Bava Metzia 35: Expectations of Honesty (or not); A Cow's Changing Status

Who must take an oath if a collateral item is stolen: the creditor or the debtor? Who must prove that the stolen item is not in his possession?  What if witnesses were present at the time of the theft?  And what if there is a disagreement about the worth of the collateral item?  Who takes an oath regarding that statement of value?  Who trusts whom in such situations?  We are reminded that the debtor might attribute goodwill to the creditor based upon Proverbs (11:3), where "The integrity of the upright shall guide them".  The creditor may see the debtor as deserving of his fate, as well, based on the same verse: "But the perverseness of the faithless shall destroy them".  We are privy to the reasoning behind the specific classist assumptions of antiquity.

We learn an example based on Rav Nachman's experience with a bailee who said that he could not find the jewels that a man deposited with him.  Rav Nachman ordered the bailee to pay for the jewels due to his own negligence.   When the bailee refused to pay, Rav Nachman ordered him to sell his palace and use the funds to pay for the jewels.  Lo and behold, the jewels were found.  And though they had increased in value, the bailee did not profit from the increase.  

Rava tells of studying this chapter with Rav Nachman himself.  Through his own story (revealing his ignorance in the face of his teacher, Rav Nachman), Rava clarified that no oath was taken; no oath was needed when ownership was not transferred.  Further, the owner was inconvenienced by having to take the bailee to court.  This leads to comments regarding appraisal, and the point that appraisals can be returned/changed based on Deuteronomy (6:18): And you shall do that which is right and good".  A person can return once he has the funds to buy back his property, even if years have passed since the property's appraisal.

The Gemara moves on to the topic of gifts and debts owed to women.  We learn that if a woman marries after property has been appraised to repay her a debt, or if her property was appraised to repay her own debt and then she married and died, the husband does not pay his wife's debt through her appraised property.  Further, he does not receive property that was repossessed from her if he pays her debt.  

Rabbi Yaose bar Chanina teaches that in Usha the Sages decided that when women sold her usufruct property while her husband was alive and then she died, the husband repossess that property from the buyers.  Rav Acha and Ravina argue over whether or not the prepossession is based on a reversed appraisal.  the rabbis have different opinions on whether o not this was a full-fledged sale.  Was this the husband's decision or that of his wife?  Ultimately, a court document that includes writing and signing will transfer the rights of a wife to her husband.

A new Mishna teaches us that when one rents a cow and then lends it to someone else and the cow dies of natural causes, the renter swears to the owner of this occurrence and the borrower pays the renter for the cow.  The renter is exempt when circumstances are beyond his control.  However, a borrower is in fact responsible for circumstances beyond his control! Rabbi Yosei asks how the renter can profit from someone else's cow.  Instead, the value of the cow should be returned to the owner.  The renter should not need to swear  but the borrower should compensate the cow's owner.

The Gemara wonders who should be liable in this case.  Shouldn't the borrower be protected from a claim?  Why is the renter not responsible for the owner's loss?  In their conversation, the rabbis understand that the cow changes status from owned to rented to borrowed.  In fact, some suggest, we are speaking of different cows.  Of course, because there is only one actual cow, there is liability to pay for only one cow.