Bava Metzia 97a — the Talmud in English

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location") a

Is the law really so?!

And yet we learned in the Mishna [Bava Kamma 9b] concerning one who causes damage: “When he caused damage, the damager became liable to pay compensation for the damage,” and the beraita explains the Mishna and says: “Compensation for the damage”—this teaches that the owners handle the carcass. The meaning is that the damager is not liable to return an animal to the injured party, but gives him the carcass and pays him the difference between the value of the living animal and the value of the carcass. And since this is the law with regard to a damager, this should likewise be the law with regard to a borrower.

And Rav was silent,

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

And we rule:

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

he returns the broken pieces to him and completes for him the value of the axe, which exceeds the value of the broken pieces.

And the Gemara brings another incident:

A certain man borrowed a bucket

a pail

from his fellow. It broke.

He came before Rav Pappa, who said to him

Rav Pappa, as Rava had said:

Bring witnesses that you did not deviate in its use, and be exempt.

And the Gemara brings another incident:

A certain man borrowed a cat

a feline

from his fellow in order that it should kill his mice,

mice attacked it and killed it

the mice united against it and killed it. Rav Ashi sat and was asking himself: In a case like this, what is the law?

Is it considered that it died because of the work, or not?

Rav Ashi was uncertain concerning such a case: is this considered that it died because of the work, or not? For perhaps the fact that the borrower brought it into a place where there were many mice is considered a deviation from the usual manner of using a cat.

Rav Mordechai said to Rav Ashi: Thus said Avimi of Hagronya in the name of Rava,

concerning a similar incident that occurred in his time:

A man whom women killed—there is neither law nor judge

a man whom women killed: there is nothing to deliberate and no judgment to render; and certainly it is the normal practice to bring a cat to every place where there are mice, and the matter is considered that it died because of the work.

Some say

there are those who say:

That cat was not killed by the mice, but

it ate very many mice, became overheated, and died.

It ate many mice, became heated, and died.

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

is this like a case where it died because of the work, or should the borrower not have brought the cat into this place?

Rav Mordechai said to Rav Ashi: Thus said Avimi of Hagronya: A man whom women killed—there is neither law nor judge,

this resembles a man who died because of excessive relations with women, and certainly this is like a case where it died because of the work, for it is inconceivable to say otherwise.

And now the Gemara returns to the law of our Mishna, to the law of borrowing with owners present.

Rava said: One who wishes to borrow something from his fellow and be exempt

one who wishes to borrow something from his fellow and become exempt from his responsibility through deceit,

let him 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 with owners present,”

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 owners’ exemption depends on the time of the borrowing,

let him say to him

the lender should say to the borrower,

“Borrow first, and afterward I will give you water to drink,”

borrow the object first, and afterward I will give you water; and this is not borrowing with owners present.

And the Gemara brings another statement of Rava:

Rava said:

Craftsmen who perform their work for all the residents of the city, and every person who needs them is entitled to require the craftsman to perform his work, such as

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

a teacher of children, a planter of vineyards, a slaughterer, a bloodletter, and the city barber,

all of them

all those who borrow a cow from them

during the time of their work

at the time of their work,

are considered like borrowing with owners present,

and even though that craftsman is not engaged exclusively in the work of the borrower, if one of the residents of the city borrowed from him and at that time he was occupied with his work, it is considered borrowing with owners present.

The Sages said to Rava:

Since you say so,

“Borrow from us, Master,”

borrow from us, our teacher, for you teach us Torah all day. And if we borrow a cow from you, we are exempt.

Rava became angry,

Rava,

he said to them

to his students,

“Do you seek to deprive me of my property?!”

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

“On the contrary, you borrow from me,”

in that you come to study from me, for I teach you also for my own benefit, since through this I preserve my learning, and I benefit from you more,

for if I wished, I could evade you from tractate to tractate,

whereas

you are unable to evade

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

And we refute Rava and say:

It is not so!

For

he borrows from them on the day of the assembly,

when they expound before the festival on the laws of the festival, and then he cannot teach anything else.

They borrow from him on the other days,

when he can teach whatever he wishes.

The Gemara brings another incident that occurred in connection with the law of the owners’ exemption.

Marimar bar Hanina rented a mule,

he rented a female mule to the people of

“Bei Hozai.”

He went out to tie its load together with them

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

They were negligent with it

afterward,

and it died

the mule.

They came before Rava, and he obligated them

he obligated the people of Bei Hozai to pay Marimar bar Hanina for the mule, because they had been negligent with it.

The Sages said to Rava: “Negligence with owners present!”

For at the time of the rental he came to help them, and even though they had not asked him to help them, nevertheless, this is guardianship with owners present.

Rava was embarrassed

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

In the end, the matter became clear: It was to tie the load together that he had gone out

in the end it became clear that he had gone out to inspect the loading onto the animal, and to supervise that they should not load too heavy a burden upon it, and he did what he did for his own purpose. And this is not guardianship with owners present, and Rava had ruled correctly.

Earlier [95a], Rav Aha and Ravina disagreed concerning the law of negligence with owners present. One of them obligates in a case of negligence, even though it is with owners present.

And we raise an objection:

This works out well according to the one who says that negligence with owners present is exempt; that is why Rava was embarrassed,

because he should have exempted them even though they had been negligent.

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

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

And we answer: This is not how the incident was:

They were not negligent

with it; rather, it was stolen

from Bei Hozai, the renters,

and it died normally in the possession of the thief—it is so.

And they came before Rava, and he obligated them

as the law of a renter, who is liable for theft; and even though it ultimately died normally, and a renter is exempt for death, this does not exempt them, since they had already become liable when it was stolen.

The Sages said to Rava: “Theft with owners present!” Rava was embarrassed.

In the end, the matter became clear: It was to tie the load together that he had gone out,

and Rava had ruled correctly.

Mishna:

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

There are several examples in the Mishna of such cases, and in all the cases the law changes according to the nature of the claims of the owner of the cow and the guardian.

The borrower

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 through borrowing and half of it through renting.

b.

He borrowed it

Reuven

today and rented it for tomorrow.

c. Reuven took two cows from Shimon,

he rented one and borrowed one.

And it died

the cow 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 claimant and the defendant. And here there are four divisions of law.