Bava Metzia 192
שואל הוי או שוכר הוי
or as a hirer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that the question is whether he is responsible for accidents when working with his wife's, 'property of plucking,' (q.v., p. 555, n. 4) or not, as a borrower or as a hirer respectively. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
אמר רבא לפום חורפא שבשתא מה נפשך אי שואל הוי שאלה בבעלים היא אי שוכר הוי שכירות בבעלים היא
— Said Raba: His very subtlety has led him into error; what will you? If he ranks as a borrower, it is a loan when the owner is in his service; if a hirer, it is a hiring in similar circumstances?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the wife is pledged to her husband's service from the time of marriage. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אלא כי קמיבעיא ליה לרמי בר חמא דאגר מינה פרה והדר נסבה שואל הוי או שוכר הוי
— But when does Rami b. Hama's problem arise? If he hired a cow from her and then married her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or if he borrowed, etc., hiring being mentioned as the more usual (Tosaf.). ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
שואל הוי ואתיא שאלה בבעלים מפקעא שכירות שלא בבעלים או דלמא שוכר הוי ושכירות כדקיימא קיימא
— what [is the law] then? Does he rank as a borrower or as a hirer? Does he rank as a borrower, and so the [present] loan, when the owner is in his service,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained in n. 2. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
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>
אלא כי קא מיבעיא לרמי בר חמא כגון דאגרא איהי פרה מעלמא והדר נסבה
and then was married [not to the owner]. Now, on the view of the Rabbis, who maintain that the borrower must pay the hirer, there is no problem, for it is certainly a case of a loan plus the owner's service. Where the problem arises is on the view of R. Jose, who ruled, the cow must be returned to its first owner. [Hence the question,] what [is the law] then? Does he rank as a borrower or as a hirer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this dispute of the Rabbis and R. Jose v. supra 35b Now, since the Rabbis maintain that the borrower is concerned only with the lender, not with the first owner, then in this case we consider only the husband's relationship to his wife, and therefore he is not responsible for accidents. But on R. Jose's view that the borrower is referred direct to the first owner, who, of course, is not in his service, the question is whether he ranks as a borrower, and is responsible for accidents, or as a hirer, who is not. In return for the usufruct the husband is bound to ransom his wife if captured, and that liability may give him the rank of a hirer in relation to his wife. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
כי תיבעי לך אליבא דר' יוסי דאמר תחזיר פרה לבעלים הראשונים מאי שואל הוי או שוכר הוי
This follows from the dictum of R. Jose son of R. Hanina. For R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: In Usha it was enacted:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Usha was a city of Galilee, near Shefar'am, Tiberias and Sepphoris, where an important Rabbinical synod was held on the cessation of the Hadrianic religious persecution, about the middle of the second century; v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 207, n. 3. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
אמר רבא בעל לא שואל הוי ולא שוכר הוי אלא לוקח הוי מדרבי יוסי בר' חנינא דאמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא באושא התקינו האשה שמכרה בנכסי מלוג בחיי בעלה ומתה הבעל מוציא מיד הלקוחות
If a woman sells of her 'property of plucking' in her husband's lifetime, and then dies, her husband [as her heir] can claim it from the purchaser.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that the husband is accounted a previous purchaser. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
בעי רמי בר חמא בעל בנכסי אשתו מי מעל
Rami b. Hama propounded: When the husband [obtains the privilege of usufruct] in his wife's property [which belonged to <i>hekdesh</i>], who is liable to a trespass offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if she inherited property after marriage, which included, unknown to her husband, money belonging to hekdesh (v. Glos.). By a Rabbinical enactment, the husband becomes a beneficiary in respect of the usufruct of anything inherited by his wife after marriage. Now, it was assumed that the very fact that the husband is empowered to spend this money for its usufruct is as though it were already removed from the possession of hekdesh, even if it has not been actually expended. Since such removal, if done unintentionally, imposes a liability to a trespass offering, Rami b. Hama asked upon whom it falls. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
אמר רבא מאן לימעול לימעול בעל דהיתרא ניחא ליה דליקני איסורא לא ניחא ליה דליקני
Raba [thereupon] observed: Who then should be liable to a trespass offering? The husband? He is willing to acquire a right in what is permitted, but not in what is forbidden! The wife?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For conferring the right upon her husband. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
תימעול איהי דהיתרא נמי לא ניחא לה דליקני
But she [herself] does not [particularly] wish him [the husband] to acquire even what is permitted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The privilege was conferred upon him by a Rabbinical enactment, not by her desire. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אלא אמר רבא בעל מעל לכשיוציא מידי דהוה אמוציא מעות הקדש לחולין
When did the Rabbis enact that the husband ranks as a purchaser, only in respect of what is permitted, not in respect of what is forbidden! — But, said Raba, the husband is liable to a trespass offering when he actually expends it, just as in general, when one withdraws money of <i>hekdesh</i> [and converts it] into <i>hullin</i>.
אמר ליה ההוא מרבנן ורב חלקיה בריה דרב אויא שמיה מכלל דכי מתה מחמת מלאכה מחייב נימא לאו לאוקמא בכילתא שאילתה
Said one of the Rabbis, R. Helkiah the son of R. Awia by name:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is the only instance where his name occurs.] ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
אלא אמר רבא לא מיבעיא כחש בשר מחמת מלאכה דפטור אלא אפי' מתה מחמת מלאכה נמי פטור דאמר ליה לאו לאוקמא בכילתא שאילתה
Then it follows that if it died through the work, he is certainly responsible. But let him say to him [the lender], 'I did not borrow for exhibition in a show case!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., to 'be placed under a bridal canopy.' ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ההוא גברא דשאיל נרגא מחבריה איתבר אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה זיל אייתי סהדי דלאו שנית ביה ואיפטר
— But, said Raba, not only is it unnecessary to state that if it became emaciated through work he is not responsible, but even if it died through work, he is still not liable, because he can say, 'I did not borrow it that it should stand in a showcase.'
ואי ליכא סהדי מאי ת"ש דההוא גברא דשאיל נרגא מחבריה ואיתבר אתא לקמיה דרב א"ל זיל שלים ליה נרגא מעליא
A man once borrowed an axe from his neighbour, and it broke. When he came before Raba, he said to him, 'Go and bring witnesses that you did not put it to foreign use, and you are free from liability.' But what if there are no witnesses? — Come and hear: For a man once borrowed an axe from his neighbour, and it broke. When he came before Rab, he said to him, 'Go and return him a good axe.' Said R. Kahana and R. Assi to Rab: