Bava Metzia 99A

גמ׳ ביד עבדו ⁠– חייב, יד עבד כיד רבו!

Talmud: The Mishnah states that if the borrower agrees to have the lender send the cow by the hand of the lender’s slave, and it died on the way, then the borrower is liable. The Talmud asks: But isn’t the hand of a slave legally like the hand of his master; as long as the cow is in the possession of the lender’s slave, it is not considered to have left the lender’s possession. Why, then, is the borrower liable?

אמר שמואל: בעבד עברי, דלא קני ליה גופיה. רב אמר: אפילו תימא בעבד כנעני, נעשה כאומר ליה: הכישה במקל והיא תבא.

The Talmud presents two resolutions: Shmuel said: The Mishnah is referring to a Hebrew slave, whose master does not acquire his person. Therefore, property in the slave’s possession is not considered to be in his master’s possession. Rav said: You may even say that the Mishnah is referring to a Canaanite slave, as this case may be considered like one in which the borrower said to the lender: Hit the cow with a stick and then it will come on its own to me. Just as in that case the borrower is liable once the cow leaves the lender’s domain, so too in this case he is liable once the cow leaves the lender’s domain, irrespective of the fact it was brought by the lender’s slave.

מיתיבי: השואל הפרה ושלחה לו ביד בנו, ביד שלוחו ⁠– חייב. ביד עבדו ⁠– פטור.

The Talmud raises an objection from a baraita: If one borrows a cow; and, with the agreement of the borrower, the lender sends it to him by the hand of his son or by the hand of his agent; and it dies on the way, then the borrower is liable. If the lender sent it by the hand of his slave, then the borrower is exempt. The final clause appears to contradict the Mishnah’s ruling.