שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שְׂעוֹרִים – חַיָּיב. הָא שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין – פָּטוּר! תִּרְגְּמָהּ אַבַּיֵי בִּמְחִיקָתָא.

sixteen se’a of barley, he is liable. This indicates that if he added only three kav, i.e., half a se’a, he is exempt. Abaye interpreted the baraita as referring to smoothed-over barley, a precisely measured load, where the volume of the barley was not measured with heaped measuring utensils, but leveled flat. Consequently, it is roughly a se’a less than the usual amount.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: קַב לַכַּתָּף, אַדְרִיב לַעֲרֵיבָה, כּוֹר לַסְּפִינָה, שְׁלֹשֶׁת כּוֹרִים לְבוּרְנֵי גְדוֹלָה.

§ The Sages taught: A kav is too large an addition for a porter, and therefore if the porter is injured by the additional weight, the owner must pay him. An adriv, half a kor, is too large an addition for a small boat [areiva]; a kor is too large an addition for a regular boat; three kor is too large an addition for a large ship [burnei].

אָמַר מָר: קַב לַכַּתָּף. אִם אִיתָא דְּלָא מָצֵי בֵּיהּ – בַּר דַּעַת הוּא, לְשַׁדֵיהּ! אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: בְּשֶׁחֲבָטוֹ לְאַלְתַּר. רָבָא אֲמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בְּשֶׁלֹּא חֲבָטוֹ לְאַלְתַּר. לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לְאַגְרָא יְתֵירָא. רַב אַשִׁי אֲמַר: הוּא סָבוּר חוּלְשָׁא הוּא דְּנָקֵיט לֵיהּ.

The Master said: A kav is too large an addition for a porter. The Gemara asks: If it is so, that he cannot withstand this load, the porter is a sensible person; let him throw it off and avoid injury. Abaye said: This is referring to a case where the load knocked him down immediately, before he could remove it from his back. Rava said: Even if you say that it is referring to a case where it did not knock him down immediately the baraita is not difficult, as it is necessary only with regard to the extra pay that he can demand for this addition. Rav Ashi said: Even if the porter is a sensible man, perhaps he thought it was a momentary weakness that seized him and did not realize that the load itself was excessive.

״כּוֹר לַסְּפִינָה, שְׁלֹשֶׁת כּוֹרִין לְבוּרְנֵי גְדוֹלָה״. אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ סְתָם סְפִינוֹת בַּת תְּלָתִין כּוֹרִין. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינָּהּ? לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר.

§ The baraita teaches: A kor is too large an addition for a regular boat; three kor is too large an addition for a large ship. Rav Pappa said: Learn from here that unspecified boats can bear thirty kor, i.e., this is the volume of a ship’s cargo. The reason for this claim is that in all these cases the addition that causes damage is one-thirtieth of the normal load. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference resulting from this observation? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to the halakhot of buying and selling, i.e., one who purchases a boat of unspecified dimensions should know that this is its expected capacity.

מתני׳ כָּל הָאוּמָּנִין שׁוֹמְרֵי שָׂכָר הֵן, וְכוּלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ וְהָבֵא מָעוֹת – שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. ״שְׁמוֹר לִי וְאֶשְׁמוֹר לְךָ״ – שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. ״שְׁמוֹר לִי״ וְאָמַר לוֹ ״הַנַּח לְפָנַי״ – שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.

All artisans and laborers who take raw materials to their homes are considered paid bailees for those items until they return them to the owner. And with regard to all those who said to the owner: I finished the work, and therefore take what is yours, i.e., this item, and bring money in its stead, from that point on each of them is considered an unpaid bailee. If one person says to another: Safeguard my property for me and I will safeguard your property for you, each of them is a paid bailee, as each receives the services of the other as payment for his safeguarding. If one says: Safeguard for me, and the other says to him: Place it before me, the second individual is an unpaid bailee.

הִלְוָהוּ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן – שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הִלְוָהוּ מָעוֹת – שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. הִלְוָהוּ פֵּירוֹת – שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: רַשַּׁאי אָדָם לְהַשְׂכִּיר מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עָנִי לִהְיוֹת פּוֹסֵק וְהוֹלֵךְ עָלָיו, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה.

One who lent to another based on collateral is a paid bailee for the collateral. Rabbi Yehuda says: One who lent another money is an unpaid bailee for the collateral, whereas one who lent another produce is a paid bailee. Abba Shaul says: It is permitted for a person to rent out a poor person’s collateral that was given to him for a loan, so that by setting a rental price for it he will thereby progressively reduce the debt, i.e., the lender will subtract the rental money he receives from the amount owed by the borrower, because this is considered like returning a lost item. The borrower profits from this arrangement, whereas if the lender does not use the collateral in this manner it provides benefit to no one.

גמ׳ לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּתַנְיָא: שׂוֹכֵר כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם? רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר!

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a renter, whose legal status is not stated explicitly in the Torah, how does he pay in the event that a rented article is lost or stolen? Rabbi Meir says: He pays like an unpaid bailee, i.e., only in cases where the loss of the item was due to his negligence. Rabbi Yehuda says: He pays like a paid bailee, i.e., even in cases where the loss of the item was not due to his negligence. Skilled laborers are similar to renters, as they take possession of the item to earn a profit from it, and the mishna teaches that skilled laborers are like paid bailees. Consequently, the ruling of the mishna is apparently not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר. בְּהַהִיא הֲנָאָה דְּקָא שָׁבֵיק כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא וְאָגֵיר לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ – הָוֵי עִילָּוֵיהּ שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. אִי הָכִי, שׂוֹכֵר נַמִי, בְּהַהִיא הֲנָאָה דְּקָא שָׁבֵיק כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא וּמוֹגַר לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ – הָוֵי עִילָּוֵיהּ שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר!

The Gemara rejects this claim. You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and the reason skilled laborers are considered like paid bailees is that through that benefit that the worker receives from the fact that the owner of the item leaves aside everyone else and hires him, he becomes a paid bailee over the item. The Gemara challenges this reasoning: If so, with regard to a renter as well, it can be said that through that benefit he receives from the fact that the owner leaves aside everyone else and rents to him, he should become a paid bailee over the item.

אֶלָּא, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר: בְּהַהִיא הֲנָאָה דְּקָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ טְפֵי פוּרְתָא – הָוֵי עִילָּוֵיהּ שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר.

Rather, in light of this refutation the Gemara suggests a different reason that you may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir: Through that benefit that the skilled laborer receives from the fact that the owner gives him a little more money, he becomes a paid bailee. Since it is impossible to calculate the precise sum to which a skilled laborer is entitled, it is assumed that he is slightly overpaid.

שׂוֹכֵר נַמִי, מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן דְּקָא מַשְׁוֵי לֵיהּ טְפֵי פוּרְתָא? אֶלָּא, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר: בְּהַהִיא הֲנָאָה דְּתָפֵישׂ לֵיהּ אַאַגְרֵיהּ, דְּלָא בָּעֵי לְמֵיעַל וּלְמֵיפַּק אַזּוּזֵי – הֲוֵי עֲלֵיהּ שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר.

The Gemara asks: With regard to a renter as well, are we not dealing even with a case where the owner gives him a little more value for his money, and yet Rabbi Meir claims that he is considered like an unpaid bailee? Rather, you may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir for a different reason: Through that benefit that the skilled laborer receives from the fact that he holds onto the item so that he is not required to go in and go out for his money, he becomes a paid bailee over the item.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא כִּדְמַחֲלִיף רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ וְתָנֵי: שׂוֹכֵר כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם? רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.

If you wish, say instead that the mishna can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir without these explanations, as Rabba bar Avuh reversed the opinions and teaches that the baraita says: With regard to a renter, how does he pay? Rabbi Meir says: Like a paid bailee; Rabbi Yehuda says: Like an unpaid bailee.

״וְכוּלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ: טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ וְהָבֵא מָעוֹת שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם״. תְּנַן הָתָם: אָמַר לוֹ שׁוֹאֵל ״שְׁלַח״, וּשְׁלָחָהּ וּמֵתָה – חַיָּיב, וְכֵן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמַּחֲזִירָהּ.

§ The mishna teaches: And in the case of all those who said to the owner: Take what is yours, i.e., this item, and bring money in its stead, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee. We learned in a mishna there (98b): If the borrower said to the lender: Send the animal that you agreed to lend me with the person whom you said would deliver it, and he sent it to him and it died on the way, the borrower is liable, and similarly when he returns it. The borrower is responsible for the animal as long as it has not actually been returned to the owner.

אֲמַר רַפְרָם בַּר פַּפָּא אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁהֶחֱזִירָהּ בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי שְׁאִילָתָהּ, אֲבָל לְאַחַר יְמֵי שְׁאִילָתָהּ – פָּטוּר. מְתִיב רַב נַחְמָן בַּר פַּפָּא: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ וְהָבֵא מָעוֹת – שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם.

Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav Ḥisda said: They taught this halakha only when the borrower returned it during the period of its loan, as he accepted responsibility for the animal for the stipulated duration of the loan. But if he returned it after the period of its loan, he is exempt, as once the duration of the loan is complete he no longer has the status of a borrower. Rav Naḥman bar Pappa raises an objection from the mishna: And all those who said: Take what is yours and bring money, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee.