השואל את הפרה ושאל בעלה עמה – if the owners of the cow were with the borrower to do his work, whether they were borrowed with him or rented, whether at the same work of the cow, or whether to do a different [kind of] work, and if the animal died, he is exempt.

שנאמר אם בעליו עמו לא ישלם – and this implies if the owner of the ox was with it, with the borrower, and is borrowed or rented to him to do work at the time that he borrowed his cow, he doesn’t pay.

אבל שאל את הפרה כו' – if it was with him at the time of an unavoidable accident, but was not with him at the time of the borrowing, he (i.e., the borrower) is liable, for it was not borrowing with the owners to make him exempt other than if he was with him at the time of the borrowing.

שנאמר בעליו אין עמו שלם ישלם – And this is what Scripture teaches us: If the owner is not with it (i.e., the animal) at the time of the borrowing, even if he was with him (i.e., the animal) at the time of breaking a bone or death, he (i.e., the borrower) must surely pay.

המשאיל אומר שאולה מתה – and you are liable for its unavoidable accidents.

איני יודע – lest it died while rented out, and am exempt from the unavoidable accidents.

חייב – It is not possible to establish our Mishnah as it implies, for we hold that my Maneh is in your hands, and the other says, that he doesn’t know [how the animal died] and he takes an equitable oath (see Shevuot 40b – which is applied, if one who is sued for a debt, denies the latter entirely, in contradistinction to the legal oath which is required when the defendant admits a part of the claim. It being presumed that nobody will go to law unless he has a claim, it is a matter of equity to put the opponent to an oath, to which he may in return put the claimant) that he does not know [how the animal died – if it had been borrowed or tented] and is exempt from payment/penalty. For this reason, we establish in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 98a) that where there is the business of an oath that is Torah mandated between them, such as where [the lender] says to him: I transferred to you two cows, one day as borrowed and the other day as a rental, and both of them (i.e., the cows) died while they were borrowed. And the borrower said to him (i.e., the lender), one of them, yes, at the time while it was borrowed it died. But one of them (i.e., the cows), I don’t know. And this like someone who partially admits to the claim and he is liable for an oath. And because he cannot take an oath, he pays. And it is similar to [the case of] my Maneh is in your hands, and the other responds, How is this? Fifty (i.e., one-half) I know about and fifty (i.e., the other half) I don’t know [anything] about. He is required to take an oath but he is not able to take an oath, and because he is unable to take an oath, he must pay.

ישבע השוכר ששכורה מתה – this also is impossible to establish as it implies. And we hold that if one claimed “wheat” and the other admitted to him “barley,” he is exempt even from the cost of the barley. And that is so – that what he admitted to him was not what the other claimed, and what he claimed he (i.e., the other) did not admit to him. And what place is there for an oath? For this we have established in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 98b – a “rolling oath.” The lender can plea: “Even on your own plea, you must still swear that the animal died naturally, not through your negligence” – which rejects the ruling of Rami bar Hama’s ruling that no oath is imposed at all upon bailees, even when they plead loss, theft, death, etc., unless there is also a partial rejection of the claim. The bailee is bound to swear another oath – that the hired one and not the borrowed one has died is administered. The superimposed oath is Biblical, not Rabbinic. See also Sotah 18a). In that he (i.e., the lender/person who rents out the animal) says to the borrower/renter: Swear to me the oath of the bailees that you are required to swear, that she (i.e., the animal) died naturally, for the deponent’s statement is accepted as true on the ground that, if he had intended to tell a lie, he might have invented one more advantageous to his cause – that he could have taken an other that it died naturally for if he made a claim also that via a rolling oath, that she died while rented out.

יחלוקו – Our Mishnah is [according to] Sumachus, who stated that monies that are placed in doubt should be divided, and it is not the Halakha, for the Halakha is: “He who wants to exact [compensation] from his fellow bears the burden of proof” (see Mishnah Bava Kamma, Chapter 3, Mishnah 11), and the the one appealed to must take an oath that he doesn’t know and is exempt.

ביד בנו – The lender sent it to the borrower by the hand of his son or his servant or the agent of the lender.

או ביד בנו ועבדו ושלוחו של שואל – he (i.e. the borrower) is exempt if it (i.e. the animal) died on the road [to him/her]. But that agent of the borrower, one can establish it (see Bava Kamma 104a – also Shevuot 46b) – regarding his hired laborer or his client who lives in his home (may they take the oath)? But he did not make this person an agent before witnesses, for if witnesses had made the person the agent, the borrower would be obligated for his (i.e., the agent’s) unavoidable accident when the lender transferred it (i.e., the animal) to him. But there are those who say that even if he (i.e., the borrower) made the person his agent before witnesses, he is not liable through his hand for unavoidable accidents. And this is what he says to him – that a person is [deemed] believable if he wishes to send it in his hands, he sends it.

אמר לו השואל שלחה לי וכו' – in the hand of your servant, he (i.e., the borrower) is liable. This “your servant’ is speaking about a Hebrew slave, for it were a Canaanite slave, the hand of the slave is like the hand of the master, and it would be like he didn’t depart from the domain of the lender, and it would be like the lender himself walked to him, and the borrower would be exempt, if he suffered an unavoidable accident on the way.

וכן בשעה שמחזירה – If the borrower sent it in the hand of his son, or his servant or his gent, or in the hand of the son, slave or agent of the lender, it did not leave the domain of the the borrower juntil it comes to the hand of the lender, and if he suffers an unavoidable accident on the way, he is liable. If the lender said to him (i.e., the borrower): “Send it to me,” or the borrower said, “Behold I am sending it, et.” And the lender said to him, “Send it,” and he sent it (i.e., the animal) and it suffered an unavoidable accident on the way, he is exempt [from having to make any payments). And our Mishnah specifically when he returns it amidst the days of his borrowing it (i.e., the animal) when he is liable for unavoidable accidents. But if he returned it after the days of his borrowing, the law of a paid bailee applies [since he derived benefit from it] and not the law of a borrower, and if he sent it by the hand of his son, or his servant ,or his agent, whether it was his or it belonged to the lender, and it suffered an unavoidable accident, he is exempt [from payment].

המוכר שפחתו וילדה – since a Canaanite slave is acquired by money, and when he gave the money, he acquired the female [Canaanite] slave in every place that she is. And if it is not known if until she gave birth he gave the money, and the fetus us his, or after she gave birth, and the child belongs to the owners. But a cow is not acquired by money, but by pulling/drawing the object to be acquired towards oneself, and since he pulled it, it would be known if she gave birth already or not given birth, and for this [reason], it was necessary for the Mishnah to teach, “he who exchanges,” for via “Halifin”/a form of possession by handing to the purchaser an object as a symbolical substitute, since when one draws the object to be acquired towards oneself, the other person acquires in whatever place he is in, therefore it is not known whether the animal gave birth or not.

יחלוקו – And our Mishnah is according to Sumachos, but the Halakha is not according to him.

זה אומר גדול וזה אומר קטן – The one says the monetary value of a large slave and the other one says the monetary value of a small slave. For it were an actual slave, we hold that we don’t take oaths on slaves. And furthermore, what he claimed against him, he did not admit to him and what he (i.e. the other) admitted to, he (i.e., the first) did not claim, and there was no place for an oath.

המוכר זיתיו לעצים – to cut them down to burn them and he detained them in the ground.

ועשו – bad olives for a Seah of them did not produce one-quarter of a log of oil.

הרי אלו של בעל הזיתים – for less than one-fourth [of a log] people aren’t strict/particular about it. Ands the one-quarter that they mentioned, outside of the removal which he takes out at their olive harvest and at their pressing. And our Mishnah [deals with] when he sells his olives to merely cut them down. But if he said to him to cut them down immediately, even less than one-quarter [of a Log of oil per Seah] to the owner of the field. But if he said to cut them when he would desire, even more than one-quarter [of a Log of oil] would go to the owner of the olives.

וזה אומר ארצי גידלה יחלוקו – In the Gemara (Bava Metzia 101a), it establishes it as in the case where a river swept away the olives with their clods [of earth], that is, with the ground that is surrounding them that they are able to live through it, and because of that, they are exempt from Orlah (i.e. the prohibition of eating the fruit of trees of the first three years), and all the first three years is when they would divide it between them, for even though the land of this one grew them, nevertheless, if not for their clods [of earth], one would not be able to eat from them because of [the laws of] Orlah. But after the first three years, everything [belongs] to the owner of the ground, for he said to him: If had planted it, after three [years], I would not have been able to eat of them.

המשכיר בית לחבירו – undefined.

בימות הגשמים אינו יכול להוציאו מן החג ועד הפסח ובימות החמה שלשים יום – that is to say, if he comes to remove/evict him prior to Passover, that he must inform him thirty days from the days of the summer/heat, that is from the fifteenth of Elul for from there is thirty days until Sukkot/”the holiday” which is the beginning of the days of rainfall, and if he did not inform him from the fifteenth of Elul, he cannot evict him until Passover, and automatically we learn that he who rents a house, undefined, in the days of the summer/heat, he must inform him thirty days before he removes/evicts him (Bava Metzia 101b).

ובכרכים – For everyone is drawn there to live and homes are not found to rent, he must inform him twelve months prior to evicting/removing him, whether during the days of summer/heat, whether during the rainy season, and just as he who rents out a home must inform him, so the renter must inform him (i.e., the owner) – in the villages thirty days and in the walled cities twelve months. And if he does not inform him, he cannot leave, but rather gives him his rent.

של נחתומים ושל צבעים שלש שנים – because of the great credit for a long time. And the Halakha is according to Rabban Gamaliel.

ובנגר – When they lock the door and insert it into the beam of the lintel.

הזבל של בעל הבית – like when the dung is made from bulls that came on their own, for if they were the bulls of the renter, the dung belongs to the renter.

היוצא מן התנור – ashes and they became dung.

נתעברה לשוכר – he would not increase the monthly payment, for the intercalation is included in the year.

מעשה בציפורי – In the Gemara (Bava Metzia 102b), it raises an objection. You quote a story which disproves your rule! For the first part of the Mishnah teaches either it all goes to the renter or all goes to the person who rents it out, and it brings a story/case where they should divide it, and it responds that the Mishnah is deficient and it should be read as follows: If he said to him: “I rent it to you] for twelve golden denarii per year, at a golden dinar per month, they must divide/share it between them. And we don’t know if he seized the first language or the latter language, and the story also, etc. But the Halakha is not according the Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel or like Rabbi Yosi, but one goes after the least of these languages, that the land is in the possession of its owner stands. Therefore, all of it is [belongs] to the person renting out, whether the first language was less whether the latter language was less.

חייב להעמיד לו בית – [for the days of his rental].

היה גדול לא יעשנו קטן וכו' – and he that showed him a house and said to him (i.e. the prospective renter): “a house like this one I will rent out to you,” but when he provides the house and says to him: “this house I am renting out to you,” and it falls, he is not liable to build it. But if he said to him an undefined/unspecified, he must provide him a place that is called a house, whether it is large or small.