Bava Metzia 72

על דעת אשתו ובניו הוא מפקיד

does so with the understanding that his [the bailee's] wife and children [may be put in charge thereof]. The Nehardeans said: This may be deduced too [from the Mishnah quoted], for it states, 'or entrusted it to his minor son or daughter … he is responsible'; hence, [if] to his adult son or daughter, he is not responsible, whence it follows that if [he entrusts it] to strangers, whether adults or minors, he is liable. For if otherwise, he [the Tanna] should have simply taught 'minors': this proves it.

אמרי נהרדעי דיקא נמי דקתני או שמסרן לבנו ובתו הקטנים חייב הא לבנו ולבתו הגדולים פטור מכלל דלאחרים לא שנא גדולים ולא שנא קטנים חייב דאם כן ליתני קטנים סתמא שמע מינה

Raba said: The law is, If one bailee entrusts [the bailment] to another, he is responsible. Not only if a paid bailee entrusts [it] to an unpaid one, so weakening its care; but even if an unpaid bailee entrusts to a paid one, he is [still] responsible. Why? Because he [the bailor] can say to him, 'You I believe on oath: the other I do not.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is not within the bailee's power to put the bailor in such a position that he shall be forced to believe the other person on oath; hence he is responsible. ');">¹</span>

אמר רבא הלכתא שומר שמסר לשומר חייב לא מבעיא שומר שכר שמסר לשומר חנם דגרועי גרעה לשמירתו אלא אפילו שומר חנם שמסר לשומר שכר חייב מאי טעמא דאמר ליה את מהימנת לי בשבועה האיך לא מהימן לי בשבועה:

It has been stated: If he [the bailee] was negligent thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the animal entrusted to his care, placing it in a stable improperly closed. ');">²</span>

אתמר פשע בה ויצאת לאגם ומתה כדרכה אביי משמיה דרבה אמר חייב רבא משמיה דרבה אמר פטור

and it went out into a meadow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it might have been stolen or killed by wild beasts. ');">³</span>

אביי משמיה דרבה אמר חייב כל דיינא דלא דאין כי האי דינא לאו דיינא הוא לא מבעיא למ"ד תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב דחייב אלא אפילו למ"ד פטור הכא חייב מ"ט דאמרינן הבלא דאגמא קטלה

and died naturally:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the bailee was negligent, but the actual death per se was one for which a bailee is not responsible. ');">⁴</span>

רבא משמיה דרבה אמר פטור כל דיינא דלא דאין כי האי דינא לאו דיינא הוא לא מיבעיא למ"ד תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס פטור דפטור אלא אפילו למ"ד חייב הכא פטור מאי טעמא דאמרינן מלאך המות מה לי הכא ומה לי התם

Abaye in Rabbah's name ruled that he is liable; Raba in Rabbah's name ruled that he is not liable. 'Abaye in Rabbah's name ruled that he is liable.' Any judge who does not give such a verdict is not a judge: not only is he liable on the view that, if the beginning is through negligence, and the end through an accident, one is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 42a. ');">⁵</span>

ומודי אביי דאי הדרא לבי מרה ומתה דפטור מ"ט דהא הדרא לה וליכא למימר הבלא דאגמא קטלה ומודי רבא כל היכא דאיגנבה גנב באגם ומתה כדרכה בי גנב דחייב מאי טעמא דאי שבקה מלאך המות בביתיה דגנבא הוה קיימא

but even on the view that one is not liable, in this case he is. Why? Because we say, The air<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'heat'. ');">⁶</span>

אמר ליה אביי לרבא לדידך דאמרת מלאך המות מה לי הכא ומה לי התם האי דאותביה ר' אבא בר ממל לרבי אמי ושני ליה בשנתנו לו בעלים רשות להשאיל ולימא ליה מלאך המות מה לי הכא ומה לי התם

of the meadow land killed it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his death is directly the result of his negligence. ');">⁷</span>

א"ל לדידכו דמתניתו אין רצוני שיהא פקדוני ביד אחר איכא לאותבה לההיא לדידי דאמינא אנת מהימנת לי בשבועה והאיך לא מהימן לי בשבועה ליכא לאותבה כלל

'Raba in Rabbah's name ruled that he is not liable.' Any judge who does not give such a verdict is not a judge: not only is he not liable on the view that, if the beginning is through negligence, and the end through an accident, one is not liable; but even on the view that he is liable, in this case he is not. Why? Because we Say, What difference does one place or another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here or there.' ');">⁸</span>

מתיב רמי בר חמא העלה לראשי צוקין ונפלה אין זה אונס וחייב הא מתה כדרכה הרי זה אונס ופטור ואמאי לימא ליה אוירא דהר קטלה אי נמי אובצנא דהר קטלה

make to the Angel of Death?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the initial negligence had absolutely nothing to do with the animal's death. But in the case discussed supra 42a (q.v.) it did have some slight bearing upon it. ');">⁹</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן שהעלה למרעה שמן וטוב אי הכי נפלה נמי שהיה לו לתוקפה ולא תקפה

Now, Abaye admits that if it returned to its owner [sc. the bailee] and then died, he is free. Why? Because it had returned, and it could not be said that the air of the meadow killed it. Whilst Raba admits that if it was stolen from the meadow and died naturally in the thief's house, he [the bailee] is responsible. Why? Had the Angel of Death left it alone, it still would have been in the thief's house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And lost, as far as the owner was concerned. Since this is directly the result of the bailee's negligence, he is responsible ');">¹⁰</span>

אי הכי אימא רישא עלתה לראשי צוקין ונפלה הרי זה אונס איבעי ליה למיתקפה לא צריכא שתקפתו ועלתה תקפתו וירדה:

Abaye said to Raba: According to you, who maintain, what difference does this place or that make to the Angel of Death: when R. Abba b. Memel raised an objection before R. Ammi, and he answered him, It means that the owner authorised the hirer to lend it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 36a. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבי יוסי כיצד הלה עושה סחורה בפרתו כו': אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יוסי אמר ליה רב שמואל בר יהודה לרב יהודה אמרת לן משמיה דשמואל חלוק היה רבי יוסי

— he should rather have answered him, What difference does this place or another make to the Angel of Death?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This answer is preferable, for then the Mishnah on 35a is not limited to a particular instance. ');">¹²</span> — He replied, According to you, who teach [the reason of R. Johanan's ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 36a. ');">¹³</span> as being that the bailor can say,] 'I do not wish my bailment to be in the hands of another', that objection [of R. Abba b. Memel] can be raised.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And having raised it, R. Ammi replied as he thought fit. ');">¹⁴</span> But according to myself, who [maintain that it is because he can say,] 'You I believe on oath, whilst the other I do not believe on oath,' the objection cannot be raised at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in the Mishnah the hirer himself swears. ');">¹⁵</span> Rami b. Hama objected: If he [the bailee] took it up to the top of steep rocks and it fell and died, it is no accident.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 93b. ');">¹⁶</span> Hence, if it died naturally, it is accounted an accident and he is not liable. Yet why so? Let him [the bailor] say to him, The [cold] mountain air killed it, or the exhaustion of [climbing] the mountain killed it! — The meaning there is that he took it up to a fertile and goodly pasture ground.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a natural thing for shepherds: hence he is not liable on the score of cold air or exhaustion. ');">¹⁷</span> If so, it is the same even if it fell?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, on the present hypothesis, he merely did his duty in taking it up. ');">¹⁸</span> — He should have supported it [to prevent it from falling], but did not. If so, consider the first clause: If it ascended to the top of steep rocks and then fell down, it is an accident. Yet there too he should have supported it! — That holds good only if he supported it in its ascent, and supported it when it fell.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal's weight, however, being too much for him. ');">¹⁹</span> SAID R. JOSE: HOW SHALL ONE DO BUSINESS WITH HIS NEIGHBOUR'S COW etc. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Jose. R. Samuel b. Judah asked Rab Judah: You have told us in Samuel's name that R. Jose disputed