Bava Metzia

Sometimes both are liable to a guilt-offering, sometimes the hirer is liable to a sin-offering and the borrower to a guilt-offering, and sometimes the hirer is liable to a guilt-offering and the borrower to a sin-offering.  How so? For denying monetary liability [on oath] a guilt-offering is incurred; for a false statement,  a sin-offering.  'Sometimes both are liable to a sin-offering.' E.g., if it died a natural death, and they maintained that an accident had befallen it. Thus, the hirer, who is free [from responsibility] in both cases,  is liable to a sin-offering, and the borrower, who is responsible in both cases, is [likewise] liable to a sin-offering. 'Sometimes both are liable to a guilt-offering.' E.g., if it was stolen, and they maintained that it had died of its work. Thus both deny monetary liability, since in fact they are responsible [for theft], whilst they free themselves. 'The hirer is liable to a sin-offering and the borrower to a guilt-offering.' E.g., if it died a natural death, and they maintained that it had died of its work. The hirer, who is free [from responsibility] in both cases, is liable to a sin-offering; the borrower, who is liable if it dies a natural death but frees himself with [the plea that] it died of its work, to a guilt-offering. 'The hirer is liable to a guilt-offering, and the borrower to a sin-offering.' E.g., if it was Stolen, and they maintained that it had died naturally. The hirer, who is liable for theft and loss but frees himself with [the plea,] it died naturally, incurs a guilt-offering; the borrower, who is responsible in both cases, a sin-offering. Now, what does he [R. Jeremiah] thereby inform us?  — [His purpose is] to oppose R. Ammi's dictum, viz., For every oath which the judges impose no liability is incurred on account of an 'oath of utterance' because it is said, Or if a soul swear, uttering with his lips [etc.],  which implies a voluntary oath.  Therefore he informs us that it is not as R. Ammi. It has been stated: If one bailee entrusted [his bailment] to another bailee — Rab said: He is not liable;  R. Johanan maintained: He is liable.  Abaye said: According to Rab's ruling, not only if a gratuitous bailee entrusted [the bailment] to a paid bailee, thereby enhancing its care; but even if a paid bailee entrusted [it] to an unpaid one, thus weakening its care, he is still not responsible. Why? Because he entrusted it to an understanding being.  Whilst according to R. Johanan's view: not only if a paid bailee entrusted [it] to an unpaid one, thus weakening its care; but even if an unpaid bailee entrusted it to a paid one, thereby enhancing its care, he is still responsible. Why? Because he [the bailor] can say to him, 'It is not my desire that my bailment should be in charge of another person.' R. Hisda said: This ruling of Rab was not stated explicitly, but by implication. For there were certain gardeners who used to deposit their spades every day with a particular old woman. But one day they deposited them with one of themselves. Hearing the sounds of a wedding, he went out and entrusted them to that old woman. Between his going and returning, their spades were stolen, and when he came before Rab, he declared him not liable. Now, those who saw this thought that it was because if a bailee entrusts [the bailment] to another bailee he is free [from liability]; but that is not so: there it was different, Seeing that every day they themselves used to deposit [their spades] with that old woman. Now, R. Ammi was sitting and recounting this discussion, whereupon R. Abba b. Memel raised an objection before him: 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. But if this [sc. R. Johanan's ruling] be correct, let him [the owner] say to him, 'It is not my desire that my bailment should be in the hands of another person'! — He replied: The circumstances here are that the owner authorised him to lend it. If so, he ought to pay the owner!  — It means that he said to him, 'At your discretion'. Rami b. Hama objected [from the following Mishnah]: If one deposited money with his neighbour, who bound it up and slung it over his shoulder  [or] entrusted it to his minor son or daughter and locked [the door] before them, but not properly,  he is responsible, because he did not guard [it] in the manner of bailees.  Hence, it is only because they were minors; but if they were adults, he would be free [from liability]. Yet why so? Let him say to him, 'It is not my desire that my bailment should be in the hands of another person'! — Said Raba: He who makes a deposit