A man borrowed a cat from his friend to chase away mice. The mice united against the cat and killed it. Is it considered that the cat died on account of its work, in which case the borrower would not be liable, or perhaps the borrower did not act in accord with the terms of the loan in stationing the cat in a place so overpopulated with mice, and thus is liable?
Said Rava, “Regarding a man whom women overcame and killed, there is no judgment and no judge,” that is, there is no redress. The borrower was not negligent and is thus exempt.
Some say that the story was that the borrowed cat ate too many mice and became overheated and died.