Bava Metzia 8

הַשּׁוֹאֵל אֶת הַפָּרָה וְשָׁאַל בְּעָלֶיהָ עִמָּהּ אוֹ שָׂכַר בְּעָלֶיהָ עִמָּה. שָׁאַל הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ שְׂכָרָן, וּלְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁאַל אֶת הַפָּרָה, וָמֵתָה, פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב) אִם בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם. אֲבָל שָׁאַל אֶת הַפָּרָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁאַל אֶת הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ שְׂכָרָן, וָמֵתָה, חַיָּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) בְּעָלָיו אֵין עִמּוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם:

If one borrowed a cow and borrowed its owner with it, [i.e., If the owner of the cow were with the borrower to do his work — whether he were borrowed or hired by him; whether to work with the cow or to do some other work]; or if he borrowed or hired the owner and then borrowed the cow, and it died, he is not liable, it being written (Exodus 22:14): "If its owner were with him, he shall not pay" [the implication being: If the owner of the ox were with him, with the borrower, being lent to or hired by him to do his work, at the time he lent him his cow, he shall not pay.] But if he borrowed the cow and then borrowed or hired the owner, and it died, he is liable, it being written (Exodus 22:13): "If its owner were not with him, pay shall he pay." [If he (the owner of the animal) were with him (the borrower) at the time of the accident, but not at the time of the borrowing, he (the borrower) is liable, it not being "borrowing with the owner" to exempt him unless he were with him at the time of the borrowing. The verse is to be understood as follows: "If its owner were not with him (the borrower)" at the time of the borrowing, even if he were with him at the time of breaking or death, "pay shall he pay."]

הַשּׁוֹאֵל אֶת הַפָּרָה, שְׁאָלָהּ חֲצִי הַיּוֹם וּשְׂכָרָהּ חֲצִי הַיּוֹם, שְׁאָלָהּ הַיּוֹם וּשְׂכָרָהּ לְמָחָר, שָׂכַר אַחַת וְשָׁאַל אַחַת, וָמֵתָה, הַמַּשְׁאִיל אוֹמֵר שְׁאוּלָה מֵתָה, בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׁאוּלָה מֵתָה, בַּשָּׁעָה שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׁאוּלָה מֵתָה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, חַיָּב. הַשּׂוֹכֵר אוֹמֵר שְׂכוּרָה מֵתָה, בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׂכוּרָה מֵתָה, בַּשָּׁעָה שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׂכוּרָה מֵתָה, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, פָּטוּר. זֶה אוֹמֵר שְׁאוּלָה וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שְׂכוּרָה, יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁשְּׂכוּרָה מֵתָה. זֶה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, יַחֲלֹקוּ:

If one borrowed a cow: If he borrowed it for half a day and hired it for half a day; if he borrowed it for this day and hired it for the next day; if he hired one and borrowed one, and it died — The lender says: The borrowed one died; on the day it was borrowed for, it died; in the time (i.e., the part of the day) that it was borrowed for, it died [and you are liable for the accident], and the other says: I do not know [i.e., perhaps the hired one died, and I am not liable for accidents], he is liable. [This Mishnah cannot be understood as it stands, for the ruling is that if one says: "You owe me a manah and the other says: "I do not know," he swears a consuetudinal oath (shvuath heseth) that he does not know, and he is not liable. Therefore, the Gemara construes the instance as one in which he says to him: "I gave you two cows, one day to be borrowed; the other day, to be hired, and both died in the borrowing time" — and the other says: "One died in the borrowing time; the other, I do not know" — he admits part (of the claim) and is liable for an oath (that he does not owe the other part), and since he cannot swear, (not knowing), he pays. This is comparable to one's saying: "You owe me a hundred," and the other's saying: "I know (that I owe you) fifty, and I do not know (if I owe you another) fifty," in which instance he is liable for an oath, and, not being able to swear, he pays.] If the hirer says: The hired one died; on the day it was hired for, it died; in the time (i.e., the part of the day) that it was hired for, it died — and the other says: I do not know, he is not liable. If one says: The borrowed one (died), and the other: The hired one (died), the hirer swears that the hired one died. [This, too, cannot be understood as it stands, for the ruling is that if one claims wheat and the other admits barley, he is not liable — even for barley. And here, too, what was admitted was not claimed, and what was claimed was not admitted. What place is there, then, for this oath! The Gemara, therefore, construes this as an instance of an oath through gilgul ("rolling"), the one saying to the other: "Swear to me the oath of the watchers, for which you are liable, that it died a natural death," and since he takes this oath, he also takes the other, through gilgul, that the hired one died.] If one says I do not know, and the other says I do not know, they divide. [This Mishnah is in accordance with Somchos, who says: Money whose status (i.e., ownership) is in doubt is divided. This is not the halachah. The halachah is that the burden of the proof is upon him who would extract (money) from his neighbor. The claimee swears that he does not know, and he is exempt.]

הַשּׁוֹאֵל אֶת הַפָּרָה, וְשִׁלְּחָהּ לוֹ בְּיַד בְּנוֹ, בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ, בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ, אוֹ בְיַד בְּנוֹ, בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ, בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹאֵל, וָמֵתָה, פָּטוּר. אָמַר לוֹ הַשּׁוֹאֵל, שַׁלְּחָהּ לִי בְּיַד בְּנִי, בְּיַד עַבְדִּי, בְּיַד שְׁלוּחִי, אוֹ בְּיַד בִּנְךָ, בְּיַד עַבְדְּךָ, בְּיַד שְׁלוּחֲךָ, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַמַּשְׁאִיל, הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלְּחָהּ לְךָ בְּיַד בְּנִי, בְּיַד עַבְדִּי, בְּיַד שְׁלוּחִי, אוֹ בְּיַד בִּנְךָ, בְּיַד עַבְדְּךָ, בְּיַד שְׁלוּחֲךָ, וְאָמַר לוֹ הַשּׁוֹאֵל, שַׁלַּח, וְשִׁלְּחָהּ וָמֵתָה, חַיָּב. וְכֵן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמַּחֲזִירָהּ:

If one borrowed a cow and he [the lender] sent it to him [the borrower] with his [the lender's] son, or bondsman, or messenger, or with the son, or bondsman, or messenger of the borrower, and it died [on the way], he [the borrower] is not liable. [ Some understand this "messenger" of the borrower to be his hired laborer or retainer, who lives in his house, but not that he made him a messenger in the presence of witnesses; for if he had done so, the borrower would be liable for accidents as soon as it (the cow) were given him. And others say that even if he made him a messenger in the presence of witnesses, he would not thereby become liable for accidents. For he would (only) be saying, in effect: "He is a reliable person; if you wish to send it with him, send it."] If the borrower said to him: Send it to me with my son; with my bondsman; with my messenger — or: with your son; with your bondsman; with your messenger — Or if the lender said to him: I am sending it with my son; with my bondsman; with my messenger — or: with your son; with your bondsman; with your messenger — and the borrower said: "Send," and he sent it and it died, he is liable. And the same applies when he returns it. [("with your bondsman":) This "bondsman" is a Hebrew bondsman. For if it were a Canaanite bondsman, "the hand of the bondsman is as the hand of his master," and it would be as if it had not left the domain of the master, as if the master himself were bringing it; and the borrower would not be liable if it met with an accident on the road. ("And the same applies when he returns it":) If the borrower sent it with his son, with his bondsman, or with his messenger — or with the son, the bondsman, or the messenger of the lender, it does not leave the domain of the borrower until it reaches the lender; and if it met with an accident on the road, he (the borrower) is liable. If the lender said to him: Send it to me, or if the borrower said: I am sending it, etc., and the lender said: "Send," and he sent it, and it met with an accident on the road, he is not liable. In our Mishnah, it is only when he returns it within the borrowing period that he is liable for accidents; but if he returns it thereafter, his status is that of a paid watcher (having benefitted from it) and not that of a borrower. And if he sends it (then) with his son, or his bondsman, or his messenger — whether his own or those of the borrower, and it met with accident on the road, he is not liable.]

הַמַּחֲלִיף פָּרָה בַּחֲמוֹר וְיָלְדָה, וְכֵן הַמּוֹכֵר שִׁפְחָתוֹ וְיָלְדָה, זֶה אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָכָרְתִּי, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר מִשֶּׁלָּקָחְתִּי, יַחֲלֹקוּ. הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי עֲבָדִים, אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת, אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה, הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹמֵר גָּדוֹל לָקַחְתִּי, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, זָכָה בַגָּדוֹל. הַמּוֹכֵר אוֹמֵר קָטָן מָכָרְתִּי, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא קָטָן. זֶה אוֹמֵר גָּדוֹל וְזֶה אוֹמֵר קָטָן, יִשָּׁבַע הַמּוֹכֵר שֶׁהַקָּטָן מָכָר. זֶה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, יַחֲלֹקוּ:

If one exchanged a cow for an ass and it (the cow) gave birth; likewise, if one sold his bondswoman, and she gave birth — this one says: (She gave birth) "before I sold her"; the other: (She gave birth) "after I bought her," they divide. [For a Canaanite bondsman is acquired by money, so that when he gave the money, the bondswoman was acquired by him wherever she was. And it is not known whether he gave the money before she gave birth and the child is his (the buyer's) or after she gave birth, and the child is the (original) owner's. But a cow is not acquired by money, but by pulling. So that if he pulled it, he would know whether it had or had not given birth. This accounts for "If one exchanged, etc." For through chalifin ("exchange"), when he pulls the one (in this instance, the ass), he acquires the other (the cow) wherever it is — for which reason it is not known whether it had or had not given birth. ("they divide":) Our Mishnah is in accordance with Somchos (who holds that "money in a state of doubt is divided."). The halachah is not in accordance with him.] If one had two bondsmen: one big; the other small; likewise, two fields: one big, the other, small — The buyer says: "I bought the big one." The other says: "I do not know" — He gets the big one. If the seller says: "I sold the small one," and the other: "I do not know," he has only the small one. If one says: "A big one"; and the other: "A small one," the seller swears that he sold a small one. [i.e., This one (the buyer) says: (I gave you) money for a big bondsman; and the other (the seller): (You gave me) money for a small one. For, if a bondsman per se, the ruling is that oaths are not taken over bondsmen. What is more, what was claimed was not admitted, and what was admitted was not claimed, so that there would be no place for an oath.] If one says: "I do not know," and the other: "I do not know," they divide.

הַמּוֹכֵר זֵיתָיו לְעֵצִים, וְעָשׂוּ פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעִית לִסְאָה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַזֵּיתִים. עָשׂוּ רְבִיעִית לִסְאָה, זֶה אוֹמֵר זֵיתַי גִּדְּלוּ, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אַרְצִי גִדְּלָה, יַחֲלֹקוּ. שָׁטַף נָהָר זֵיתָיו וּנְתָנָם לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ, זֶה אוֹמֵר זֵיתַי גִּדְּלוּ, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אַרְצִי גִדְּלָה, יַחֲלֹקוּ:

If one sold his olive trees [to be cut for] (fire-) wood [and he left them in the ground], and they produced less than a revi'ith to a sa'ah [i.e., inferior olives, a sa'ah of which does not produce a revi'ith of oil], they belong to the owner of the trees. [For people are not particular about less than a revi'ith. The "revi'ith" here is aside from his expenses in harvesting and pressing. Our Mishnah speaks of one who sells his olive trees without specifying when they are to be cut. But if he (the seller) told him to cut them immediately, even less than a revi'ith belongs to the owner of the land. And if he told him to cut it when he wished, even more than a revi'ith belongs to the owner of the trees.] If they produced a revi'ith to a sa'ah, and one said: "My trees produced it," and the other: "My land produced it," they divide. If a river flooded his olive trees and transplanted them in his neighbor's field, and this one said: "My trees produced it," and the other: "My land produced it," they divide. [The Gemara construes this as an instance of the river washing away the trees along with their surrounding earth clumps. Since they can grow through them, they are not subject to the laws of arlah (forbidden fruits of the first three years). The first three years, they divide. For even though the other's land produces it, still, if not for the earth clumps, he would not be able to eat of it because of arlah. But after three years, it all belongs to the owner of the land, for he can say to him: "If I myself had planted then, could I not eat after three years!"]

הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ, בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הֶחָג וְעַד הַפֶּסַח, בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה, שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם. וּבַכְּרַכִּים, אֶחָד יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה וְאֶחָד יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וּבַחֲנוּיוֹת, אֶחָד עֲיָרוֹת וְאֶחָד כְּרַכִּים, שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, חֲנוּת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִים וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִים, שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים:

If one rents a house to his neighbor in the rainy season [without specifying for how much time], he may not evict him from Succoth until Pesach. And, in the dry season, thirty days. [That is, if he wishes to evict him before Pesach, he must apprise him of that (for) thirty days of the dry season, i.e., from the fifteenth of Elul, from which there are thirty days until Succoth, which is the beginning of the rainy season. And if he did not apprise him from the fifteenth of Elul, he cannot evict him until Pesach (whereby we understand that if one rents a house in the dry season without specifying time of rental, he must apprise the tenant (at least) thirty days before he evicts him.] And in the cities, [where all are desirous of living, and houses are not readily available for rental, he must apprise him before evicting him], both in the dry season and in the rainy season, (at least) one year (before). [ And just as the owner must pre-apprise, so must the tenant. In the villages, thirty days, and in the cities, twelve months. And if he fails to do so, he may not leave, but must pay his rent.] For shops (the apprisal period) both in villages and in cities is twelve months. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: (The apprisal period) for bakers' and dyers' shops is three years. [For they give credit for extended periods. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel.]

הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ, הַמַּשְׂכִּיר חַיָּב בַּדֶּלֶת, בַּנֶּגֶר, וּבְמַנְעוּל, וּבְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂה אֻמָּן. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַעֲשֵׂה אֻמָּן, הַשּׂוֹכֵר עוֹשֵׂהוּ. הַזֶּבֶל, שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְאֵין לַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶלָּא הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַתַּנּוּר וּמִן הַכִּירַיִם בִּלְבָד:

If one rents a house to his neighbor, the owner must provide door, door bolt, [(which is stuck in the threshold post)], lock, and everything which requires the work of a craftsman. But the tenant must provide anything which does not require the work of a craftsman. Animal dung belongs to the owner. [This, when it comes from other beasts; for, if from those of the tenant, it belongs to the tenant.] Only what comes from oven and stove [ash-fertilizer] belongs to the tenant.

הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ לְשָׁנָה, נִתְעַבְּרָה הַשָּׁנָה, נִתְעַבְּרָה לַשּׂוֹכֵר. הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ לֶחֳדָשִׁים, נִתְעַבְּרָה הַשָּׁנָה, נִתְעַבְּרָה לַמַּשְׂכִּיר. מַעֲשֶׂה בְצִפּוֹרִי בְּאֶחָד שֶׁשָּׂכַר מֶרְחָץ מֵחֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר זָהָב לְשָׁנָה, מִדִּינַר זָהָב לְחֹדֶשׁ, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְלִפְנֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וְאָמְרוּ, יַחֲלֹקוּ אֶת חֹדֶשׁ הָעִבּוּר:

If one rents his house to his neighbor for a year, if the year were intercalated, it was intercalated for (the benefit of) the tenant. [(And he does not pay for an additional month, for the intercalation is included in the year.)] If he rented it to him by the month, and the year were intercalated, it was intercalated for the owner. Once, in Sepphoris, a man rented a bath-house from his neighbor for twelve (dinars of) gold for a year, for a golden dinar a month. When the case came before R. Shimon b. Gamliel and R. Yossi, they said: Let them divide the intercalated month. [The Gemara points up a contradiction, the first part of the Mishnah stating that all reverts to the tenant or to the owner and the case-ruling being that they divide! They resolve it thus: The Mishnah is defective. This is what was taught: And if he said to him: (I rent it to you) for twelve (dinars of) gold for a year, for a golden dinar a month, they divide. For we do not know whether to follow the first formulation or the last, and it once happened in Sepphoris, etc. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel and R. Yossi, but we follow the lesser (monthly) formulation. For land (unless known otherwise) is presumptively the (original) owner's, for which reason it all reverts to the owner, whether the first or the last formulation is the lesser.]

הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְנָפַל, חַיָּב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ בָּיִת. הָיָה קָטָן, לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ גָדוֹל, גָּדוֹל, לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ קָטָן. אֶחָד, לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ שְׁנַיִם, שְׁנַיִם, לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ אֶחָד. לֹא יִפְחֹת מֵהַחַלּוֹנוֹת וְלֹא יוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶן, אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם:

If one rented a house to his neighbor and it collapsed, he must provide a (different) house for him. If it were small, he may not make it large. If it were large, he may not make it small. If it were one, he may not make it two. If it were two, he may not make it one. He may not make fewer windows or more, unless by mutual agreement.