Rujukan Talmud untuk Keluaran 22:14: Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia, Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot & Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra

MISHNAH: If somebody borrowed a cow and asked its owner [to work with him], or borrowed a cow and paid its owner [to work with him], or asked or paid its owner [to work with him] and then borrowed the cow: if it died he is not liable since it was said: “if its owner was with it he does not pay¹Ex. 22:14. The verse is read to mean that the borrower is not liable to pay for an animal which dies while working for him if its owner also was working for him all the time the animal was working. The owner need not be near the animal at the moment of its death..”
But if he borrowed the cow and afterwards asked or paid its owner [to work with him] and it died he is liable since it was said: “if its owner was not with it, certainly he shall pay.²Ex. 22:15.”

It was said, if its owners were with him, he does not have to pay³⁸Ex. 22:14. If the borrower had asked not only for the use of an animal and/or agricultural or mechanical implements but also had asked their owner to help him in his work, then the disposition over animals or tools never was transferred to the borrower; in case the animal died or it and the tools broke or were taken by force the borrower does not have to pay. But if the authority over animal and/or tools was transferred, the borrower has to pay if anything happens to them.. Does he have to swear? Rebbi Ze`ira said, he swears. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La both are saying, he does not swear<sup>39</sup>The Babli does not treat the question, which seems to be that even though the owner retains the power of disposition over his property, the borrower might have to swear that he was not in any way the cause of the accident.. A baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi La: “Breakage, abduction, and death for which he is not liable in the cases of the paid keeper and the renter<sup>40</sup>Since Ex. 22:9 excuses the paid keeper in the case of an unobserved accident but requires an oath that the keeper did never ever use the animal or object for himself (or the renter that he never overstepped the conditions of his lease)., and the borrower with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable<sup>31</sup>Ex. 22:13.; loss and theft where the paid keeper and the renter are liable, is it not that a fortiori the borrower be not liable with the owner but liable without the owner<sup>41</sup>There is no verse referring to the responsibility of the borrower for cases of loss and theft but it cannot be less than that of breakage, etc. It cannot be more since the conclusion of a logical argument cannot be stronger than the premise.?” For him who says it is obvious that he swears, should he not have to pay<sup>42</sup>Since the oath would absolve from payment, it is clear that R. Ze`ira holds that the borrower has to pay if he cannot swear. But this contradicts the argument of the baraita since it also applies to the case where the owner works with the borrower.? Rebbi Ḥanina⁴³This is the late Amora R. Ḥinnena, not the early R. Ḥanina mentioned earlier. in the name of Rebbi Yudan: A baraita supports Rebbi Ze`ira. “The borrower, for whom the Torah was restrictive, with the owner is not liable, without the owner is liable; the paid keeper, for whom the Torah was lenient, a fortiori with the owner should not be liable, without the owner should be liable.<sup>44</sup>In fact his responsibility depends on whether there was a formal act of transfer of responsibility, Note 4.” If you are saying, his problem was swearing, he should have stated “the paid keeper and the renter<sup>45</sup>Since in general the paid keeper and the renter follow the same rules. But since the renter pays the owner for the use, in matters of payment there is reason to differentiate between the two..” That means he only needs it for payment. It is difficult for Rebbi Ze`ira: the borrower swears if the owner was with him; if the owner was not with him he must pay. The unpaid keeper swears, whether the owner was with him or was not with him⁴⁶Ex. 22:8.. You are saying that where the borrower pays the paid keeper swears⁴⁷If the loss was because of the unlawful actions of third persons.. Where the paid keeper swears, the unpaid keeper should not be liable. Where the paid keeper pays, the unpaid keeper swears⁴⁸If the loss was because of the negligence of the keeper, when the object was lost, or probable negligence, when it was stolen.. What do you state about an unpaid keeper when the owner be with him⁴⁹As stated before, if there was no formal transfer of responsibility, the unpaid keeper does not even swear.? But some are asking, what do you state about an unpaid and a paid keeper, whether or not the owner be with him⁵⁰Since the distinction is made only for the borrower, we do not even know whether such a distinction is of any relevance for the other kinds of keepers.? Rebbi Abin said, any word of criminality^46,Ex. 22:8.⁵¹This explicitly excludes the distinction about the participation of the owner for paid and unpaid keeper; the previously quoted baraitot are contradicted.. Rebbi Mana said, do we not find that the Torah treated loss and theft equally for the borrower? Therefore, we shall treat breakage, abduction, and death equally both for the unpaid and the paid keepers⁴²Since the oath would absolve from payment, it is clear that R. Ze`ira holds that the borrower has to pay if he cannot swear. But this contradicts the argument of the baraita since it also applies to the case where the owner works with the borrower..

MISHNAH: Somebody borrowed a cow; he borrowed it for half a day and leased⁴The lessor does not have to pay if the cow died; that risk was covered by the rental fee (Ex. 22:14). it for half a day, or borrowed it for one day and leased it for the next, or borrowed for one and leased for one. The lessee says, the borrowed one died, or it died on the day it was borrowed, or it died during the time it was borrowed, and the other one says “I do not know”, he is liable⁵Since one party claims certainty and the other ignorance, judgment has to be given to the party claiming certainty.. The lessor says, the leased one died, or it died on the day it was leased, or it died during the time it was leased, and the other one says “I do not know”, he is not liable⁵Since one party claims certainty and the other ignorance, judgment has to be given to the party claiming certainty.. One says the borrowed and the other one says the leased; let the lessee swear that the leased one died. If both say “I do not know” they shall split⁷The value of the cow is “money in doubt” which has to be split evenly (Chapter 1, Note 5). The lessee/borrower has to pay half the value of the cow which died..