Bava Metzia 70

אגביה איהו בחובו פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר הדרה וחד אמר לא הדרה

Where, however, he [the debtor] himself gave it to him [the creditor] for his debt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., without waiting for a court order of distraint, to which all the previous rulings apply. ');">¹</span>

מאן דאמר לא הדרה סבר האי זביני מעליא היא דהא מדעתא דנפשיה אגביה ומאן דאמר הדרה סבר לא זביני מעליא הוא והאי דאגביה מדעתיה ולא אתא לדינא מחמת כיסופא הוא דאגביה

R. Aha and Rabina differ thereon: one maintains, It is returnable: the other, It is not. He who rules that it is not returnable holds that it is a true sale, since he voluntarily gave it in payment. But he who rules that it is returnable holds that it is not a true sale, and as for his giving it to him voluntarily and not going to court, — he gave it to him [merely] through shame.

ומאימת אכיל פירי רבה אמר מכי מטיא אדרכתא לידיה אביי אמר עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו

And from what time can he [the creditor] enjoy the usufruct?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the court makes an order for distraint. ');">²</span>

רבא אמר מכי שלימו ימי אכרזתא:

Rabbah said: As soon as he receives the adrakta.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השוכר פרה מחבירו והשאילה לאחר ומתה כדרכה ישבע השוכר שמתה כדרכה והשואל ישלם לשוכר א"ר יוסי כיצד הלה עושה סחורה בפרתו של חבירו אלא תחזור פרה לבעלים:

Abaye said: The witnesses [to the adrakta], by their signatures, acquire the right for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even before he receives the document. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> א"ל רב אידי בר אבין לאביי מכדי שוכר במאי קני להאי פרה בשבועה

Raba said: When the days of public announcement are ended.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The estate to be distrained was announced for public sale, to go to the highest bidder; after the period of announcing is passed (the period is discussed in 'Ar. 21b seq.) without its being sold, the creditor has a right to the usufruct. ');">⁵</span>

ונימא ליה משכיר לשוכר דל אנת ודל שבועתך ואנא משתעינא דינא בהדי שואל א"ל מי סברת שוכר בשבועה הוא דקא קני לה משעת מיתה הוא דקני ושבועה כדי להפיס דעתו של בעל הבית

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN HIRES A COW FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR, LENDS IT TO ANOTHER, AND IT DIES A NATURAL DEATH, THE HIRER MUST SWEAR THAT IT DIED NATURALLY, AND THE BORROWER MUST PAY THE HIRER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A hirer is free from liability in the case of natural death, but not a borrower. ');">⁶</span>

א"ר זירא פעמים שהבעלים משלמין כמה פרות לשוכר היכי דמי אגרה מיניה מאה יומי והדר שיילה מיניה תשעין יומי הדר אגרה מיניה תמנן יומי והדר שיילה מיניה שבעין יומי ומתה בתוך ימי שאלתה דאכל שאלה ושאלה מיחייב חדא פרה

SAID R. JOSE: HOW SHALL ONE DO BUSINESS WITH HIS NEIGHBOUR'S COW?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely it is inequitable that the hirer shall be paid for an animal that never belonged to him! ');">⁷</span>

א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא מכדי חדא פרה היא עיילה ואפקה אפקה משכירות ועיילה לשאילה אפקה משאילה ועיילה לשכירות א"ל ומי איתא לפרה בעינא דנימא ליה הכי

HENCE THE [VALUE OF THE] COW MUST BE RETURNED TO ITS OWNER.

מר בר רב אשי אמר אין לו עליהן אלא שתי פרות חדא דשאלה וחדא דשכירות שום שאלה אחת היא ושום שכירות אחת היא דשאלה קני לגמרי דשכירות עבד בה ימי שכירותיה ומיהדר ליה למרה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Idi b. Abin said to Abaye: Let us see: how does the hirer acquire the cow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,the freedom from responsibility for it, and the right to be paid by the borrower. ');">⁸</span>

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,