Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 2, 2017 | ื“ืณ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 98

Study Guide Bava Metzia 98. The mishna’s cases about combined rental/borrowing situations areย explained in 3 different ways according to varying opinions. ย Questions are asked regarding cases where one borrows an item “with the owner” and then before the rental time is up, he decides to rent it without the owner, ย Does the exemption of “with the owner” apply because the agreement is just continued from the original borrow or is it viewed as a new agreement? ย What about from renting to borrowing or from borrowing to renting to borrowing or vice versa.

ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžื ื” ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื•ื”ืœื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืืœื ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื•ื”ืฉืืจ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฉืœื

as Rava says: One who approaches another and says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: You have in my possession only fifty dinars that I am sure about, and as for the rest, I do not know. As one who admitted to part of a claim, he is liable, by Torah law, to take an oath that he does not owe the other fifty dinars. Since he cannot take an oath to that effect, as he is unsure if he owes it, he must pay.

ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืฉืชื™ื ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืฉืœืฉ

The Gemara explains how the mishna can be interpreted as referring to a case in which the defendant makes a partial admission, thereby requiring him to take an oath: You find it in the first clause, i.e., in the first two cases of the mishna, in a situation where he took hold of two cows, and in the latter clause, i.e., in the third case, in a situation where he took hold of three cows.

ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืฉืชื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืชื™ ืคืจื•ืช ืžืกืจืชื™ ืœืš ืคืœื’ื™ื” ื“ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉืื™ืœื” ื•ืคืœื’ื™ื” ื“ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื—ื“ ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉืื™ืœื” ื•ื—ื“ ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื”

The Gemara explains: One can interpret the first clause to be referring to a case where one took hold of two cows, as follows: The case is that the owner said to the bailee: I delivered two cows to you under the agreement that one half of the day you would have them through borrowing and the other half of the day through renting, or, alternatively, one day through borrowing and one day through renting. And I claim that both died during a period of borrowing, so you are liable to pay for both of them.

ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ืืœ ื—ื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืžืชื” ื“ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฉืœื

And the borrower said to him: With regard to one of them, yes, I admit that it died during a period of borrowing. But with regard to the other one, I do not know whether it died during a period of borrowing or if it died during a period of renting. Because he admits to part of the claim, he is required to take an oath in order to be exempt from the rest of the claim. As he concedes that he does not know what happened, he is unable to take such an oath. The halakha is that since he is unable to take an oath, he must pay for both cows.

ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืฉืœืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืœืฉ ืคืจื•ืช ื ืชืชื™ ืœืš ืฉืชื™ื ื‘ืฉืื™ืœื” ื•ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืžืชื• ื”ื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ ื“ืฉืื™ืœื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ืืœ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื“ื ื“ืฉืื™ืœื” ืžืชื” ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืื™ ื“ืฉืื™ืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ื“ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื ืื™ ื“ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืžืชื” ื•ื”ื ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ื“ืฉืื™ืœื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฉืœื

And one can interpret the latter clause to be referring to a case where he took hold of three cows, as follows: The case is that the owner said to the bailee: I gave three cows to you; two through borrowing and one through renting. And I claim that those two that were being borrowed were the ones that died. And the borrower said to him: Yes, I admit that one of the cows that was borrowed died. But with regard to the other one that died, I do not know if it was the other cow that was being borrowed that died, and so the cow that is still alive is the one that was being rented, or if the one that was being rented died, and this one that is still alive is the one that was being borrowed. Because he admits to part of the claim, in order to be exempt from the rest of the claim he is required to take an oath. As he concedes that he does not know what happened, he is unable to take such an oath. And the halakha is that since he is unable to take an oath, he must pay for both cows.

ื•ืœืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื•ืžืจื™ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื›ืคื™ืจื” ื‘ืžืงืฆืช ื•ื”ื•ื“ืื” ื‘ืžืงืฆืช ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืฉืœืฉ ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืืจื‘ืข

The Gemara explains how the mishna can be interpreted even according to the unique opinion of Rami bar แธคama: And the mishna can be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar แธคama, who says: In order for any of the four types of bailees to be required to take an oath, they need to make both a denial of part of the ownerโ€™s claim and an admission of another part of his claim. According to his opinion, you find the bailee is liable to take an oath in the first clause, i.e., in the first two cases of the mishna, in a situation where he took hold of three cows, and in the latter clause, i.e., in the third case, in a situation where he took hold of four cows.

ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืฉืœืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืœืฉ ืคืจื•ืช ื ืชืชื™ ืœืš ืคืœื’ื™ื” ื“ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉืืœื” ื•ืคืœื’ื™ื” ื“ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื—ื“ ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉืืœื” ื•ื—ื“ ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืžืชื• ืฉืœืฉ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื”

The Gemara elaborates: One can interpret the first clause to be referring to a case where he took hold of three cows, as follows: The case is that the owner said to the bailee: I gave three cows to you under the agreement that one half of the day you would have them through borrowing and the other half of the day through renting, or, alternatively, one day through borrowing and one day through renting. And I claim that all three of them died during a period of borrowing, and so you are liable to pay for all of them.

ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ืืœ ื—ื“ื ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืžืขื•ืœื ื•ื—ื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืžืชื” ื“ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฉืœื

And the borrower said to him: With regard to one of them, this matter never occurred, as I took only two cows from you. And, as for the two cows I did take, with regard to one of them, yes, I admit that it died during a period of borrowing. But with regard to the other one, I do not know whether it died during a period of borrowing or if it died during a period of renting. Because the bailee admits to part of the claim and denies another part of the claim, he is required to take an oath in order to be exempt from the rest of the claim. As he concedes that he does not know what happened, he is unable to take such an oath. The halakha is that since he is unable to take an oath, he must pay for all three cows.

ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืจื‘ืข ืคืจื•ืช ื ืชืชื™ ืœืš ืฉืœืฉ ื‘ืฉืืœื” ื—ื“ื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืžืชื• ื”ื ืš ืฉืœืฉ ื“ืฉืืœื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื”

One can interpret the latter clause to be referring to a case where he took hold of four cows, as follows: The case is that the owner said to the bailee: I gave four cows to you, three through borrowing and one through renting. And I claim that those three that were being borrowed were the ones that died. And he said to him,

ืฉื•ืืœ ื—ื“ื ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืžืขื•ืœื ื•ื—ื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื“ืฉืืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืื™ ื“ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืžืชื” ื•ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ื“ืฉืืœื” ืื• ื“ืฉืืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ื“ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื“ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฉืœื

i.e., the borrower said to the owner: With regard to one of the cows that you claim, this matter never occurred, as I never took that cow from you. And as for the cows that I did take that died, with regard to one of them, yes, I admit that it was a cow that was being borrowed that died; but the other cow that died, I do not know whether it was the cow that was being rented that died, and so the cow that is still alive is the one that was being borrowed, or whether the cow that was being borrowed died, and so the cow that is still alive is the one that was being rented. Because the bailee admits to part of the claim and denies another part of the claim, he is required to take an oath in order to be exempt from the rest of the claim. As he concedes that he does not know what happened, he is unable to take such an oath. The halakha is that since he is unable to take an oath, he must pay for all three cows.

ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืื•ืœื” ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ื•ืจื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื”ืฉื•ื›ืจ ืฉืฉื›ื•ืจื” ืžืชื”

ยง The mishna teaches: The bailee rented one cow and borrowed another one. This owner says with certitude: The borrowed cow is the one that died. And that renter says with certitude: The rented cow is the one that died. In this case, the renter takes an oath that the rented cow is the one that died and then he is exempt.

ื•ืืžืื™ ืžื” ืฉื˜ืขื ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื• ื•ืžื” ืฉื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื• ืœื ื˜ืขื ื• ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื’ืœื’ื•ืœ

The Gemara asks: But why should he take an oath? That which the owner claimed from him, he did not admit to at all, and that which the bailee admitted to, the owner had not claimed from him. In order to be required to take an oath, the bailee must admit to part of the ownerโ€™s actual claim. Ulla said: The mishna is referring to a case where the owner required the bailee to take another oath by extending the oath that he had already required him to take.

ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ืœื™ ืื™ื–ื• ืžื™ื”ืช ื“ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ืžืชื” ื•ืžื™ื’ื• ื“ืžื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ื“ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ืžืชื” ืžื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ื ืžื™ ื“ืฉื›ื•ืจื” ืžืชื”

The Gemara elaborates: For example, this is a case where the owner said to him: Take an oath to me, in any event, that the cow died naturally, and not as a result of your negligence. The owner has a right to demand such an oath. And since the bailee is made to take an oath that the cow died naturally, that oath can be extended such that he can also be made to take an oath that it was the cow that was rented that died.

ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื˜ืœ ื‘ืกืคืง ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ

The mishna concludes: If this one says: I do not know what happened, and that one says: I do not know what happened, then they divide the disputed amount. The bailee is liable to pay for only half the value of the cow. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who says: When there is property of uncertain ownership, the parties divide it equally between them.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืžืžืœ ืฉืืœื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืฉื›ืจื” ืฉืœื ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžื”ื•

ยง Rabbi Abba bar Memel raises a dilemma: If one borrowed a cow together with borrowing the services of its owner, and then, before returning the cow, he rented the cow from the owner without borrowing the services of its owner, what is the halakha?

ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื” ืœื—ื•ื“ื” ืงื™ื™ืžื ื•ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืœื—ื•ื“ื” ืงื™ื™ืžื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ืฉืืœื” ืžื™ืฉืš ืฉื™ื™ื›ื™ ื“ื”ื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ื•ืื‘ื™ื“ื”

Do we say: The borrowing stands by itself and the renting stands by itself, i.e., they are two independent transactions, and so the bailee is liable for any mishap that occurs during the renting period, as the ownerโ€™s services were not borrowed by him during that time? Or, perhaps the subsequent renting is related to the prior borrowing and is an extension of it. It could be said that the renting is related to the borrowing because a renter is liable for theft and loss, as is a borrower. Perhaps the liability resulting from renting that immediately follows a period of borrowing is a downgraded form of the liability undertaken at the start of the period of borrowing. If so, then in this case, since the bailee bore no liability during the borrowing period, as the cow was borrowed while the owner was providing his services to the borrower, the bailee will not bear liability during the rental period.

ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ื™ืจื” ื‘ืฉืืœื” ืžื™ืฉืš ืฉื™ื™ื›ื™ ืฉื›ืจื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืฉืืœื” ืฉืœื ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžื”ื•

If you say that in such a case, the subsequent renting is related to the prior borrowing and is an extension of it, then in the reverse case, where one rented a cow together with borrowing the services of its owner, and then, before returning the cow, he borrowed it from the owner without borrowing the services of its owner, what is the halakha?

ืฉืืœื” ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ื“ืื™ ืœื ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ื‘ืžืงืฆืช ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ื“ืžื™

Do we say that the subsequent borrowing is certainly not related to or an extension of the prior renting, as a borrower undertakes a higher level of liability than a renter? Or perhaps, since the subsequent borrowing is partially related to the prior renting, as the borrower is liable for theft and loss just as a renter is, it is considered as though it were related entirely to it and is an extension of it. Consequently, the exemption of using an item together with its ownerโ€™s services also applies to the subsequent borrowing.

ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ื‘ืžืงืฆืช ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ื“ืžื™ ืฉืืœื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ืฉื›ืจื” ืฉืœื ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืฉืืœื” ืžื”ื•

If you say: In such a case, we do not say that since the subsequent borrowing is partially related to the prior renting, it is considered as though it were entirely related to it and is an extension of it, then in a case where one borrowed a cow together with borrowing the services of its owner, and then, before returning the cow, he rented it from the owner without borrowing the services of its owner, and then at the end of the renting period, he again borrowed it without the ownerโ€™s services, what is the halakha?

ื”ื“ืจ ืืชื™ื ืœื” ืฉืืœื” ืœื“ื•ื›ืชื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืคืกื™ืงื ืœื” ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื™ื ื™ ื•ื‘ื™ื ื™

Do we say that the second period of borrowing returns to its original place, i.e., is the third period, in which one borrowed the cow, essentially a continuation of the first period? Or, perhaps, the period of renting serves as an interruption in the middle of the two periods of borrowing, such that the third period cannot be seen as a continuation of the first period?

ืฉื›ืจื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ืฉืืœื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืฉื›ืจื” ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืืชื™ื ืœื” ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืœื“ื•ื›ืชื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืคืกื™ืงื ืœื” ืฉืืœื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ ื•ื‘ื™ื ื™

Similarly, in another case, one rented a cow together with borrowing the services of its owner. And then, before returning the cow, he borrowed it from the owner without borrowing the services of its owner. And then, at the end of the borrowing period, he again rented it, without borrowing the services of the owner. What is the halakha? Do we say that the second period of renting returns it to its original place, i.e., is the second period essentially a continuation of the first period? Or, perhaps the period of borrowing serves as an interruption in the middle of the two periods of renting, such that the third period cannot be seen as a continuation of the first period.

ืชื™ืงื•

The Gemara concludes: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื•ืืœ ืืช ื”ืคืจื” ื•ืฉืœื—ื” ืœื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฉืœ ืฉื•ืืœ ื•ืžืชื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ

MISHNA: In the case of one who borrowed a cow, and the lender sent it to the borrower by the hand of his son, or by the hand of his slave, or by the hand of his agent, or by the hand of the borrowerโ€™s son, or by the hand of his slave, or by the hand of the agent of the borrower; and it died on the way, the borrower is exempt, because the period of borrowing begins only once the cow reaches his domain.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืฉื•ืืœ ืฉืœื—ื” ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ืื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ืš ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ืš ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ืš ืื• ืฉืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืžืฉืื™ืœ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืžืฉืœื—ื” ืœืš ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ืื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ืš ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ืš ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ืš ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืฉื•ืืœ ืฉืœื— ื•ืฉืœื—ื” ื•ืžืชื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘

The borrower said to the lender: Send it to me by the hand of my son, or by the hand of my slave, or by the hand of my agent, or by the hand of your son, or by the hand of your slave, or by the hand of your agent. Or, in a case where the lender said explicitly to the borrower: I am sending it to you by the hand of my son, or by the hand of my slave, or by the hand of my agent, or by the hand of your son, or by the hand of your slave, or by the hand of your agent; and the borrower said to him: Send it as you have said, and he then sent it, and it died on the way, then the borrower is liable to pay the lender the value of his cow. Since the borrower agreed to the cowโ€™s being brought to him by the hand of another, he bears liability from the moment the cow was transferred into that personโ€™s possession.

ื•ื›ืŸ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืžื—ื–ื™ืจื”

And, so too, this is the halakha at the time when the borrower returns it to the lender. The borrower is absolved of liability only once the cow is transferred to the lender himself or to someone who the lender agreed will bring it to him.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 98

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 98

ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžื ื” ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื•ื”ืœื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืืœื ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื•ื”ืฉืืจ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฉืœื

as Rava says: One who approaches another and says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: You have in my possession only fifty dinars that I am sure about, and as for the rest, I do not know. As one who admitted to part of a claim, he is liable, by Torah law, to take an oath that he does not owe the other fifty dinars. Since he cannot take an oath to that effect, as he is unsure if he owes it, he must pay.

ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืฉืชื™ื ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืฉืœืฉ

The Gemara explains how the mishna can be interpreted as referring to a case in which the defendant makes a partial admission, thereby requiring him to take an oath: You find it in the first clause, i.e., in the first two cases of the mishna, in a situation where he took hold of two cows, and in the latter clause, i.e., in the third case, in a situation where he took hold of three cows.

ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืฉืชื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืชื™ ืคืจื•ืช ืžืกืจืชื™ ืœืš ืคืœื’ื™ื” ื“ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉืื™ืœื” ื•ืคืœื’ื™ื” ื“ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื—ื“ ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉืื™ืœื” ื•ื—ื“ ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืžืชื• ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื”

The Gemara explains: One can interpret the first clause to be referring to a case where one took hold of two cows, as follows: The case is that the owner said to the bailee: I delivered two cows to you under the agreement that one half of the day you would have them through borrowing and the other half of the day through renting, or, alternatively, one day through borrowing and one day through renting. And I claim that both died during a period of borrowing, so you are liable to pay for both of them.

ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ืืœ ื—ื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืžืชื” ื“ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฉืœื

And the borrower said to him: With regard to one of them, yes, I admit that it died during a period of borrowing. But with regard to the other one, I do not know whether it died during a period of borrowing or if it died during a period of renting. Because he admits to part of the claim, he is required to take an oath in order to be exempt from the rest of the claim. As he concedes that he does not know what happened, he is unable to take such an oath. The halakha is that since he is unable to take an oath, he must pay for both cows.

ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืฉืœืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืœืฉ ืคืจื•ืช ื ืชืชื™ ืœืš ืฉืชื™ื ื‘ืฉืื™ืœื” ื•ืื—ืช ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืžืชื• ื”ื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ ื“ืฉืื™ืœื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ืืœ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื“ื ื“ืฉืื™ืœื” ืžืชื” ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืื™ ื“ืฉืื™ืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ื“ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื”ื™ื ืื™ ื“ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืžืชื” ื•ื”ื ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ื“ืฉืื™ืœื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฉืœื

And one can interpret the latter clause to be referring to a case where he took hold of three cows, as follows: The case is that the owner said to the bailee: I gave three cows to you; two through borrowing and one through renting. And I claim that those two that were being borrowed were the ones that died. And the borrower said to him: Yes, I admit that one of the cows that was borrowed died. But with regard to the other one that died, I do not know if it was the other cow that was being borrowed that died, and so the cow that is still alive is the one that was being rented, or if the one that was being rented died, and this one that is still alive is the one that was being borrowed. Because he admits to part of the claim, in order to be exempt from the rest of the claim he is required to take an oath. As he concedes that he does not know what happened, he is unable to take such an oath. And the halakha is that since he is unable to take an oath, he must pay for both cows.

ื•ืœืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื•ืžืจื™ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื›ืคื™ืจื” ื‘ืžืงืฆืช ื•ื”ื•ื“ืื” ื‘ืžืงืฆืช ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืฉืœืฉ ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืืจื‘ืข

The Gemara explains how the mishna can be interpreted even according to the unique opinion of Rami bar แธคama: And the mishna can be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar แธคama, who says: In order for any of the four types of bailees to be required to take an oath, they need to make both a denial of part of the ownerโ€™s claim and an admission of another part of his claim. According to his opinion, you find the bailee is liable to take an oath in the first clause, i.e., in the first two cases of the mishna, in a situation where he took hold of three cows, and in the latter clause, i.e., in the third case, in a situation where he took hold of four cows.

ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืฉืœืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืœืฉ ืคืจื•ืช ื ืชืชื™ ืœืš ืคืœื’ื™ื” ื“ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉืืœื” ื•ืคืœื’ื™ื” ื“ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื—ื“ ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉืืœื” ื•ื—ื“ ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืžืชื• ืฉืœืฉ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื”

The Gemara elaborates: One can interpret the first clause to be referring to a case where he took hold of three cows, as follows: The case is that the owner said to the bailee: I gave three cows to you under the agreement that one half of the day you would have them through borrowing and the other half of the day through renting, or, alternatively, one day through borrowing and one day through renting. And I claim that all three of them died during a period of borrowing, and so you are liable to pay for all of them.

ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื•ืืœ ื—ื“ื ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืžืขื•ืœื ื•ื—ื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื“ืŸ ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืžืชื” ื“ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฉืœื

And the borrower said to him: With regard to one of them, this matter never occurred, as I took only two cows from you. And, as for the two cows I did take, with regard to one of them, yes, I admit that it died during a period of borrowing. But with regard to the other one, I do not know whether it died during a period of borrowing or if it died during a period of renting. Because the bailee admits to part of the claim and denies another part of the claim, he is required to take an oath in order to be exempt from the rest of the claim. As he concedes that he does not know what happened, he is unable to take such an oath. The halakha is that since he is unable to take an oath, he must pay for all three cows.

ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืจื‘ืข ืคืจื•ืช ื ืชืชื™ ืœืš ืฉืœืฉ ื‘ืฉืืœื” ื—ื“ื ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืžืชื• ื”ื ืš ืฉืœืฉ ื“ืฉืืœื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื”

One can interpret the latter clause to be referring to a case where he took hold of four cows, as follows: The case is that the owner said to the bailee: I gave four cows to you, three through borrowing and one through renting. And I claim that those three that were being borrowed were the ones that died. And he said to him,

ืฉื•ืืœ ื—ื“ื ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืžืขื•ืœื ื•ื—ื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื“ืฉืืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืื™ ื“ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืžืชื” ื•ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ื“ืฉืืœื” ืื• ื“ืฉืืœื” ืžืชื” ื•ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ื“ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื“ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฉืœื

i.e., the borrower said to the owner: With regard to one of the cows that you claim, this matter never occurred, as I never took that cow from you. And as for the cows that I did take that died, with regard to one of them, yes, I admit that it was a cow that was being borrowed that died; but the other cow that died, I do not know whether it was the cow that was being rented that died, and so the cow that is still alive is the one that was being borrowed, or whether the cow that was being borrowed died, and so the cow that is still alive is the one that was being rented. Because the bailee admits to part of the claim and denies another part of the claim, he is required to take an oath in order to be exempt from the rest of the claim. As he concedes that he does not know what happened, he is unable to take such an oath. The halakha is that since he is unable to take an oath, he must pay for all three cows.

ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืื•ืœื” ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ื•ืจื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื”ืฉื•ื›ืจ ืฉืฉื›ื•ืจื” ืžืชื”

ยง The mishna teaches: The bailee rented one cow and borrowed another one. This owner says with certitude: The borrowed cow is the one that died. And that renter says with certitude: The rented cow is the one that died. In this case, the renter takes an oath that the rented cow is the one that died and then he is exempt.

ื•ืืžืื™ ืžื” ืฉื˜ืขื ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื• ื•ืžื” ืฉื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื• ืœื ื˜ืขื ื• ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื’ืœื’ื•ืœ

The Gemara asks: But why should he take an oath? That which the owner claimed from him, he did not admit to at all, and that which the bailee admitted to, the owner had not claimed from him. In order to be required to take an oath, the bailee must admit to part of the ownerโ€™s actual claim. Ulla said: The mishna is referring to a case where the owner required the bailee to take another oath by extending the oath that he had already required him to take.

ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ืœื™ ืื™ื–ื• ืžื™ื”ืช ื“ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ืžืชื” ื•ืžื™ื’ื• ื“ืžื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ื“ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ืžืชื” ืžื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ื ืžื™ ื“ืฉื›ื•ืจื” ืžืชื”

The Gemara elaborates: For example, this is a case where the owner said to him: Take an oath to me, in any event, that the cow died naturally, and not as a result of your negligence. The owner has a right to demand such an oath. And since the bailee is made to take an oath that the cow died naturally, that oath can be extended such that he can also be made to take an oath that it was the cow that was rented that died.

ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ื•ื–ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื•ืณ ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื˜ืœ ื‘ืกืคืง ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ

The mishna concludes: If this one says: I do not know what happened, and that one says: I do not know what happened, then they divide the disputed amount. The bailee is liable to pay for only half the value of the cow. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who says: When there is property of uncertain ownership, the parties divide it equally between them.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืžืžืœ ืฉืืœื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืฉื›ืจื” ืฉืœื ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžื”ื•

ยง Rabbi Abba bar Memel raises a dilemma: If one borrowed a cow together with borrowing the services of its owner, and then, before returning the cow, he rented the cow from the owner without borrowing the services of its owner, what is the halakha?

ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืฉืื™ืœื” ืœื—ื•ื“ื” ืงื™ื™ืžื ื•ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืœื—ื•ื“ื” ืงื™ื™ืžื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ืฉืืœื” ืžื™ืฉืš ืฉื™ื™ื›ื™ ื“ื”ื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ื” ื•ืื‘ื™ื“ื”

Do we say: The borrowing stands by itself and the renting stands by itself, i.e., they are two independent transactions, and so the bailee is liable for any mishap that occurs during the renting period, as the ownerโ€™s services were not borrowed by him during that time? Or, perhaps the subsequent renting is related to the prior borrowing and is an extension of it. It could be said that the renting is related to the borrowing because a renter is liable for theft and loss, as is a borrower. Perhaps the liability resulting from renting that immediately follows a period of borrowing is a downgraded form of the liability undertaken at the start of the period of borrowing. If so, then in this case, since the bailee bore no liability during the borrowing period, as the cow was borrowed while the owner was providing his services to the borrower, the bailee will not bear liability during the rental period.

ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ื™ืจื” ื‘ืฉืืœื” ืžื™ืฉืš ืฉื™ื™ื›ื™ ืฉื›ืจื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืฉืืœื” ืฉืœื ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžื”ื•

If you say that in such a case, the subsequent renting is related to the prior borrowing and is an extension of it, then in the reverse case, where one rented a cow together with borrowing the services of its owner, and then, before returning the cow, he borrowed it from the owner without borrowing the services of its owner, what is the halakha?

ืฉืืœื” ื‘ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ื“ืื™ ืœื ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ื‘ืžืงืฆืช ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ื“ืžื™

Do we say that the subsequent borrowing is certainly not related to or an extension of the prior renting, as a borrower undertakes a higher level of liability than a renter? Or perhaps, since the subsequent borrowing is partially related to the prior renting, as the borrower is liable for theft and loss just as a renter is, it is considered as though it were related entirely to it and is an extension of it. Consequently, the exemption of using an item together with its ownerโ€™s services also applies to the subsequent borrowing.

ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ื‘ืžืงืฆืช ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืฉื™ื™ื›ื ื‘ื›ื•ืœื” ื“ืžื™ ืฉืืœื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ืฉื›ืจื” ืฉืœื ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืฉืืœื” ืžื”ื•

If you say: In such a case, we do not say that since the subsequent borrowing is partially related to the prior renting, it is considered as though it were entirely related to it and is an extension of it, then in a case where one borrowed a cow together with borrowing the services of its owner, and then, before returning the cow, he rented it from the owner without borrowing the services of its owner, and then at the end of the renting period, he again borrowed it without the ownerโ€™s services, what is the halakha?

ื”ื“ืจ ืืชื™ื ืœื” ืฉืืœื” ืœื“ื•ื›ืชื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืคืกื™ืงื ืœื” ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื™ื ื™ ื•ื‘ื™ื ื™

Do we say that the second period of borrowing returns to its original place, i.e., is the third period, in which one borrowed the cow, essentially a continuation of the first period? Or, perhaps, the period of renting serves as an interruption in the middle of the two periods of borrowing, such that the third period cannot be seen as a continuation of the first period?

ืฉื›ืจื” ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื•ืฉืืœื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืฉื›ืจื” ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืืชื™ื ืœื” ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืœื“ื•ื›ืชื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืืคืกื™ืงื ืœื” ืฉืืœื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ ื•ื‘ื™ื ื™

Similarly, in another case, one rented a cow together with borrowing the services of its owner. And then, before returning the cow, he borrowed it from the owner without borrowing the services of its owner. And then, at the end of the borrowing period, he again rented it, without borrowing the services of the owner. What is the halakha? Do we say that the second period of renting returns it to its original place, i.e., is the second period essentially a continuation of the first period? Or, perhaps the period of borrowing serves as an interruption in the middle of the two periods of renting, such that the third period cannot be seen as a continuation of the first period.

ืชื™ืงื•

The Gemara concludes: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื•ืืœ ืืช ื”ืคืจื” ื•ืฉืœื—ื” ืœื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฉืœ ืฉื•ืืœ ื•ืžืชื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ

MISHNA: In the case of one who borrowed a cow, and the lender sent it to the borrower by the hand of his son, or by the hand of his slave, or by the hand of his agent, or by the hand of the borrowerโ€™s son, or by the hand of his slave, or by the hand of the agent of the borrower; and it died on the way, the borrower is exempt, because the period of borrowing begins only once the cow reaches his domain.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืฉื•ืืœ ืฉืœื—ื” ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ืื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ืš ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ืš ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ืš ืื• ืฉืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืžืฉืื™ืœ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืžืฉืœื—ื” ืœืš ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ ืื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื ืš ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ืš ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื•ื—ืš ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืฉื•ืืœ ืฉืœื— ื•ืฉืœื—ื” ื•ืžืชื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘

The borrower said to the lender: Send it to me by the hand of my son, or by the hand of my slave, or by the hand of my agent, or by the hand of your son, or by the hand of your slave, or by the hand of your agent. Or, in a case where the lender said explicitly to the borrower: I am sending it to you by the hand of my son, or by the hand of my slave, or by the hand of my agent, or by the hand of your son, or by the hand of your slave, or by the hand of your agent; and the borrower said to him: Send it as you have said, and he then sent it, and it died on the way, then the borrower is liable to pay the lender the value of his cow. Since the borrower agreed to the cowโ€™s being brought to him by the hand of another, he bears liability from the moment the cow was transferred into that personโ€™s possession.

ื•ื›ืŸ ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืžื—ื–ื™ืจื”

And, so too, this is the halakha at the time when the borrower returns it to the lender. The borrower is absolved of liability only once the cow is transferred to the lender himself or to someone who the lender agreed will bring it to him.

Scroll To Top