meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Bava Metzia/English/merged.txt"}
text: Mishnah Bava Metzia
  משנה בבא מציעא
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  -
  
  Mishnah Bava Metzia
  
  
  
  
  
  If two people are grasping a cloak:  One says, “I found it” and the other says, “I found it”, or one says “It’s all mine”, and the other says, “It’s all mine”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the cloak and they split the cloak. one says, “It’s all mine” and the other says, “It’s half mine”, the one who says, “It’s all mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¾ and the one who says “It’s half mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¼, and the former takes ¾ and the latter takes ¼.
  If two men were riding on an animal, or one was riding and the other was leading the animal, and one of them said, “The animal is all mine”, and the other said “It is all mine.”, they each swear that they don’t own less than half of the animal and they split it. If after the case is settled, they both admit to the others claim, or if there are witnesses they can split the animal without an oath.
  If a man was riding on a beast and saw lost property and said to his fellow, “Give it to me”, and the other took it and said, “I have acquired it”, he (the other) has acquired it. But if after he gave it to him he said, “I acquired it first”, he has said nothing.
  If a man saw lost property and fell upon it and someone else came along and seized it, he that seized it acquired it. If a man saw people running [in his field] after lost property [such as] a deer with a broken leg, or pigeons that couldn’t fly, and he said, “My field acquires [them] for me”, he has acquired them. But if the deer was running normally or the pigeons flying, and he said, “My field acquires [them] for me”, he has said nothing.
  That which is found by a man’s minor son or daughter, and that which is found by his Canaanite slave or female slave, and that which is found by his wife belongs to him. That which is found by his son or daughter that are of age, and that which is found by his Hebrew slave or female slave, and that which is found by his wife whom he has divorced, even though he has not yet paid her ketubah, belongs to them.
  If a man found debt documents he should not return them [to the creditor] if they recorded a lien on the [debtor’s] property, since the court would exact repayment from the property. But if they did not record a lien on the [debtor’s] property he may return them, since the court would not exact payment from the property, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say:  “In either case he should not return them, since [in either case] the court would exact payment from the property.”
  If a man found bills of divorce, or writs of emancipation or wills, or deeds of gifts, or receipts, he should not return them, for I might say, “they were written out, and the writer might have changed his mind and decided not to give them.”
  If a man found letters of evaluation, or letters of sustenance, or documents of halitzah or refusal, or documents of arbitration or any document drawn out by the court he should return them. If he found documents in a satchel or bag, or a bundle of documents he should return them. How many count as a bundle of documents? Three tied up together. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  [If one found three documents in which] one borrowed from three others, they should be returned to the borrower. But if [one found three documents in which] one loaned to three, they should be returned to the lender. If a man found a document among his documents and he does not know what is its nature, it must be left until Elijah comes. If there were postscripts amongst them, he should do what is stated in the postscript.
  
  
  
  Which found objects belong to the finder and which ones must be proclaimed [in the lost and found]? These found objects belong to the finder:  if a man found scattered fruit, scattered money, small sheaves in the public domain, cakes of figs, bakers’ loaves, strings of fish, pieces of meat, wool shearings [as they come] from the country of origin, stalks of flax and strips of purple wool, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says:  “Anything which has in it something unusual, must be proclaimed.  How is this so?  If he found a fig cake with a potsherd in it or a loaf with coins in it [he must proclaim them].” Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:  “New merchandise need not be proclaimed.”
  And these must be proclaimed:  if a man found fruit in a vessel, or an empty vessel; or money in a bag, or an empty bag; piles of fruit or piles of money; three coins one on top of the other; small sheaves in the private domain; home-made loaves of bread; wool shearings as they come from the craftsman’s shop; jugs of wine or jugs of oil, these must be proclaimed.
  If a man found pigeons tied together behind a fence or a hedge or on footpaths in the fields, he may not touch them. If he found an object in the dungheap and it was covered up he may not touch it, but if it was exposed he should take it and proclaim. If he found it in a pile of stones or in an old wall it belongs to him. If he found it in a new wall and it was on the outside [of the wall] it belongs to him. If it was on the inner side it belongs to the householder. But if the house had been hired to others, even if a man found something within the house, it belongs to him.
  If he found [something] in a shop, it belongs to him. But if he found it between the counter and the shopkeeper it belongs to the shopkeeper. If he found it in front of the money-changer it belongs to him. But if between the stool and the money-changer it belongs to the money-changer. If a man bought fruit from his fellow or if his fellow sent him fruit and he found coins therein, they belong to him. But if they were tied up he must take them and proclaim them.
  A garment was also included amongst all these things (which one must proclaim, listed in Deut. 22:3). Why was it mentioned separately? To compare [other things] to it:  to teach you just as a garment is distinct in that it has special marks and it has those who claim it, so too everything that has special marks and those who claim it must be proclaimed.
  For how long must a man proclaim [what he has found]? Until all of his neighbors know of it, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says:  “At the three Pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the lest festival, to allow him three days to go back to his house, three days to return and one day on which to proclaim his loss.”
  If he (the claimant) named what was lost but could not describe its distinctive marks, he should not give it back to him. And it should not be give to a [known] deceiver, even if he describes its distinctive marks, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]:  “Until your fellow claims it”, [which is to say] until you inquire about your fellow, if he is a deceiver or not. Whatsoever works and eats, let it work and eat [while in the finder’s care]. But whatsoever does not work and eat should be sold, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]:  “And you shall return it to him”, See how you can return it to him. What shall be with the money [from the sale]? Rabbi Tarfon says:  “He may use it, therefore if it is lost he is responsible for it.” Rabbi Akiva says:  “He may not use it, therefore if it is lost he is not responsible for it.”
  If he found scrolls he must read them once every thirty days, and if he does not know how to read he should unroll them. But he may not learn from them something he has not yet learned, nor may another read with him. If he found clothing he must shake it out once every thirty days, and spread it out for [the clothing’s] own good, but not for his own honor. [If he found] silver or copper vessels he must use them for their own good but not so as to wear them out. [If he found] vessels of gold or glass he may not touch them until Elijah comes. If he found a sack or a large basket or anything that is not generally carried about, he may not carry it.
  What counts as lost property? If he found an ass or a cow grazing on the path, this does not count as lost property. But if he found an ass with its trappings turned over, or a cow running in the vineyards, this is lost property. If he returned it and it escaped again, and he returned it and it escaped again, even four or five times, he is obligated to return it [yet again], since it is stated (Deut. 22:1):  “You shall surely return it to your brother”. If [the finder] lost time at work that was worth a sela (an amount of money), he may not say to the owner, “Give me a sela”.  Rather the owner need only pay him the wages of an unemployed laborer. If there was a court of law in the that place the finder may stipulate before them [for damages for time lost]. If there was no court of law, before whom can he stipulate? His comes first.
  If he found an [animal] in a stable, he is not responsible for it [even though the stable door was loose and unguarded. But if he found it in the public domain he is responsible for it. If it was in a cemetery he need not contract uncleanness because of it. If his father said to him, “Contract uncleanness”, or if he said to him, “Do not return it”, he may not listen to him. If he unloaded [the ass fallen under its load] and reloaded it and again unloaded it and reloaded it, even four or five times he is still obligated, for it is written, “You must surely raise it with him”. If the owner went and sat down and said, “Since the commandment is upon you, if you wish to unload, unload”, he is not obligated, for it is written “with him”. But if the owner was aged or sick, he is obligated. It is a commandment from the Torah to unload but not to reload. Rabbi Shimon says, “To reload as well.” Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, “If the beast was carrying more than its proper load he is not obligated [to help unload it], for it is written, “under its load”, [which is to say] a load which it is able to endure.
  If a man found his own lost property and his father’s, his own takes priority. If his own and that of his teacher, his own takes priority. If he found his father’s and his teacher’s, his teacher’s takes priority for his father brought him into this world, but his teacher who taught him wisdom brings him into the world to come. If his father was a Sage, his father’s takes priority. If his father and teacher each were carrying a load, he must first relieve his teacher and afterward relieve his father. If his father and teacher were each taken captive, he must first ransom his teacher and afterward his father. But if his father was a Sage, he must first ransom his father and afterward his teacher.
  
  
  
  If a man left an animal or utensils in his fellow’s keeping and they were stolen or lost, and his fellow made restitution and did not want to take an oath – for they have taught:  an unpaid guardian may take an oath and be exempt from liability – if the thief is found he must make twofold restitution, and if he slaughtered or sold the [sheep or ox] he must make four of fivefold restitution. To whom does he pay? He with whom the money was deposited. If his fellow (the unpaid guardian) takes an oath and does not want to make restitution, if the thief is found he must make twofold restitution, and if he slaughtered or sold the [sheep or ox] he must make four of fivefold restitution. To whom does he pay? To the owner of the property deposited.
  If a man rented a cow from his fellow and lent it to another, and it died a natural death, the hirer must swear that it died a natural death and the borrower must repay [its value] to the renter. Rabbi Yose said: “How can this one make business out of his friend’s cow?  Rather [the value of the cow] returns to the owner.”
  If a man said to two others, “I have robbed one of you 100 zuz and I do not know which of you it is”, or “The father of one of you left me 100 zuz and I do not know whose father it was”, he must give each of them 100 zuz, since he himself admitted liability.
  Two men deposited money with a third, the one 100 zuz and the other 200 zuz. [Afterward] one claimed that he deposited 200 and the other claimed that he deposited 200. He gives this one 100 zuz and this one 100 zuz and the rest remains until Elijah comes. Rabbi Yose says:  “If so, what does the deceiver lose?  Rather the whole is left until Elijah comes.”
  So too, [two men deposited] vessels with a third, one worth 100 zuz and the other worth 1000 zuz. [Afterward] one claimed that the valuable one was his and the other claimed that the valuable one was his. He gives the less valuable one to one of them and from the value of the more valuable one he gives the value of the lesser one to the other person, and the rest remains until Elijah comes. Rabbi Yose says:  “If so, what does the deceiver lose?  Rather the whole is left until Elijah comes.”
  If a man deposited produce with his fellow, even if it should perish he may not touch it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “He may sell it before a court of law, since he is like someone who returns a lost object to its owners.”
  When a man leaves produce for his fellow, [and his fellow returns it to the owner] he may exact reductions [due to natural depletion of the produce]. For wheat and rice, nine half kabs to the kor. For barley and durra nine kabs to the kor. For spelt and linseed three seahs to the kor. All is in proportion to the quantity and according to the time [it is left]. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri said:  “But what do the mice care about [the quantity]?  Won’t they eat [the same amount] whether there is a lot or a little? Rather, he may exact a reduction from only one kor. Rabbi Judah says:  “If the quantity was great he may not exact any reduction, since the produce increases in bulk.”
  With wine he may exact [a reduction] of one-sixth. Rabbi Judah says:  “One-fifth.” He may exact of him three logs in every one hundred logs of oil one log and a half for sediment and one log and a half for absorption. If the oil was refined he may not exact for sediment. If the jars were old he may not exact for absorption. Rabbi Judah says:  “Also if a man sells to his fellow through the year, the buyer must undertake to accept a reduction of one and a half logs because of sediment.
  If a man left a jar with his fellow [to guard] and the owner did not assign it a special place [to be kept] and [the guardian] moved it and it broke: If it was broken while he was handling it: If for his own sake he is liable. If for the sake of the jar, he is not liable. But if it was broken after he had put it in place, whether he moved it for his own sake or for the sake of the jar, he is exempt. If the owner had assigned it a special place, and the guardian moved it and it broke: Whether or not it broke while he was handling it or after he had put it in its place; If for his own sake he is liable, if for the sake of the jar, he is not liable.
  If a man left money in his fellow’s keeping and his fellow bound it up and hung it over his back, or delivered it to his son or his daughter who were minors, or locked it up improperly, he is liable since he did not guard in the way of guardians. If he guarded it in the way of guardians he is exempt.
  If a man left coins with a money-changer: If they were tied up [in a bag], he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost, he is not responsible. If they were loose, he may use they were. Therefore, they were was lost, he is responsible. [If a man left coins] with a householder, Whether they were loose or tied up, he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost he his not responsible. A shopkeeper is like a householder, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says a shopkeeper is like a money-changer.
  If a man makes personal use of a deposit: Bet Shammai holds that he is at a disadvantage whether the value rises or falls. Bet Hillel says:  [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which he put it to use. Rabbi Akiva says: [He must restore the deposit] at its value at the time at which it is claimed. One who expresses his intention to use a deposit [for personal use]: Bet Shammai says he is liable [for any subsequent damage to the deposit, as if he had already made use of it]. Bet Hillel says:  He is not liable until he actually uses it, as it says (Exodus 22:7):  “If he had not put his hand onto his neighbor’s property”. How is this so? If he tilted the jug and took a quarter-log of wine and the jug was then broken, he only pays the quarter-log. If he lifted it and then took a quarter-log and the jug was then broken, he pays for the whole jug.
  
  
  
  Gold acquires silver, but silver does not acquire gold. Copper acquires silver, but silver does not acquire copper. Bad coins acquire good coins but good coins do not acquire bad coins. An unminted coin acquires a minted coin, but a minted coin does not acquire an unminted coin. Movable property acquires coined money, but coined money does not acquire movable property. This is the general rule:  movable property acquires other movable property.
  How is this so? If [the buyer] drew the produce away from [the seller] but did not give over the money, he cannot retract. If [the buyer] gave the money but did not draw the produce away from [the seller], he can retract. But they said:  “He that exacted punishment from the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion (at the time of the Tower of Babel) will exact punishment from one who does not keep by his word. Rabbi Shimon says:  “He that has the money has the upper hand.”
  Fraud is an overcharge of 4 pieces of silver out of 24 pieces of silver, which make up a sela, one-sixth of the purchase price. Until what time may [he that is defrauded] retract [the sale]? Until he [has time] to show [his purchase] to a merchant or to his kinsman. Rabbi Tarfon gave instruction in Lud:  “Fraud is an overcharge of 8 pieces of silver to the seller, a third of the purchase price”, and the merchants of Lod celebrated. He said to them:  “He may retract any time within a whole day.” They said to him:  “Leave us as we were, Rabbi Tarfon”, and they reverted to the teaching of the Sages.
  Both the buyer and the seller are subject to the law of fraud. Just as the ordinary person is subject to the law of fraud so too is the merchant. Rabbi Judah said:  “The law of fraud does not apply to the merchant.” He who has been subjected to [fraud] has the upper hand: if he wants he may say to him, “Give me back my money or give me back the amount you defrauded me.”
  How much may be missing from a sela and still not fall within the rule of fraud? Rabbi Meir says:  “Four issars, one issar per dinar.” Rabbi Judah says:  “Four pondions, one pondion per dinar.” Rabbi Shimon says:  “Eight pondions, two pondions per dinar.”
  Until when may he [that is defrauded] return the coin? In large towns until he has had time to show it to a money-changer. In villages until the Sabbath eve. If he [that had given the coin] recognized it, even after twelve months he should accept it [in return], but [if he does not accept it the one who received it] only has a cause for complaint [against him]. And it is permitted to use it for redeeming the Second Tithe without concern, for [he who would not receive it] is but only a cheapskate.
  Fraud is four pieces of silver. A claim is [a minimum] of two pieces of silver. An admission is [a minimum] of that which is worth a perutah. There are five [rules involving] that which is worth a perutah: An admission is [a minimum] of that which is worth a perutah. A woman can be betrothed with that which is worth a perutah. Someone who benefits a perutah’s worth from that which belongs to the sanctuary has committed sacrilege. One who finds that which is worth a perutah must proclaim it [as a lost object]. One who steals that which is worth a perutah from his fellow and swears [falsely] to him [that he did not steal it], must go after him [to return it] even as far as Medea.
  There are five cases in which one must add a fifth:One who eats terumah, or the terumah taken from the tithe, or the terumah from a tithe taken from doubtfully tithed produce, or dough offering, or first fruits, must add a fifth [to the value of the principle when he makes restitution]. One that redeems [the fruit of] a fourth year plant, or his second tithe, must add a fifth. One that redeems that which he dedicated [to the Temple] must add a fifth. One that derives a perutah’s worth of benefit from that which belongs to the sanctuary must add a fifth [when he makes restitution]. One who steals that which is worth a perutah from his fellow must add a fifth [when he makes restitution].
  These are the things to which the laws of fraud through overcharging do not apply: The sale of slaves, debt documents, land and what belongs to the Temple. They are not subject to twofold restitution, nor fourfold or fivefold restitution. An unpaid guardian does not take an oath [on their account, that he did not damage them] nor does a paid guardian make compensation [if they are lost on his watch]. Rabbi Shimon says:  “Holy Things for which he is responsible, are subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging, and Holy Things for which he is not responsible are not subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging.” Rabbi Judah says: “Also one who sells a Torah scroll, and an animal or a pearl they are not subject to the laws of fraud through overcharging.” They (the Sages) said to him:  “They only said these.”
  Just as the laws of fraud apply to buying and selling, so to do they apply to the spoken word. One may not say, “How much is this object?, if he does not wish to buy it. If one had repented, another should not say to him, “Remember your earlier deeds”. If one descended from converts, another should not say to him, “Remember the deeds of your ancestors”. For it is said (Exodus 22:21), “And a stranger you shall not wrong or oppress.”
  Produce may not be mixed together with other produce, even new produce with new produce, and needless to say new with old. In truth they permitted sharp wine to be mixed with weak wine, since this improves [the taste]. Wine lees may not be mixed with wine, but [the seller] may give [the buyer] the lees that come from the same wine. One whose wine has been mixed with water may not sell it in a store unless he informs [the buyer] and not to a merchant even if he has informed him, since [the merchant would buy it] only to deceive with it. In a place where they are accustomed to put water in wine, they may do so.
  A merchant may buy from five threshing floors and put the produce into a storage chamber, or from five wine-presses and put into one jug, as long as he doesn’t intend to mix them [for purposes of fraud]. Rabbi Judah says:  “A storekeeper should not distribute parched corn or nuts to children, for that accustoms them to come [only] to him.” But the Sages permit. And he may not lower the price. But the Sages says:  “Let him be remembered for good [if he lowers the price].” He may not sift crushed beans, according to Abba Shaul. But the Sages permit. But they agree that he should not sift them [only] at the entry of the storage chamber, since he would be a deceiver of the eye. He should not beautify what he sells, whether humans, cattle or utensils.
  
  
  
  What is usury (neshech) and what is increase (tarbit)? It is usury (neshech) when a man lends a sela for five dinars, or two seahs of wheat for three, because he bites (noshech) [off too much]. And what is increase? When a man increases [his gains] by [selling] produce. How is this so? [If] one bought wheat at a golden dinars [=25 silver dinars] for a kor when such was the market price, and then wheat rose to thirty [silver] dinars [per kor]. [If] he said to him, “Give me my wheat since I would sell it and buy wine with the proceeds” and the other said, “Let your wheat be reckoned with me at thirty dinars and you now have a claim on me for wine [to that value], although the creditor has no wine.
  One who lends money to his fellow may not dwell in his courtyard for free or rent it from him at a reduced rate, since that counts as usury. One may increase rent-charge [not paid in advance] but not purchase price [not paid in advance]. How so? If his fellow rented him his courtyard, and said to him, “If you pay me now the cost is 10 selas per year, but if you pay me on a monthly basis, the rent is one sela per month”, this is permitted. However, if he sold him his field, and said to him, “If you pay me now it is yours for 1,000 zuz, but if you pay me at the time of threshing it will be 1,200 zuz”, it is forbidden.
  If a man sold a field, and the buyer gave him part of the price and he said to the buyer, “Pay me the rest of the price whenever you wish and then take what is yours”, this is forbidden. If a man lent another money on the security of his field and said to him, “If you do not pay me within three years it will be mine”, then it becomes his. This is what Boethus the son of Zunin used to do with the consent of the Sages.
  One may not set up a shopkeeper on the condition of receiving half the profit, or give him the money to buy produce on the condition of receiving half the profit, unless he pays him his wage as a laborer. One may not set out his hens [for another to raise them and hatch their eggs] in order to share the profits, nor evaluate calves or foals [and give them to his fellow to raise] in order to share the profit, unless he pays him a wage for his labor and cost of the food. But one may receive the care of calves and foals in return for half the profits, and rear them until they reach a third of their growth, and donkeys until they can carry a burden.
  One may evaluate cows and donkeys and anything that works and eats [and give them to one’s fellow to raise] in order to share the profit. Where the custom is to share the offspring immediately at birth, they do so; and where the custom is to first rear them [and then give them over to the owner], they do so. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “One may evaluate a calf with its mother, and a foal with its mother [and give them to one’s fellow to raise in order to share the profit.] A tenant may offer increased rent in exchange for a loan to improve his field, without fearing that this is usury.
  One may not accept a flock from an Israelite on “iron terms” [that the one who tends the flock shares the profits from the flock and accepts full responsibility for their value]. But one may accept a flock from a gentile on “iron terms” and money may be borrowed from them and one may lend them money. The same is true with a resident alien. An Israelite may lend the money of a gentile with the knowledge [and consent] of the gentile but not with the knowledge of an Israelite.
  One may not set a price for produce before its market-price is known. After its market-price is known, one may set a price, for even though this one does not have [the produce] another does have it. If he was the first to harvest his crop, he may set a price with his fellow over grain stacked in a heap, or over grapes in their harvesting basket, or over olives in a vat, or over the clay-balls of the potter, or over lime as soon as the limestone is sunk in the kiln. One may set a price for manure at any time of the year. Rabbi Yose says:  “One may not set a price over manure unless the seller has manure on the dungheap.” But the Sages permit it. One may set the price at the cheapest rate [that will be at the time of delivery]. Rabbi Judah says:  “Even if he didn’t set the price at the cheapest rate he may say, “Give me at the such a price or give me back my money.”
  [A landowner] may lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat, if it is for planting but not if it is for food. For Rabban Gamaliel used to lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat when it was for planting. And if he lent it when the price was high and it afterward fell, or when it was low and it afterward rose, he used to take wheat back at the lower rate, not because such was the rule but because he wanted to be strict upon himself.
  One should not say to his fellow, “Lend me a kor of wheat and I will repay you at the threshing time”, but he may say, “Lend it to me until my son comes”, or “until I find my key”. But Hillel used to forbid this. Moreover Hillel used to say, “A woman may not lend a loaf of bread to her neighbor unless she determines its value in money, lest wheat should rise in price and they are found to be engaging in usury.”
  One may say to his fellow, “Help me weed and I will help you weed” or “Help me hoe and I will help you hoe.” But one may not say, “Help me weed and I will help you hoe”, or “Help me hoe and I will help you weed”. All days of the dry season are accounted alike, and all days of the rainy season are accounted alike. One may not say to another, “Help me plow in the dry season and I will help you plow in the rainy season.” Rabban Gamaliel says: “There is interest that is paid in advance and interest that is paid afterward. How is this so? If a one intended to borrow from another and made him a present and said, “This is so that you will lend to me”, this is interest that is paid in advance. If one borrowed from another and repaid it to him, and then sent a present and said, “This is for your money of which you have not had use while it was with me”, this is interest that is paid afterward. Rabbi Shimon says: “There is interest paid in words:  one may not say to his creditor, “Know that such and such a person has come form such and such a place.”
  These are the one who transgress a negative commandment:  the lender, the borrower, the guarantor, and the witnesses. And the Sages say, “The scribe also.” They transgress the commandment, “You will not give him your money upon interest” (Leviticus 25:37), and “You shall not take usury from him” (Leviticus 25:36) and “You shall not be to him as a creditor” (Exodus 22:24), and “Nor shall you place upon him usury” (ibid.) and “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind, and you will fear your God, I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:14).
  
  
  
  If one hired craftsmen and they deceived each other, they have no legally valid complaint against each other, but only cause for complaint. If one hired a donkey-driver or a wagon-driver to bring litter-bearers or pipers for a bride or for the dead, or laborers to take his flax out of the steep, or any matter that would be lost if delayed, and they retracted, if it was a place where there were no others [who could be hired for the same wage] he may hire others at their (the original workers) expense or he may deceive them.
  If one hired craftsmen and they retracted, they are at a disadvantage. If the householder (the employer) retracted he is at a disadvantage. Whosoever changes [the conditions of a contract] is at a disadvantage. And anyone who retracts is at a disadvantage.
  If one hires a donkey to drive it through hill country and he drove it through a valley, or to drive it through the valley and he drove it through the hill country, even though the distance of each was ten miles, if the donkey died the hirer is liable. If a man hired a donkey and it went blind or was conscripted into the king’s service, the owner may say to the hirer, “Here is yours before you” [and he need not replace the donkey]. [But] if it died or was broken, he must give him a new donkey. If one hires a donkey to drive it through hill country and he drove it through a valley, if it slipped he is not liable, but if it overheated he is liable. [If one hires a donkey] to drive it through a valley and he drove it through hill country, if it slipped he is liable, but if it overheated he is not liable. But if [it overheated] due to the ascent he is liable.
  If one hired a cow to plow in the hill country and he plowed in the valley, if the plowshare was broken he is exempt. [If one hired a cow to plow] in the valley and he plowed in the hill country, if the plowshare was broken he is liable. [If one hired it] to thresh beans and he threshed grain [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is exempt. [If one hired it] to thresh grain and he threshed beans [and the cow slipped and was injured], he is liable.
  If one hired a donkey to carry wheat and he used it to carry [a like weight] of barley, he is liable [if the donkey was injured]. [If he hired it to carry] grain and he used it to carry [a like weight of] chopped straw he is liable, since the greater bulk is more difficult to carry. [If he hired it to carry] a letech of wheat and it carried a letech of barley he is not liable. But if he increased the weight, he is liable. What increase in weight renders him liable? Symmachos says in the name of Rabbi Meir:  “One seah for a camel and three kavs for a donkey.”
  All craftsmen are accounted paid guardians. But all that have said, “Take what is yours and give me the money”, are accounted unpaid guardians. If one man said to another, “Guard that for me and I will guard this for you”, he is accounted a paid guardian. If one said, “Guard this for me”, and the other said “Put it down in front of me”, he is accounted an unpaid guardian.
  If one gave a loan and took a pledge he is accounted a paid guardian. Rabbi Judah says:  “If he lent him money he is accounted an unpaid guardian; if he lent him produce he is accounted a paid guardian.” Abba Shaul, “One may hire out a poor man’s pledge and thereby reduce the debt, for in such a way he is like one who returns lost property.”
  If one moved a jar from place to place and broke it, whether he is a paid guardian or an unpaid guardian, he may take an oath [that he did not break it through neglect and be exempt from liability]. Rabbi Eliezer says:  “[I too have heard that] in either case he may take an oath, but I wonder whether in either case the oath is valid.”
  
  
  
  If one hired laborers and told them to work early or to work late, he has no right to compel them to do so where the custom is not to work early or not to work late. In a place where the custom is to give them their food he should give it to them, and where the custom is to provide them with sweet food, he must give it to them. Everything should follow local custom. It once happened that Rabbi Yochanan ben Mattia said to his son:  “Go and hire laborers for us”.  He went and struck a deal to provide them with food.  When he came to his father, his father said to him, “My son, even if you make them a banquet like Solomon’s in his time you will not have fulfilled your obligation to them.  For they are sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But, rather, before they begin to work go and say to them, “On condition that I am not bound to give you more than bread and beans only.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “It was not necessary to speak thus, for everything should follow local use.”
  These may eat [of the fruits among which they work] by the law of the Torah: one who works on that which is still connected to the ground [may eat of it] when the work is finished [at the time of harvest]; and one who works on that which is already detached from the ground [may eat of it] before the work is completely finished. This applies only to that which grows from the ground. These are they that may not eat; one that works on what is still growing while the work is still unfinished; and one that works on what is already detached from the ground after the work is finished, and [one may not eat] of what does not grow from the soil.
  If one was working with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, or even with his shoulders only, he still may eat. Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Judah says, “Only if he works with both his hands and his feet.”
  If one was working with figs he may not eat grapes, and if among grapes he may not eat figs. But he may refrain [from eating] until he reaches the best produce and then eat. In no case have they said [that he may eat] save during the time of his work. But because of the principle of restoring lost property to its owner they have said, “Field laborers may eat as they go from one furrow to another or as they return from the winepress.  And a donkey [may eat] while it is unloading.”
  A laborer may eat cucumbers even to a denar’s worth, and dates even to a denar’s worth. Rabbi Elazar ben Hisma says:  “A laborer may not eat more than the value of his wages. But the Sages permit it, but they teach a man not to be gluttonous as to close the door against himself.
  One may exact terms for himself and for his son or daughter that are of age, and for his slave or female slave that are of age, and for his wife, since these have understanding. But he may not exact terms for his son and daughter that are not of age, or for his slave or female slave that are not of age, or for his cattle, since these have no understanding.
  If one hired laborers to work among his fourth-year plantings, they not eat from them. If he had not told them [that they were fourth-year plantings] he must first redeem the fruit and then allow them to eat. If his fig-cakes broke up or his jars burst open, they may not eat from them. If he had not told them [that they were liable to be tithed] he must first separate the tithes and then allow them to eat.
  Those that guard [gathered] produce may eat from it because that is the custom of the land and not because that is the law of the Torah. There are four kinds of guardians:  an unpaid guardian, a borrower, a paid guardian and a hirer. An unpaid guardian may take an oath [that he had not been neglectful] in every case [of loss or damage and be free of liability]. A borrower must make restitution in every case. A paid guardian or a hirer may take an oath if the beast was injured, or taken captive or dead, but he must make restitution if it was lost or stolen.
  If one wolf [attacked the flock that he was watching] it does not count as an unavoidable accident [for which no blame is placed on the guardian]. Two wolves do count as an unavoidable accident. Rabbi Judah says:  “In a time where wolves are commonly attacking the settlements, even one wolf is considered to be an unavoidable accident.” Two dogs do not count as an unavoidable accident. Yadua the Babylonian said in the name of Rabbi Meir says:  “If [two dogs came] from one direction they do not count as an unavoidable accident, but if [they came] from two directions they count as an unavoidable accident. A bandit counts as an unavoidable accident. A lion or a bear or a leopard or a panther or a serpent counts as an unavoidable accident. When [is this so]? When they come of themselves.  But if he took the flock to a place of wild animals or bandits they do not count as an unavoidable accident.
  If a beast died a natural death this counts as an unavoidable accident [for which a hirer or paid guardian is not liable]. But if he tortured it and it died it does not count as an unavoidable accident [and the hirer and paid guardian would be liable]. If it was led up to the top of a crag and it fell down and died, this does not count as an unavoidable accident. An unpaid guardian may make a stipulation that he will be exempt from taking an oath, and a borrower [may make a stipulation that he will be exempt] from making restitution, and a paid guardian and a hirer [may make a stipulation that they will be exempt] from taking an oath or from making restitution.
  If one makes a stipulation contrary to that which is written in the Torah he stipulation is void. Any stipulation that mentions first the action is void. Any stipulation that can in the end be fulfilled and was laid down as a condition from the beginning, such a condition is valid.
  
  
  
  If one borrowed a cow together with the service of its owner, or hired its owner together with the cow, or if he borrowed the service of the owner or hired him, and afterward borrowed the cow, and the cow died he is not liable, for it is written, “If its owner was with it no restitution need be made” (Exodus 22:14). But if he first borrowed the cow and afterward borrowed or hired the service of its owner, and the cow died, he is liable, for it is written, “Its owner not being with it, he must make restitution” (Exodus 22:13).
  If one borrowed a cow, and borrowed it for half a day and hired it for half a day; or borrowed it for one day and hired it for the next; or if he borrowed one cow, and hired another and the cow died if he that lent the cow says: “It was the borrowed cow that died”, [or] “On the day when it was borrowed it died”, [or] “During the time when it was borrowed it died” and the other one says: “I don’t know”, he is liable. If the hirer says, “It is the hired one that died”, [or] “On the day when it was hired it died”, and the other says, “I do not know”, he is not liable. If the one says, “It was borrowed”, and the other says, “It was hired”, the hirer must take an oath that it was the hired one that died. If the one says, “I do not know”, and the other says, “I do not know”, they share in the loss.
  If one borrowed a cow and the owner sent it by the hand of his son or his slave or his agent, or by the hand of the borrower’s son or slave or agent and it died [on the way], the borrower is not liable. But if the borrower said, “Send it to me by the hand of my son or my slave or my agent, or by the hand of your son or your slave or your agent”, or if the lender said, “I am sending it to you by the hand of my son or my slave or my agent”, or “by the hand of your son or your slave or your agent”, and the borrower said, “Send it”, and he sent it and it died [on the way], the borrower is liable. So, too, when the cow is returned.
  If one swapped a cow for a donkey, and it gave birth, So too if one sold his slave and she gave birth, [And] one (the seller) says, “It was born before I sold her”, and the other (the buyer) says, “It was born after I bought her”, they shall divide [the value of what was born]. If one had two slaves, one large and the other small, or two fields, one large and the other small,[And he sold one of them], If the buyer says, “I bought the large one” and the other says, “I don’t know”, the buyer can rightly claim the large one. If the seller said, “I sold the small one” and the buyer said, “I do not know”, he may only take the small one. If one said, “It was the large one” and the other said, “It was the small one”, the seller must take an oath that it was the small one that he sold [and the buyer can only take the small one]. If one said, “I do not know”, and the other said, “I do not know”, they shall divide the value [of both slaves or fields].
  If one sold his olive trees as firewood and they bore fruit that gave less than a quarter-log of oil per seah, this belongs to the [new] owner of the olive trees. If they bore fruit that gave a quarter-log of oil [or more] per seah, and the one said, “It was my trees that produced it”, and the other said, “It was my land that produced it”, let them share the produce. If a flood washed away a man’s olive trees and set them in the midst of his fellow’s field [where they bore fruit], and the one said, “It was my trees that produced it”, and the other said, “It was my land that produced it”, let them share the produce.
  If one leased a house to his fellow in the rainy season, he cannot make him leave it [during the time] from Sukkot to Pesach. In the summer, [he must give him] thirty days [warning]. And in large cities, whether it is during the rainy season or the summer [he must give] twelve months [warning]. [If one leased] a shop [to his fellow], whether in large cities or small towns, [he must give] twelve months [warning]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “If it is a shop occupied by bakers or dyers [he must give] three years [warning].
  If one rented a house to his fellow, he is obligated to provide it with a door, a bolt a lock and anything which is the work of a craftsman. However, that which is not the work of a craftsman, the tenant must make himself. The manure [which collects in the courtyard] belongs to the owner of the house, and the tenant can only claim the refuse from the oven and the stove.
  If one rented a house to his fellow by the year and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the tenant. If he rented it by the month and the year was made a leap year, the extra month goes to the owner. It once happened in Tzippori that a person leased a bath-house from his fellow at “twelve golden dinars a year, one dinar per month”, and [when the year became a leap year] the case came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and Rabbi Yose, and they said:  “Let them share the extra month.”
  If one rented a house to his fellow and it fell down, the owner must build him a new house. If it was small he may not make it larger, and if it was large he may not make it smaller. If it was one house, he may not make it two; if it was two houses he may not make it one. He may not reduce or increase the number of windows, unless it is with both of their consent.
  
  
  
  If one leased a field from his fellow and the custom of the place was to cut the crops, he must cut them; If the custom was to uproot them, he must uproot them; If the custom was to plough after reaping, he must plough. Everything should follow local custom. Just as they share the grain, so too they share the chopped straw and the stubble. Just as they share the wine, so too they share the [dead] branches and the reeds [used to prop the vines]. And both parties must [at the outset] provide [their share of] the reeds.
  If one leased a field from his fellow and it was an irrigated field or a field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may not give [the owner] less than his agreed rental. But if he had said, “Lease me this irrigated field, or this field with trees”, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may give less than the prescribed rental.
  If one leased a field from his fellow and he let it lie fallow, they assess how much it was likely to have yielded and he must pay the owner accordingly, since he wrote [in the leasing agreement]:  “If I suffer the land to lie fallow and do not till it, I will pay thee at the rate of its highest yield.”
  If one leased a field from his fellow and he did not want to weed it, and he said to the owner, “What do you care, as long as I pay you the agreed rental?”, they do not listen to him, for the owner can say to him, “Tomorrow you will leave the field and it won’t bring forth anything but weeds.”
  If one leased a field from his fellow and it was not fruitful, if there was enough produce to make a heap, he must still tend to it. Rabbi Judah says:  “What type of measure is a ‘heap’?  Rather, [he must tend to it] only if it yields as much grain as was sown there.”
  If one leased a field from his fellow and the locusts devoured the crop or it was blasted [by strong winds which caused the grain to be prematurely separated from the stalks], if it was a region-wide mishap he may reduce the amount of the rental agreement. If it was not a region-wide mishap, he may not reduce the amount of the rental agreement. Rabbi Judah says: “If he had leased it from him for a fixed amount of money, in neither case may he reduce the amount of the rental agreement.”
  If one leased a field from his fellow in return for ten kors of wheat a year and it produced bad wheat, he may pay him out of this crop. If [it produced] good wheat he may not say, “I will buy other wheat from the market”, rather he must pay him from the crop of that field.
  If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow barley, he may not sow wheat; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] wheat, he may sow barley. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel forbids this. If one leased a field from his fellow with the condition that he sow grain, he may not sow beans; [But if he leased the field with the condition that he sow] beans, he may sow grain. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel forbids this.
  If one leased a field from his fellow for but a few years he may not sow flax and he has no right to cut beams from the sycamore tree. If he leased it for seven years he may sow flax the first year and he has a right to cut beams from the sycamore tree.
  If one leased a field from his fellow for “a week of years” (seven years) for 700 zuz, the Seventh Year is included in the number. If he leased it for “seven years” for 700 zuz, the Seventh Year is not included in the number.
  One that is hired during the day collects his wages all during [the ensuing] night. One that is hired during the night collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day. One that is hired by the hour collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day or [the ensuing] night. If one was hired by the week, or by the month, or by the year, or by the week of years, if his time of hire expired during the day, he collects his wages all during [the ensuing] day. If his time of hire expired during the night, he collects his wages all during [the ensuing]  night and day.
  The laws “You must pay him his wages on the same day” (Deut. 24:15) and “The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until the morning” (Lev. 19:13) apply both to the hire of a man or of a beast or of utensils. When is this so? When the employee has laid claim to it, but if he had not laid claim to it the employer does not commit a transgression. If he gave him a draft on a shopkeeper or moneychanger [the employer] does not commit a transgression [even though the employee has not yet collected]. If an employee [claimed his wages] within the set time he may take an oath and take his wages. [But] if the set time had passed he may not take an oath and take his wages. If witnesses testified that he had claimed his wages at the set time [and was not paid], he may take an oath and receive his wages. The law “You must pay him his wages on the same day”  applies also to the resident alien, but not the law, “The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until the morning”.
  If one lent one’s fellow, he may exact a pledge from him only with the permission of a court, and he may not enter his house to take the pledge, as it is states, “You shall stand outside” (Deut. 24:1. If the borrower had two utensils, he may take one but must give back the other. And he must give back the pillow at night and the plow during the day. And if the creditor dies he need not return the pledge to his heirs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “Even to the debtor himself he need only return the pledge within thirty days [of the loan], and after thirty days he may sell it with the consent of the court. A pledge may not be taken from a widow, whether she be rich or poor, as it states, “Do not take the a widow’s garment as a pledge” (Deut. 24:17). If one takes a millstone as a pledge he violates a negative commandment and he is also in violation of both parts [of the millstone], as it states, “Do not take a mill or an upper millstone as a pledge” (Deut. 24:6). And they didn’t say just an upper millstone or a mill but anything that is necessary for food, as it states, “for that would be taking someone’s life as a pledge” (ibid.).
  
  
  
  If a house (the first story) and an upper room (the second story) belonging to two persons (each owning) fell down, the two share in the wood and the stones and the earth. And they consider which stones were the more likely to have been broken. If one of them recognizes that some of the stones were his, he may take them and they count as part of his share.
  If there was a house (the first story) and an upper room (the second story) belonging to two people, and the [floor of the] upper room broke and the owner of the house (the bottom story) did not want to fix it, the owner of the upper room may come down and dwell below, until the owner [of the bottom story] fixes [the floor of the] upper room. Rabbi Yose says:  “He that dwells below should provide the beams and he that dwells above the plastering.
  If a house (the bottom story) and an upper room belonging to two persons (each owning fell down, and the owner of the upper room told the owner of the house (the bottom story) to rebuild it, and he did not want to rebuild it, the owner of the upper room may rebuild the house below and live in it until the other repays him what he has spent. Rabbi Judah says:  “He would then [after being reimbursed] have been dwelling on his fellow’s property and he should [therefore] pay him rent.  Rather the owner of the upper room should rebuild both the house below and the upper room and put a roof on the upper room, and live in the house below until the other repays him what he has spent.”
  So, too, if an olive press was built in a rock and another had a garden on top of it, and [the olive press] was in part broken down, the owner of the garden may come down and sow below until the other rebuilds the ceiling of his olive press. If a wall or a tree fell into the public domain and caused damage, the owner is not liable to make restitution. If a set time had been given to him to cut down the tree or pull down the wall, and they fell down within the time, he is not liable. If after that time, he is liable.
  If one’s wall was near his fellow’s garden and it fell down and his fellow said to him, “Clear away your stones”, and he answered, “They have become yours”, they do not listen to him. If after the other (the owner of the garden) had accepted he (the owner of the wall) said to him, “Here is your expenditures and I will take back what is mine”, they do not listen to him. If one hired a laborer to help him in his work with chopped straw and stubble, and the laborer said to him, “Give me my wages”, and he said to him, “Take as your wages that with which you have labored”, they do not listen to him. If after the other (the employee) had accepted he (the employer) said to him, “Here are your wages and I will take what is mine”, they do not listen to him. One who removes his manure into the public domain:  from the time he removes it another may take it to manure [his fields]. One may not soak clay or make bricks in the public domain, but clay may be kneaded in the public domain but not bricks. One who builds in the public domain:  one brings the stones and another builds (immediately). And if he causes damage, he pays what he has damaged. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:  “He may, indeed, make preparation for his work for thirty days [in the public domain].
  If there were two gardens [in terraces] one above the other and vegetables grew between them: Rabbi Meir says:  “They belong to the upper garden.” Rabbi Judah says:  “They belong to the lower garden.” Rabbi Meir said:  “If [the owner of] the upper garden wished to remove his soil there would be no vegetables.” Rabbi Judah said: “If [the owner of] the lower garden wished to fill up his garden [with soil] there would be no vegetables. Rabbi Meir said:  “Since each is able to thwart the other, we should consider from where these vegetables derive their life.” Rabbi Shimon said:  “Whatever [the owner of ] the upper garden can take by stretching out his hand belongs to him, and the rest belongs to [the owner of] the lower garden.