A
man borrowed a cow for half a day and rented it for half a day, and the
cow died. The lender claims, “It died while being borrowed,” making the
borrower liable, but the borrower says “I don't know” - the borrower is
liable.
Can
we disprove from here the following ruling of Rav Nachman? If one
claims to another, “you owe me a maneh (100 zuz)” and the other one
says, “I don't know if I owe you” - the defendant is NOT liable. But in
the first ruling he is!
Rav
Nachman will answer that the first ruling is talking about two cows,
and about one of them the borrower agrees to his liability. This makes
it a case of borrower admitting in part, so that he has to swear, but not knowing about the second claim, he can't swear and thus has to pay.