Bava Metzia 196

שואל חדא להד"מ וחדא אין דשאלה מתה ואידך לא ידענא אי דשכירות מתה ודקיימא דשאלה או דשאלה מתה ודקיימא דשכירות דמתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם:

'As for one, the claim is entirely unfounded; with respect to the second, it is true that a borrowed one died; and as to the others, I do not know whether it was the hired one that died and the one alive is the borrowed one, or whether it was the borrowed one that died and the one alive is the hired one;' and since he cannot swear he must pay.

זה אומר שאולה וזה אומר שכורה ישבע השוכר ששכורה מתה:

BUT IF ONE ASSERTS THAT IT WAS THE LOANED ONE, AND THE OTHER THAT IT WAS THE HIRED ONE, THE HIRER MUST SWEAR THAT THE HIRED ONE DIED. But why so? What he claims from him he does not admit; and what he admits he does not claim?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the Mishnah was made to refer to a number of animals, that was only according to R. Nahman; whereas on the view of R. Huna and Rab Judah the Mishnah is literally understood. But in that case, there is no partial admission and partial rejection of the claim, the admission being in respect of something not claimed at all. ');">¹</span>

ואמאי מה שטענו לא הודה לו ומה שהודה לו לא טענו אמר עולא על ידי גלגול

— Said 'Ulla: [He swears] through the superimposition [of an oath]. For he [the lender] can demand, 'You must at least swear that it died of natural causes; and since you must swear thus, swear also that the hired one died.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'rolling oath,' v. supra 3a. Thus, here, the lender can plead, 'Even on your own plea, you must still swear that it died naturally, not through your negligence.' (This answer rejects Rami b. Hama's ruling that no oath is imposed at all upon bailees, even when they plead loss, theft, death, etc., unless there is also partial rejection of the claim, as above.) Since the bailee is thus bound to swear, another oath, viz., that the hired one and not the borrowed one died, is administered. The superimposed oath is Biblical, v. Sot. 18a. ');">²</span>

דא"ל אישתבע לי איזו מיהת דכדרכה מתה ומיגו דמישתבע דכדרכה מתה מישתבע נמי דשכורה מתה:

IF BOTH SAY, 'I DO NOT KNOW,' THEY MUST DIVIDE. Who is the author of this? — Symmachus, who ruled: When money lies in doubt, it is divided.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra 2b. ');">³</span>

זה אומר איני יודע וזה אומר כו': הא מני סומכוס היא דאמר ממון המוטל בספק חולקין

R. Abba b. Mammel propounded: What [is the ruling] if the borrowing was made together with the owner's [service], but subsequently it [the bailment] was hired without the owner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whilst the animal was yet in the borrower's possession, he hired it for a further period; at the time of hiring, its owner was not in his service, though he was when the loan was made. ');">⁴</span>

בעי ר' אבא בר ממל שאלה בבעלים שכרה שלא בבעלים מהו

Do we say, the borrowing stands alone, and the hiring stands alone? Or perhaps the hiring is a continuation of the loan, since he is responsible for theft and loss?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by becoming a hirer, he adds nothing to the liabilities of a borrower, and since he bears this responsibility on account of the first meshikah as a borrower, his present responsibility is but a continuation of the first. ');">⁵</span>

מי אמרינן שאילה לחודה קיימא ושכירות לחודה קיימא או דלמא שכירות בשאלה מישך שייכי דהא מיחייב בגניבה ואבידה

And should you rule that hiring is a continuation of the loan, what if he hired it together with the owner's [service], and then borrowed it without the owner? Shall we say that borrowing is certainly not included in hiring?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there is greater responsibility in the former than in the latter. ');">⁶</span>

את"ל שכירה בשאלה מישך שייכי שכרה בבעלים שאלה שלא בבעלים מהו

Or perhaps, being partly related thereto, it is wholly related thereto. And should you rule that we do maintain that partial relationship is regarded as complete relationship, what if one borrowed it with the owners [service], hired it without the owner's, and borrowed it again [without the owner]? Does the borrowing revert to its former status? Or perhaps, the hiring breaks the connection? [Likewise,] if it was hired with the owner's [service], then borrowed, and then hired again [the last two without] — do we Say, the hiring reverts to its former status? Or perhaps, the intermediate borrowing breaks the connection? These problems remain unsolved.

שאלה בשכירות ודאי לא שייכא או דלמא כיון דשייכא במקצת כמאן דשייכא בכולה דמי

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN BORROWS A COW, AND HE [THE LENDER] SENDS IT TO HIM BY HIS SON, SERVANT OR AGENT; OR BY THE SON, SERVANT OR AGENT OF THE BORROWER, AND IT DIES [ON THE ROAD], HE IS NOT LIABLE. BUT IF THE BORROWER SAID TO HIM, 'SEND IT TO ME BY MY SON, SERVANT, OR AGENT,' OR 'BY YOUR SON, SERVANT OR AGENT, OR IF THE LENDER SAID TO HIM, 'I AM SENDING IT TO YOU BY MY SON, SERVANT OR AGENT,' OR 'BY YOUR SON, SERVANT OR AGENT, AND THE BORROWER REPLIED, 'SEND IT,' AND HE SENT IT, AND IT DIED [ON THE ROAD], HE IS RESPONSIBLE. AND THE SAME HOLDS GOOD WHEN HE RETURNS IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the lender instructs him to send it back, the borrower is free from the risks of the road, but not otherwise. ');">⁷</span>

את"ל לא אמרינן כיון דשייכא במקצת כמאן דשייכא בכולה דמי שאלה בבעלים ושכרה שלא בבעלים וחזר ושאלה מהו

הדר אתיא לה שאלה לדוכתה או דלמא אפסיקא לה שכירות ביני וביני

שכרה בבעלים ושאלה וחזר ושכרה מהו מי אמרינן אתיא לה שכירות לדוכתה או דלמא אפסיקא לה שאלה ביני וביני

תיקו:

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השואל את הפרה ושלחה לו ביד בנו ביד עבדו ביד שלוחו או ביד בנו ביד עבדו ביד שלוחו של שואל ומתה פטור

אמר לו השואל שלחה לי ביד בני ביד עבדי ביד שלוחי או ביד בנך ביד עבדך ביד שלוחך או שאמר לו המשאיל הריני משלחה לך ביד בני ביד עבדי ביד שלוחי או ביד בנך ביד עבדך ביד שלוחך וא"ל השואל שלח ושלחה ומתה חייב

וכן בשעה שמחזירה <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big>