Bava Metzia 99: Hebrew and Canaanite Slaves as Agents; Delivery of Borrowed Items

Opening with the Gemara on our last Mishna, the rabbis consider whether it was a Hebrew slave or a Canaanite slave who was authorized to bring a cow from the lender to the borrower.  Hebrew slaves are considered to be the property of their owners, and so the cow would not become the borrower's possession until it reaches the borrower's hand.  Canaanite slaves are circumsized and immersed in the mikva are only responsible to observe negative mitzvot and non-time-bound positive mitzvot.  Possession might transfer earlier if a Canaanite slave was making the delivery.  The rabbis also ask whether it should make a difference whether the lender or the borrow suggest that the slave/agent delivers the animal.

The Gemara questions other ways in which the cow might be transferred.  It could be hit with a board so that it walks toward the borrower.  The rabbis seem to conclude that the person who assumes that the cow will walk to the borrower after being hit is the person who should be liable if the cow dies before it reaches the borrower.

The rabbis engage in a conversation about items that transfer from one person's possession to another person's possession.  An ax, for example, has been considered to be in the possession of its owner until it is used to chop wood by its borrower.   Consecrated items that are misused create additional problems in this area of thought.   Further, the rabbis wonder about items that are collections of smaller items, like fig cakes, which might be sold at a different price than the individual figs used to create the fig cake.  

We are taught about other circumstances where an item is transferred from one status to another.  If a person steals a crossbeam from a consecrated place and builds it into a new home, for example, liability for misuse of a consecrated item is only enacted once a person sleeps under the roof of that new home.  Similarly, Shmuel was said to teach that a person residing in another person's courtyard without the owner's knowledge is liable to pay rent.  We then learn that this ruling is said to have been retracted by Shmuel.  Finally, the rabbis speak of a porter who breaks a barrel of wine.  The porter is liable to pay for the cost of the wine on a non-market day, and not the lesser price of that same wine on a market day.