Jewish%20thought for Bava Metzia 70:11

אמר ר' ירמיה פעמים ששניהם בחטאת

By his oath!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By swearing that it died a natural death. ');">⁹</span> Then let the owner say to the hirer, 'Take yourself off with your oath, whilst I bring an action<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'will talk in an action.' ');">¹⁰</span> against the borrower!' — Do you think, he replied to him, that the hirer acquires it through his oath! He acquires it from the time of its death, the oath being only to placate the owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it had actually died a natural death. ');">¹¹</span> R. Zera said: It may sometimes happen [on the basis of this Mishnah] that the owner must render many cows to the hirer. How so? — If A hired it [an animal] from him [B] for one hundred days, and then B re-borrowed it from him for ninety days;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Out of the hundred, so that at their expiration A would have another ten days. ');">¹²</span> then A rehired it from B for eighty days [out of the ninety], and B. re-borrowed it from A for seventy days, and it died within the period of borrowing. Now on account of each separate borrowing he becomes liable for one cow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Mishnah states that the hirer owes nothing to the owner, but the borrower is liable to the hirer. This is a general rule, and holds good even if the borrower is actually the owner, for the principle is the same. Furthermore, each borrowing is a separate transaction, notwithstanding that the borrowings run concurrently, and each imposes a separate liability. Hence the owner may have to pay several animals to the hirer. ');">¹³</span> R. Aha of Difti said to Rabina: Let us see, only one animal is involved, which was brought into [a certain state] and taken out [thence]: it was taken out of hiring and brought into borrowing, taken out of borrowing and brought into hiring! — Is the cow then still in existence, he replied, that we should say thus to him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the cow is dead, that argument cannot be used, and each borrowing and hiring is a separate transaction. ');">¹⁴</span> Mar son of R. Ashi said: He has a claim only in respect of two cows, one in respect of borrowing and one in respect of hiring, [for] there is one designation of borrowing and one designation of hiring.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He agrees with R. Aha of Difti. Notwithstanding that there were two borrowings, they are regarded as one in the final analysis. ');">¹⁵</span> That in respect of borrowing belongs entirely to him [the hirer],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the borrower, here the actual owner, must pay for it. ');">¹⁶</span> whilst as for that of hiring, he must work therewith for the period of hiring and return it to its owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the owner must supply him with an animal for the remaining period of hiring — in this case, ten days. ');">¹⁷</span> R. Jeremiah said: Sometimes both [the hirer and the borrower] are liable to a sin-offering,

Explore jewish%20thought for Bava Metzia 70:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.