Bava Metzia page 35b. I use an argument between Reb Aaron Kotler and Rav Shach to explain the argument in the Mishna between R Jose and the sages (the tana kama)

A hirer of an animal loans out the animal to a borrower and it dies, (Bava Metzia page 35b). The sages say the hirer takes an oath that it was not his fault, and the borrower pays the hirer. R Jose disagrees, and asks how can the hirer make business with someone else's animal? There are two ways of understanding this. Tosphot on the page says the argument is the same one as brought later in the Gemara. When does the transfer of responsibility happen, at the time of the oath or of the moment the animal died? (The Ran (on the Rif) and other Rishonim disagree.) Rav Shach brings the idea of Reb Aaron Kotler that a claim of an unforeseen accident is not a valid claim, but also shows how it can be considered a valid claim and that both R Yose, and the sages might agree with this. To me it seems best to say that that in itself is the exact argument between R Yose and the sages. Thus, To the sages, we start off with the assumption that the claim of and unforeseen accident is valid. We just require an oath to make doubly sure. That is that the transfer of monetary responsibility happened when the animal died. To R jose the claim in itself is not considered valid. Thus, the owner can tell the hirer to not take an oath and he will collect from the borrower directly. ------------------------------------------------A שוכר of an animal loans out the animal to a שואל and it dies, (בבא מציעא ל''ה ע''ב). The חכמים say the שוכר takes an oath that it was not his fault, and the borrower pays the שוכר. HOWEVERר’ יוסי , disagrees, and asks "How can the שוכר make business with someone else's animal?" There are two ways of understanding this. תוספות on the דף says the argument is the same one as brought later in the גמרא. When does the transfer of responsibility happen, at the time of the oath or of the moment the animal died? (The ר''ן (on the רי''ף) and other ראשונים disagree.) רב שך brings the idea of ר' אהרן קוטלר that a claim of an unforeseen accident אונסים גדולים is not a valid claim, but also shows how it can be considered a valid claim and that both ר' יוסי, and the חכמים might agree with this. To me it seems best to say that that in itself is the exact argument between ר' יוסי and the חכמים. Thus, To the חכמים, we start off with the assumption that the claim of and unforeseen accident (אונסים גדולים)is valid. We just require an oath to make doubly sure. That is that the transfer of monetary responsibility happened when the animal died. To ר’ יוסי the claim in itself is not considered valid. Thus, the owner can tell the שוכר to not take an oath, and he will collect from the borrower directly. [The background here is that a hirerשוכר takes an oath in a case of unforeseen accidents אונסים גדולים but a borrower שואלalways pays no matter what the circumstances were.] I admit that this might have been what Rav Shach meant himself, but I did not see it there. To me it seemed that he was explaining both R Jose and the sages as thinking large unforeseen accidents are valid claim even before pleas are entered to the court.--------I admit that this might have been what רב שך meant , but I did not see it there. To me, it seemed that he was explaining both ר' יוסי and the תנא קמא as thinking אונסים גדולים are valid claims even before pleas are entered to the court.