"
,k92b_18:" Rashi: When it has been skimmed in the barrels; after being filled in the barrels it ferments again and more scum settles on top, which must be removed."
,k92b_19:" By pasting in the bung."
,k92b_20:" They know that they are entitled to eat, but forego their rights."
,k92b_21:" V. <i>infra</i> 93a. The understanding of a minor is not legally recognised."
,k92b_22:" The father or owner who hires them out."
,k92b_23:" Since all their rights belong to him, and just as he receives their wages, so he can receive the food due to them as part wages."
,k92b_24:" So that he has no right even to their wages. This is on the assumption that when the master provides no food, he is not entitled to their work. This is a subject of dispute; v. <i>infra</i> 93a top."
,k92b_25:" Because of the prohibition of muzzling."
,k92b_26:" The Mishnah first quoted, which states that this stipulation may not be made for one's servants, if minors; and the Baraitha, which permits it."
,k92b_27:" Therefore his master may stipulate this, v, n. 1."
,k92b_28:" Hence he cannot stipulate."
,k92b_29:" Though entitled to their work, and providing them with food, he causes them to suffer by not eating of that upon which they are actually engaged. "
}

txt:
<p>
he [the labourer] may eat and is exempt from tithes.<a id="k92b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [But if he stipulates, 'I accept the work] on condition that I and my son eat, or, 'that my son eat for my wage:'<a id="k92b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; he may eat, and is exempt; and his son may eat, but is liable.<a id="k92b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Now should you say, he eats his own, why is his son liable?<a id="k92b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Rabina: Because it looks like purchase.<a id="k92b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: If one engages labourers to work upon his fourth year plantings,<a id="k92b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; they may not eat;<a id="k92b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he [the employer] did not inform them [that they were of the fourth year], he must redeem [the fruit]<a id="k92b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and let them eat it.<a id="k92b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Now should you Say, he eats of Heaven's [gift], why must he redeem [the fruit] and let them eat it? Surely the All-Merciful conferred no privilege upon them in respect of that which is forbidden! &mdash; There it is because it looks like an erroneous bargain. [If so,] consider the second clause: If his figs cakes were broken,<a id="k92b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; or if his barrels of wine burst open,<a id="k92b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; they may not eat.<a id="k92b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But if he did not inform them,<a id="k92b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he must tithe [the fruit and wine] and let them partake [thereof].<a id="k92b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Now should you say, He eats of Heaven's [gift], why must he tithe and let them eat: surely the All-Merciful conferred no privilege upon him in respect of what is forbidden! And should you reply, Here too it is because [otherwise] it looks like an erroneous bargain, [I can rejoin,] now as for the breaking of his fig-cakes, it is well, since it does look like an erroneous bargain; but if his barrels burst, where is the erroneous bargain? Surely he [the labourer] knew that they were <i>tebel</i> in respect of tithes! &mdash; R. Shesheth replied: It means that his barrels burst open into the tank.<a id="k92b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; But has it not been taught: Wine [is subject to tithes] when it descends into the tank?<a id="k92b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This agrees with R. Akiba, who ruled [it is not liable] until the scum is removed; so that they [the labourers] can say to him, 'We did not know [thereof].' But can he not retort, 'The possibility of its having been skimmed should have occurred to you'? &mdash; It refers to a locality where the same person who draws [the wine from the tank into barrels first] skims it. And now that R. zebid learned out of the Baraitha of R. Oshaia:<a id="k92b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Wine [is subject to tithes] when it is run into the tank and skimmed. R. Akiba said: When it is skimmed in barrels:<a id="k92b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; you may even say that the barrels did not burst open into the tank; yet they can say, 'We did not know that it had been skimmed.' But can he not say to them, 'The possibility of its having been skimmed should have occurred to you'? &mdash; It refers to a place where the same person who closes it<a id="k92b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; also skims it.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: A man may stipulate [to receive payment instead of eating] for himself, his son or daughter that are of age, his manservant and maidservant that are of age, and his wife; because they have understanding.<a id="k92b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But he may not stipulate [thus] for his son or daughter that are minors, his manservant or maidservant that are minors, nor in respect of his beasts; because they have no understanding.<a id="k92b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Now it is being assumed that he<a id="k92b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; provides them with food, should you then say that he [the labourer] eats of Heaven's [gift], it is well: consequently, one may not stipulate [to deprive them of their rights]. But if you maintain that he eats of his own, let him stipulate [thus] even for minors!<a id="k92b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In this case it means that he does not provide them with food.<a id="k92b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, [for] adults too [he cannot stipulate thus]! &mdash; Adults know [their rights] and forego them. But R. Hoshaia taught: A man may stipulate [as above] for himself and his wife, but not in respect of his beast;<a id="k92b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; for his son and daughter, if adults, but not if minors; for his Canaanite manservant and maidservant, whether adults or minors. Now presumably, both<a id="k92b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; mean that he provides them with food, and they differ in the following: one Master [sc. that of the Baraitha] maintains that he [the labourer] eats of his own;<a id="k92b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas the other holds that he eats of Heaven's! &mdash; No; all hold that he eats his own, yet there is no difficulty: here [in the Mishnah] he does not provide them with food,<a id="k92b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas in the Baraitha he does. How do you explain it: that he provides them with food? If so, let him stipulate for [his son and daughter if] minors too? &mdash; The All-Merciful did not privilege him to cause distress to his son and daughter.<a id="k92b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, how do you explain the Mishnah? That he does not provide them with food!
</P>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k93a_1:" On the hypothesis that he eats his own. According to the latter view the slave is supported by charity."
,k93a_2:" The Baraitha."
,k93a_3:" The Mishnah."
,k93a_4:" Surely not, since the former is more authentic than the latter."
,k93a_5:" That the slaves shall not eat."
,k93a_6:" I.e., he may arrange for the owner of the vineyard to feed the slave before he starts work, so that he has no appetite for the grapes."
,k93a_7:" Before it starts threshing the more valuable grain."
,k93a_8:" V. <i>supra</i> <a href=\"babamezia_92.html#92b_21\">p. 533, n. 7</a>."
,k93a_9:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 532."
,k93a_10:" Lit., 'the laws of the land'."
,k93a_11:" Their fruits being attached to the soil, and they do not remove them; hence they may not eat by Scriptural law."
,k93a_12:" Since these are detached."
,k93a_13:" Hence, when it is exercised upon detached fruits, the guardian may eat by general custom; but if they are attached, he may not eat at all."
,k93a_14:" V. Num. XIX. All who take part in the preparation of the red heifer, from the slaughter onwards, defile their garments."
,k93a_15:" Since it is not an occupation in the legal sense."
,k93a_16:" Which would really render him unclean through contact. Thus the defilement of the guardian is only by Rabbinical law, in contradistinction to those who perform a positive action, whose defilement is Scriptural."
,k93a_17:" Belonging to as many persons."
,k93a_18:" Since on this view he may not eat of what is attached, even by general custom."
,k93a_19:" I.e., they are detached."
,k93a_20:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 89a."
,k93a_21:" V. <i>supra</i> 88b."
,k93a_22:" <i>Supra</i> 504."
,k93a_23:" V. p. 504."
,k93a_24:" I.e., if the bailment is lost or destroyed through any cause, excepting negligence, the unpaid trustee must swear to the occurrence, and is free from liability."
,k93a_25:" Whatever the mishap, he is liable to pay."
,k93a_26:" Lit., 'broken'."
,k93a_27:" A paid bailee is exempt from liability in these cases; therefore he must swear that it really was so."
,k93a_28:" Surely not! The four bailees enumerated in the Mishnah must exist."
,k93a_29:" I.e., according to his reading of the Baraitha, R. Meir ruled that he ranked as a paid trustee, and R. Judah as an unpaid one. "
,k93a_30:" Since the hirer ranks as a paid bailee. This difficulty arises in any case, and the phrase 'if so' does not imply here that if the hirer ranked as an unpaid bailee there is no difficulty, but is merely introductory (Tosaf.). But in the parallel passage of Shebu. 49a the phrase is absent from Rashi's version."
,k93a_31:" Lit., 'their laws are three', a hirer and a paid bailee being in the same category."
,k93a_32:" V. <i>supra</i>, p. 496, n. 1. "
}

txt:
<p>
That agrees with the view that the master cannot say to his slave, 'Work for me, yet I will not feed you.' But on the view that he can say so, what can you answer?<a id="k93a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Both [teachings] therefore deal with a case where he does not provide them with food, but they differ on this very matter: one Master<a id="k93a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; maintains that he can [demand their work and refuse their food]; and the other<a id="k93a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; holds that he cannot. Then what of R. Johanan, who ruled that the master can say this: does he forsake the Mishnah and follow the Baraitha?<a id="k93a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But all agree that he eats of Heaven's [gift), and he [certainly) cannot stipulate.<a id="k93a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; In what sense then did R. Hoshaia teach that he can stipulate? &mdash; [In regard to] food.<a id="k93a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Then by analogy, in respect of an animal [a similar arrangement is that the hirer should feed it with) straw;<a id="k93a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; then let him stipulate! Hence they must differ therein: one Master [sc. of the Baraitha] maintains that he eats his own; whereas the other holds that he eats of Heaven's [gift].
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN MAY STIPULATE [TO RECEIVE PAYMENT INSTEAD OF EATING] FOR HIMSELF, HIS SON OR DAUGHTER THAT ARE OF AGE, HIS MANSERVANT AND MAIDSERVANT THAT ARE OF AGE, AND HIS WIFE; BECAUSE THEY HAVE UNDERSTANDING. BUT HE MAY NOT STIPULATE [THUS] FOR HIS SON OR DAUGHTER THAT ARE MINORS, HIS MANSERVANT OR MAIDSERVANT THAT ARE MINORS, NOR IN RESPECT OF HIS BEASTS; BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING.<a id="k93a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; IF ONE ENGAGES LABOURERS TO WORK UPON HIS FOURTH YEAR PLANTINGS, THEY MAY NOT EAT; BUT IF HE DID NOT INFORM THEM [THAT THEY WERE OF THE FOURTH YEAR], HE MUST REDEEM [THE FRUIT] AND LET THEM EAT IT. IF HIS FIG-CAKES WERE BROKEN, OR HIS BARRELS OF WINE BURST OPEN, THEY MAY NOT EAT. BUT IF HE DID NOT INFORM THEM, HE MUST TITHE [THE FRUIT OR WINE] AND LET THEM PARTAKE [THEREOF].<a id="k93a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; THOSE WHO GUARD FRUITS MAY EAT THEREOF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL CUSTOM,<a id="k93a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT NOT BY SCRIPTURAL LAW. 
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. THOSE WHO GUARD FRUITS [etc.] Rab said: This was stated only of those who look after gardens and orchards;<a id="k93a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; but those who guard wine-vats and [grain] stocks may eat [even] by Biblical law.<a id="k93a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; In his [Rab's] opinion guarding is counted as labour. But Samuel said: This was stated only of those who guard wine-vats and [grain] stocks; but those who look after gardens and orchards may eat neither by Biblical law nor by general custom. In his view, guarding is not considered labour.<a id="k93a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Aha son of R. Huna raised an objection. He who guards the [red] heifer defiles his garments.<a id="k93a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Now should you maintain, Guarding is not considered labour, why does he defile his garments?<a id="k93a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabbah b. 'Ulla said: As a precautionary measure, lest he move a limb thereof.<a id="k93a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Kahana raised an objection: He who guards four or five cucumber beds<a id="k93a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; must not eat his fill of one of them, but proportionately of each. Now if guarding is not considered labour, why eat at all?<a id="k93a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Shimi b. Ashi replied: This refers to those which are removed [from the plant].<a id="k93a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; But then this work is finished for tithes!<a id="k93a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Their blossom had not yet been cut off.<a id="k93a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ashi said: Reason supports Samuel. For we learnt: Now, the following [labourers] may eat by Scriptural law: he who is engaged upon what is attached to the soil, when the labour thereof is completed; and upon what is detached,<a id="k93a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; etc. This implies that some eat not by Scriptural law but in accordance with general custom. Then consider the second clause: But the following do not eat. What is meant by 'do not eat'? Shall we say, they do not eat by Scriptural law, yet eat in accordance with general custom &mdash; then is it not identical with the first clause? Hence it must surely mean that they eat neither by Scriptural nor by unwritten law. And who are they? 'He who is engaged upon that which is attached to the soil before its labour is completed.'<a id="k93a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; How much more so then they who look after gardens and orchards!
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. THERE ARE FOUR BAILEES: A GRATUITOUS BAILEE, A BORROWER, A PAID BAILEE AND A HIRER. A GRATUITOUS BAILEE MUST SWEAR FOR EVERYTHING.<a id="k93a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; A BORROWER MUST PAY FOR EVERYTHING.<a id="k93a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; A PAID BAILEE OR A HIRER MUST SWEAR CONCERNING AN ANIMAL THAT WAS INJURED,<a id="k93a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; CAPTURED [IN A RAID] OR THAT PERISHED;<a id="k93a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT MUST PAY FOR LOSS OR THEFT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Which Tanna [maintains that there are] four bailees? &mdash; R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: It is R. Meir. Said Raba to R. Nahman: Does any Tanna dispute that there are four bailees?<a id="k93a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: I mean this: Which Tanna holds that a hirer ranks as a paid bailee? R. Meir. But we know R. Meir to hold the reverse? For it has been taught: How does a hirer pay? R. Meir said, As an unpaid bailee. R. Judah ruled, As a paid one! Rabbah b. Abbuha learnt it reversed.<a id="k93a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, are there four? Surely there are only three!<a id="k93a_30"><sup>30</sup></a> &mdash; R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: There are indeed four bailees, but they fall into three classes.<a id="k93a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A shepherd was once pasturing his beasts by the banks of the River Papa,<a id="k93a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; when one slipped and fell into the water [and was drowned]. He then came before Rabbah, who exempted him [from liability], with the remark, 'What could he have done?
</P><hr noshade size="1" width="100%"><P></P>


