Bava Metzia 97a (צז.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:

Is the law really so?!

Is this indeed the law?! But we learned in the Mishna [Bava Kamma 9b], with regard to one who causes damage: “When he caused damage, the one who caused the damage is liable to pay compensation for the damage.” And the beraita explains the Mishna, saying: “‘Compensation for the damage’ teaches that the owners tend to the carcass.” This means that the one who caused the damage is not required to return an animal to the injured party; rather, he gives him the carcass and pays the difference between the value of the live animal and the value of the carcass. And since this is the law with regard to one who causes damage, the law with regard to a borrower should likewise be so.

And Rav was silent,

and it is not known whether he accepted their position or not.

And we rule:

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, for he returns his broken pieces to him and pays him the value of the utensil

He returns the broken pieces to him and pays him the difference between the value of the axe and the value of the pieces.

The Gemara relates another incident:

A certain man borrowed a bucket

a pail

from another. It broke.

He came before Rav Pappa, who said to him

Rav Pappa, in accordance with what Rava had said:

Bring witnesses that you did not deviate in your use of it, and you are exempt.

The Gemara relates another incident:

A certain man borrowed a cat

from another

to kill his mice, and mice attacked it and killed it

The mice joined together against it and killed it.

Rav Ashi sat and wondered: In a case like this, what is the law?

Is it considered an animal that died due to the work for which it was borrowed, or not?

Rav Ashi was uncertain in a case such as this: Is this considered an animal that died due to the work for which it was borrowed, or not? For perhaps bringing the cat into a place where there are many mice is considered deviating from the normal manner of using a cat.

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Avimi of Hagronya said in the name of Rava,

about a similar incident that occurred in his time:

A man whom women killed—there is no law and no judge

A man whom women killed is not a case requiring legal deliberation; and certainly, bringing a cat wherever there are mice is the normal thing to do, and this is considered an animal that died due to the work for which it was borrowed.

Some say

There are those who say:

The mice did not kill that cat; rather,

it ate many mice, became overheated, and died.

It ate many mice, became overheated, and died.

Rav Ashi sat and examined the matter: In a case like this, what is the law,

is this considered an animal that died due to the work for which it was borrowed, or should the borrower not have brought the cat into this place?

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Avimi of Hagronya said: A man whom women killed—there is no law and no judge,

This is analogous to a man who died because of excessive intercourse with women, and certainly this is considered an animal that died due to the work for which it was borrowed; it is inconceivable to regard it otherwise.

Now the Gemara returns to the law of our Mishna, the law of borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower.

Rava said: One who wishes to borrow something from another and become exempt

One who wishes to borrow something from another and become exempt from liability through deceit

should say to him

He should say to him at the time of the borrowing

Give me water to drink

Give me water to drink,

for this will be borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower,

because the lender is performing work for the borrower at the time of the borrowing.

And if he is clever

The lender, and knows that the owner's exemption depends on the time of the borrowing,

he should say to him

The lender should say to the borrower:

Borrow it first, and afterward I will give you water

Borrow the item first, and afterward I will give you water; this is not borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower.

The Gemara cites another statement of Rava:

Rava said:

Artisans who perform their work for all the inhabitants of the city, and whom every person in need of their services is entitled to require to perform their work, such as

a teacher of young children, a planter, a slaughterer, a bloodletter, and the city's barber

A teacher of young children, a planter of vineyards, a slaughterer, a bloodletter, and the city's barber

all of them

Anyone who borrows a cow from them

during their work

At the time they are working,

are considered as borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower,

Even though that artisan is not engaged solely in the work of the borrower, if one of the city's inhabitants borrowed from him while he was engaged in his work at that time, it is considered borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower.

The Sages said to Rava:

Since you say this,

our master, borrow from us

Borrow from us, our master, since you teach us Torah all day. If we borrow a cow from you, we are exempt.

Rava became angry

Rava

said to them

To his students:

Do you seek to deprive me of my property?!

Do you want to deprive me of my property?! You are not correct.

On the contrary, you are borrowing from me

By coming to study from me, for I teach you also for my own benefit, since through this I preserve my learning, and I derive more benefit from you,

as, were I alone, I could switch from tractate to tractate whenever I wished,

whereas

you cannot switch away

I can begin another tractate whenever I wish, but you cannot.

The Gemara rejects Rava's position and says:

That is not so!

For

he borrows from them on the day of the gathering,

when the halakhot of the Festival are expounded before the Festival, and at that time he cannot teach anything else.

They borrow from him on the other days

when he can teach whatever he wishes.

The Gemara relates another incident concerning the law of exemption when the owner is working for the borrower.

Merimar bar Ḥanina rented a mule

He rented the mule to the people of

“Bei Ḥozai.”

He went out to secure its load together with them

He went out to lift the load with them, when he gave them the mule.

They were negligent with it

Afterward,

and it died

The mule died.

They came before Rava, and he obligated them

He obligated the people of Bei Ḥozai to pay Merimar bar Ḥanina for the mule, because they had been negligent with it.

The Sages said to Rava: This is negligence while the owner is working for the borrower!

For at the time of the rental he came to help them, even though they had not asked him to help them, nevertheless, this is protection while the owner is working for the borrower.

Rava was embarrassed

He was embarrassed, and admitted that he had erred in the law.

Ultimately, it became clear that he had gone out only to secure the load

In the end it became clear that he had gone out to inspect the loading of the animal and supervise that an excessive load not be placed upon it, and he had done what he did for his own purposes. This is not protection while the owner is working for the borrower, and Rava had ruled correctly.

Earlier [95a], Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed concerning the law of negligence while the owner is working for the borrower. One of them holds that the borrower is liable for negligence even when the owner is working for him.

And we challenge this:

This works well according to the one who says that negligence while the owner is working for the borrower exempts the borrower; that is why Rava was embarrassed

Rava should have exempted them even though they had been negligent.

But according to the one who says that the borrower is liable, why was he embarrassed?

He should have said: Since they were negligent with it, they are liable even when the owner is working for the borrower. And it is difficult to say that one of the later amoraim disagreed with Rava.

And we answer: The incident did not occur in that manner.

They were not negligent

with it; rather, it was stolen from them

from the people of Bei Ḥozai, the renters,

and it died naturally in the possession of the thief.

They came before Rava, and he obligated them

In accordance with the law governing a renter, who is liable for theft. Although it ultimately died naturally, and a renter is exempt for an animal that dies naturally, this does not exempt them, since they had already become liable when it was stolen.

The Sages said to Rava: This is theft while the owner is working for the borrower! He was embarrassed.

Ultimately, it became clear that he had gone out only to secure the load,

and Rava had ruled correctly.

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses cases in which the owner of the cow and the guardian disagree in their claims, with the owner of the cow claiming that the cow that died had been borrowed, and that the borrower is liable for accidents, while the guardian says that the cow that died had been rented, and he is therefore exempt from liability for accidents.

The Mishna gives several examples of such cases, and in each case the law changes according to the nature of the claims of the owner of the cow and the guardian.

The borrower

of the cow

in these three cases:

a.

He borrowed it for half the day and rented it for half the day,

Reuven took a cow from Shimon for one day, half of it as a borrowing and half of it as a rental.

b.

He borrowed it

Reuven

today and rented it for the following day.

c. Reuven took two cows from Shimon,

he rented one and borrowed one.

And it died

The cow died in the first two cases, or one of the cows died in the third case, and we do not know when the cow died, or which cow died.

The law is determined according to the strength or weakness of the claims of the plaintiff and the defendant. There are four distinct legal rulings here.