Bava Metzia 94B

אבל שאל את הפרה ואחר כך שאל את הבעלים, או שכרן, ומתה ⁠– חייב, שנאמר: ״בעליו אין עמו שלם ישלם״.

But if one first borrowed the cow and only afterward borrowed the services of the owner or hired him, and the cow died, he is liable to pay the owner for the cow. This is the halakha even if the owner was working for the borrower at the time, as it is stated: “If its owner is not with him, he should pay” (Exodus 22:13).

גמ׳ מדקתני סיפא: ואחר כך שאל את הפרה, מכלל דרישא דקתני ״עמה״⁠ – עמה ממש. עמה ממש, מי משכחת לה פרה במשיכה, ובעלים באמירה?

Talmud: From the fact that the latter clause teaches: And afterward borrowed the cow, it may be inferred that when the first clause teaches: Borrowed its owner with it, the intention is: Literally with it, i.e., at the same moment. The Talmud asks: Can you find such a case where the owner obligates himself to serve the borrower literally with it? Given that one borrows the cow through pulling the cow and contracts the services of the owner through their verbal agreement, it emerges that if they agree to both matters at the same time, one borrows the services of the owner before he borrows the cow, which is the case mentioned in the latter clause of the Mishnah. What, then, is the case mentioned in the first clause?

איבעית אימא: כגון דקיימא פרה בחצרו דשואל, דלא מחסרא משיכה. איבעית אימא: דאמר ליה ״את גופך לא תשאל עד שעת משיכת פרתך״.

The Talmud answers: If you wish, say that the Mishnah is referring to a case such as where the cow is standing in the borrower’s courtyard, which can effect acquisition of the rights to use the cow for him, so that it does not lack, i.e., there is no need for, pulling. Accordingly, both the borrowing of the owner’s services and the borrowing of his cow will take effect simultaneously upon their agreement. Alternatively, if you wish, say that the case is where the borrower says to him: You, yourself, will not be lent to me until the moment of the pulling of your cow.