Question: If [the workers left their work Kelim with the employer], obviously [he may pay others 40 or 50 Zuz at the expense of the retractors]!

Answer #1: One might have thought that it is Asmachta, and it does not acquire.

Answer #2: A worker gives his Kelim only to hire [others] for its value (the normal wage for the task), and not from everything.

Observation: The same applies if he went a shorter distance. The Tana was not concerned to elaborate [to teach this].

Question: According to the opinion above (42a) that when the beginning was negligence and the end was Ones, he is liable, why is he exempt [here]? The beginning [taking it on the mountain, in place of the valley] was negligence regarding slipping!

Answer: [That opinion] obligates only for an Ones that we can attribute that had he not deviated, perhaps the Ones would not have occurred, like the case of [a Shomer who put the deposited coins in] a shack of willow branches. (This is guarded from thieves, but it is negligence regarding a fire. They were stolen);

The Ones came due to the negligence. Had he hidden them under the ground, like Shmuel taught (that this is the proper Shemirah for coins), they would not have been stolen.

Distinction: However, here, when it became overheated on the mountain, all the more so had he not deviated, and gone in the valley, it would have overheated.

Support: Rava said so above (36b) regarding [a Shomer] who was negligent with an animal, and it went to the swamp [and died];

[He said that] even according to the opinion that [when the beginning was negligence and the end was Ones,] here he is exempt, for the angel of death would have killed it in either place. (The Ones is not due to the negligence.)

Question: Below (93b), regarding one who abandoned his flock and came to the city, and a lion came and killed, he is exempt, Rava established it when he came [to the city] at an abnormal time;

Abaye asked that the beginning was negligence regarding thieves, and the end was Ones regarding a lion;

There, even had he not been negligent, and not come to the city, the Ones would have occurred. What was [Abaye's] question?

Answer #1: Perhaps had he been there, he would have taken them to a different pasture before the lion came;

It is normal for shepherds to graze half the day in this field, and half the day in another field;

Answer #2: Perhaps had he been there, the lion would have been afraid to come.

Answer #3: Perhaps the verse "Gam Es ha'Ari v'Es ha'Dov Hikah Avdecha" would have been fulfilled regarding the shepherd.

Support: In any case we must explain the simple meaning there like this, for it says "we do not say that had he been there, he would have saved. Rather, we estimate. If he could have saved, he is liable. If not, he is exempt." One cannot explain any other way. (Maharsha - it is absurd to say that if he was there, surely he would have saved.)

Answer #4: The Rif explained there that Abaye [asked] based on his opinion, for Abaye said above (36b, that we obligate the Shomer) not only [according to the opinion...], rather, even according to the opinion that [when the beginning was negligence and the end was Ones,] he is exempt, here he is liable, for the hot air of the swamp killed it;

Inference: According to the opinion that [when the beginning was negligence and the end was Ones,] he is liable, it is fine without this reason [that the hot air of the swamp killed it], even though the Ones would have occurred in any case! (I.e. Abaye holds that this opinion obligates even if the Ones is not due to the negligence at all.)

Rejection: This is no proof. Also the opinion that [when the beginning...] he is liable relies on this reason [that the hot air of the swamp killed it];

If not, we can challenge him from our Mishnah here, which says that if it overheated in the mountain, he is exempt (because the Ones is not due to the negligence at all).

Defense: According to what we explain at the end (at the end of DH R. Yosi), that here it is not considered that the beginning was negligence, this is fine.

Question: The Reisha teaches "if it overheated on the mountain, he is exempt." How can we know that [the overheating] was not due to the ascent?

Answer: We saw that it did not overheat in the ascent. It ascended without exertion and went far afterwards without sweating, and afterwards it overheated. If so, this was not due to the ascent, and he is exempt.

Explanation: He knows that that day, the air was different in the mountains more than in the valley, or vice-versa from snow or rain, and the beginning and the end were negligence.

Implied question: Why did it say "[he contracted] to take it in the mountain and he took it in the valley", and not "to take it in this mountain and he took it in another mountain"?

Answer: It is normal that the air is different only between mountains and valleys, but between one mountain and another, or from one valley to another valley, the air does not normally change.

Explanation: It was exhausted due to Melachah.

Even though it died due to Melachah [for which a borrower is exempt], in any case, since he deviated, he is liable;

If he was supposed to take it in the mountain, it is possible that had he taken it there, it would not have become weary, due to the air and wind there;

Or, if he was supposed to take it in the valley, [perhaps] it would not have become weary, for there is not the exertion [of ascent] like there is in the mountain.

Therefore, he is liable even according to the opinion that exempts when the beginning was negligence and the end was Ones.

Question (Rivam): Rabah said that the case is, a snake bit it. According to him, why did [the Mishnah] discuss a mountain and a valley?

It could have discussed a valley and a valley, if it is known that snakes are found today in the valley that he deviated to take it there;

This mishap does not change between a mountain and a valley more than between a valley and another valley!

Answer (Ri): Rabah answered l'Tamei (according to his opinion). He holds that if the beginning was negligence and the end was Ones, he is liable;

It connotes like this below (93b), for Abaye asked him "why is he exempt? The beginning was negligence and the end was Ones!" (If Rabah holds that one is exempt in such a case, this is not difficult at all!)

Support: This is why it mentioned a mountain and a valley, for now the beginning was negligence regarding overheating or slipping;

However, if he changed from a valley to another valley, he is exempt, for the beginning was not negligence.

Citation (Bava Kama 56a - Rabah): The case is, the animal tunneled [under the wall and left through the opening];

Citation (cont.) Question: This is fine for the opinion that exempts when he was negligent at the beginning and Ones at the end. However, according to the opinion that obligates, how can we answer?

Observation: If the text here and there is "Rabah", we could have asked a contradiction in Rabah, for here he holds that he is liable.

Explanation: All the Amora'im who come to answer here [why he is liable in the Reisha] hold like Rava, who says [when it died normally] that the angel of death would have killed it no matter where it was;

According to Abaye, who says that the air of the swamp killed it, our Mishnah is fine without these answers. He is liable even if it died normally.

He says that the air to which he brought it killed it, even if it is not known that that air is any worse than other air;

He did not say specifically "the hot air of the swamp." The same applies to any change of air, like is proven in the Sugya there.

Implied question: Why does the Seifa say that if it slipped on the mountain or overheated in the valley, he is liable? The same applies if it died normally, since the beginning was negligence!

Answer: It is because in the mountain he is exempt. It taught about overheating to teach that even though heat is a reason to be exempt in the mountain, in the valley he is not exempt for this. Just the contrary, it is a reason to be liable!

Question: We learn this from the Reisha! Even if it died normally, he is liable because the beginning was negligence regarding slipping on the mountain, and heat in the valley;

All the more so he is liable when it died through slipping on the mountain or overheating in the valley!

Answer: Had the Seifa not taught this, we would not know why the Reisha is considered that the beginning was negligence, to obligate him even if it died normally.

Question: According to Rava and all the Amora'im here who exempt when it died normally, why did the Seifa teach that he is exempt for overheating in the mountain and slipping in the valley?

It should have taught a bigger Chidush, that if it died normally he is exempt, for we do not say that the air of that place killed it!

All the more so [he is exempt for] overheating in the mountain and slipping in the valley, for surely, had he not changed, it would have died in this way.

Answer #1: Because it taught slipping due to liability in the mountain, it taught [slipping] also regarding exemption in the valley.

Answer #2: The exemption for overheating in the mountain and slipping in the valley is a bigger Chidush than when it died normally;

A person can be more careful about these (overheating and slipping) than dying normally. We should say that he was negligent for changing;

Had he taken it in the mountain, he would have been very meticulous and guarded it well lest it slip in the mountain or overheat in the valley. However, his change caused that he was not meticulous.

Question: It is difficult that Abaye argues with all of the Amora'im!

It is not considered negligence to change, because he can be careful and very meticulous that it not slip in the mountain or overheat in the valley;

Abaye agrees that he is exempt if it died normally, since the beginning was not negligence.

Observation: Rabah, who says that the case is, a snake bit it, he must say that sometimes snakes are more common in the mountain than in the valley, or oppositely. Therefore, it mentioned a mountain and valley.

It is fine for Rabah that even if the beginning was negligence and the end was Ones, he is exempt.

Question: We say in Erchin (6b) that one may change coins of Tzedakah to anything he wants, even if they came to the Gabai;

Even if he said "this Menorah is for Bedek ha'Bayis", he may change it to another Mitzvah!

Answer: Only regarding Purim, we say that he may not change it;

Also [what the Beraisa teaches that] money collected for [the poor of] a city must be given to [the poor of] that city refers only to Purim.

Explanation: The first Tana discusses only the Gabai, that he may not change. R. Eliezer discusses an Oni to whom they gave coins for the sake of Seudas Purim. The Oni may not change it.

Explanation: Some texts say "b'Mulsa", i.e. an orchard, like (Shabbos 52a) "Mul'os of Rebbi's house;

Explanation (cont.): "B'Talei Zahav Oh b'Talei Kesef" are white or red mules.

Rebuttal (Ri): In Arame'ic [mules] are called only Kudnaisa.

Answer: He can do his work when it returns.

Implied question: He will be delayed doing his work!

Answer: Due to a delay, we do not obligate [the owner] to supply him with another donkey;

This is like Hivrikah or it went insane. Also then, he is delayed in his work, and we are not concerned!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The captors] take it in the direction that [the renter] wants to go. The owner says "your [donkey] is in front of you. Rent another animal until there (where the captors will return it)."

Question: Why should he rent another animal? (The owner should need to supply him!)

Answer #1: The renter does not need the donkey for going there, only for the return (e.g. to carry a load back. Perhaps he needs to rent an animal to get to where his donkey will be returned, for if he walks, he will not be there when the captors release it.)

Rejection: If so, we should have distinguished about this itself, between whether he needs the donkey immediately, or only for the return!

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): Im b'Derech Halichasah means that the king's servants do not search in houses [for animals], just when they encounter on the road [they take]. This is "in the way it was going";

The owner says "yours is in front of you." He can say "your Mazel (fortune) caused this. If the animal was in the house, it would not have been taken.

Even if it will not be returned [he can say so], for this is unlike when it died, for here it is proven that [the renter's] Mazel caused [that it was taken].

Explanation #2 (cont.): Not b'Derech Halichasah means that they search also in houses. Then, the renter's Mazel did not cause it. The owner must supply him with another donkey to do his work immediately;

Even if the king's servants will return the donkey to here, and the return will help the renter (it will still help him), the renter need not delay his work. (Therefore, the owner supplies him with another until the first donkey returns.)

This is unlike when Hivrikah or it went insane.

Explanation: The first Tana's opinion is preferable, for he is the majority against an individual.