Bava Metzia 36: Sin- or Guilt-Offerings; Secondary Bailees and Intentional Gaffes

Continuing their discussion, the rabbis consider in which cases the borrow and the lender of an animal that died might be liable to bring a sin-offering or a guilt-offering.  A sin-offering is required when a person should be punished by karet when that transgression is performed intentionally. It will be a female lamb or goat less than one year old.  The meat is eaten by the priests.  Sin offerings also complete certain periods of time, including  atoning for comment sins and ending ritual impurity.  

Guilt-offerings are required for other human errors.  Usually, these are known by the sinner.  They are eaten in particularly finicky ways by priests.  When considering these offerings for the borrower and the lender, the rabbis measure who knew what part of which transgressions at what time; they weight the understood responsibilities of the borrower and the lender, as well.

The Gemara offers a number of examples that help them to clarify our last Mishna.  When a bailee leaves the item in question with a secondary bailee, a number of questions are asked.  Did the owner give permission for a secondary bailee to hold the item?  Did the bailee have reasonable grounds to assume that the item would be safe?  For how long and in what circumstances was the item left with the secondary bailee?  Was the secondary bailee competent and responsible?  Was s/he a minor child or an adult child of the bailee?  Were reasonable precautions taken to ensure that safekeeping of the item while the bailee was away?  Would the item, especially if it was an animal, be additionally susceptible to loss or injury while with the secondary bailee?

The stories include tools that were given to an old woman by gardeners for safekeeping, a bailee whose negligence allowed a cow to wander away, and an item left with adult children.  

Our daf ends with  a conversation about the Angel of Death, who would be with an animal whether the animal was with the first or the second bailee.  But if the second bailee took the animal to the top of a cliff, one could argue that the trip there and back killed it.  One could also argue that the animal might have fallen while at the top of the cliff, which would certainly change the liability.

Our rabbis teach us one predominant lesson through today's daf: be very, very thoughtful with borrowed items.