Bava Metzia

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. 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.' It has been stated: If he [the bailee] was negligent thereof,  and it went out into a meadow  and died naturally:  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;  but even on the view that one is not liable, in this case he is. Why? Because we say, The air  of the meadow land killed it.  '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  make to the Angel of Death?  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. 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,  — he should rather have answered him, What difference does this place or another make to the Angel of Death?  — He replied, According to you, who teach [the reason of R. Johanan's ruling  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.  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. 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.  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.  If so, it is the same even if it fell?  — 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. SAID R. JOSE: HOW SHALL ONE DO BUSINESS WITH HIS NEIGHBOUR'S COW etc. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The halachah is as R. Jose. R. Samuel b. Judah asked Rab Judah: You have told us in Samuel's name that R. Jose disputed