## Bava Metzia Daf 94b

###### Bava Metzia 94b:1
[Bava Metzia 94b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:1)

אֲבָל שָׁאַל אֶת הַפָּרָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁאַל אֶת הַבְּעָלִים, אוֹ שְׂכָרָן, וָמֵתָה – חַיָּיב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּעָלָיו אֵין עִמּוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if one first **borrowed the cow and** only **afterward borrowed** the services of **the owner or hired him, and** the cow **died,** he is **liable** to pay the owner for the cow. This is the *halakha* even if the owner was working for the borrower at the time, **as it is stated: “If its owner is not with him, he shall pay”** (Exodus 22:13).


###### Bava Metzia 94b:2
[Bava Metzia 94b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁאַל אֶת הַפָּרָה, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא דְּקָתָנֵי ״עִמָּהּ״ – עִמָּהּ מַמָּשׁ. עִמָּהּ מַמָּשׁ, מִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ פָּרָה בִּמְשִׁיכָה, וּבְעָלִים בַּאֲמִירָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **From** the fact **that the latter clause teaches: And afterward borrowed the cow, it may be inferred that** when **the first clause teaches:** Borrowed its owner **with it,** the intention is: **Literally with it,** i.e., at the same moment. The Gemara asks: **Can you find** such a case where the owner obligates himself to serve the borrower **literally with it?** Given that one borrows the **cow through pulling** the cow **and** contracts the services of the **owner through** their **verbal** agreement, it emerges that if they agree to both matters at the same time, one borrows the services of the owner before he borrows the cow, which is the case mentioned in the latter clause of the mishna. What, then, is the case mentioned in the first clause?


###### Bava Metzia 94b:3
[Bava Metzia 94b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:3)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כְּגוֹן דְּקַיְימָא פָּרָה בַּחֲצֵרוֹ דְּשׁוֹאֵל, דְּלָא מְחַסְּרָא מְשִׁיכָה. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״אַתְּ גּוּפָךְ לֹא תִּשָּׁאֵל עַד שְׁעַת מְשִׁיכַת פָּרָתְךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that the mishna is referring to a case **such as where** the **cow is standing in the borrower’s courtyard,** which can effect acquisition of the rights to use the cow for him, **so** that **it does not lack,** i.e., there is no need for, **pulling.** Accordingly, both the borrowing of the owner’s services and the borrowing of his cow will take effect simultaneously upon their agreement. Alternatively, **if you wish, say** that the case is **where** the borrower **says to him: You, yourself, will not be lent** to me **until** the **moment of** the **pulling of your cow.**


###### Bava Metzia 94b:4
[Bava Metzia 94b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:4)

תְּנַן הָתָם, אַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִים הֵם: שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara analyses the *halakhot* of the four types of bailees that were delineated in the previous chapter: **We learned** in a mishna **there** (93a): **There are four** types of **bailees: An unpaid bailee, and the borrower, a paid bailee, and the renter.**


###### Bava Metzia 94b:5
[Bava Metzia 94b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:5)

שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע עַל הַכֹּל, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר – נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל הַשְּׁבוּרָה וְעַל הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְעַל הַמֵּתָה, וּמְשַׁלְּמִים אֶת הָאֲבֵידָה וְאֶת הַגְּנֵיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna there continues: If the item was stolen, lost, or broken, or if the animal died in any manner, the *halakhot* with regard to them are as follows: **An unpaid bailee takes an oath over every** outcome; whether the item was lost, stolen, or broken, or if the animal died, the unpaid bailee must take an oath that it happened as he described, and he is then exempt from payment. **And the borrower** does not take an oath, but **pays** for **every** outcome, whether it was stolen or lost, even in a circumstance beyond his control. The *halakhot* of **a paid bailee and a renter** are the same: They **take an oath over an injured** animal, **over a captured** animal, **and over a dead** animal, attesting that the mishaps were caused by circumstances beyond their control, and they are exempt; **but they must pay** for **loss or theft.**


###### Bava Metzia 94b:6
[Bava Metzia 94b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:6)

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: פָּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה נֶאֶמְרָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, שְׁנִיָּה – בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, שְׁלִישִׁית – בְּשׁוֹאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **As the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verses in the Torah about bailees can be divided into three passages. The **first passage** (Exodus 22:6–8) **is stated about an unpaid bailee;** the **second** (Exodus 22:9–12) is **about a paid bailee;** and the **third** (Exodus 22:13–14) is **about a borrower.**


###### Bava Metzia 94b:7
[Bava Metzia 94b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:7)

בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁלִישִׁית בְּשׁוֹאֵל – מְפוֹרָשׁ: ״וְכִי יִשְׁאַל אִישׁ מֵעִם רֵעֵהוּ וְנִשְׁבַּר אוֹ מֵת בְּעָלָיו אֵין עִמּוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם״. אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹנָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, שְׁנִיָּה בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר – אֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** it is clear that the **third** passage is **about a borrower,** as the verse **explicitly** states: **“And when a man borrows from another, and it is injured or dies, if its owner is not with him, he shall pay”** (Exodus 22:13). **But** with regard to the claim of the *baraita* that the **first** passage is **about an unpaid bailee** and the **second is about a paid bailee, I could** also say the **reverse,** as the verses do not state which type of bailee they are referring to.


###### Bava Metzia 94b:8
[Bava Metzia 94b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:8)

מִסְתַּבְּרָא שְׁנִיָּה בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה. אַדְּרַבָּה: רִאשׁוֹנָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, שֶׁכֵּן מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara justifies the claim of the *baraita*: Clearly a paid bailee carries a more severe level of liability than an unpaid bailee. Accordingly, **it stands to reason** that the **second** passage is **about a paid bailee, as** it states a stringency, that the bailee is **liable** even **in** cases of **theft or loss** (see Exodus 22:11). The Gemara challenges this claim: **On the contrary,** it stands to reason that the **first** passage is **about a paid bailee, as** it states a stringency, that the bailee **pays** the **double payment in** a case where he takes a false oath **stating the claim** that **a thief** stole the item he was safeguarding (see Exodus 22:6).


###### Bava Metzia 94b:9
[Bava Metzia 94b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:9)

אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, קַרְנָא בְּלָא שְׁבוּעָה עֲדִיפָא מִכְּפֵילָא בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Even so,** being liable to pay **the principal** whenever one claims the deposit was stolen, **without** the ability to exempt oneself by taking **an oath, is a greater** stringency **than** being liable for **the double payment,** as that liability is only **when** one takes a false **oath** to that effect. Otherwise, he is exempt.


###### Bava Metzia 94b:10
[Bava Metzia 94b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:10)

תִּדַּע, דְּהָא שׁוֹאֵל כׇּל הֲנָאָה שֶׁלּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא קֶרֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **Know** that this is so, **as a borrower** bears the most severe level of liability, because he is privileged. **All benefit** from the transaction **is his,** without incurring any cost to himself. **And** in cases of theft **he pays only** the **principal** but is never required to pay the double payment.


###### Bava Metzia 94b:11
[Bava Metzia 94b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:11)

וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל כׇּל הֲנָאָה שֶׁלּוֹ? וְהָא בָּעֲיָא מְזוֹנֵי! דְּקַיְימָא בַּאֲגַם. וְהָא בָּעֲיָא נְטִירָה! בְּנָטַר מָתָא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָא תֵּימָא ״כׇּל הֲנָאָה שֶׁלּוֹ״, אֶלָּא אֵימָא ״רוֹב הֲנָאָה שֶׁלּוֹ״. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בִּשְׁאֵילַת כֵּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the proof just cited: **But** is it true that with regard to **the borrower all benefit** from the transaction **is his? But doesn’t** the animal **require food,** which the borrower must provide? The Gemara answers: The *halakhot* of a borrower also apply **when** the animal **is standing in a marsh,** where food is freely available. The Gemara persists: **But doesn’t** the animal **require safeguarding?** The Gemara answers: The *halakhot* of a borrower also apply **when** the borrower is **a city guard** and does not need to do anything additional to safeguard the animal. **And if you wish, say: Do not say** that **all benefit is his, rather say: Most of the benefit is his,** and that is sufficient reason to render him liable in all circumstances. **And if you wish, say** that the *halakhot* of a borrower apply also **with regard to borrowing vessels,** which do not require constant care. In any event, it is clear that a borrower is uniquely privileged and accordingly bears the most severe level of liability.


###### Bava Metzia 94b:12
[Bava Metzia 94b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:12)

נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל הַשְּׁבוּרָה וְעַל הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְעַל הַמֵּתָה, וּמְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הָאֲבֵידָה וְאֶת הַגְּנֵיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna cited previously states: The *halakhot* of **a paid bailee and a renter** are the same: They **take an oath over an injured** animal, **over a captured** animal, **and over a dead** animal, attesting that the mishaps were caused by circumstances beyond their control, and they are exempt; **but they must pay** for **loss or theft.**


###### Bava Metzia 94b:13
[Bava Metzia 94b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:13)

בִּשְׁלָמָא גְּנֵיבָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם גָּנוֹב יִגָּנֵב מֵעִמּוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם לִבְעָלָיו״, אֶלָּא אֲבֵידָה מְנָא לַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִם גָּנֵב יִגָּנֵב״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא גְּנֵיבָה, אֲבֵידָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם גָּנוֹב יִגָּנֵב״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** a paid bailee is liable in the case of **theft, as it is written: “If it is stolen from him, he must pay its owner”** (Exodus 22:11). **But** in a case of **loss, from where do we** derive that a paid bailee is liable? The Gemara answers: **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: From the verse: **“If it is stolen [*ganov yigganev*],” I have** derived **only** that a paid bailee is liable if the item he is safeguarding is **stolen; from where** do I derive he is liable also if it is **lost? The verse states: “*ganov yigganev*,”** repeating the verb for emphasis. This teaches that he is liable **in any case,** i.e., for loss as well as theft.


###### Bava Metzia 94b:14
[Bava Metzia 94b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:14)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: לָא אָמְרִינַן דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אָמְרִינַן דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says: We do not say** that **the Torah spoke in the language of people,** and so any repeated verb must serve to teach additional *halakhot*. **But according to the one who says: We do say** that **the Torah spoke in the language of people,** and so the use of a repeated verb is only for stylistic reasons, **what can be said?** From where is it derived that the bailee is liable for losing the item?


###### Bava Metzia 94b:15
[Bava Metzia 94b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:15)

אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: קַל וָחוֹמֶר; וּמָה גְּנֵיבָה שֶׁקְּרוֹבָה לְאוֹנֶס – מְשַׁלֵּם, אֲבֵידָה שֶׁקְּרוֹבָה לִפְשִׁיעָה – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They say in the West,** Eretz Yisrael: It is derived through **an *a fortiori*** inference: **If** in a case of **theft, which is near to** being a case of **circumstances beyond his control,** the *halakha* is that the bailee **pays** the owner the item’s value, then in a case of **loss, which is near to** being a case of **negligence,** is it **not all the more so** logical that he should pay?


###### Bava Metzia 94b:16
[Bava Metzia 94b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:16)

וְאִידַּךְ, מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וְחוֹמֶר טָרַח וְכָתַב לַהּ קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **the other** opinion, why is there a need for a verse to teach this *halakha* if it can be derived from an *a fortiori* inference? The Gemara answers: At times, there is **a matter that can be derived through an a *fortiori*** inference, and the **verse** nevertheless **takes the trouble and writes it** explicitly.


###### Bava Metzia 94b:17
[Bava Metzia 94b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:17)

וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל. בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכִי יִשְׁאַל אִישׁ מֵעִם רֵעֵהוּ וְנִשְׁבַּר אוֹ מֵת״. אֶלָּא שְׁבוּיָה בְּשׁוֹאֵל מְנָא לַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna cited above states: **And the borrower** does not take an oath, but **pays** for **every** outcome, whether it was stolen or lost, even in a circumstance beyond his control. The Gemara asks: **Granted,** the bailee is liable if the animal is **injured or dies, as it is written: “And if a man borrows from another and it is injured or dies…**he shall pay” (Exodus 22:13). **But from where do we** derive the liability **of a borrower** when the animal is **captured?**


###### Bava Metzia 94b:18
[Bava Metzia 94b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:18)

וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִשְּׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה, מָה לִשְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה – שֶׁכֵּן אוּנְסָא דְּסָלֵיק אַדַּעְתָּא הוּא. תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁבוּיָה – שֶׁכֵּן אוּנְסָא דְּלָא סָלֵיק אַדַּעְתָּא הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Let us derive** it **from** the fact the borrower is liable if the animal was **injured or dies** because they are all similarly cases of circumstances beyond his control, then one could counter as follows: **What** is notable **about** a case where the animal is **injured or died?** It is notable **in that it is** the type of **unavoidable accident whose** possibility of occurring **entered one’s mind,** so it is reasonable that the borrower accepted responsibility for such mishaps. **Can you say** the same **about** being **captured, which is an unavoidable accident whose** possibility of occurring **does not enter one’s mind?**


###### Bava Metzia 94b:19
[Bava Metzia 94b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:19)

אֶלָּא: נֶאֶמְרָה שְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה בְּשׁוֹאֵל, וְנֶאֶמְרָה שְׁבוּרָה וּמֵתָה בְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁבוּיָה עִמּוֹ, אַף כָּאן שְׁבוּיָה עִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the liability of a borrower in a case where the animal is captured is derived as follows: The cases where the animal is **injured or dies are stated in** the passage **about a borrower, and** similarly the cases where it is **injured or dies are stated in** the passage **about a paid bailee. Just as below,** i.e., in the passage in the Torah concerning a paid bailee, the case in which it is **captured is** included **with it,** as the verse there states: “If a man deliver to his neighbor a donkey, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to safeguard, and it die, or be hurt, or is captured” (Exodus 22:9); **so too here,** with regard to a borrower, the case where it is **captured is** included **with it.**


###### Bava Metzia 94b:20
[Bava Metzia 94b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:20)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר שֶׁכֵּן לִפְטוּר, תֹּאמַר בַּשּׁוֹאֵל שֶׁכֵּן לְחִיּוּב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that this derivation **can be refuted** as follows: **What** is notable **about a paid bailee?** He is notable **in that** the cases in which the animal is injured or dies are mentioned in order **to exempt** him from liability. **Can you say** this is also true **with regard to a borrower, where** the cases are mentioned in order **to** teach that he **is liable?**


###### Bava Metzia 94b:21
[Bava Metzia 94b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:21)

אֶלָּא כְּרַבִּי נָתָן, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: ״אוֹ״ לְרַבּוֹת שְׁבוּיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the liability of a borrower in a case where the animal is captured is derived **in accordance with** the statement of **Rabbi Natan, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Natan says:** The word **“or”** in the phrase “injured or dies” (Exodus 22:13) serves **to include** the case in which the animal was **captured.**


###### Bava Metzia 94b:22
[Bava Metzia 94b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:22)

הַאי ״אוֹ״ מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְחַלֵּק. דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: עֵד דְּמִיתַּבְרָא וּמֵתָה לָא מְחַיֵּיב, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But **this** word **“or” is required** in order **to divide** the cases, **as** otherwise **it could enter your mind to say** that the bailee **is not liable unless** the animal is first **injured and** then also **dies.** Therefore, the term “or” is necessary to **teach us** that these are two separate cases.


###### Bava Metzia 94b:23
[Bava Metzia 94b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:23)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **This works out well according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yonatan,** that it is obvious that the borrower is liable even if the animal died without being injured first. Consequently, “or” is unnecessary, and so it can be used for Rabbi Natan’s derivation. **But according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoshiya, what is there to say?** According to his opinion, it is necessary for the Torah to state “or” in this case, to teach that the borrower is liable even if the animal dies without being injured first, and so it cannot be used for a derivation.


###### Bava Metzia 94b:24
[Bava Metzia 94b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:24)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יְקַלֵּל אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. אָבִיו בְּלֹא אִמּוֹ, אִמּוֹ בְּלֹא אָבִיו, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ קִלֵּל״. אָבִיו קִלֵּל, אִמּוֹ קִלֵּל. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: From the verse: **“A man who curses his father and his mother** shall die” (Leviticus 20:9), **I have** derived **only** that one is liable if he curses both **his father and his mother. From where** do I derive that if one curses **his father but not his mother,** or **his mother but not his father,** that he is liable? The continuation of **the verse states: “His father and his mother he has cursed,** his blood is upon him.” In the first part of the verse, the word “curses” is in proximity to “his father,” and in the last part of the verse, it is in proximity to “his mother.” This teaches that the verse is referring to both a case where **he cursed** only **his father** and a case where **he cursed** only **his mother;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.**


###### Bava Metzia 94b:25
[Bava Metzia 94b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/94b:25)

רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: מַשְׁמַע שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאֶחָד, וּמַשְׁמַע אֶחָד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yonatan says:** There is no need for this derivation, because the phrase “his father and his mother” **indicates** that one is liable if he curses **both of them together, and it** also **indicates** that he is liable if he curses either **one** of them **on their own,**