Bava Metzia 97A

דינא הכי ושתיק רב.

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.

והלכתא כרב כהנא ורב אסי, דמהדר ליה תבריה וממלי ליה דמי מנא.

The Talmud 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.

ההוא גברא דשאיל דוולא מחבריה, איתבר. אתא לקמיה דרב פפא. אמר ליה: אייתי סהדי דלא שנית ביה, ואיפטר.

The Talmud 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.

ההוא גברא דשאיל שונרא מחבריה, חבור עליה עכברי וקטלוה. יתיב רב אשי וקמיבעיא ליה: כי האי גוונא מאי? כי מתה מחמת מלאכה דמי, או לא? אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי הכי אמר אבימי מהגרוניא משמיה דרבא: גברא דנשי קטלוה ⁠– לא דינא ולא דיינא.

The Talmud 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.