Bava Metzia 80: Broken Plowshares, Mikach Ta'ut, Extra Weight, Un/Paid Bailees

The first Mishna introduced in today's daf states that one renting a cow and plow might find that the tool has broken.  Who is liable?  If the bottom part, the plowshare, has broken while in a valley, he is exempt.  It is understood that a plowshare might break in mountainous terrain but not in a valley.  The Mishna suggests other circumstances where one is exempt or liable for a broken plowshare - using the tool in a valley when it was rented for mountainous terrain, for example.  Liability shifts when a cow breaks its leg while threshing grain versus threshing legumes.  Legumes are slippery, thus the renter is liable.

The rabbis consider different conditions that might predispose an animal to be problematic.  If the animal is problematic in a different way, then the owner is liable for problems arising.  If one does not know about problems with an animal (or a person, as the Gemara details), the contract is called a mikach ta'ut, a mistaken transaction.  The details of such transactions could be complex; for example, a seller is not liable for mikach ta'ut if the buyer simply does not believe the seller's descriptions.

Our second Mishna teaches that a donkey that is hired to carry one item but is made to carry another item is not necessarily a problem.  The animal must carry an item of equal weight and of the same difficulty to carry.  One becomes liable when extra weight is added to an animal's load: Sumachos says in the name of Rabbi Meir that more than a se'a on a camel or more than three kav on a donkey render that person liable.  In the Gemara, the rabbis argue about the wording of this particular Mishna.  There are other references to weights other than a se'a for a camel or three kavs for a donkey.  This argument is settled by Abaye who notes that different types of grains are measured more or less precisely.  The Gemara continues, wondering how much extra weight is too much for a porter who is carrying items on a boat.  How much extra weight is grounds for the items to be thrown overboard?   

Our third Mishna teaches that all artisans and labourers who take raw materials into their homes are called paid bailees for those items until they are returned to their owner.  When the artisan or labourer finishes his/her work and called to the owner to take what is yours and to bring money for the exchange, s/he is considered to be an unpaid bailee.  When two people agree to safeguard each others' items, each is a paid bailee - each is receiving a service as payment for his/her service.  If one safeguards for the other, the person watching the item is an unpaid bailee.  Similarly, one is a paid bailee if he is lending based on collateral.   Rabbi Yehuda and Abba Shaul consider situations where a person might be called a paid bailee.  We learn that it is permitted to rent out a poor person's collateral that was taken as a loan so that that income reduces the poor person's debt.  It is considered to be like returning a lost item.

The Gemara begins by questioning the status of a renter who's rented item is lost or stolen.  Is he a paid bailee, even if the item was not loss due to negligence?  Are all labourers like paid bailees?  Isn't it better to slightly overpay a skilled labourer and call him a paid bailee?  Similarly, isn't it better for a renter to be offered more money so that he becomes a paid bailee?   The daf ends with questions about who might be liable if an animal arrives at its borrower's home having died on route.  Who is liable?  While the animal is with the borrower, the borrower is liable.