## Bava Metzia Daf 96b

###### Bava Metzia 96b:1
[Bava Metzia 96b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:1)

שׁוֹאֵל הָוֵי, אוֹ שׂוֹכֵר הָוֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Is he** like **a borrower or is he** like **a renter?**


###### Bava Metzia 96b:2
[Bava Metzia 96b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:2)

אָמַר רָבָא, לְפוּם חוּרְפָּא שַׁבֶּשְׁתָּא – מָה נַפְשָׁךְ, אִי שׁוֹאֵל הָוֵי – שְׁאָלָהּ בִּבְעָלִים הִיא, אִי שׂוֹכֵר הָוֵי – שְׂכִירוּת בִּבְעָלִים הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** of Rami bar Ḥama: **Commensurate to the sharpness** of his mind is **the** extent of his **error,** as **whichever way you** look at it, he should be exempt: **If he is** like **a borrower,** this **is** a case of **borrowing** an item together **with** the services of **the owner,** as his wife is obligated to perform household services for him. Alternatively, **if he is** like **a renter,** this **is** a case of **renting** an item together **with** the services of **the owner,** for the same reason. Either way, he should be exempt.


###### Bava Metzia 96b:3
[Bava Metzia 96b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:3)

אֶלָּא כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרָמִי בַּר חָמָא: דַּאֲגַר מִינַּהּ פָּרָה וַהֲדַר נַסְבַהּ, שׁוֹאֵל הָוֵי אוֹ שׂוֹכֵר הָוֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara reinterprets Rami bar Ḥama’s question: **Rather, when Rami bar Ḥama raised the dilemma,** it was with regard to a case in **which one** first **rented a cow from** a woman **and subsequently married her.** In that case, she was not working for him at the time he began renting the cow, and so the exemption of borrowing an item together with its owner does not apply. Rami bar Ḥama’s question was: What is the *halakha* once they get married? This is dependent on whether, from that point, **he is** like **a borrower or he is** like **a renter.**


###### Bava Metzia 96b:4
[Bava Metzia 96b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:4)

שׁוֹאֵל הָוֵי וְאָתְיָא שְׁאֵלָה בִּבְעָלִים מַפְקְעָא שְׂכִירוּת שֶׁלֹּא בִּבְעָלִים, אוֹ דִלְמָא שׂוֹכֵר הָוֵי וּשְׂכִירוּת כִּדְקָיְימָא קָיְימָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: Since the husband initially rented the cow, if **he is** now like **a borrower,** then his status has changed, **and** so the new **borrowing** of the cow done together **with** borrowing the services of its **owner comes** and **displaces** the initial **renting that** was done **without** borrowing the services of **the owner.** Accordingly, the exemption will apply. **Or perhaps** even once he is married **he is** still like **a renter, and** since his status has not changed, the **renting stands as it was,** i.e., his current renting of the cow is considered a continuation of the initial renting that began before his wife was obligated to work for him. Consequently, the exemption would not apply.


###### Bava Metzia 96b:5
[Bava Metzia 96b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:5)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא: דְּאִי שׁוֹאֵל הָוֵי, דְּאָתֵי שְׁאֵלָה בִּבְעָלִים מַפְקְעָא שְׂכִירוּת שֶׁלֹּא בִּבְעָלִים. אִי שׂוֹכֵר נָמֵי הָוֵי, תֵּיתֵי שְׂכִירוּת בִּבְעָלִים (תַּיפֵּוק) [תַּפְקַע] שְׂכִירוּת שֶׁלֹּא בִּבְעָלִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this logic: **But what is different** about these possibilities, that you say **that** only **if he is a borrower** is it so **that** the new **borrowing** of the cow done together **with** borrowing the services of **the owner comes** and **displaces** the initial **renting that** was done **without** borrowing the services of **the owner?** Say the same **also if he is** now like **a renter,** and **let** the new **renting** of the cow done together **with** borrowing the services of **the owner come** and **displace** the initial **renting that** was done **without** borrowing the services of **the owner.**


###### Bava Metzia 96b:6
[Bava Metzia 96b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:6)

אֶלָּא כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כְּגוֹן דַּאֲגַרָא אִיהִי פָּרָה מֵעָלְמָא, וַהֲדַר נַסְבַהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara reinterprets his question: **Rather, when Rami bar Ḥama raised the dilemma,** it was with regard to a case **where** a woman **rented a cow from** someone in the **world** at large, **and subsequently** another man **married her.**


###### Bava Metzia 96b:7
[Bava Metzia 96b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:7)

וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: שׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם לַשּׂוֹכֵר, לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ – דְּוַדַּאי שְׁאֵילָה בִּבְעָלִים הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that the relevance of this dilemma is dependent upon a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei concerning a case in which one rents a cow, and then another person borrows it from the renter, and then a mishap occurs to it (see 35a). **And according to** the opinion **of the Rabbis, who say** that the **borrower pays the renter, do not raise the dilemma, as it is certainly** a case of **borrowing** an item and borrowing or hiring its **owner** with it. Evidently, the Rabbis hold that for the duration of the rental period the renter is considered to be the owner of the cow. Accordingly, in this case, the woman is considered to be the owner of the cow. Therefore, when the man marries her, he is considered to be borrowing the cow from her at the same time at which she becomes obligated to work for him.


###### Bava Metzia 96b:8
[Bava Metzia 96b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:8)

כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: תַּחְזוֹר פָּרָה לַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, מַאי – שׁוֹאֵל הָוֵי, אוֹ שׂוֹכֵר הָוֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When should you raise the dilemma?** Raise it **according to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei, who says** that the value of the **cow must be returned to its original owner.** Rabbi Yosei holds that the renter is not considered to be the owner of the cow, and therefore this is not a case of borrowing an item together with borrowing or renting the services of its owner. Therefore, Rami bar Ḥama asks **what** level of liability the husband bears; **is he** like **a borrower or is he** like **a renter?**


###### Bava Metzia 96b:9
[Bava Metzia 96b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:9)

אָמַר רָבָא: בַּעַל לָא שׁוֹאֵל הָוֵי וְלָא שׂוֹכֵר הָוֵי, אֶלָּא לוֹקֵחַ הָוֵי – מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּכְרָה בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ, וָמֵתָה – הַבַּעַל מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: A husband is not** like **a borrower nor is he** like **a renter. Rather, he is** considered to be like **a buyer** of his wife’s property, as can be inferred **from** the statement **of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: In Usha** the Sages **instituted:** In the case of **a woman who sold her usufruct property during her husband’s lifetime and** then **died, the husband can appropriate** the property **from the buyers,** provided he compensates them for their loss of the purchase. Evidently, the wife’s property is considered to be owned by the husband.


###### Bava Metzia 96b:10
[Bava Metzia 96b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:10)

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: בַּעַל בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ, מִי מָעַל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma:** When **a husband** acquires the rights **to his wife’s** usufruct **property** that includes consecrated property, acquiring property from the Temple in this way is considered misuse of consecrated property. In such a case, **who** is liable for having **misused** consecrated property?


###### Bava Metzia 96b:11
[Bava Metzia 96b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:11)

אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן לִימְעוֹל? לִימְעוֹל בַּעַל, דְּהֶיתֵּרָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלִיקְנֵי, אִיסּוּרָא לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלִיקְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Who could** be considered to **have misused** consecrated property? **Should** the **husband** be considered to **have misused** consecrated property? Certainly not, **as** while it **is satisfactory for him to acquire** non-sacred items of his wife’s property, which are **permitted** for him to use, it **is not satisfactory for him to acquire** consecrated property, which it is **prohibited** for him to use. Since he does not wish to acquire these items, he cannot be held liable for removing them from the possession of the Temple.


###### Bava Metzia 96b:12
[Bava Metzia 96b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:12)

תִּימְעוֹל אִיהִי, דְּהֶיתֵּרָא נָמֵי לָא נִיחָא לַהּ דְּלִיקְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Should she** be considered to **have misused** consecrated property? Certainly not, **as also** with regard to non-sacred items, which are **permitted** for use, it **is not satisfactory to her that** her husband **acquire** them. Nevertheless, by virtue of the rabbinic ordinance, he does. Evidently, her husband’s acquisition is not affected by her wishes, and therefore she cannot be held liable for it.


###### Bava Metzia 96b:13
[Bava Metzia 96b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:13)

נִימְעֲלוּ בֵּית דִּין, כִּי עֲבַדוּ רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא וַאֲמַרוּ: בַּעַל לוֹקֵחַ הָוֵי – לְהֶיתֵּרָא, לְאִיסּוּרָא לָא עֲבֻיד רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Should the court** be considered to **have misused** consecrated property, as it is their ordinance that granted the husband ownership? Certainly not, because **when the Sages instituted the ordinance, and they said** that **a husband is** considered to be like **a buyer** of his wife’s property, that was only **with regard to** non-sacred items, which are **permitted** for him to use. But **with regard to** consecrated property, which it is prohibited for him to use, **the Sages did not institute the ordinance.**


###### Bava Metzia 96b:14
[Bava Metzia 96b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:14)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בַּעַל מָעַל לִכְשֶׁיּוֹצִיא, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמּוֹצִיא מְעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** The **husband** is liable for having **misused** consecrated property only **when he** actually takes and **spends** the money for himself, **just as it is in** the case of **one who** mistakenly **spends consecrated coins for a non-sacred** purpose.


###### Bava Metzia 96b:15
[Bava Metzia 96b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:15)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כָּחַשׁ בָּשָׂר מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If the **flesh** of a borrowed animal **was weakened due to** the **labor** it performed for the borrower, **what** is the *halakha*? Is the borrower liable to compensate the owner of the animal?


###### Bava Metzia 96b:16
[Bava Metzia 96b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְרַב חִלְקִיָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא שְׁמֵיהּ: מִכְּלָל דְּכִי מֵתָה מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה מְחַיֵּיב? נֵימָא: לָאו לְאוֹקֹמַהּ בְּכִילְּתָא שְׁאֵילְתַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One of the Sages, and Rav Ḥilkiya, son of Rav Avya, is his name, said to** the Sage who raised the dilemma: **By inference** from your question, it seems **that when** a borrowed animal **died due to** ordinary **labor** that it performed, the borrower **is liable.** Why should that be? **Let** the borrower **say:** It was understood by you that **I did not borrow it** just **to stow it in a canopy** but to use it; therefore, if it died while I was using it, I should not be liable.


###### Bava Metzia 96b:17
[Bava Metzia 96b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:17)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא כָּחַשׁ בָּשָׂר מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה דְּפָטוּר, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ מֵתָה מֵחֲמַת מְלָאכָה נָמֵי פָּטוּר. דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו לְאוֹקֹמַהּ בְּכִילְּתָא שְׁאֵילְתַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said: It is not necessary** to say that if **its flesh was weakened due to** ordinary **labor that** the borrower is **exempt** from liability. **Rather, even** if the animal **died due to** ordinary **labor,** he is **also exempt, as** the borrower **can say to** the owner: It is self-understood that **I did not borrow it** just **to stow it in a canopy,** but rather in order to use it.


###### Bava Metzia 96b:18
[Bava Metzia 96b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:18)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּשְׁאֵיל נַרְגָּא מֵחַבְרֵיהּ, אִיתְּבַר. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי סָהֲדִי דְּלָאו שַׁנֵּית בֵּיהּ, וְאִיפְּטַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **A certain man borrowed an ax from another** and **it broke.** The borrower **came before Rava** for judgment, who **said to him: Go, bring witnesses that you did not deviate** from **its** regular use, **and** you **will be exempt** from liability, as this is comparable to a case of a borrowed animal that died due to ordinary labor.


###### Bava Metzia 96b:19
[Bava Metzia 96b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:19)

וְאִי לֵיכָּא סָהֲדִי מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּשְׁאֵיל נַרְגָּא מֵחַבְרֵיהּ וְאִיתְּבַר, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שַׁלֵּים לֵיהּ נַרְגָּא מְעַלְּיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And if there are no witnesses, what** is the *halakha*? The Gemara provides a precedent: **Come** and **hear** a similar case: There was an incident in **which a certain man borrowed an ax from another and it broke.** The borrower **came before Rav** for judgment, who **said to him: Go** and **pay him** the entire value of **a proper ax.**


###### Bava Metzia 96b:20
[Bava Metzia 96b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/96b:20)

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:**