Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Nezikin · 465 sections

7.1.2
במתיקה – for their bread
7.1.3
הכל כמנהג המדינה – everything which includes the places where workers customarily eat and drink in the morning in the house of the owner before they go out to work. For if the owner had said to them – go early to your work in the field and I will bring to you your food there, they would say to him, “no,” but rather now let is eat in the house prior to our going out to the field, according to the custom of the province.
7.1.4
מעשה ברבי יוחנן בן מתיא – In the Gemara (Bava Metzia 86a-b): The Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: If he stipulated to provide them food, he thereby increases his hood to them, that is to say, since it was not necessary to teach this since it was the custom of the province that they would eat, and it was taught explicitly to give them food, more food was mentioned. And there is the story of Rabbi Yohanan etc [as specified in the Mishnah proper].
7.1.5
בשעתו – at the time of his kingdom, when he was a king and a commoner.
7.1.6
שהם בני אברהם יצחק ויעקב – and the meal of Abraham was larger than that of Solomon, for Abraham had three cows for three people (the “people” were the angels, described in the story of Genesis, chapter 18, when Abraham rose up while recovering from his circumcision to welcome his “guests.”). And at the meal of Solomon, Judah and Israel were large like the sands that were on the sea shorte.
7.1.7
עד שלא יתחילו במלאכה – there is nothing here other than words, for once they had begun, they cannot return.
7.1.8
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר וכו' – And the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.
7.2.1
ואלו – workers.
7.2.2
אוכלים מן התורה – in what they are engaged with.
7.2.3
גמר מלאכה – when they detach it, as it is written (Deuteronomy 23:25): “[When you enter another man’s vineyard, you may eat as many grapes as you want, until you are full,] but you must not put any in your vessel.” At the time when you put [them] into the vessels of the owner, you may eat, which is when you tear/detach them.
7.2.4
ובתלוש מן הקרקע – and if you are engaging in things that are detached, you may eat of that thing as long as you have not completed the work required [to make them liable] for tithing, if it is something that is tithed, or as long as you have not completed the work required [to make them liable] for Hallah, if it is something that is given as Hallah, for as Scripture stated (Deuteronomy 25:4): “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing,” and since it is doesn’t say that you should not thresh while muzzling, we learn from it to make a juxtaposition between one who muzzles and that which is muzzled, and that which is muzzled to the one who muzzles. Just as the muzzled is an ox which eats that which is detached while it is engaged in work, so to the muzzle, who is a person, eats what is detached while engaged in work. And just as the one who muzzles, etc. And just as threshing is special, that which grows in the ground and its work has not been completed [to make it liable] for tithing and at the time when the work is completed , the worker can eat of it, so similarly all things that grow in the ground and whose work has not been completed [to make it liable] for tithing, and when it is at the time when the work is completed, the work eats of it, excluding the milking of animals and the presses thick milk in a bag to let the fluid run out (see Rashi to Shabbat 95a) and who makes cheese, which are not things that grow in the ground, and it excludes [also] one who separates the fruit of the date-palm and the dried figs that are attached together when their labor is completed [to become liable] for tithing , and excluding weeding garlic and onions , where he removes the small ones which have not grown from among the others to widen the space for the larger ones, for this is not the time of the end of the work. For all of these and ones similar to them, the worker does not eat them.
7.3.1
עד שיעשה בידיו ורגליו – Just as the ox with his hands and with its feet, so also the worker with his hands and with his feet, just as there is a juxtaposition between the one who muzzles and the muzzled [animal]. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi B’Rabbi Yehuda.
7.4.1
מפני השב אבדה לבעלים – so that he will not be idle from his labor.
7.4.2
אמרו פועלים אוכלים בהליכתן מאומן לאומן – when they have finished this row and walk to begin its neighbor, and even though at that hour, it is not the time of work, it is pleasing to the owner with this.
7.4.3
וחמור כשהיא פורקת – while it is walking, it eats from the burden that is on its back until she unloads.
7.5.1
אפילו בדינר – even if it is worth the equivalent of a denar.
7.5.2
לא יאכל פועל יותר על שכרו – as Scripture states, “until you are full,” while he is hired, for it is upon him as he obligates himself to ascend the ramp or to hang in the tree.
7.5.3
מלמדין – we say to him via advice that is appropriate, but the first Tanna disputes the Sages and states that we don’t teach him, and Halakha is according to the Sages.
7.5.4
ויהא סותם את הפתח – and they will be prevented from hiring him.
7.6.1
קוצץ – he will take money and not eat.
7.6.2
על ידי עצמו – for himself
7.6.3
מפני שיש בהן דעת – and they know and they pardon/forgive.
7.7.1
נטע רבעי – fourth-year fruit of the tree, which are not eaten other than in Jerusalem or one redeems them and brings their monetary value (plus twenty percent) to Jerusalem.
7.7.2
נתפרסו עיגוליו – cakes of figs that became separated and works were hired to combine them, or jugs that opened up and workers were hired to seal them closed.
7.7.3
הרי לאו לא יאכלו – because their work had been completed and they were ready for tithing as they had become eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts.
7.8.1
שומרי פירות – those who guard vats and piles and detached produce, but those who guard gardens and orchards, we do not consume, neither from the laws of the province, nor from the Torah, for a bailee is not like someone doing anything.
7.8.2
מהלכות מדינה – that already was practiced as such.
7.8.3
נשבע על הכל – on all of the events that are written with the other bailees for liability, he takes an oath that such has happened to him and he is exempt.
7.8.4
משלם את הכל – theft, and loss and unavoidable accidents.
7.8.5
נושא שכר וכו' – and all of these are derived from Biblical verses in the portion of “V’Eleh Mishpatim”/”And these are the ordinances”. The first portion (Exodus 22:6) “When a man gives [money or goods] to another” is stated regarding the unpaid bailee. The second (Exodus 22:9): “When a man gives to another an ass, an ox, a sheep…” is stated [with regard] to a paid bailee, for he is liable for theft and loss, as it is written (concerning it) (Exodus 22:11): “But if [the animal] was stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.” I don’t have anything other than “theft,” from where to I learn “loss?” The inference teaches (Exodus 22:11): “But if [the animal] was stolen…” in any case. And further, an inference from the weaker to the stronger (i.e., a fortiori), Just as theft is close to an unavoidable accident, one is liable, loss, which is close to negligence, is it not obvious? And the renter, since not all the benefit is his, the law is like the paid bailee. And the borrower is explained in the third section (Exodus 22:13): “When a man borrows [an animal] from another and it dies or is injured, its owner not being with it, he must make restitution.”
7.9.1
זאב אחד אינו אונס – and a paid bailee and a renter are liable for it, as it is written (Exodus 22:12): “…he need not replace what has been torn by beasts.” There is something torn by beasts that he does pay, and there is something torn by beasts that he does not pay.
7.9.2
כשעת משלחת זאבים – when an evil beast is sent away, it jumps upon another person. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda and is not known in the Babylonian Talmud.
7.9.3
הלסטים – one robber – this is an unavoidable accident.
7.10.1
סגפה – caused her privation with hunger or placed her in the heat in the summer or in the cold during the winter.
7.10.2
עלתה לראשי צוקין – she overpowered him and went up to the top of high mountains.
7.10.3
מתנה שומר חנם להיות פטור משבועה – that is not making a stipulation contrary to what is written in the Torah, but when he says to him: “It is impossible for me to be your bailee other than with this. And the bailee does not go down to his guarding until he pulls the animal. And this when he pulls the animal he has already explained on the condition that he has no oath upon him, nor has mortgaged himself to go down in the law of the bailee, other than in part. And for what he went down, he went down.
7.11.1
כל המתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה תנאו בטל – The entire Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Meir, who holds that a person who makes a stipulation against what is written in the Torah, even in a manner of money, his condition is null/void, and is not the Halakha. But in a manner of money, even after he stipulated against what was written in the Torah, his condition is valid.
7.11.2
כל תנאי שיש בו מעשה מתחלה – that he advanced the act that he has do to the stipulation that he requests from him, such as “behold this act is yours if you will do a certain thing, and it is not similar to the condition stipulation of the children of Gad and the children of Reuven (Numbers 32:29): “if [every shock-fighter among the Gadites and the Reubenites] crosses…you shall give them [the land of Gilead as a holding],” which is a stipulation prior to an action.
7.11.3
תנאו בטל – the action is valid and even though the person who made the stipulation did not fulfill the stipulation.
7.11.4
וכל שאפשר לו לקיימו בסופו – and the stipulation was prior to the action.
7.11.5
תנאו קיים – but it is impossible for him to fulfill it, the stipulation is null/void and the action is fulfilled, for it is not other than an evasive reply, for it is not in his heart to make a stipulation other than to merely annoy him, distancing and putting off his fellow with words.
8.1.1
השואל את הפרה ושאל בעלה עמה – if the owners of the cow were with the borrower to do his work, whether they were borrowed with him or rented, whether at the same work of the cow, or whether to do a different [kind of] work, and if the animal died, he is exempt.
8.1.2
שנאמר אם בעליו עמו לא ישלם – and this implies if the owner of the ox was with it, with the borrower, and is borrowed or rented to him to do work at the time that he borrowed his cow, he doesn’t pay.
8.1.3
אבל שאל את הפרה כו' – if it was with him at the time of an unavoidable accident, but was not with him at the time of the borrowing, he (i.e., the borrower) is liable, for it was not borrowing with the owners to make him exempt other than if he was with him at the time of the borrowing.
8.1.4
שנאמר בעליו אין עמו שלם ישלם – And this is what Scripture teaches us: If the owner is not with it (i.e., the animal) at the time of the borrowing, even if he was with him (i.e., the animal) at the time of breaking a bone or death, he (i.e., the borrower) must surely pay.
8.2.1
המשאיל אומר שאולה מתה – and you are liable for its unavoidable accidents.
8.2.2
איני יודע – lest it died while rented out, and am exempt from the unavoidable accidents.
8.2.3
חייב – It is not possible to establish our Mishnah as it implies, for we hold that my Maneh is in your hands, and the other says, that he doesn’t know [how the animal died] and he takes an equitable oath (see Shevuot 40b – which is applied, if one who is sued for a debt, denies the latter entirely, in contradistinction to the legal oath which is required when the defendant admits a part of the claim. It being presumed that nobody will go to law unless he has a claim, it is a matter of equity to put the opponent to an oath, to which he may in return put the claimant) that he does not know [how the animal died – if it had been borrowed or tented] and is exempt from payment/penalty. For this reason, we establish in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 98a) that where there is the business of an oath that is Torah mandated between them, such as where [the lender] says to him: I transferred to you two cows, one day as borrowed and the other day as a rental, and both of them (i.e., the cows) died while they were borrowed. And the borrower said to him (i.e., the lender), one of them, yes, at the time while it was borrowed it died. But one of them (i.e., the cows), I don’t know. And this like someone who partially admits to the claim and he is liable for an oath. And because he cannot take an oath, he pays. And it is similar to [the case of] my Maneh is in your hands, and the other responds, How is this? Fifty (i.e., one-half) I know about and fifty (i.e., the other half) I don’t know [anything] about. He is required to take an oath but he is not able to take an oath, and because he is unable to take an oath, he must pay.
8.2.4
ישבע השוכר ששכורה מתה – this also is impossible to establish as it implies. And we hold that if one claimed “wheat” and the other admitted to him “barley,” he is exempt even from the cost of the barley. And that is so – that what he admitted to him was not what the other claimed, and what he claimed he (i.e., the other) did not admit to him. And what place is there for an oath? For this we have established in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 98b – a “rolling oath.” The lender can plea: “Even on your own plea, you must still swear that the animal died naturally, not through your negligence” – which rejects the ruling of Rami bar Hama’s ruling that no oath is imposed at all upon bailees, even when they plead loss, theft, death, etc., unless there is also a partial rejection of the claim. The bailee is bound to swear another oath – that the hired one and not the borrowed one has died is administered. The superimposed oath is Biblical, not Rabbinic. See also Sotah 18a). In that he (i.e., the lender/person who rents out the animal) says to the borrower/renter: Swear to me the oath of the bailees that you are required to swear, that she (i.e., the animal) died naturally, for the deponent’s statement is accepted as true on the ground that, if he had intended to tell a lie, he might have invented one more advantageous to his cause – that he could have taken an other that it died naturally for if he made a claim also that via a rolling oath, that she died while rented out.
8.2.5
יחלוקו – Our Mishnah is [according to] Sumachus, who stated that monies that are placed in doubt should be divided, and it is not the Halakha, for the Halakha is: “He who wants to exact [compensation] from his fellow bears the burden of proof” (see Mishnah Bava Kamma, Chapter 3, Mishnah 11), and the the one appealed to must take an oath that he doesn’t know and is exempt.
8.3.1
ביד בנו – The lender sent it to the borrower by the hand of his son or his servant or the agent of the lender.
8.3.2
או ביד בנו ועבדו ושלוחו של שואל – he (i.e. the borrower) is exempt if it (i.e. the animal) died on the road [to him/her]. But that agent of the borrower, one can establish it (see Bava Kamma 104a – also Shevuot 46b) – regarding his hired laborer or his client who lives in his home (may they take the oath)? But he did not make this person an agent before witnesses, for if witnesses had made the person the agent, the borrower would be obligated for his (i.e., the agent’s) unavoidable accident when the lender transferred it (i.e., the animal) to him. But there are those who say that even if he (i.e., the borrower) made the person his agent before witnesses, he is not liable through his hand for unavoidable accidents. And this is what he says to him – that a person is [deemed] believable if he wishes to send it in his hands, he sends it.
8.3.3
אמר לו השואל שלחה לי וכו' – in the hand of your servant, he (i.e., the borrower) is liable. This “your servant’ is speaking about a Hebrew slave, for it were a Canaanite slave, the hand of the slave is like the hand of the master, and it would be like he didn’t depart from the domain of the lender, and it would be like the lender himself walked to him, and the borrower would be exempt, if he suffered an unavoidable accident on the way.
8.3.4
וכן בשעה שמחזירה – If the borrower sent it in the hand of his son, or his servant or his gent, or in the hand of the son, slave or agent of the lender, it did not leave the domain of the the borrower juntil it comes to the hand of the lender, and if he suffers an unavoidable accident on the way, he is liable. If the lender said to him (i.e., the borrower): “Send it to me,” or the borrower said, “Behold I am sending it, et.” And the lender said to him, “Send it,” and he sent it (i.e., the animal) and it suffered an unavoidable accident on the way, he is exempt [from having to make any payments). And our Mishnah specifically when he returns it amidst the days of his borrowing it (i.e., the animal) when he is liable for unavoidable accidents. But if he returned it after the days of his borrowing, the law of a paid bailee applies [since he derived benefit from it] and not the law of a borrower, and if he sent it by the hand of his son, or his servant ,or his agent, whether it was his or it belonged to the lender, and it suffered an unavoidable accident, he is exempt [from payment].
8.4.1
המוכר שפחתו וילדה – since a Canaanite slave is acquired by money, and when he gave the money, he acquired the female [Canaanite] slave in every place that she is. And if it is not known if until she gave birth he gave the money, and the fetus us his, or after she gave birth, and the child belongs to the owners. But a cow is not acquired by money, but by pulling/drawing the object to be acquired towards oneself, and since he pulled it, it would be known if she gave birth already or not given birth, and for this [reason], it was necessary for the Mishnah to teach, “he who exchanges,” for via “Halifin”/a form of possession by handing to the purchaser an object as a symbolical substitute, since when one draws the object to be acquired towards oneself, the other person acquires in whatever place he is in, therefore it is not known whether the animal gave birth or not.
8.4.2
יחלוקו – And our Mishnah is according to Sumachos, but the Halakha is not according to him.
8.4.3
זה אומר גדול וזה אומר קטן – The one says the monetary value of a large slave and the other one says the monetary value of a small slave. For it were an actual slave, we hold that we don’t take oaths on slaves. And furthermore, what he claimed against him, he did not admit to him and what he (i.e. the other) admitted to, he (i.e., the first) did not claim, and there was no place for an oath.
8.5.1
המוכר זיתיו לעצים – to cut them down to burn them and he detained them in the ground.
8.5.2
ועשו – bad olives for a Seah of them did not produce one-quarter of a log of oil.
8.5.3
הרי אלו של בעל הזיתים – for less than one-fourth [of a log] people aren’t strict/particular about it. Ands the one-quarter that they mentioned, outside of the removal which he takes out at their olive harvest and at their pressing. And our Mishnah [deals with] when he sells his olives to merely cut them down. But if he said to him to cut them down immediately, even less than one-quarter [of a Log of oil per Seah] to the owner of the field. But if he said to cut them when he would desire, even more than one-quarter [of a Log of oil] would go to the owner of the olives.
8.5.4
וזה אומר ארצי גידלה יחלוקו – In the Gemara (Bava Metzia 101a), it establishes it as in the case where a river swept away the olives with their clods [of earth], that is, with the ground that is surrounding them that they are able to live through it, and because of that, they are exempt from Orlah (i.e. the prohibition of eating the fruit of trees of the first three years), and all the first three years is when they would divide it between them, for even though the land of this one grew them, nevertheless, if not for their clods [of earth], one would not be able to eat from them because of [the laws of] Orlah. But after the first three years, everything [belongs] to the owner of the ground, for he said to him: If had planted it, after three [years], I would not have been able to eat of them.
8.6.1
המשכיר בית לחבירו – undefined.
8.6.2
בימות הגשמים אינו יכול להוציאו מן החג ועד הפסח ובימות החמה שלשים יום – that is to say, if he comes to remove/evict him prior to Passover, that he must inform him thirty days from the days of the summer/heat, that is from the fifteenth of Elul for from there is thirty days until Sukkot/”the holiday” which is the beginning of the days of rainfall, and if he did not inform him from the fifteenth of Elul, he cannot evict him until Passover, and automatically we learn that he who rents a house, undefined, in the days of the summer/heat, he must inform him thirty days before he removes/evicts him (Bava Metzia 101b).
8.6.3
ובכרכים – For everyone is drawn there to live and homes are not found to rent, he must inform him twelve months prior to evicting/removing him, whether during the days of summer/heat, whether during the rainy season, and just as he who rents out a home must inform him, so the renter must inform him (i.e., the owner) – in the villages thirty days and in the walled cities twelve months. And if he does not inform him, he cannot leave, but rather gives him his rent.
8.6.4
של נחתומים ושל צבעים שלש שנים – because of the great credit for a long time. And the Halakha is according to Rabban Gamaliel.
8.7.1
ובנגר – When they lock the door and insert it into the beam of the lintel.
8.7.2
הזבל של בעל הבית – like when the dung is made from bulls that came on their own, for if they were the bulls of the renter, the dung belongs to the renter.
8.7.3
היוצא מן התנור – ashes and they became dung.
8.8.1
נתעברה לשוכר – he would not increase the monthly payment, for the intercalation is included in the year.
8.8.2
מעשה בציפורי – In the Gemara (Bava Metzia 102b), it raises an objection. You quote a story which disproves your rule! For the first part of the Mishnah teaches either it all goes to the renter or all goes to the person who rents it out, and it brings a story/case where they should divide it, and it responds that the Mishnah is deficient and it should be read as follows: If he said to him: “I rent it to you] for twelve golden denarii per year, at a golden dinar per month, they must divide/share it between them. And we don’t know if he seized the first language or the latter language, and the story also, etc. But the Halakha is not according the Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel or like Rabbi Yosi, but one goes after the least of these languages, that the land is in the possession of its owner stands. Therefore, all of it is [belongs] to the person renting out, whether the first language was less whether the latter language was less.
8.9.1
חייב להעמיד לו בית – [for the days of his rental].
8.9.2
היה גדול לא יעשנו קטן וכו' – and he that showed him a house and said to him (i.e. the prospective renter): “a house like this one I will rent out to you,” but when he provides the house and says to him: “this house I am renting out to you,” and it falls, he is not liable to build it. But if he said to him an undefined/unspecified, he must provide him a place that is called a house, whether it is large or small.
9.1.1
המקבל שדה – as a tenancy (who tills the owner’s ground for a certain share in the produce) for one half, a third or a quarter [of the produce] or a tenant who pays the landlord a fixed annual rent in kind, irrespective of the yield of the crops – for so many Kors per year.
9.1.2
לחרוש אחריו – after harvesting or the uprooting, in order to to turn over the roots of bad grasses that are there so that they will die.
9.1.3
ובקנים – that support the vines.
9.1.4
ובשניהם מספקים את הקנים – What is the reason that he stated it? What is the reason that they divide the canes? Because both (i.e. the owner and the renter) provide the new canes throughout the year.
9.2.1
בית השלחין – dry ground that lacks sufficient rain water for it (and hence, requires irrigation).
9.2.2
או בית האילן – and for the tree which is beloved to the tenant, who takes part of its fruits without toil.
9.2.3
יבש המעין – in it, that from in we water it.
9.2.4
מן חכורו – If he received it (i.e., the field) as a tenancy whereby he pays such-and-such Kors per year, for from the outset, he did not reveal his intention that because of a spring or a tree, he has increased/profited in his tenancy.
9.2.5
חכור לי בית השלחין זו – he revealed his intention that because it is a ground that requires irrigation, he has profited/gained from it and took in rent on a fixed annual rental payable in kind (as opposed to a percentage to the owner).
9.3.1
המקבל שדה – for a half, a third or a quarter [of the produce].
9.3.2
והובירה – that he did not plough it or sow it.
9.3.3
אם אוביר – I will make it fallow ground.
9.3.4
ולא אעביד – and I will not perform any appropriate work on it.
9.3.5
אשלם במיטבא – according to what it would be appropriate to make had it been ploughed and sown as is worthy.
9.4.1
ולא רצה לנכש – to cleanse the field from bad grasses that weakens the strength of the field and prevents the grain from coming up.
9.4.2
מה איכפת לך – if my portion is lacking for the grasses reduces/lessens the ears of corn , I will give you my tenancy payment of such-and-such kors as I agreed with you.
9.5.1
המקבל שדה מחבירו – for one-half, one third or one-fourth like a tenant.
9.5.2
ולא עשתה – grain other than a little bit. And the tenant farmer came to him to prevent from engaging with it (i.e., the field) more, for there isn’t there worth his toil.
9.5.3
אם יש בה כרי – to make of its grain a pile, that there is enough to cover the winnowing shovel that one winnows/scatters with it the grain, and if it is close to two Seah, one is obligated to engage with it against his will
9.5.4
מה קצבה בכרי – this limit is not appropriate that would be a large field with the measurement of a pile and a small field with the measurement of a pile, and the care of a large field is not similar to the care of a small field.
9.5.5
אלא אם יש בו כדי נפילה – that is to say, according to the measurement of what he sows in it, he is liable to engage with it. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
9.6.1
המקבל שדה – in tenancy for a fixed amount – such-and-such korim.
9.6.2
מכת מדינה – that a grasshopper ate or that most of the fields of that province or of that valley were emptied of grain.
9.6.3
אינו מנכה – as he said to him: “your luck caused this.”
9.6.4
בין כך ובין כך – even if it is a disaster affecting the entire province, he does not deduct, for on the money, one does not make a decree.
9.7.1
ולקתה – that the wheat was emptied of grain.
9.7.2
נותן לו – ten kors that he arranged with him from these wheat that were emptied of grain, and he is not able however to say to him,” I require good-quality wheat from you.”
9.8.1
המקבל שדה מחבירו לזרעה שעורים – in a tenancy – such-and-such barley or wheat or money.

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://sefaria.org/ Licence: CC-BY. Source.