אגביה איהו בחובו פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר הדרה וחד אמר לא הדרה

With regard to a case where the debtor, not the court, authorized his creditor to repossess the land for his debt, and now he seeks to pay his debt and reclaim it, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree. One says: If he pays the debt, the repossession based on the appraisal is reversed and he reclaims the land. And one says: The repossession based on the appraisal is not reversed.

מאן דאמר לא הדרה סבר האי זביני מעליא היא דהא מדעתא דנפשיה אגביה ומאן דאמר הדרה סבר לא זביני מעליא הוא והאי דאגביה מדעתיה ולא אתא לדינא מחמת כיסופא הוא דאגביה

The Gemara elaborates: The one who says that the repossession based on the appraisal is not reversed holds that this is a full-fledged sale, as he authorized the repossession at his own initiative. Consequently, he cannot retract it. And the one who says that the repossession based on the appraisal is reversed holds that it is not a full-fledged sale. And the fact that he authorized the repossession at his initiative and did not wait to come to court for a ruling that his land be repossessed does not make it a full-fledged sale. It was only due to his desire to avoid embarrassment that he authorized the repossession.

ומאימת אכיל פירי רבה אמר מכי מטיא אדרכתא לידיה אביי אמר עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו

The Gemara clarifies the halakhot of repossession: And when a creditor repossesses the debtor’s land, from when does he consume the produce of that land? Rabba said: He consumes the produce from the time when the document of authorization reaches his possession. This is a document that authorizes him to repossess the property of the debtor in payment of the debt wherever that property is located. Abaye said: He need not wait until he receives that document. Rather, the document’s witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the debtor’s land on his behalf. From the moment they sign the document, the land is his.

רבא אמר מכי שלימו ימי אכרזתא

Rava said: He consumes the produce from the time when the days of proclamation conclude. After property belonging to the debtor is located, the court proclaims that the property will be auctioned to raise funds to repay the debt. Therefore, even after the document of authorization reaches him, the creditor is not entitled to the produce, as someone else may purchase it. If the creditor enters the highest bid, he is entitled to the produce.

מתני׳ השוכר פרה מחבירו והשאילה לאחר ומתה כדרכה ישבע השוכר שמתה כדרכה והשואל ישלם לשוכר אמר רבי יוסי כיצד הלה עושה סחורה בפרתו של חבירו אלא תחזור פרה לבעלים

MISHNA: In the case of one who rents a cow from another, and this renter then lends it to another person, and the cow dies in its typical manner, i. e., of natural causes, in the possession of the borrower, 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. A renter is exempt in a case of damage due to circumstances beyond his control, including death, but a borrower is liable to compensate the owner even for damage due to circumstances beyond his control. Rabbi Yosei said: How does the other party, i. e., the renter, do business with and profit from another’s cow? Rather, the value of the cow should be returned to the owner. The renter need not take an oath, but the borrower must compensate the owner of the cow.

גמ׳ אמר ליה רב אידי בר אבין לאביי מכדי שוכר במאי קני להאי פרה בשבועה

GEMARA: Rav Idi bar Avin said to Abaye: After all, with regard to the renter, with what does he acquire this cow to the extent that one who borrows the cow from him is liable to compensate him if it dies? He acquires it with an oath that he took to the owner of the cow that the cow died of natural causes.

ונימא ליה משכיר לשוכר דל אנת ודל שבועתך ואנא משתעינא דינא בהדי שואל אמר ליה מי סברת שוכר בשבועה הוא דקא קני לה משעת מיתה הוא דקני ושבועה כדי להפיס דעתו של בעל הבית

The Gemara asks: But since the acquisition is effected by the renter’s oath, let the one who rented his animal for hire say to the renter: Remove yourself and remove your oath. I do not want to deal with you at all in this case, and I will litigate with the borrower to recover my cow. Abaye said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Do you hold that it is with an oath that the renter acquires the cow? That is not so, as from the moment of the cow’s death, the renter acquires the cow. From the moment the cow dies in the possession of the borrower, the renter has the right to receive another cow in exchange. And this oath that the renter takes to the owner of the cow is not required by the halakha. Rather, he takes the oath to alleviate the concerns of the owner, so that the owner will not suspect him of negligence. Consequently, the owner of the cow cannot litigate with the borrower, and even if he waives his right to demand an oath from the renter, he is unable to receive a cow from the borrower.

אמר רבי זירא פעמים שהבעלים משלמין כמה פרות לשוכר היכי דמי אגרה מיניה מאה יומי והדר שיילה מיניה תשעין יומי הדר אגרה מיניה תמנן יומי והדר שיילה מיניה שבעין יומי ומתה בתוך ימי שאלתה דאכל שאלה ושאלה מיחייב חדא פרה

Rabbi Zeira says: According to the halakha in the mishna, there are times when the owner pays several cows to the renter. What are the circumstances? In a case where the renter rented a cow from him for one hundred days, and the owner of the cow then borrowed that cow from the renter for ninety days, and the renter then rented that cow from the owner for eighty days, and the latter then borrowed that cow from the renter for seventy days, and that cow died within the seventy-day period of its borrowing, then for each and every occasion of borrowing of the cow, the owner, who then became the borrower, owes one cow. Since there were two discrete acts of borrowing and two discrete acts of rental, the owner owes him four cows, two outright as compensation for the borrowed cows that died, and two cows for the renter to use for the duration of his rental periods.

אמר ליה רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא מכדי חדא פרה היא עיילה ואפקה אפקה משכירות ועיילה לשאילה אפקה משאילה ועיילה לשכירות אמר ליה ומי איתא לפרה בעינא דנימא ליה הכי

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina concerning this halakha: After all, it is one cow, and he introduced it into one legal status and removed it from another legal status. He removed it from the status of rental and he introduced it into the status of borrowing; he removed it from the status of borrowing and introduced it into the status of rental. How then does the owner pay multiple cows for one cow? Ravina said to Rav Aḥa: And is the cow intact so that the owner could say this to the renter: Here is your cow? Since the borrower cannot return the cow to the creditor, he is liable to return that which he committed to return, and he committed to return two cows, not one.

מר בר רב אשי אמר אין לו עליהן אלא שתי פרות חדא דשאלה וחדא דשכירות שום שאלה אחת היא ושום שכירות אחת היא דשאלה קני לגמרי דשכירות עבד בה ימי שכירותיה ומיהדר ליה למרה

Mar bar Rav Ashi said a third opinion: The renter has against the owner only a claim of two cows, one for the borrowing done by the owner, and one for fulfillment of his rental agreement. This is because the category of borrowing is one and the category of rental is one. As for the cow that is repayment for the borrowing, the renter acquires it completely. And as for the one for the rental, he works with it for the duration of its rental period and then he returns it to its owner.

אמר רבי ירמיה פעמים ששניהם בחטאת

Apropos the situations described in the mishna, Rabbi Yirmeya says: If the renter and the borrower each took a false oath and are liable to bring offerings for their false oaths, there are times that both are liable to bring a sin-offering;