Bava Metzia 97 - Mice Kill Cat (Finds)

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 because of its work, in which case the borrower would not be liable, or perhaps the borrower did not act according to the loan terms 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, became overheated, and died.

Art: Cat killing mice in a landscape by Gottfried Mind or Mindt

Bava Metzia 96 – Borrower’s Exemption from Liability (Finds)

When a man borrows a cow, and it breaks a limb or dies, "if its owner is with him, he shall not pay."

Does the owner have to be "with him" at the time of borrowing, at the time of the accident, or both? Since it says, "if its owner is not with him, he shall surely pay," the owner being with him at one point is sufficient, but at which point?

Is it at the time of the borrowing when the cow comes under his control or at the time of the accident when he becomes obligated? - It is the time of borrowing because then he becomes responsible for its sustenance.

And "with him" means either working for him or serving him.

Art: Milking Cows by Camilla Pissarro

Bava Metzia 95 – Deriving Borrower's Law With an "A Fortiori" Argument (Finds)

The passage of the borrower imposes liability for a broken limb and natural death – unavoidable mishaps. It is silent, however, about theft and loss, which are avoidable mishaps.

We can derive it ourselves with a fortiori argument: if a paid custodian, who is exempted from liability when the animal suffers a broken limb or dies, is nonetheless liable in cases of theft and loss, is it not logical that a borrower, who is indeed liable in cases of the animal suffering a broken limb or dying, is also liable in cases of theft and loss? Surely this is so.

Art: Coastal Landscape with Figures and Animal by Thomas Sidney Cooper

Bava Metzia 94 – Conditions in Contracts (Finds)

An unpaid custodian may stipulate to be exempt from an oath, and a borrower may stipulate to be exempt from paying.

Whoever makes a stipulation contrary to what is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void. Any stipulation after the action is void. For example, “This item is yours on condition that you walk a mile” - the item is his, and he does not have to walk. Any stipulation that is impossible to fulfill is void. For example, “This is your Get on condition that you cross the sea on foot” - the condition is void, the Get is valid, and the woman is divorced.

If one borrows a cow but hires the owner along with it, he is not liable if the cow dies.

Art: Woman in While on a Beach by Peder Severin Kroyer

Bava Metzia 93 - Dealing in Food Entitlement (Finds)

The produce that the worker eats while harvesting is a charitable gift from Heaven, not a fringe benefit of his work, and therefore, he can't assign it to his wife and children.

A person may stipulate that he will not eat from harvested produce in exchange for higher wages. He may also stipulate this for his adult children and his wife since they have an understanding, but not for his minor children or his animals.

Of the four custodians, an unpaid custodian swears concerning every mishap and is not liable; the borrower pays for everything, and the paid custodian and the renter swear if an animal broke a limb, was captured, or died of natural causes.

Art: Boy Eating Grapes by Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida

Bava Metzia 92 – How Much Can a Worker Eat? (Finds)

A worker may eat a cucumber (cucumbers were expensive vegetables) or a date (which were expensive fruit) even if worth a dinar (six times his wage). The Torah tells the worker, "You may eat grapes as your desire, to your satiety," which implies that he may eat any amount needed to satisfy his hunger.

Rabbi Elazar Chisma says a worker may not eat more than his wage.

But the Sages permit this - however, his friends should teach him not to be a glutton, thereby closing the door to future employment.

Art: Still Life with Cucumbers and Tomatoes by Luis Eugenio Melendez

Bava Metzia 91 - Muzzling an Animal and Mother who is a Harlot (Finds)

One who muzzles an animal and threshes with it receives lashes and must pay four Kavs (6 liters) for a cow and three Kavs for a donkey. But why should it be so? The rule is that one does not receive lashes and pay money for the same crime!

The proof is from the case of a son consorting with his mother, who is a harlot. Since the son is liable to the death penalty for incest, he is not obligated to pay, and the sheep that he gave her should be considered a present, not a payment. Since the Torah forbade that sheep as a sacrifice, he must be legally obligated to pay, only that it is unenforceable in court. So, too, in the case of muzzling.

Art: Grazing Sheep with a Sheperdhess Beyond by Charles Emile Jacque