Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WATCHING A MASHKON (cont.)

(a) Rejection #2: In the Mishnah, Reuven lent produce; in the Beraisa, he lent money.
(b) Question (next clause of the Mishnah - R. Yehudah): He is a Shomer Chinam if he lent him money, he is a Shomer Sachar if he lent him produce;

1. This implies that the first Tana does not distinguish between lending produce and money!

(c) Answer: The entire Mishnah is R. Yehudah; it is abbreviated, it should say thusly:

1. Reuven lent Shimon, taking a Mashkon - he is a Shomer Sachar;
2. This is if he lent produce - but if he lent him money, he is a Shomer Chinam, for R. Yehudah says he is a Shomer Chinam if he lent him money, he is a Shomer Sachar if he lent him produce.

(d) Question: If so, the Mishnah argues with R. Akiva!
(e) Answer: Indeed, we must say that the Mishnah argues with R. Eliezer (we assume that an unauthored Mishnah is R. Meir, in agreement with R. Akiva.)

(a) Suggestion: They argue about Shmuel's law, when the Mashkon is worth less than the loan.

1. (Shmuel): Reuven lent 1000 Zuz and took an axe handle as a Mashkon; if he loses the handle, he loses the whole loan. (R. Akiva holds as Shmuel; R. Eliezer argues, the Mashkon was only taken as a reminder of the loan.)

(b) Rejection: All disagree with Shmuel's law; if the Mashkon is worth less than the loan, all agree that he can still collect (according to R. Akiva, he deducts the value of the Mashkon);
(c) Rather, they argue about R. Yitzchak's law, when the Mashkon is worth the amount of the loan.

1. (R. Yitzchak): A lender acquires a Mashkon - "U'Lecha Tihyeh Tzedakah";

i. If he did not acquire it, returning it would not be called Tzedakah (since it belongs to the borrower. Some explain, the only reason "U'Veracheka" (the borrower may bless the lender, this is not usury of words) is because the lender acquires the Mashkon and lends it to the borrower (rental is permitted for loans of objects.)

(d) Rejection: R. Yitzchak only said this by a Mashkon taken after the loan (which the verse is discussing), not by a Mashkon taken at the time of the loan!

1. Rather, all agree to R. Yitzchak's law; they argue by a Mashkon taken at the time of the loan regarding one who guards a lost object.
2. (Rabah): One who guards a lost object is a Shomer Chinam;
3. (Rav Yosef): (Since he exempt from giving Tzedakah while caring for the lost object,) he is considered to be a Shomer Sachar.

(e) (Surely, R. Akiva argues on Rabah's law - he has no other way to explain the argument.)
(f) Suggestion: Rav Yosef must admit that R. Eliezer and R. Akiva argue about his law (R. Akiva agrees to it, R. Eliezer argues on it).
(g) Rejection: No - all can agree to his law;

1. They argue when the lender needs the Mashkon (Rashi - to use it; Tosfos - he would not lend without a Mashkon):

i. R. Akiva says that we still consider the loan to be a Mitzvah, therefore he is a Shomer Sachar (for Rav Yosef's reason);
ii. R. Eliezer does not consider it to be a Mitzvah, so he is a Shomer Chinam.

(h) (Mishnah): Aba Sha'ul says, a lender can rent out a poor person's Mashkon and deduct the money from the loan.
(i) (Rav Chanan bar Ami): The Halachah follows Aba Sha'ul.

1. Aba Sha'ul only permits renting out a Mashkon such as a hoe or axe, which yields a sizeable rental fee and yet does not depreciate significantly due to useage.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven was transporting a barrel, and broke it - whether he was a free or Shomer Sachar, he swears (that he was not negligent, and is exempt);
(b) R. Elazar: I heard that both are exempt - it is a wonder!
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Meir): Reuven was transporting a barrel, and broke it - whether he was a free or Shomer Sachar, he swears;
(d) R. Yehudah says, a Shomer Chinam swears, a Shomer Sachar must pay.
(e) (Mishnah - R. Elazar): I heard that both are exempt - it is a wonder!
(f) Question: Does R. Meir really hold that tripping is not considered negligence?!

1. Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Meir): Shimon's jug broke or his camel fell and he did not clear them off the public domain - he is liable for damage that results;
2. Chachamim say, Beis Din does not make him pay, but he is liable at the hands of Heaven.
3. We hold that they argue whether tripping is considered negligence!

(g) Answer #1 (R. Elazar (the Amora)): We must say that Tana'im argue about R. Meir's opinion;

1. R. Yehudah holds that tripping is not considered negligence - therefore, a Shomer Chinam is exempt, but a Shomer Sachar pays even if he was not negligent.
2. R. Elazar (the Tana) heard that the Halachah follows R. Meir, but he did not understand why.

i. Granted, tripping is not considered negligence, so a Shomer Chinam can swear - but a Shomer Sachar pays even if he was not negligent!
ii. Even regarding a Shomer Chinam - if he fell on an incline, this is Ones - but if he fell on level ground, this is negligence!
iii. Even on an incline - he can only swear where witnesses are not present - but if witnesses were there, he must bring witnesses!
iv. (Beraisa - Isi ben Yehudah): "Ein Ro'eh, he will swear" - if people did see, he must bring witnesses to be exempt.