Is this the halakha? Is it not sufficient to pay him the difference between the broken ax’s previous and current value? And Rav was silent; he did not answer.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, that he returns to him the broken tool and makes up the remainder of the tool’s previous value with a monetary payment.

The Gemara relates: A certain man borrowed a pail from another and it broke. He came before Rav Pappa for judgment. Rav Pappa said to him: Bring witnesses that you did not deviate from its regular use, and you will be exempt from liability, as this is comparable to a case of a borrowed animal that died due to ordinary labor.

The Gemara relates: A certain man borrowed a cat from another to hunt and kill mice for him. The mice banded together against it and killed it. Rav Ashi sat and raised a dilemma: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Is this case comparable to a case where a borrowed animal died due to ordinary labor, or not? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronya said this in the name of Rava: With regard to a man who women killed, there is a need for neither judgment nor a judge, i.e., it is obvious that they are liable. In this case as well, it is obvious that the borrower may bring the cat to hunt mice, and he is therefore exempt from liability.

There are those who say that the incident actually occurred as follows: The cat ate many mice, and was harmed by doing so and died. Rav Ashi sat and deliberated: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronya said this: With regard to a man who overindulged in sexual intercourse to the extent that women killed him by exhausting him, there is neither judgment nor judge, i.e., there is no redress since it is his own fault.

Rava says: With regard to one who wants to borrow something from another and be exempt from liability, let him say to the lender at the time of borrowing: Pour me water. He will thereby be exempt, as it is then a case of borrowing an item and borrowing or hiring the services of its owner with it.

And if the lender is perspicacious and wishes to prevent the borrower from being exempt from liability, let him say to him: Borrow the item first and then I will pour the water for you. Since the owner will not yet be working for the borrower at the time of the borrowing, the exemption does not apply.

Rava says: A teacher of children, the local gardener, the local butcher, and the local bloodletter, and a scribe of the city, with regard to all of them, if someone borrows an item from them at the time of their work, he is exempt from liability, as the case is comparable to borrowing an item and borrowing or hiring its owner with it. This people are always considered in the employ of the residents of the place where they work.

The Gemara relates: The Rabbis said to Rava: Master, you are lent to us to teach us Torah, and so if we borrow an item from you, we should be exempt from liability. These Rabbis stated this based on Rava’s own ruling. Rava was angered by this and said to them: Do you want to take my money away from me? On the contrary, I am not lent to you; rather, you are lent to me, since you assist me in consolidating my Torah knowledge. And this is the proof that it is you who are assisting me: Whereas I am able to deflect you from one tractate to another tractate because I am not obligated to teach specifically that which you want to learn, you are not able to deflect me from what I wish to teach.

The Gemara comments: But it is not so that a teacher is never lent to his students. During the days of the kalla, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar, the teacher is required to teach a specific subject, and therefore he is lent to them. During the rest of the days of the year, they are lent to him, as he can teach whatever subject matter he wishes.

The Gemara relates: Mareimar bar Ḥanina rented out a mule to the residents of Bei Ḥozai. He went out to raise up a load onto the mule together with those who rented it. Later they were negligent with the animal, and it died. They came before Rava for judgment, and he deemed them liable to pay. The Sages said to Rava: This is a case of a mishap that occurred due to a renter’s negligence in safeguarding a deposit that was rented together with its owner, and the halakha in such a case is that the renter is exempt. Rava was embarrassed that he had ruled incorrectly. Ultimately it was revealed that Mareimar bar Ḥanina had gone out only to supervise the loading but did not actually participate in loading the animal. Accordingly, Rava’s ruling that the renters were liable proved to be correct.

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that in a case of a mishap that occurred because of a borrower’s negligence in safeguarding a deposit that was borrowed together with its owner, the borrower is exempt; for that reason Rava was embarrassed for ruling incorrectly. But according to the one who says that in such a case the borrower is liable, why was he embarrassed; wouldn’t it appear that he ruled correctly?

The Gemara emends the details of the incident: Those that rented the mule were not negligent with it. Rather, it was stolen from them and then it died naturally in the house of the thief. And those who rented the mule came before Rava for judgment, and he deemed them liable. The Sages said to Rava: This is a case of theft of a deposit that was borrowed together with borrowing the services of the owner, and so the borrower should be exempt. Rava was embarrassed that he had ruled incorrectly. Ultimately it was revealed that Mareimar bar Ḥanina had gone out only to supervise the loading but did not actually participate in loading the animal. Accordingly, Rava’s ruling proved to be correct.

MISHNA: There is one who borrowed a cow. He borrowed it for half of the day and rented it for the other half of the day; or he borrowed it for today and rented it for tomorrow; or he rented one cow and borrowed another one from the same person. And in one of the first two cases, the cow died and it is not clear during which period the cow died. Or in the last case, one of the cows died and it is not clear whether it had been the borrowed cow or the rented cow. If the lender then says: The borrowed cow is the one that died; or: It died on the day that it was being borrowed;