Bava Metzia

This is the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar; for he used to maintain: If it was taken on the route of its journey, he can say to him, 'Here is yours before you;' if not, he is bound to replace it. But can you possibly assign it [all] to R. Simeon b. Eleazar? Surely, the first clause states, 'If one hires an ass, and it is struck by lightning or turns rabid, he [the owner] can say to him, "Here is yours before you:"' whereas R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: If one hires an ass to ride upon it, and it is struck by lightning or turns rabid, he [the owner] must furnish him with another! — Said Rabbah son of R. Huna: If for riding, the case is different.  R. papa said: [And to carry] glassware is the same as for riding. Rabbah son of R. Huna said in Rab's name: If one hires an ass for riding and it perishes midway, he must pay him his hire for half the journey, and can only bear resentment against him.  How so? If another can be obtained for hire, what cause is there for resentment? If not, is he then bound to render him his hire?  — In truth, it means that another is not obtainable [here] for hiring, [yet he is bound to pay for half the journey,] because he [the owner] can say to him, 'Had you desired to go as far as this [where it died], would you not have had to pay its hire?' Now, what are the circumstances? If he simply promised him an ass, without specifying which, then surely he is bound to replace it;  whilst if he promised him this ass: if its value [sc. of the carcase] is sufficient to buy another, let him buy one.  — This [ruling] holds good only when its value is insufficient to purchase [another]. Yet if its value is sufficient for hiring, let him hire another!  — Rab follows his view [expressed elsewhere], for Rab said: The principal must not be destroyed.  For it has been stated: If a man hires an ass and it perishes midway — Rab said: If its value [sc. of the carcase] is sufficient to buy [another], he must buy one; [if only] to hire, he [who engaged it] may not hire. But Samuel said: Even if only to hire, he may do so. Wherein do they differ? — Rab maintained: The principal may not be destroyed; Samuel maintained: The principal may be destroyed. An objection is raised: If the tree withered or was broken down, both are forbidden to use it. What then shall be done? Land must be bought therewith, and he takes the usufruct.  Now here, immediately on the advent of the Jubilee year, the land reverts to its [first] owner,  and thus the principal is destroyed!  — Here the reference is to a sixty years' purchase. For R. Hisda said in R. Kattina's name: Whence do we learn that if one sells his field for sixty years, it does not return [to the first owner] in the year of Jubilee? From the verse, The land shall not be sold in perpetuity.  [shewing that it refers to a sale] which, in the absence of the law of Jubilee,  would be for ever; hence, when the law of Jubilee supervenes, it is not in perpetuity; thus excluding this [sale. viz., for sixty years], which, even in the absence of the law of Jubilee, is not for ever.  But after all, on the expiration of the sixty years the land returns to its [first] owner, and thus [the debtor's] principal is destroyed! — But here the reference is to the time when the law of Jubilee is not in force. Reason too supports this. For should you assume that it refers to the time when the law of Jubilee is in force, and that we destroy the principal, let him [the creditor] cut up the wood and take it!  — As for that, it is no difficulty: the period of mortgage might expire before the Jubilee, or he [the debtor] might obtain money and redeem it four or five years before the Jubilee. Our Rabbis taught: If one hires a ship, and it sinks in mid-journey; R. Nathan said: If he has paid [the hire], he cannot take [it back]; but if not, he need not pay it [now]. How so? Shall we say [that the agreement was for] this particular ship and an unspecified [cargo of] wine [as freight],  then [even] if he has already paid, why cannot he claim it back? Let him say, 'Provide me with that ship, and I will bring the wine.'  But if it refers to an unspecified ship and a particular cargo of wine, even if he has not yet paid, why must he not pay now?