Bava Metzia 96: But What About... : Borrowing, Renting and Liability

We begin with a description of many different questions regarding borrowing and renting and possible liability when something goes wrong.  Some of the more interesting examples include an animal that is borrowed simple to perform a severe transgression, like bestiality, or who is liable when a person borrows something from a 'wife'.  

Moving on, we are introduced to arguments between Rabbi Yochanan/Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan/Rabbi Yoshiya.  The first argument is about whether or not a person bringing first fruits to the Temple has to recite the blessing or not.  This is related to the material at hand because a person bringing fruit to the Temple might be the owner or a 'borrower' or 'renter' of the fruit.  Are all people obligated to recite the blessing in these cases?

The second argument is about whether a husband can appoint a steward to annul his wife's vows in his own absence.  There are specific proof texts that tell us about appointing stewards to annul vows and about the husband alone being permitted to annual his wife's vows.  This is related to our earlier learning because a woman might make a vow regarding a rented or borrowed item that a husband would wish to annul.  This is confusing to me as I remember that it was only vows that a wife made between herself and G-d that could be annulled by a husband.  However, there were other vows that also could be annulled - if I remember corrected, these were vows that directly affected the husband-wife relationship.

The Gemara asks about a husband's rights regarding his wife's usufruct property - what came with her into the marriage that he is permitted to benefit from but which will be returned to her if the marriage ends.  The example is a woman who rents her cow to a man before the man then marries her.  After they are married, is he still renting the cow?  Or is he borrowing the cow?  Or is he in fact an owner of the cow once they are married?

Taking this concept to its next logical step, the rabbis wonder whether a husband is the owner of his wife's consecrated property once that is brought into the marriage as usufruct. If so, is he liable if the consecrated property is misused?

Our daf ends with the answer to a question about an animal who is significantly weakened after being rented to someone.  The person's response might very well be, "I did not rent this animal to hide it in a canopy".  If the animal was used in an ordinary manner, there should be no cost to the renter.  Were there witnesses to the animal's treatment?  If not, we assume that the animal was treated well enough, and that the renter should give back the animal with an additional payment: the difference between the cost of this damaged animal and the cost of this animal when it was healthy.  This case is compared with that of an axe that is rented and damaged.