Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHEN IS HE NO LONGER A SHOMER SACHAR?

(a) Version #1 - Question (Rav Nachman bar Papa - Mishnah): Anyone who told the owner 'Take your item and pay', he is a Shomer Chinam.

1. Inference: If he only said 'I finished it', he is still a Shomer Sachar.

(b) Answer: No - rather, we infer, if he said 'Pay me and take your item' (he keeps the item as security for his wages), he is a Shomer Sachar.
(c) Question: But if he said 'I finished it', he would be a Shomer Chinam?!

1. If so, why does it teach regarding 'Take your item and pay', he is a Shomer Chinam - it should teach, if he said 'I finished it', he is a Shomer Chinam, all the more so, 'Take your item and pay'!

(d) Answer: We must teach 'Take your item and pay'.

1. One might have thought, he is not even a Shomer Chinam - the Mishnah teaches, this is not so.

(e) Version #2 - Support (Rav Nachman bar Papa - Mishnah): Anyone who told the owner 'Take your item and pay', he is a Shomer Chinam.

1. Suggestion: The same applies if he only said 'I finished it'.

(f) Rejection: No - 'Take your item' is different.
(g) (Huna Mar bar Mereimar): In our Mishnah, also if he only said 'I finished it', he is a Shomer Chinam.
(h) Contradiction (Huna Mar - Mishnah): If Reuven told Shimon 'Send your animal (for me to borrow)' and it died on the way, Reuven is liable;

1. Similarly, if Reuven sent it back and it died on the way, he is liable. (We do not say, when he finishes using it, he is only a Shomer Chinam!)

(i) Answer (Huna Mar): Rafram bar Papa taught, this is only if he returned it within the time he borrowed it for - after this, he is exempt.
(j) Question: Is he exempt from liability of a borrower and liable like a Shomer Sachar, or is he totally exempt?
(k) Answer (Ameimar): Presumably, he is liable as a Shomer Sachar, since he already benefited.
(l) Support (Beraisa): Reuven took vessels from a craftsman to send them to his father-in-law. He stipulated: if he likes them, I will buy them; if not, I will give you the benefit I got (from showing my father-in-law that I wanted to give him a gift). If Ones occurred on the way to his father-in-law, Reuven is liable; on the way back he is exempt, for he is a Shomer Sachar.
(m) Yehudah sold wine to Levi, who said that he will try to sell it in a certain place; if he fails, he will return it. He failed to sell it; Ones occurred on the way back.

1. (Rav Nachman): Levi is liable.
2. Question (Rava - Beraisa): If Ones occurred on the way, he is liable; on the way back he is exempt, for he is a Shomer Sachar
3. Answer (Rav Nachman): Here, even on the way back is like on the way, for he would sell it on the way back if he could.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven told Shimon 'Guard for me and I will guard for you' - they are paid watchmen.
(b) Question: But this is guarding b'Ba'alim (for one's employee, for which one is exempt)!
(c) Answer (Rav Papa): He said, 'Guard for me today and I will guard for you tomorrow' - when he was guarding, the owner was not guarding for him.
(d) (Beraisa): 'Guard for me and I will guard for you', 'Lend me and I will lend you', 'Guard for me and I will lend you'. 'Lend me and I will guard for you' - they are all paid watchmen for each other.
(e) Question: But this is guarding b'Ba'alim!
(f) Answer (Rav Papa): He said, 'Guard for me today and I will guard for you tomorrow'.
(g) Version #1: There were sellers of aloe that used to take turns baking for each other. One day, they asked Reuven to bake; he asked them to guard his garment; they were negligent, and it was stolen.

1. (Rav Papa): They are liable.
2. Objection (Rabanan): But this is negligence b'Ba'alim!
3. Rav Papa was embarrassed.

i. It was later found that Reuven was drinking beer (not working for them) at the time of the theft (and indeed, they are liable).

(h) This is according to the opinion that negligence b'Ba'alim is exempt.
(i) Question: According to the opinion that negligence b'Ba'alim is liable, why was Rav Papa embarrassed?
(j) Answer - Version #2: Rather, that day was not his day to bake; he agreed to bake if they would watch his garment as wages for his baking. It was stolen (without negligence).

1. (Rav Papa): They are liable.
2. Objection (Rabanan): But this is guarding b'Ba'alim! 3. Rav Papa was embarrassed.

i. It was later found that Reuven was drinking beer at the time of the theft.

(k) Reuven (a tall man) was riding on a donkey, wearing a linen garment; Shimon (a short man) was walking by foot, wearing a wool coat. They came to a river; Shimon put his coat on the donkey (lest it become waterlogged); he borrowed Reuven's garment, it got washed away.
(l) (Rava): Shimon is liable.

1. Objection (Rabanan): But this is guarding b'Ba'alim!
2. Rava was embarrassed.

i. It was later found that Shimon put his coat on the donkey and took Reuven's garment without asking.

(a) Reuven rented his donkey to Shimon, warning him not to go near the Pekod river, for it is wet there. Shimon went there; the donkey died.
(b) Shimon: It was dry there!
(c) Rabah: We believe him - if he wanted to lie, he could have said that he did not go there!
(d) Objection (Abaye): We do not apply Migo (to believe someone because if he wanted to lie, he could have lied better) against witnesses (we all know that it is wet by the river).

(a) (Mishnah):Reuven told Shimon 'Guard this for me', Shimon said 'Leave it in front of me' - he is a Shomer Chinam.
(b) (Rav Huna): If Shimon said 'Leave it in front of yourself' - he is neither a free nor Shomer Sachar.
(c) Question: What if he just said 'Leave it'?
(d) Answer #1 (Mishnah):Reuven told Shimon 'Guard this for me', Shimon said 'Leave it in front of me' - he is a Shomer Chinam;

1. Inference: Had he not said 'in front of me', he would not be a Shomer at all!

(e) Rejection: But Rav Huna taught, if Shimon said 'Leave it in front of yourself' - he is neither a free nor Shomer Sachar;

1. Inference: Had he not said 'in front of yourself', he would be a Shomer Chinam!

(f) The inferences contradict each other, we cannot determine which is valid.
(g) Suggestion: Tana'im argue about this.

1. (Mishnah): If Shimon had permission to bring his produce or ox (into Shimon's Chatzer), Reuven is liable (if it is damaged);
2. Rebbi says, in all cases one is not liable unless he accepted responsibility for the other's property.

(h) Rejection #1: Perhaps Chachamim only say regarding a Chatzer, where things are easily guarded, that saying 'Come in' is acceptance to guard - but in the market, 'Leave it' means 'Guard it yourself'!
(i) Rejection #2: Perhaps Rebbi only says regarding a Chatzer, where one needs permission to enter, that 'Come in' means 'You may enter, but guard it yourself' - but in the market, 'Leave it' means 'I will guard it' - we cannot say, he gives him permission to enter!

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven lent Shimon, taking a Mashkon - he is a Shomer Sachar on it.
(b) Suggestion: Our Mishnah argues with R. Eliezer.

1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Reuven lent Shimon, taking a Mashkon; he lost the Mashkon. He swears (that he lost it) and collects the debt; (He is only a Shomer Chinam, because the Mashkon is not for collection, only a reminder of the loan.)
2. R. Akiva says, he only lent on account of the Mashkon - now that he lost it, he lost the loan.
3. If there was also a loan document, all agree that it was for collection, he is a Shomer Sachar, he lost the loan.

(c) Rejection #1: Our Mishnah agrees with R. Eliezer - he is discussing a Mashkon taken at the time of the loan;

1. Our Mishnah is discussing a Mashkon taken after the loan was given - that is surely for collection.
2. Objection: But the Mishnah and Beraisa both say 'Reuven lent Shimon, taking a Mashkon' (which connotes, at the time of the loan)!