Where he did not change, who pays - היכא דלא שני מאן משלם
Summary:
The workers are not liable if the שוכר changed from a בקעה to a הר, since they only accepted responsibility for plowing in a בקעה. They are not negligent for plowing in the הר since the assumption is that they do whatever the שוכר wants.
And if it is a place which is known to be rocky; both pay - ואי דוכתא דמחזקינן בגונדרי תרוייהו משלמי
Summary:
According to (תוספות understanding of) רש"י, each one is liable, because we are not sure who caused the damage. תוספות maintains that if it was a ספק they would both be פטור; they are חייב because they are both פושעים for each one should have warned his co-worker.
This slave-girl is an idiot, etc.; it is an invalid sale - שפחה זו שוטה היא כולי הרי זה מקח טעות
Summary:
According to רש"י there can never be a מקח טעות by a ליסטין מזויין or a מוכתב למלכות for סביר וקיבל; however according to תוספות we are not concerned that the עבד is a ליסטין (or has the מומין of our ברייתא) since these מומין are well publicized. If, however they had these defects it is a מקח טעות.
What if she had all these defects - היו בה כל המומין הללו מהו
Summary:
The query depends on whether we can interpret that the ברייתא is also discussing the case of היו בה כל המומין and it is a מק"ט (if לא בדק), because we say מסתמא כל הני דקאמר ליתנהו לכולהו ומדהא ליתא הא נמי ליתא, or we say the ברייתא is discussing only if she had one מום, and it is a מק"ט (if בדק) because we say מדהא משקר באידך נמי משקר.
The Mishnah taught; it is as difficult as the weight - קשה כמשאוי תנן
Summary:
The סיפא according to אביי explains the רישא (also), while according to רבא the סיפא is only in a case where he did not change from חיטין to שעורין.
