בבא מציעא דף צז

דינא הכי ושתיק רב.

Is this the halakha? Is it not sufficient to pay him the difference between the broken ax’s previous and current value? And Rav was silent; he did not answer.

והלכתא כרב כהנא ורב אסי, דמהדר ליה תבריה וממלי ליה דמי מנא.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, that he returns to him the broken tool and makes up the remainder of the tool’s previous value with a monetary payment.

ההוא גברא דשאיל דוולא מחבריה, איתבר. אתא לקמיה דרב פפא. אמר ליה: אייתי סהדי דלא שנית ביה, ואיפטר.

The Gemara relates: A certain man borrowed a pail from another and it broke. He came before Rav Pappa for judgment. Rav Pappa said to him: Bring witnesses that you did not deviate from its regular use, and you will be exempt from liability, as this is comparable to a case of a borrowed animal that died due to ordinary labor.

ההוא גברא דשאיל שונרא מחבריה, חבור עליה עכברי וקטלוה. יתיב רב אשי וקמיבעיא ליה: כי האי גוונא מאי? כי מתה מחמת מלאכה דמי, או לא?

The Gemara relates: A certain man borrowed a cat from another to hunt and kill mice for him. The mice banded together against it and killed it. Rav Ashi sat and raised a dilemma: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Is this case comparable to a case where a borrowed animal died due to ordinary labor, or not? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronya said this in the name of Rava: With regard to a man who women killed, there is a need for neither judgment nor a judge, i.e., it is obvious that they are liable. In this case as well, it is obvious that the borrower may bring the cat to hunt mice, and he is therefore exempt from liability.

אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי הכי אמר אבימי מהגרוניא משמיה דרבא: גברא דנשי קטלוה – לא דינא ולא דיינא.

איכא דאמרי: אכל עכברי טובא וחביל ומית. יתיב רב אשי וקא מעיין בה: כהאי גוונא מאי? אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי: הכי אמר אבימי מהגרוניא:

There are those who say that the incident actually occurred as follows: The cat ate many mice, and was harmed by doing so and died. Rav Ashi sat and deliberated: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronya said this: With regard to a man who overindulged in sexual intercourse to the extent that women killed him by exhausting him, there is neither judgment nor judge, i.e., there is no redress since it is his own fault.

גברא דנשי קטלוה – לא דינא ולא דיינא.

אמר רבא: האי מאן דבעי למישאל מידי מחבריה וליפטר, נימא ליה: אשקיין מיא, דהוי שאילה בבעלים.

Rava says: With regard to one who wants to borrow something from another and be exempt from liability, let him say to the lender at the time of borrowing: Pour me water. He will thereby be exempt, as it is then a case of borrowing an item and borrowing or hiring the services of its owner with it.

ואי פקח הוא, נימא ליה: שאיל ברישא והדר אשקייך.

And if the lender is perspicacious and wishes to prevent the borrower from being exempt from liability, let him say to him: Borrow the item first and then I will pour the water for you. Since the owner will not yet be working for the borrower at the time of the borrowing, the exemption does not apply.

אמר רבא: מקרי דרדקי, שתלא, טבחא, ואומנא, ספר מתא – כולהון בעידן עבידתייהו כשאילה בבעלים דמו.

Rava says: A teacher of children, the local gardener, the local butcher, and the local bloodletter, and a scribe of the city, with regard to all of them, if someone borrows an item from them at the time of their work, he is exempt from liability, as the case is comparable to borrowing an item and borrowing or hiring its owner with it. These people are always considered in the employ of the residents of the place where they work.

אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא: שאיל לן מר. אקפיד. אמר להו: לאפקועי ממונאי קא בעיתו?! אדרבה, אתון שאילתון לי. דאילו אנא מצי אישתמוטי לכו ממסכתא למסכתא,

The Gemara relates: The Rabbis said to Rava: Master, you are lent to us to teach us Torah, and so if we borrow an item from you, we should be exempt from liability. These Rabbis stated this based on Rava’s own ruling. Rava was angered by this and said to them: Do you want to take my money away from me? On the contrary, I am not lent to you; rather, you are lent to me, since you assist me in consolidating my Torah knowledge. And this is the proof that it is you who are assisting me: Whereas I am able to deflect you from one tractate to another tractate because I am not obligated to teach specifically that which you want to learn, you are not able to deflect me from what I wish to teach.

אתון לא מציתו לאישתמוטי.

ולא היא, איהו שאיל להו ביומא דכלה. אינהו שאילו ליה בשאר יומי.

The Gemara comments: But it is not so that a teacher is never lent to his students. During the days of the kalla, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar, the teacher is required to teach a specific subject, and therefore he is lent to them. During the rest of the days of the year, they are lent to him, as he can teach whatever subject matter he wishes.

מרימר בר חנינא אוגר כודנייתא בי חוזאי, נפק לדלויי טעונה בהדייהו, פשעו בה ומית. אתו לקמיה דרבא, חייבינהו. אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא: פשיעה בבעלים היא! איכסיף.

The Gemara relates: Mareimar bar Ḥanina rented out a mule to the residents of Bei Ḥozai. He went out to raise up a load onto the mule together with those who rented it. Later they were negligent with the animal, and it died. They came before Rava for judgment, and he deemed them liable to pay. The Sages said to Rava: This is a case of a mishap that occurred due to a renter’s negligence in safeguarding a deposit that was rented together with its owner, and the halakha in such a case is that the renter is exempt. Rava was embarrassed that he had ruled incorrectly. Ultimately it was revealed that Mareimar bar Ḥanina had gone out only to supervise the loading but did not actually participate in loading the animal. Accordingly, Rava’s ruling that the renters were liable proved to be correct.

לסוף איגלאי מילתא דלמיסר טעונה הוא דנפק.

הניחא למאן דאמר פשיעה בבעלים פטור, משום הכי איכסיף. אלא למאן דאמר חייב, אמאי איכסיף?

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that in a case of a mishap that occurred because of a borrower’s negligence in safeguarding a deposit that was borrowed together with its owner, the borrower is exempt; for that reason Rava was embarrassed for ruling incorrectly. But according to the one who says that in such a case the borrower is liable, why was he embarrassed; wouldn’t it appear that he ruled correctly?

לא מיפשע פשעו בה, אלא איגנובי איגנוב, ומתה כדרכה בי גנב הוי. ואתו לקמיה דרבא וחייבינהו. אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא: גניבה בבעלים היא. אכסיף.

The Gemara emends the details of the incident: Those that rented the mule were not negligent with it. Rather, it was stolen from them and then it died naturally in the house of the thief. And those who rented the mule came before Rava for judgment, and he deemed them liable. The Sages said to Rava: This is a case of theft of a deposit that was borrowed together with borrowing the services of the owner, and so the borrower should be exempt. Rava was embarrassed that he had ruled incorrectly. Ultimately it was revealed that Mareimar bar Ḥanina had gone out only to supervise the loading but did not actually participate in loading the animal. Accordingly, Rava’s ruling proved to be correct.

לסוף איגלאי מילתא דלמיסר טעונה הוא דנפק.

מתני׳ השואל את הפרה, שאלה חצי יום ושכרה חצי יום. שאלה היום ושכרה למחר. שכר אחת ושאל אחת, ומתה. המשאיל אומר: שאולה מתה, ביום שהיתה שאולה מתה,

MISHNA: There is one who borrowed a cow. He borrowed it for half of the day and rented it for the other half of the day; or he borrowed it for today and rented it for tomorrow; or he rented one cow and borrowed another one from the same person. And in one of the first two cases, the cow died and it is not clear during which period the cow died. Or in the last case, one of the cows died and it is not clear whether it had been the borrowed cow or the rented cow. If the lender then says: The borrowed cow is the one that died; or: It died on the day that it was being borrowed;

בשעה שהיתה שאולה מתה. והלה אומר: איני יודע – חייב.

or: It died during the period in which it was being borrowed, so that, according to his claim, the borrower is liable to pay for the cow, and the other one, the borrower, says: I do not know what happened, the borrower is liable to pay.

השוכר אומר: שכורה מתה, ביום שהיתה שכורה מתה, בשעה שהיתה שכורה מתה. והלה אומר: איני יודע – פטור.

If the renter says: The rented cow is the one that died; or: It died on the day that it was being rented; or: It died during the period in which it was being rented, and the other one, the owner of the cow, says: I do not know what happened, the renter is exempt.

זה אומר: שאולה, וזה אומר: שכורה – ישבע השוכר ששכורה מתה.

If 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, then the renter takes an oath that the rented cow is the one that died, and he is then exempt from liability.

זה אומר: איני יודע, וזה אומר: איני יודע – יחלוקו.

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.

גמ׳ שמעת מינה: מנה לי בידך, והלה אומר: איני יודע – חייב.

GEMARA: Conclude from the mishna that in a comparable situation, where one says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other one says: I do not know whether or not I have your money, that the defendant is liable to pay.

לימא תהוי תיובתא דרב נחמן, דאיתמר: ״מנה לי בידך״, והלה אומר: איני יודע. רב הונא ורב יהודה אמרי: חייב. רב נחמן ורבי יוחנן אמרי: פטור!

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Naḥman. As it was stated that the amora’im disagreed about the following case: With regard to one who approaches another and says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I do not know, Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say: The respondent is liable to pay, because he did not deny the claim. Rav Naḥman and Rabbi Yoḥanan say: He is exempt from payment.

כדאמר רב נחמן: כגון שיש עסק שבועה ביניהן. הכא נמי – כגון שיש עסק שבועה ביניהן.

The Gemara refutes this contention: Just as Rav Naḥman says in that context: He is liable to pay only in a case where there is a matter of an oath between them, here too, it is a case where there is a matter of an oath between them. In that case, Rav Naḥman rules that he is liable to pay only if he is already liable to take an oath concerning his denial of part of the claim. Since he does not know if he owes this sum, and he is therefore unable to take the oath he is liable to take, he must pay. In this case as well, since the bailee does not know what occurred, he cannot take an oath, and must pay.

היכי דמי עסק שבועה? כדרבא,

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a matter of an oath? The Gemara explains: This in accordance with the statement of Rava,