Reference for Bava Metzia 192:5
ומאי שנא דאי שואל הוי דאתי שאלה בבעלים מפקעא שכירות שלא בבעלים אי שוכר נמי הוי תיתי שכירות בבעלים תיפוק שכירות שלא בבעלים
abrogates hiring effected when the owner was not in his service? Or, perhaps, he ranks as a hirer, and the status of a hirer remains unchanged? But wherefore this differentiation? [If it is maintained that] should he rank as borrower, the borrowing effected when the owner is in his service cancels the hiring effected without the owner being engaged in his service, why not apply the same principle even if he is considered a hirer, and say that the [new] hiring effected with the owner in his service abrogates the [old] hiring effected without the owner's being in his service? — But when does Rami b. Hama's problem arise? E.g., if she hired a cow from a stranger<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the world.' ');"><sup>5</sup></span>