Bava Metzia 190

דכתיבא בהדיא קתני דאתיא מדרשא לא קתני

is explicitly written, and not what is exegetically derived.

ת"ש שאלה ושאל בעליה עמה שכרה ושכר בעליה עמה שאלה ושכר בעליה עמה שכרה ושאל בעליה עמה אף על פי שהבעלים עושין מלאכה במקום אחר ומתה פטור

Come and hear: If he borrows it [sc. the animal], and borrows its owner along with it; if he hires it and hires the owner with it; if he borrows it, and hires the owner along with it; or if he hires it and borrow its owner with it; even if the owner is working elsewhere,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not in the same place as the animal, yet in the service of the borrower or hirer. ');">¹</span>

סברוה הא מני ר' יהודה היא דאמר שוכר כשומר שכר דמי והא האי תנא קתני מילתא דאתיא מדרשא ואילו שומר חנם לא קתני

and it dies, he is not liable. Now, it was assumed that this Tanna agrees with R. Judah that a hirer ranks as a paid bailee: thus we see that this Tanna includes what is derived exegetically, yet omits an unpaid trustee! — This agrees with R. Meir, who maintains that a hirer ranks as a gratuitous trustee; and so he states [the law] of an unpaid bailee, and the same applies to a paid bailee. If you wish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Should you for some reason prefer to ascribe this anonymous Baraitha to R. Judah (Rashi).] ');">²</span>

הא מני ר"מ היא דאמר שוכר כשומר חנם דמי ותנא שומר חנם והוא הדין לשומר שכר

I can say it is as Rabbah b. Abbuha reversed [the dispute] and taught: How does a hirer pay? R. Meir said, As a paid bailee; R. Judah said, As an unpaid bailee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to this, the Baraitha is taught on the basis of R. Judah's views. ');">³</span>

איבעית אימא כדמחליף רבה בר אבוה ותני שוכר כיצד משלם ר' מאיר אומר כשומר שכר ר' יהודה אומר כשומר חנם

R. Hamnuna said: He is always responsible unless it [the bailment] be a cow, and he [its owner] ploughs therewith [in the bailee's service], or an ass, and he drives it along, and unless the owner is in the bailee's service from the time the loan is made until it is injured or dies. Thus we see that in his view, 'But if the owner thereof be with it,' refers to the whole transaction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the owner must be in the borrower's service all the time, and employed on the labour done with the borrowed ox or ass. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רב המנונא לעולם הוא חייב עד שתהא פרה וחורש בה חמור ומחמר אחריה ועד שיהו בעלים משעת שאילה עד שעת שבורה ומתה אלמא קסבר בעליו עמו אכולה מילתא משמע

Raba raised an objection: If he borrows it [sc. the animal], and borrows its owner along with it; if he hires it and hires the owner with it; if he hires it and borrows its owner with it; or if he borrows it and hires the owner along with it; even if the owner is working elsewhere, and it dies, he is not liable. Surely, that means on different work!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refutes R. Hamnuna. ');">⁵</span>

מתיב רבא שאלה ושאל בעליה עמה שכרה ושכר בעליה עמה שכרה ושאל בעליה עמה שאלה ושכר בעליה עמה אע"פ שהבעלים עושין מלאכה במקום אחר ומתה פטור מאי לאו במלאכה אחרת

— No; it means on the same work [as the animal was doing]. Then how can it be elsewhere? — [It means] that he went along breaking up [the ground] ahead of it. But since the second clause refers to [working] near it, it follows that the first clause means [actually] a different work! For the second clause states: If he [first] borrows it [sc. the animal] and then borrows its owner; if he hires it and then hires its owner with it, even if the owner is ploughing at its side, and it perishes, he [the borrower or hirer] is responsible! — I will tell you: Both the first clause and the last refer to the same work; and the first clause teaches something of noteworthy interest, and the second likewise. The first clause teaches something of noteworthy interest: though he [the owner] is actually by its side, but yet engaged on the same work, since the owner was in his service from the time the loan was made, he [the bailee] is not responsible. And the second likewise teaches us something of noteworthy interest: though he [the owner] is by its side, yet since the owner was not in his service from the time of the loan, he is responsible. How so? Now, if you concede that the first clause refers to different work and the second to the same, it is well: that very fact is remarkable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That though he is free from responsibility when the owner is in his service even for different work, he is nevertheless liable if he is not in service from the very beginning, even if engaged on the same work at the time of death. ');">⁶</span>

לא באותה מלאכה אלא מאי מקום אחר דקא מרפי ואזיל קמה

But if you suggest that both the first clause and the second refer to the same work, what is there remarkable? Both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether he breaks up the ground before it, or guards it from behind. ');">⁷</span>

והא מדסיפא על גבה הוי רישא במלאכה אחרת דקתני סיפא שאלה ואח"כ שאל בעליה שכרה ואח"כ שכר בעליה עמה אע"פ שהבעלים חורשין ע"ג ומתה חייב

are on the same work!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus there stands Raba's cited objection to R. Hamnuna. ');">⁸</span>

אמרי רישא וסיפא באותה מלאכה ורישא רבותא קמ"ל וסיפא רבותא קמ"ל רישא רבותא קמ"ל דאע"ג דלאו על גבה אלא באותה מלאכה כיון דהוו בעלים בשעת שאילה פטור וסיפא רבותא קמ"ל דאע"ג דעל גבה כיון דלא היו בעלים בשעת שאילה חייב

And moreover it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In refutation of R. Hamnuna's ruling. ');">⁹</span>

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא רישא במלאכה אחרת וסיפא באותה מלאכה היינו רבותא

From the verse, But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good, do I not know, by implication, that if the owner thereof is not with it, that he must make it good? Why then is it [explicitly] stated, And the owner thereof not being with it, [he shall surely make it good]? To teach you: if he is in his service when the loan is made, he need not be so at the time of injury or death; but though in his service at the time of injury or death, he must also have been so with him at the time of loan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that 'and the owner thereof not being with it' refers directly to the time of the loan, and not as R. Hamnuna holds, to the whole time of the transaction. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אי אמרת רישא וסיפא באותה מלאכה מאי רבותא אידי ואידי באותה מלאכה הוי

And another [Baraitha] further taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus there stands Raba's cited objection to R. Hamnuna. ');">⁸</span>

ועוד תניא ממשמע שנאמר (שמות כב, יד) אם בעליו עמו לא ישלם איני יודע שאם בעליו אין עמו שלם ישלם אלא מה ת"ל (שמות כב, יג) בעליו אין עמו לומר לך היה עמו בשעת שאילה אין צריך להיות עמו בשעת שבורה ומתה היה עמו בשעת שבורה ומתה צריך להיות עמו בשעת שאילה

From the verse, The owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good, do I not know by implication, that if the owner thereof is in his service, that he is free from liability? Why then is it stated, But if the owner thereof be with it [etc.]? To teach you: Once it [the animal] has left the lender's possession, its owner being [simultaneously] in his service, even for a single hour, and it dies, he [the borrower] is free from liability.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This Baraitha is identical with the preceding and differs only in form. ');">¹¹</span>

ותניא אידך ממשמע שנאמר בעליו אין עמו שלם ישלם איני יודע שאם בעליו עמו לא ישלם אלא מה ת"ל אם בעליו עמו לומר לך כיון שיצאה מרשות משאיל שעה אחת בבעלים ומתה פטור תיובתא דרב המנונא תיובתא

The [complete] refutation of R. Hamnuna is indeed unanswerable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first part of his statement from the first teaching, and the latter from the last two Baraithas cited. ');">¹²</span>

אביי סבר לה כר' יאשיה ומתרץ לקראי כר' יאשיה רבא סבר לה כר' יונתן ומתרץ לקראי כר' יונתן

Abaye, holding with R. Joshia, explains the verses in accordance with him; Raba, agreeing with R. Jonathan, interprets them on the basis of his views.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the dispute of R. Joshia and R. Jonathan, v. supra 94b. The Talmud now explains how the Tannaim deduce that the owner must be pledged to the borrower's service at the time of the loan, but not when the injury or death occurs. ');">¹³</span>

אביי סבר לה כר' יאשיה ומתרץ לקראי כר' יאשיה בעליו אין עמו שלם ישלם טעמא דליתיה בתרוייהו הא איתיה בחדא וליתיה בחדא פטור

[Thus:] 'Abaye, holding with R. Joshia, explains the verses in accordance with him,' 'The owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good': hence, it is only because he was not with him on both occasions;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the loan and the injury or death. ');">¹⁴</span>

והא כתיב אם בעליו עמו לא ישלם טעמא דאיתיה בתרוייהו הא אי איתיה בחדא וליתיה בחדא מחייב

but if he were with him on one occasion but not on the other, he would be free from responsibility.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the beginning of the verse mentions both the loan and the mishap, the second half, the owner thereof etc., must refer to both likewise, i.e., the owner was not with him when he borrowed, nor when it died. That is the natural interpretation according to R. Joshia's view that the waw is definitely conjunctive, so that (and it die) links the whole verse. ');">¹⁵</span>

לומר לך היה עמו בשעת שאילה אינו צריך להיות עמו בשעת שבורה ומתה היה עמו בשעת שבורה ומתה צריך להיות עמו בשעת שאילה

But [on the Other hand], it is written, 'But if the owner thereof be with it he shall not make it good': hence, it is only because he was with him on both occasions, but if he was with him on one occasion but not on the other, he is responsible. [This contradiction is] to teach you: If he was with him at the time of the loan, he need not have been with him at the time of the injury or death; but though he were with him at the time of the injury or death he must also have been with him when the loan was made.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is explained below why this is assumed, and not the reverse. ');">¹⁶</span>