אמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רב:

1. אמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רב: Rabba Bar Rav Huna said that Rav Said:

2. מקרה: השוכר את החמור לרכובעליה ומתה לו בחצי הדרך שוק 4 Km 8 Km Case: A person rents a donkey from another person, and the donkey dies in the middle of his trip.

3. Rav says: The renter will pay the fee for the amount he traveled (half) and can also complain about the owner for renting him a flimsy donkey נותן לו שכרו של חצי הדרך, ואין לו עליו אלא תרעומות רב אומר:

4. What exactly is the case??? היכי דמי? הגמרה שואלת:: Complaints are only valid if they are reasonable אי דשכיח לאגורי תרעומות מאי עבידתיה! (משנה עה ב) And if the Renter does find another donkey to rent, he should not have to pay the owner! [ו]אי דלא שכיח לאגורי אגרא בעי למיתב ליה? (ברור שלא!)

5. In the case, Rav is assuming that the renter does not find another donkey to rent, but still says that he must pay the owner, because the owner could say: if you wanted to go halfway, you would have paid me for halfway לעולם דלא שכיח לאגורי ומשום [וגם כחה] דאמר ליה אילו בעית : "למיתי עד הכא, לאו אגרא בעית למיתב??" הגמרה מתקנת::

6. The renter did not pay to travel to the midpoint of his trip. He wanted to arrive at his destination! So why, then, would we impose an expense that he does not deserve on him? תוספות שואל:

7. It is also assumed in this case that the renter was a merchant that wanted to travel to the market to sell his goods. It is assumed in this case that the merchant has sold all his goods at midpoint and has fulfilled his goals of the trip at midpoint. The Merchant did not lose anything by the stop. תוספות אונה:

8. הגמרה שוב שואלת על רב: היכי דמי? אי דא"ל חמור סתם, הא חייב להעמיד לו חמור אחר. אי דא"ל חמור זה אם יש בדמיה ליקח יקח?

9. Question: What exactly is the case? If the owner of the donkey did not specify that the renter only receives one specific donkey for the journey, then maybe it can be assumed that the owner is providing as many donkeys as necessary to reach the location. In that case, the owner is required to supply the renter with another donkey, so he can complete his journey. Or if the owner did specify that the renter only receives one specific donkey for the journey, then the renter could sell the carcass and its value would be enough to buy an adequate replacement. So if that’s true, why would Rav rule that the renter must pay half in either of those cases?

10. הגמרא עונה לא צריכא בשאין בדמיה ליקח Or in English: (Answer): Neither of the above suggestions apply. This is the actual case: The owner did specify that the renter receives one particular donkey. But the value of the carcass is not sufficient to buy a minimally adequate replacement. So as Rava says, the renter must pay the owner half the rental fee.

11. עוד שאלה אם יש בדמיה לשכור ישכור Another question: Same case (renter rents a specific donkey) but shouldn’t the carcass be enough to at least rent another donkey to complete the journey? If the renter could complete the journey, why make him pay half, as the Rava says?

12. תשובה My answer applies even to this case. Let me explain by bringing a chazakah: We do not consume an owner’s principal for a renter’s benefit [חזקה]: רב לטעמיה

13. So in the case where the renter, (midway through his journey, when the donkey died), has enough money to purchase a new donkey, that donkey (aka the owner’s principal) can be returned to the owner at the end of the renter’s journey. דאמר רב לאמכלינן קרנא דאתמר השוכר את החמור ומתה לו בחצי הדרך אמר רב אם יש בדמיה ליקח יקח לשכור אל ישכור But in the case where the renter only has enough money to rent another donkey, that donkey would not be returned to the original owner. So he would lose out on his principal (the value of the donkey) to the renter’s benefit, who got to finish his trip.

14. ושמואל אמר אף לשכור ישכור But Shmuel Says: Rav is wrong! I think that a renter is allowed to use an owner’s principal. So the renter would be allowed to rent a new donkey, midway through the journey.

15. How do Shmuel and Rav contradict? במאי קמיפלגי רב סבר לא מכלינן קרנא I say that the renter cannot consume the owner’s principal to his benefit. So you see, the renter is not allowed to rent another donkey. Therefore, the renter pays half in the case where the renter has to buy a new donkey. ושמואל סבר מכלינן קרנא I say that the renter can consume the owner’s principal to his benefit.

16. מקרה חדש Asells B land. A B מיתיבי יבש האילן או נקצץ שניהם אסורין בו כיצד יעשה ילקח בו קרקע והוא אוכל פירות But B doesn’t have money to pay A. So he gives him the produce of the field every year until his debt is paid up.

17. A B But what happens if the tree falls down? Neither A or B are allowed to sell or burn the remains of the tree because one would always benefit from the other’s principal.

18. A B Both A and B sell the remains of the tree. They use the money to buy a new plot of land. A gets the produce made on that land until B’s debt is paid off.

19. והא הכא כיון דכי מטי יובל, קא הדרא ארעא למרה וקא כליא קרנא!!! But in this case the Principle is consumed! Land bought goes back to the seller after the Yovel (the 50th year). In this case, the lender gives the field back to the borrower exactly at the Yovel (50th year), meaning that the land is indeed consumed by the lender. הגמרה דוחה את טעם רב:

20. ?הכא במאי עסקינן What case are we dealing with??? דזבין ליה לשיתין שנין. This is a case where the land is sold for 60 years המרה דוחה את אצמה:

21. Rav Chisda Brings proof that when land is sold for 60 years, it is not affected by the Yovel: it is learned from a פסוק דאמר רב חסדא אמר רב קטינא מנין למוכר שדהו לששים שנה שאינה חוזרת ביובל “And the land should not be sold in perpetuity” שנאמר: (ויקרא כה) "והארץ לא תמכר לצמיתות"

22. סוף סוף לכי מטו שיתין שנין קא הדרא ארעא למרה וקא כליא קרנא But -- When the sixty years finally arrives, the land reverts to its original owner, and the principal (the land) is consumed. So from here we still see that the braita’s recommendation of purchase of land contradicts with Rav’s opinion?

23. אלא הכא במאי עסקינן בזמן שאין היובל נוהג With what case are we dealing here in with in the braita? With an unrestricted sale of land to the lender during the time that the law of yovel does not operate (Yovel is only to be obsered when all the tribes reside in Erets Israel). Since the land will never return to its original owner in this case the principal is preserved.

24. ה"נ מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך בזמן שהיובל נוהג ומכלינן קרנא נצלחיה לציבי ונשקליה So that’s also a reason, that the braita said to buy the land with the money from the dead tree when the law of Yovel operates. Why did it do that? It could of just said let the lender chop the tree and take the chips for fuel instead. Since the gemara didn’t say this simpler answer, we conclude that the gemara approved purchasing the land only when Yovel is not observed and therefore would not harm the principal.

25. אי משום הא לא קשיא זמנין דשלמו שני משכנתא מקמי יובל אי נמי דמטו ליה זוזי ופריק לה ארבע וחמש שנין מקמי יובל If the only reason to interpret the braita was because of this question (that the owner can not consume the colleteral otherwise he could use the tree for fuel), there wouldn’t be a problem. For the period of time the Surean pledge expires four or five years before the end of the Yovel, or the borrower pays a significant amount of money to the lender four or five years before the end of the end of the Yovel he is allowed to benefit from the land before its taken away from him.

26. Goodbye, Kids! I hope you enjoyed today’s lesson!