Bava Metzia 188

אבל שאל את הפרה ואחר כך שאל את הבעלים או שכרן ומתה חייב שנאמר (שמות כב, יג) בעליו אין עמו שלם ישלם:

BUT IF HE FIRST BORROWS THE COW, AND ONLY SUBSEQUENTLY BORROWS OR HIRES ITS OWNER, AND IT DIES, HE IS LIABLE, AS IT IS WRITTEN, THE OWNER THEREOF NOT BEING WITH IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'with him' (the bailee). ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מדקתני סיפא ואחר כך שאל את הפרה מכלל דרישא דקתני עמה עמה ממש עמה ממש מי משכחת לה פרה במשיכה ובעלים באמירה

HE SHALL SURELY MAKE IT GOOD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13. ');">²</span>

איבעית אימא כגון דקיימא פרה בחצרו דשואל דלא מחסרא משיכה איבעית אימא דאמר ליה את גופך לא תשאל עד שעת משיכת פרתך

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Since the second clause states, AND THEN BORROWS THE COW, it follows that when the first clause reads, WITH IT, it is literally meant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they are both borrowed simultaneously. ');">³</span>

תנן התם ארבעה שומרים הם שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר

But is it possible that it shall be literally WITH IT; the cow is acquired only by <i>meshikah</i>, whereas its owner is acquired by his promise?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the owner says. 'I lend you my personal services and my cow', he himself is immediately at the service of the borrower, whereas the cow does not pass into his possession, to bear responsibility for it, until he actually performs meshikah (v. Glos.). ');">⁴</span>

שומר חנם נשבע על הכל והשואל משלם את הכל נושא שכר והשוכר נשבעין על השבורה ועל השבויה ועל המתה ומשלמים את האבידה ואת הגניבה

— I can answer either that the cow was standing in the borrower's courtyard, so that <i>meshikah</i> is not wanting;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is already in his possession, whilst meshikah is only an expedient for bringing it into his possession. ');">⁵</span>

מנא ה"מ דתנו רבנן פרשה ראשונה נאמרה בש"ח שניה בשומר שכר שלישית בשואל

or alternatively, that he [the borrower] said to him, 'You yourself are not lent [to me] until I perform <i>meshikah</i> on your cow.'

בשלמא שלישית בשואל מפורש (שמות כב, יג) וכי ישאל איש מעם רעהו ונשבר או מת בעליו אין עמו שלם ישלם אלא ראשונה בשומר חנם שניה בשומר שכר איפוך אנא

We have learnt elsewhere: There are four bailees: a gratuitous bailee, a borrower, a paid bailee, and a hirer. A gratuitous bailee swears for everything. A borrower pays for everything. A paid bailee or a hirer swears concerning an animal that was injured, captured, or that perished; but pays for loss or theft.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra Mishnah 93a for notes. ');">⁶</span>

מסתברא שניה בשומר שכר שכן חייב בגניבה ואבידה אדרבה ראשונה בשומר שכר שכן משלם תשלומי כפל בטוען טענת גנב

Whence do we know these things? — For our Rabbis taught: The first section refers to a gratuitous bailee, the second to a paid one, and the third to a borrower.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to Ex. XXII, 6-8; 9-12; and 13f. The first states that the bailee is exempt from responsibility in the case of theft: the second, only in the case of the animal dying etc., but not for theft. The third explicitly deals with borrowing. ');">⁷</span>

אפילו הכי קרנא בלא שבועה עדיפא מכפילא בשבועה

Now, as for the third referring to a borrower, it is well, for it is explicit: And if a man borrow aught of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13. ');">⁸</span>

תדע דהא שואל כל הנאה שלו ואינו משלם אלא קרן

But as for the first treating of an unpaid bailee and the second of a paid one, perhaps it is the reverse? — It is reasonable [to assume] that the second refers to a paid bailee, since he is responsible for theft and loss. On the contrary, [is it not more logical that] the first refers to a paid bailee, since he is liable to restitution of twice the principal in a [false] plea of theft?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ibid. 7, 8. This is interpreted in B.K. 63b as referring to the payment due by the bailee for a false plea of theft. ');">⁹</span>

והשואל כל הנאה שלו והא בעיא מזוני דקיימא באגם והא בעיא נטירה בנטר מתא ואיבעית אימא לא תימא כל הנאה שלו אלא אימא רוב הנאה שלו ואיבעית אימא בשאילת כלים

— Even so [to pay] the principal without the option of an oath is a heavier liability than to pay double after a [false] oath, the proof being that the borrower, though all the benefit is his, yet pays only the principal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though undoubtedly his liabilities are the greatest of all bailees. ');">¹⁰</span>

נושא שכר והשוכר נשבעין על השבורה ועל השבויה ועל המתה ומשלמין את האבידה ואת הגניבה

But is it so, that in the case of a borrower all the benefit is his? But does it [sc. the animal borrowed] not require food? — [It is all his,] when it [the animal] is standing on a common.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The borrower living on a common, and since Scripture does not specify the locality of the borrower, even such is meant. ');">¹¹</span>

בשלמא גניבה דכתיב (שמות כב, יא) אם גנוב יגנב מעמו ישלם לבעליו אלא אבידה מנא לן דתניא אם גנוב יגנב אין לי אלא גניבה אבידה מנין ת"ל אם גנוב יגנב מכל מקום

But it needs [special] guarding!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which involves extra cost. ');">¹²</span>

הניחא למאן דאמר לא אמרינן דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם אלא למאן דאמר אמרינן דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם מאי איכא למימר

— Where there is a town watch. Alternatively, do not say, all the benefit is his, but, most of the benefit is his.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And still the argument holds good. ');">¹³</span>

אמרי במערבא קל וחומר ומה גניבה שקרובה לאונס משלם אבידה שקרובה לפשיעה לא כל שכן

Or again, [refer it] to the borrowing of utensils.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Requiring neither food nor a special watch. ');">¹⁴</span>

ואידך מילתא דאתיא בקל וחומר טרח וכתב לה קרא

'A paid bailee or a hirer swears concerning an animal that was injured, captured, or perished; but pays for loss or theft.' Now, as for theft, it is well, for it is written, And if it indeed be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 11. ');">¹⁵</span>

והשואל משלם את הכל בשלמא שבורה ומתה דכתיב (שמות כב, יג) וכי ישאל איש מעם רעהו ונשבר או מת אלא שבויה בשואל מנא לן

but whence do we know it of loss? — For it has been taught: <i>'And if it indeed be stolen'</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The emphasis of 'indeed' is expressed, as usual, by the double form of the verb, [H], the infinitive followed by the imperfect. ');">¹⁶</span>

וכי תימא נילף משבורה ומתה מה לשבורה ומתה שכן אונסא דסליק אדעתא הוא תאמר בשבויה שכן אונסא דלא סליק אדעתא הוא

from this I know only theft: whence do I know loss? From the expression, <i>'And if it indeed be stolen'</i>, implying no matter how [it disappears].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is deduced from the emphatic form. ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא נאמרה שבורה ומתה בשואל ונאמרה שבורה ומתה בשומר שכר מה להלן שבויה עמו אף כאן שבויה עמו

Now, that agrees with the view that we do not say that the Torah employs human phraseology; but on the view that we do say that the Torah employs human phraseology, what can you say?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this emphasis is a normal idiom, and on the latter view, its purpose is not to extend the law. ');">¹⁸</span>

איכא למיפרך מה לשומר שכר שכן לפטור תאמר בשואל שכן לחיוב

— In the West<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Palestine. ');">¹⁹</span>

אלא כר' נתן דתניא ר' נתן אומר או לרבות שבויה

they said, It follows <i>a fortiori</i>: if he must pay for theft, which is near to accident, then surely he is liable for loss, which is more akin to negligence. And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He who maintains that we do not say that the Torah employs human phraseology, and interprets emphatic forms to include loss; but surely this follows from an a fortiori reasoning! ');">²⁰</span>

האי או מיבעיא ליה לחלק דסד"א עד דמיתברא ומתה לא מחייב קמ"ל

— That which is derived by an <i>a fortiori</i> argument, Scripture [often] takes the trouble to write.

הניחא לר' יונתן אלא לר' יאשיה מאי איכא למימר

'And a borrower pays for everything.' Now, as for the animal that is injured, or perishes, it is well, for it is written, 'And if a man borrow aught of his neighbour, and it be hurt or die'; but whence do we know that a borrower is responsible for capture? And should you say, Let us derive it from the case of injury and death: [it may be rejoined,] as for these, [he is responsible] because they are accidents which may be foreseen; but can you say that capture [is the same], Seeing that it is an unforseeable accident? — But [deduce it thus:] Injury and death are stated [as cause of liability] in the case of a borrower, and they are likewise enumerated in the case of a paid bailee: just as there, capture falls within the same category,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is explicitly mentioned in v. 9. ');">²¹</span>

דתניא (ויקרא כ, ט) איש אשר יקלל את אביו ואת אמו אין לי אלא אביו ואמו אביו בלא אמו אמו בלא אביו מנין ת"ל אביו ואמו קלל אביו קלל אמו קלל דברי רבי יאשיה

so here too, capture is included. But this may be refuted: as for a paid bailee, [it is mentioned] as a cause of exemption; but can you say the same of a borrower, [for whom you would include it] as a cause of liability? — But [it may be derived] in accordance with R. Nathan's teaching. For it has been taught: R. Nathan said: ['And if a man borrow aught of his neighbour, and it be hurt,] or [die]': 'or' extends the law to capture.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 43b. ');">²²</span>

רבי יונתן אומר משמע שניהם כאחד ומשמע אחד בפני עצמו

But is not this 'or' needed as a disjunctive? For I might think that he is responsible only if it is injured and also dies; therefore Scripture states otherwise. Now, on R. Jonathan's view, it is well; but on R. Joshia's, what can you say? For it has been taught: For any man that curseth his father and his mother [shall surely be put to death]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 9. ');">²³</span> from this I know only [that he is punished for cursing] his father and his mother; whence do I know [the same] if he cursed his father without his mother, or his mother without his father? From the passage, his father and his mother he hath cursed; his blood shall be upon him: implying a man that cursed his father; a man that cursed his mother:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the beginning of the sentence that curseth is in immediate proximity to his father: at the end, cursing is mentioned nearest to his mother, shewing that each is separate. ');">²⁴</span> this is R. Joshia's opinion. R. Jonathan said: The [beginning of the] verse implies either the two together or each separately,