פעמים ששניהם באשם פעמים שהשוכר בחטאת והשואל באשם פעמים שהשוכר באשם והשואל בחטאת

there are times that both are liable to bring a guilt-offering; there are times that the renter is liable to bring a sin-offering and the borrower is liable to bring a guilt-offering; there are times that the renter is liable to bring a guilt-offering and the borrower is liable to bring a sin-offering.

הא כיצד כפירת ממון אשם ביטוי שפתים חטאת

The Gemara elaborates: How so? One who takes a false oath that involves the denial of a monetary matter is liable to bring a guilt-offering. One who takes a false oath on an utterance of the lips that involves no denial of a monetary debt is liable to bring a sin-offering.

פעמים ששניהם בחטאת כגון שמתה כדרכה ואמרו נאנסה שוכר דבין כך ובין כך מיפטר פטור בחטאת שואל דבין כך ובין כך חיובי מיחייב בחטאת

The Gemara elaborates: There are times that both are liable to bring a sin-offering. This is in a case where the cow died in its typical manner and the renter and the borrower both said that it died due to circumstances beyond his control. A renter, who in any case is exempt from paying whether it died of natural causes or due to circumstances beyond his control, is liable to bring a sin-offering if he took a false oath. A borrower, who in any case is liable to pay regardless of the circumstances of its death, is liable to bring a sin-offering if he took a false oath. In both cases, the oath involved no denial of monetary debt.

פעמים ששניהם באשם כגון שנגנבה ואמרו מתה מחמת מלאכה דתרוייהו קא כפרי ממונא דהא מיחייבי וקא פטרי נפשייהו

There are times that both are liable to bring a guilt-offering. This is in a case where the cow was stolen from a borrower, and the renter and the borrower both said that it died due to ordinary labor. That is a case where both denied a monetary matter, as they are both liable to pay in a case of theft, and both take an oath on a claim with which they seek to exempt themselves.

שוכר בחטאת ושואל באשם כגון שמתה כדרכה ואמרו מתה מחמת מלאכה שוכר דבין כך ובין כך מיפטר פטור חייב בחטאת שואל דמיחייב במתה כדרכה וקא פטר נפשיה במתה מחמת מלאכה באשם

There are times when a renter is liable to bring a sin-offering and a borrower is liable to bring a guilt-offering. This is in a case where the cow died in its typical manner and the renter and the borrower both said that it died due to ordinary labor. A renter, who in any case is exempt, as he is exempt from paying in cases where the ox was damaged or died due to circumstances beyond his control, is liable to bring a sin-offering, as the false oath involved no denial of monetary debt. A borrower, who is liable to pay when the cow died in its typical manner and attempted to exempt himself with the claim that it died due to ordinary labor, is liable to bring a guilt-offering.

שוכר באשם ושואל בחטאת כגון שנגנבה ואמרו מתה כדרכה שוכר הוא דמיחייב בגניבה ואבידה וקא פטר נפשיה במתה כדרכה באשם שואל דבין כך ובין כך חיובי מיחייב בחטאת

There are times when a renter is liable to bring a guilt-offering and a borrower is liable to bring a sin-offering. This is in a case where the cow was stolen from the borrower, and the renter and the borrower both said that it died in its typical manner. The renter, who is liable to pay in cases of theft and loss and attempted to exempt himself with the claim that it died in its typical manner, is liable to bring a guilt-offering. A borrower, who in any case is liable to pay, is liable to bring a sin-offering.

מאי קא משמע לן לאפוקי מדרבי אמי דאמר כל שבועה שהדיינים משביעים אותה אין חייבין עליה משום שבועת ביטוי שנאמר או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים כי תשבע מעצמה קא משמע לן דלא כרבי אמי

The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Yirmeya teaching us with this systematic presentation of these cases? They are merely details based on established halakhic principles. The Gemara answers: His statement serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ami, who says: With regard to any oath that the judges administer, one is not liable to bring a sin-offering for taking a false oath on an utterance, as it is stated in the passage concerning the obligation to bring an offering for taking a false oath:“ Or if a soul takes an oath clearly to utter with lips” (Leviticus 5:4). The Gemara infers: The liability to bring an offering for taking a false oath applies only to one who takes an oath on his own initiative, but not when the oath is administered by others. Rabbi Yirmeya teaches us that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as one is liable to bring a sin-offering for taking a false oath on an utterance even if it was administered by another.

אתמר שומר שמסר לשומר רב אמר פטור ורבי יוחנן אמר חייב

It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a bailee who conveyed to another bailee the deposit with which he was entrusted. Rav says: He is exempt from payment in the same cases in which he is exempt when the deposit is in his possession. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is liable to pay even in cases of damage due to circumstances beyond his control.

אמר אביי לטעמיה דרב לא מבעיא שומר חנם שמסר לשומר שכר דעלויי עלייה לשמירתו אלא אפילו שומר שכר שמסר לשומר חנם דגרועי גרעה לשמירתו פטור מאי טעמא דהא מסרה לבן דעת

Abaye says: According to Rav’s line of reasoning, it is not necessary to state his ruling in a case where he was initially an unpaid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to a paid bailee, as in that case the unpaid bailee enhanced the level of his safeguarding, since a paid bailee is liable to pay in instances where an unpaid bailee is exempt. But even in the case of a paid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to an unpaid bailee, where the paid bailee diminished the level of his safeguarding, he is exempt. What is the reason? He is exempt because he conveyed the deposit to a mentally competent person, thereby effectively safeguarded the deposit.

ולטעמיה דרבי יוחנן לא מיבעיא שומר שכר שמסר לשומר חנם דגרועי גרעה לשמירתו אלא אפילו שומר חנם שמסר לשומר שכר דעלויי עלייה לשמירתו חייב דאמר ליה אין רצוני שיהא פקדוני ביד אחר

According to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s line of reasoning, it is not necessary to state his ruling in a case where he was initially a paid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to an unpaid bailee, as the paid bailee diminished the level of his safeguarding, since an unpaid bailee is exempt in instances where a paid bailee is liable to pay. But even in the case of an unpaid bailee who conveyed the deposit for safeguarding to a paid bailee, where the unpaid bailee enhanced the level of his safeguarding, he is liable to pay. What is the reason? He is liable because the owner of the deposit said to him: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee.

אמר רב חסדא הא דרב לאו בפירוש אתמר אלא מכללא דהנהו גינאי דכל יומא הוו מפקדי מרייהו גבה דההיא סבתא יומא חד אפקדינהו לגבי חד מינייהו שמע קלא בי הלולא נפק אזל אפקדינהו לגבה דההיא סבתא אדאזל ואתא אגנוב מרייהו

Rav Ḥisda said: This statement that is attributed to Rav was not stated explicitly. Rather, it was inferred from another statement of his, as it is related: There were these gardeners who each day would deposit their spades with a certain old woman. One day they deposited their spades with one of gardeners. He heard noise from a wedding hall and set out and went there. He deposited the spades with that old woman. In the time that he went and came back from the wedding, their spades were stolen.

אתא לקמיה דרב ופטריה מאן דחזא סבר משום שומר שמסר לשומר פטור ולא היא שאני התם דכל יומא נמי אינהו גופייהו גבה דההיא סבתא הוו מפקדי להו

The case came before Rav, and Rav exempted the gardener who deposited the spades with the old woman. One who observed Rav’s ruling thought that Rav issued that ruling due to the fact that a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is exempt. But that is not so. There, in the case of the spades, it is different, as the gardeners themselves would deposit their spades with that old woman. Since the gardeners cannot claim that it is not their desire for their deposit to be in the possession of this old woman, the gardener who did so is exempt.

יתיב רבי אמי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה רבי אבא בר ממל לרבי אמי השוכר פרה מחבירו והשאילה לאחר ומתה כדרכה ישבע השוכר שמתה כדרכה והשואל משלם לשוכר ואם איתא לימא ליה אין רצוני שיהא פקדוני ביד אחר אמר ליה הכא במאי עסקינן בשנתנו לו רשות הבעלים להשאיל

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami sat and stated this halakha. Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised an objection to Rabbi Ami from the mishna: In the case of one who rents a cow from another, and this renter lends it to another person, and the cow dies in its typical manner in the possession of the borrower, the halakha is that the renter takes an oath to the owner of the cow that the cow died in its typical manner, and the borrower pays the renter for the cow that he borrowed. And if the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan is so, let the owner say to the renter: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee, and the renter should be liable to pay because he violated the owner’s wishes. Rabbi Ami said to him: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owner gave the renter permission to lend the deposit to another.

אי הכי לבעלים בעי לשלומי דאמרו ליה לדעתך

The Gemara asks: If so, the borrower should be required to pay the owners, as the owner sanctioned the borrowing. Rabbi Abba bar Memel answers: The case in the mishna is one where the owner said to the renter: Lend this deposit to another at your discretion. Therefore, it is not considered as if the owner lent it to the borrower.

מתיב רמי בר חמא המפקיד מעות אצל חבירו צררן והפשילן לאחוריו מסרן לבנו ובתו הקטנים ונעל בפניהם שלא כראוי חייב שלא שמר כדרך השומרים

Rami bar Ḥama raises an objection from a mishna (42a): In the case of one who deposited coins with another, and that bailee bound it in a cloth and slung it behind him, or conveyed them to his minor son or daughter for safeguarding, or locked the door before the coins in an inappropriate, i. e., insufficient, manner to secure them, the bailee is liable to pay for the coins, as he did not safeguard the coins in the manner typical of bailees.

טעמא דקטנים הא גדולים פטור אמאי נימא ליה אין רצוני שיהא פקדוני ביד אחר

The Gemara infers: The reason he is liable to pay is that he conveyed the coins to his minor children, but if he conveyed them to his adult son or daughter he is exempt. Why? Let the owner say to him as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not my desire that my deposit be in the possession of another bailee, and therefore even if the children are adults the bailee should be liable to pay.

אמר רבא כל המפקיד

Rava said: No proof can be cited, as it is clear that in the case of anyone who deposits an item with another,