Bava Metzia

unless the verse had explicitly stated 'together'!  — You may say so even according to R. Joshia: it [sc. 'or'] is unnecessary here for the purpose of separation. Why? It is a matter of logic: what is the difference whether it is wholly killed or only partly? Whence do we know that a borrower is responsible for theft and loss? And should you say, It follows from injury and death: [I would rejoin,] as for these, [he is responsible] because it is impossible to take the trouble of finding it again;  will you then say [the same] in the case of theft and loss, seeing that with trouble it may be found?  — But [it may be derived] even as it has been taught: [And if a man borrow aught of his neighbour,] and it be hurt, or die — from this I know [the law] only for injury and death: whence do I know it for theft and loss? — You can reason a minori: if a paid bailee, who is not responsible for injury and death, is nevertheless liable for theft and loss; then a borrower, who is liable for the former, is surely liable for the latter too! And this is an a minori argument which cannot be refuted. Why state that it 'cannot be refuted'?  — For should you object, It may be refuted, thus: as for a paid bailee, [he is responsible for theft and loss] because he must make restitution of twice the principal [if discovered] in a [false] plea of [loss through] an armed robber,  [I would reply,] yet notwithstanding, the fact that the borrower is responsible for the principal  is a greater severity. Alternatively, he maintains that an armed robber is a gazlan. We have thus learned  responsibility;  whence do we know freedom from liability?  And should you say, It is deduced from injury and death: [it might be argued,] as for these, [he is free] because they are unavoidable accidents? — But it follows from a paid bailee. And whence do we know it of a paid bailee himself? — The liability of a paid bailee is equated to that of a borrower: just as there, when the owner is lent for personal service, he [sc. the borrower] is free thereof, so here too [in the case of a paid bailee], when the owner is lent for personal service, he is free thereof. How is this deduced? If by analogy,  that may be refuted, as [in fact] we have refuted it, since they [sc. injury etc.] are accidents!  — But Scripture saith, 'And if a man borrow': the waw [copulative 'and'] indicates conjunction with  the preceding subject, and the upper section is determined by the lower.  But even so, [the law of] a borrower cannot be deduced from [that of] a paid bailee, since it [the similarity] may be refuted. As for a paid bailee, that [sc. his non-liability for theft when the owner is in his service] is because he is exempt in the case of injury and death: will you say the same of a borrower, who is liable for these? — But [reason this]: Whence do we know that a borrower is liable for theft and loss [at all]? [Is it not] because we deduce it from a paid bailee?  Then it is sufficient that the conclusion of an a minori proposition shall be as its premise: just as theft and loss in the case of a paid bailee, when the owner is in his service, impose no liability; so also with respect to theft and loss in the case of a borrower, when the owner is in his service there is no responsibility. Now, that is well on the view that we accept this limitation;  but on the view that rejects it, what can you say? — But [answer thus]: Scripture saith, 'And if a man borrow': the 'waw' indicates conjunction with the preceding subject, and so the lower section illumines the upper and is itself illumined thereby. It has been stated: When there is culpable negligence [on the part of an unpaid bailee], and the owner is in [his service] — R. Aha and Rabina dispute therein: One maintains that he is liable; the other that he is exempt. He who rules that he is liable maintains that a Scriptural verse may be interpreted [as applying] to the immediately preceding subject, but not to the one anterior thereto: consequently, But if the owner thereof be with it, etc.,  does not refer to a gratuitous bailee;  on the other hand, negligence [as a cause of liability] is not stated in connection with a paid bailee and a borrower. Therefore, liability [for negligence] in the case of the paid bailee and borrower too follows a minori from a gratuitous bailee. But that there should be no liability for it, when the owner is in their service, that cannot be maintained even in respect of a paid bailee and a borrower.  Why so? Because when Scripture states in respect of a borrower and a paid bailee,  But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good, it refers only to those cases of liability which are explicitly stated.  Whilst he who maintains that he is not responsible, is of the opinion that the verse may be interpreted as bearing upon the preceding subject and the one anterior thereto; hence, when it is stated, But if the owner thereof [etc.], it refers to a gratuitous bailee too. We learnt: IF A MAN BORROWS A COW AND BORROWS ITS OWNER WITH IT, OR BORROWS A COW  AND HIRES THE OWNER WITH IT, OR IF HE FIRST BORROWS OR HIRES THE OWNER AND THEN BORROWS THE COW, AND IT DIES, HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE. But a gratuitous bailee is not mentioned!  — But even on your reasoning, is then a paid bailee mentioned?  Hence [it must be said,] the Tanna states [only] what