נֵימָא לֵיהּ: הַב לִי הַהוּא חַמְרָא, וַאֲנָא מַיְיתִינָא סְפִינְתָא!

Let the owner say to him: Give me that wine and I will bring a boat. Since that particular wine is gone, the renter cannot comply with his request, and therefore he should have to pay the rental fee.

אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: לָא מַשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ אֶלָּא בִּסְפִינָה זוֹ וְיַיִן זֶה, אֲבָל בִּסְפִינָה סְתָם וְיַיִן סְתָם – חוֹלְקִין.

Rav Pappa said: You find the correct application of Rabbi Natan’s ruling only in a case where the two parties stipulated this specific boat and that specific wine. Since neither party can fulfill his part of the agreement, the money remains where it is. But if they stipulated an unspecified boat and unspecified wine, as they can both complete the agreement, they divide the rental fee, i.e., the renter pays half.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַסְּפִינָה וּפְרָקָהּ לָהּ בַּחֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲצִי הַדֶּרֶךְ, וְאֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעוֹמֶת. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵימָא דְּקָא מַשְׁכַּח לַאֲגוּרָהּ – אַמַּאי אִית לֵיהּ תַּרְעוֹמֶת? וְאִי דְּלָא קָא מַשְׁכַּח לַאֲגוּרָהּ – כּוּלֵּיהּ אַגְרָהּ בָּעֵי שַׁלּוּמֵי!

The Sages taught: With regard to one who rents a boat and unloads it [uferakah] halfway through the journey, the renter gives the owner his rental fee for half the journey, and the owner of the boat has nothing but a grievance against him. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that this is referring to a situation where the owner can find someone else to whom he can rent out the boat, why does he have grounds for a grievance? And if it is referring to a case where he cannot find another to whom he can rent it out, the renter should be required to pay the full rental fee, as he reneged on his commitment to rent the boat for the entire trip.

לְעוֹלָם דְּקָא מַשְׁכַּח לַאֲגוּרָהּ. אֶלָּא אַמַּאי אִית לֵיהּ תַּרְעוֹמֶת? מִשּׁוּם רַפְסְתָא דִּסְפִינְתָא. אִי הָכִי, טַעַנְתָּא מְעַלְּיְיתָּא הוּא, וּמָמוֹנָא אִית לֵיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ!

The Gemara answers: Actually, this is referring to a case where the owner can find someone else to whom he can rent out the boat. But why does he have cause for a grievance? Because of the wear and tear on the boat due to the additional loading and unloading of cargo, which was not taken into account in their agreement. The Gemara asks: If so, that is a proper legal claim, and the owner of the boat has not merely a grievance against the renter, but cause for claiming monetary restitution from him.

אֶלָּא מַאי פְּרָקָהּ? דִּפְרָקָהּ – לְטוֹעֲנֵיהּ בְּגַוֵּיהּ. אֶלָּא מַאי תַּרְעוֹמֶת? מִשּׁוּם שִׁינּוּי דַּעֲתָא. אִי נַמִי: לְאַשְׁלָא יְתֵירָא.

Rather, what is the meaning of the term perakah? This means that the renter unloaded more of his own cargo into the boat baraita is ruling that the renter must pay a fee for the additional cargo only for the second half of the journey. The Gemara asks: But if so, what is the grievance? Why should the owner object to this arrangement at all? The Gemara explains that the grievance is due to the change from the renter’s prior intention, as they had not agreed upon the addition of this additional cargo when they performed the transaction. Alternatively, the grievance is because of the extra rope that was necessary to secure the additional cargo.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ – שׂוֹכֵר מַנִּיחַ עָלֶיהָ כְּסוּתוּ וּלְגִנוּתוֹ וּמְזוֹנוֹת שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ חַמָּר מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו. חַמָּר – מַנִּיחַ עָלָיו שְׂעוֹרִים וְתֶבֶן וּמְזוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ שׂוֹכֵר מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו.

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who rents a donkey to ride on it, the renter may place on it his garment, his water jug, and food for that journey. Beyond those items, the donkey driver, who would take the renter on the journey, may prevent him from placing anything on the animal by saying that he does not wish to further burden the donkey. The donkey driver may place on it barley and hay for the donkey and his own food for that first day alone. Beyond those items, the renter may prevent him from placing anything on the animal.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דִּשְׁכִיחַ לְמִזְבַּן – חַמָּר נַמִי לִיעַכֵּב. וְאִי דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ לְמִזְבַּן – שׂוֹכֵר נַמִי לָא לִיעַכֵּב!

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a situation where food is available for purchase, the donkey driver should also be able to prevent the renter from bringing food for the entire journey, and if it is a case where food is not available for purchase, the renter should also not be able to prevent the donkey driver from loading on the donkey his own food for the entire journey.

אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּשְׁכִיחַ לְמִטְרַח וּלְמִזְבַּן מֵאַוְונָא לְאַוְונָא. חַמָּר דַּרְכֵּיהּ לְמִטְרַח וּלְמִזְבַּן, שׂוֹכֵר לָאו דַּרְכֵּיהּ לְמִטְרַח וּלְמִזְבַּן.

Rav Pappa said: No, the ruling of the baraita is necessary in a situation where food is available for one who goes to the trouble to purchase it from one station [me’avna] to the next station. Since it is the manner of a donkey driver to go to the trouble to purchase food, he may load the animal only with food for that day, whereas it is not the manner of the renter to go to the trouble to purchase food, and therefore he may take food with him for the entire journey.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לִרְכּוֹב עָלֶיהָ אִישׁ – לֹא תִּרְכַּב עָלֶיהָ אִשָּׁה, אִשָּׁה – רוֹכֵב עָלֶיהָ אִישׁ. וְאִשָּׁה – בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה וּבֵין קְטַנָּה אֲפִילּוּ מְעוּבֶּרֶת וַאֲפִילּוּ מֵנִיקָה.

The Sages taught: With regard to one who rents a donkey with the understanding that a man will ride upon it, a woman may not ride upon it. If he rented it with the understanding that a woman will ride upon it, a man may ride upon it. And if he rented it with the understanding that a woman will ride upon it, any female may ride upon it, whether she is an adult woman or a minor girl. And even a pregnant woman, despite her additional weight, and even a nursing woman who takes the child with her may ride upon it.

הָשְׁתָּא מֵנִיקָה אָמְרַתְּ, מְעוּבֶּרֶת מִיבָּעֲיָא? אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְהִיא מֵנִיקָה קָאָמַר.

The Gemara asks: Now that you said that the owner cannot prevent even a nursing woman from riding upon the donkey, despite the fact that this involves the weight of two people, is it necessary to say that a pregnant woman may ride upon the donkey? Rav Pappa said: The tanna spoke of a pregnant woman who is also nursing, as there is additional weight.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ בִּינִיתָא אַכְּרֵסַהּ תָּקְלָה. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינָּהּ? לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר.

Abaye said: You can learn from the fact that a pregnant woman is considered heavier than the average woman that the weight of a fish [binita] is in its belly, i.e., weight increases according to the size of its belly. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference resulting from Abaye’s statement with regard to a fish? The Gemara explains: It is with regard to the halakhot of buying and selling, so that one can know how to evaluate the weight of a fish, and calculate its value accordingly.