Traité Bava Metzia

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: If the animal was seized and then taken in the direction in which it was walking, the owner can say to the renter: That which is yours is before you, but if not, the owner is obligated to provide the renter with another donkey.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And can you establish this entire baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? But the first clause teaches: With regard to one who rents a donkey and it became ill or went mad, the owner can say to the renter: That which is yours is before you. And yet Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in a different baraita: With regard to one who rents a donkey to ride on it, and it becomes ill or goes mad, the owner is obligated to provide the renter with another donkey.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabba bar Rav Huna said that this is not a contradiction. The case of one who takes a donkey to ride on is different, as he requires a donkey that walks steadily. A sick donkey is no better than a dead one for this purpose. Rav Pappa said: And acquiring a donkey so that it should carry glass vessels is considered to be like riding on it, as glass vessels also require steady walking to prevent the load from falling.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav says: In the case of one who rents a donkey to ride on it and it died halfway through the journey, the renter gives the owner his fee for half of the journey, but the renter has nothing but a grievance against the owner. He has no legal claim against the owner over the fact that he now has to go to great trouble to find another donkey.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a place where donkeys are available for rent, what is the purpose of this grievance? He does not have any cause for grievance in this case, as he can simply rent another donkey and has not lost anything. If it is a place where donkeys are not available for rent, should he be required to give the owner his fee? After all, the donkey failed to perform the task for which it was rented.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara explains: Actually, it is referring to a place where donkeys are not available for rent, and the renter must pay the owner due to the fact that the owner of the donkey can say to him: Had you wanted to come to here, i.e., halfway through the journey, wouldn’t you have had to pay a fee? Therefore, pay me for the distance that my donkey carried you.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara further inquires: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a case where the owner said to him: I am renting you an unspecified donkey, the owner is obligated to provide him with another donkey. Since the owner promised him a donkey, if the first donkey is no longer available, he must give him another one. If it is referring to a case where he said to him: I am renting you this particular donkey, then if there is enough money to be gained from selling its carcass to purchase another donkey, let the renter purchase another one.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to state this halakha only in a case where there is not enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass to purchase another donkey. The Gemara asks: Even so, if there is enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass to hire another donkey, let him rent another donkey and continue along his way. What grounds are there for grievance? The Gemara explains that Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav said: One may not fully deplete the principal in order to pay rental fees. Consequently, the renter has no right to sell the carcass, so as not to deplete the entire monetary value of the donkey.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : This is as it was stated in a dispute between amora’im on this issue: With regard to one who rents a donkey and it died halfway through the journey, Rav says: If there is enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass to purchase another donkey, the renter may purchase one, but if there is enough money only to rent another donkey, he may not rent one. Shmuel says: Even if there is enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass only to rent another donkey, he may rent one.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that one may not fully deplete the principal, and as the carcass now constitutes the principal value of the donkey, one may not use the proceeds of its sale to pay rental fees, as nothing will be left to return to the owner. And Shmuel holds that one may fully deplete the principal.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a baraita (Tosefta, Arakhin 5:1), which discusses the case of a borrower who gives his lender a tree as a security for a loan so that the lender may eat an amount of its fruit up to the value of the loan. If the tree dried up or was cut down, it is prohibited for both the borrower and lender to use the body of the tree. What should be done? Land should be purchased with the proceeds from the sale of what is left of the tree, and the lender enjoys the profits of that land. The Gemara explains the objection: And yet here, once the Jubilee Year arrives, that purchased land will return to its original owner. It will not remain with the borrower after the loan has been repaid. And it will turn out that the principal is fully depleted, as the borrower will be left with nothing.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he purchased the field for sixty years. As Rav Ḥisda says that Rav Ketina says: From where is it derived with regard to one who sells his field for sixty years or any fixed length of time, that it does not return to its original owner in the Jubilee Year? As it is stated: “And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:23). This prohibition applies to land which, if there were no Jubilee Year, would be sold in perpetuity, but as there is a Jubilee Year it is not sold in perpetuity. That excludes this case, where the field is sold for a fixed length of time, as even though there is no Jubilee Year it is not sold in perpetuity.