Bava Metzia 98: Renting as Interruption of Borrowing; Possession of the Animal

When a person is unsure of whether or not he owes another person money, he must pay that money since he cannot take an oath otherwise.

The Gemara returns to our last MIshna, regarding cows who were both rented and borrowed.  If these were different cows on different days, the owner and the bailee might argue about whether it was a rented cow or a borrowed cow who died while in the bailee's care.  This is significant because the bailee will have to pay for the cost of the lost cow if he the cow was borrowed, but not if the cow was rented.   The Gemara moves into questions about the number of cows borrowed or rented on each day.  If the bailee was unsure about the status of multiple cows on the day that one died, he would be liable to pay for all of them.  This is because even if the bailee was certain that one of those cows was rented, he would not be able to take an oath to that effect.  

We move into a new line of questioning.  The rabbis discuss the nature of borrowing in relationship with the nature of renting.  They wonder whether borrowing is an extension of prior renting.  This could help to explain why the renters are liable but borrowers are not.   And perhaps an animal could be borrowed without also 'renting' the services of the animal's owner.  Does borrowing begin and end in a specific way?  Does renting behave as an 'interruption' between two periods of borrowing?  These questions stand unresolved.  They do help us to better understand the depth to which our rabbis attempted to understand the concepts presented to them.

A new Mishna teacher that when a person borrows a cow and it is sent to him by the lender's son, or slave, or agent, or by the borrower's son, the borrower's slave, or by his agent, the borrower is exempt if the cow dies en route.  This is because the animal must be placed into the hand of the borrower by the hand of the lender (or his agent).  However, if the borrower specifically asked for the transfer to be made by one of these agents and the animal died along the way, the borrower is liable.  When the agent takes the animal into his hand, the transaction has been completed.  This is also the case when the animal is returned to the lender.  The animal is in the possession of the borrower until it reaches the hand of the lender.

I know that these halachot differ from those regarding delivery of a get.  My understanding is that those laws are stringent and specific due to the extremely severe consequences that could face one who transgresses.