Previous daf

1)

(a) We have just discussed our Mishnah in detail. The Tana adds - that Shomrei Peiros may eat not according to Torah law, but because of Minhag.

(b) Rav confines this Halachah to laborers who are hired to guard Mechubar who cannot eat min ha'Torah - because it is prior to the G'mar Melachah.

(c) In a case where they are guarding Talush (such as the wine-press or piles of corn) - they can even eat min ha'Torah, because, in his opinion, we consider a guard as if he was actually performing a Melachah.

(d) Shmuel argues with Rav - in the last point. According to him, guarding is not considered a Melachah.

(a) Shmuel therefore confines the Din of our Mishnah to a Shomer Talush, but a Shomer Mechubar - may not even eat mi'de'Rabbanan either (see Maharam).

(b) The Beraisa - declares Tamei someone who guards a Parah Adumah (from Tum'ah, between the Shechitah until the gathering of its ashes), even to the extent that he renders his clothes Tamei too.

(c) Rav Acha bar Rav Huna asks from here on Shmuel, who does not consider guarding an act. Rabah bar Ula answers - that according to Shmuel, the Tana is referring (not to Tum'ah d'Oraysa, but) to Tum'ah de'Rabbanan, which Chazal decreed because of the likelihood of his inadvertently moving one of its limbs.

(a) Rav Kahana asks on Shmuel from another Beraisa. which states - that a laborer who is picking cucumbers from four or five cucumber fields belonging to as many different owners - is not permitted to eat his fill from one of the fields, but must distribute his eating to each of the fields.

(b) To accommodate Shmuel, Rav Shimi bar Ashi interprets the word 'Maksha'os' to mean - cucumbers that have already been picked.

(c) Nevertheless, they are not Nigmerah Melachto le'Ma'aser - because the Tana is speaking when their stalks have not yet been removed (which is the G'mar Melachah of cucumbers).

(a) Rav Ashi extrapolates from ...

1. ... the Reisha of our Mishnah 've'Eilu she'Ochlin min ha'Torah ... ' - that there are cases where one may only eat mi'de'Rabbanan.
2. ... the Seifa 've'Eilu she'Ein Ochlin - that in the cases listed in the Seifa (including Mechubar before the G'mar Melachah), one cannot eat at all (even mi'de'Rabbanan).

(b) We cannot extrapolate from the Seifa that they cannot eat min ha'Torah, but that they can eat mi'de'Rabbanan - because that would merely be repeating the Din of the Reisha.

(c) Rav Ashi knows that it is from Shomer Mechubar before the G'mar Melachah that he cannot eat even mi'de'Rabbanan, but that from Shomer Talush he can, and not vice-versa - because if, in the Seifa, the Tana does not even permit a laborer who has done *an act* to eat even mi'de'Rabbanan from Mechubar before the G'mar Melachah, then how much more so if he only guarded it.

(d) Rav Ashi has now proved - Shmuel right.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah lists four Shomrim. When he says that a Shomer Chinam is Patur from everything (when in fact, he is Chayav for negligence) - he means that he is Patur from all the cases that the Torah specifically obligates by the other Shomrim (and Peshi'ah (negligence) is not written explicitly.

(b)

1. A Sho'el is - liable for everything (theft, loss and O'nes).
2. A Nosei Sachar and a Socher are - Patur from breakage and death (O'nes), but Chayav for theft and loss.

(a) We inquire who the author of our Mishnah is who lists four Shomrim. This question cannot be taken literally - because everyone agrees that there are four Shomrim. What we are really asking is - who is the author of our Mishnah who compares a Socher to a Shomer Sachar.

(b) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah reply that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir, and that Rebbi Yehudah therefore holds - that a Socher has the Din of a Shomer Chinam.

(c) The problem with this is - that we have a Beraisa which presents their opinions the other way round.

(d) We resolve the problem - by pointing out that Rabah bar Avuhah inverts the opinions in the Beraisa (no doubt, in order to establish our S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Meir).

(e) When our Mishnah lists four Shomrim - it means literally what it says, despite the fact that there are only three Dinim.

7)

(a) When that shepherd was grazing his flocks on the banks of the River Papa - one of the sheep slipped and fell into the water and drowned.

(b) Rabah exempted him from paying - because he guarded the sheep in the same way as all the shepherds did (in which case the accident was considered an O'nes).

(c) Abaye asked him whether if a shepherd went into town and left the sheep unguarded or if he took a nap 'like everyone does', he would also be Patur - to which he replied in the affirmative.

(a) From the Beraisa which cites the Pasuk in Iyov where 'a band of robbers who took the animals and killed the youths' as an example of O'nes for which a Shomer Sachar is exempt, we can imply - that for a lesser Shemirah than that, a Shomer Sachar would be liable (a Kashya on Rabah).

(b) Rabah will therefore establishes the Beraisa - by a security guard who is paid to guard the town at night time, and in whom the entire town rely on him (in which case, his obligations exceed that of a regular Shomer Sachar).

(c) We ask a similar Kashya on Rabah from the Pasuk in Va'yeitzei, where Ya'akov told Lavan how he had suffered from the heat by day and the frost by night. Although Ya'akov was not actually a town security guard - he was telling Lavan that at the time, he had undertaken the responsibilities of one.

(a) In a case where a shepherd who left the flock and took a trip into town, and a wolf or a lion came and killed one of the sheep - he is not automatically liable for forsaking the sheep, says the Tana, but only if, according to our assessment, he would have been able to save the sheep had he been there.

(b) Rabah will establish this Beraisa - when the shepherd took his trip at a time when it was not customary to do so.

(c) The problem with this is - why the Tana then exempts him in a case where he would not have been to save the sheep anyway. Why is this not 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah, ve'Sofo be'Ones', for which a Shomer is liable, as we learned earlier in the Masechta?

(d) Rabah will answer - that he did not simply forsake his flock, but fled to the safety of the town when he heard a lion roaring.

(a) The point of the assessment is - whether he could not have enlisted the help of other shepherds in the vicinity to help drive the lion away.

(b) A Shomer Chinam would be liable too, if, in the same circumstances, he was able to obtain help from his fellow shepherds with their sticks - only, as Rabah himself explains, whereas he would not be obligated to offer to pay the shepherds for their services, a Shomer Sachar would.

(c) A Shomer Sachar is of course, not liable for Onsin - and his obligation to offer his own money for help is part of his Shemirah. He later reclaims the money from the owner. He is obligated to offer the shepherds up to the value of the sheep that is under attack.

(d) Rav Papa asked Abaye what the owner gains if the Shomer presents him with a bill to the value of his animal, to which he replied - that a. the owner would prefer his own animal (with which he is acquainted to a strange one), and b. he would rather be spared the trouble of having to purchase a new one.

(a) Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna disagree with Rabah. According to them - a Shomer Sachar is not automatically Patur if he follows the custom of other Shomrim under the same circumstances, because since the owner pays him for his services, he expects him to look after the article properly.

(b) bar Ada S'vula'a was taking the animals he was guarding over the bridge of Neresh - when one animal pushed the other off the bridge into the water below, where it drowned.

(c) Rav Papa obligated him to pay - because he should have taken them across one by one.

(d) When bar Ada S'vula'a claimed that it was too much trouble to do that , Rav Papa replied - that many before him had made the same complaint, but that it hadn't helped them one bit.

(a) When Shavu stole the flax that Eyvu had placed for safekeeping with Runya (without pay), and the identity of the robber became known, Rav Nachman ruled - that he was obligated to pay, and that the onus of claiming from Shavu lay on him.

(b) Rav Huna bar Avin rules that in a case where an article of safekeeping is stolen be'O'nes from the house of ...

1. ... a Shomer Chinam, he has the option of swearing that it was indeed stolen, or he must pay and claim the money from the Ganav.
2. ... a Shomer Sachar - he has only the second option.

(c) Rava reconciled Rav Nachman with Rav Huna bar Avin - by establishing his case when there were members of the police on hand, in which case Runya was negligent for not having shouted for help.

(a) Everyone agrees that one wolf is not considered an O'nes. The Tana Kama of our Mishnah considers two wolves an O'nes. According to Rebbi Yehudah however, even one wolf is considered an O'nes - during a plague of wolves.

(b) Even two dogs however, are not considered an O'nes, according to the Tana Kama. Yadua ha'Bavli in the name of Rebbi Meir however, considers even two dogs an O'nes - if they attack from opposite directions.

(c) The Tana considers an attack by ...

1. ... a robber - an O'nes.
2. ... a lion, a bear, a tiger, a polecat (or hyena) or a snake - an O'nes.

(d) All of these however, are not considered an O'nes - if the shepherd took his flock into their territory.

(a) If a sheep dies naturally, it is considered an O'nes, but not if the shepherd tortured it and it died. If the animal ascended the mountain and fell, it is an O'nes, but not if the shepherd led it up. When the Tana speaks about the animal ascending the mountain, he means - that it dragged the shepherd up the mountain, and he was unable to restrain it.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Beraisa which considers one wolf an O'nes - like Rebbi Yehudah, during a plague of wolves.

(c) We ruled that if the flock is attacked by a robber, this is an O'nes. The reason we do not obligate the shepherd to pit his own strength against one attacker is - because the Tana is speaking about an armed robber.

(d) We ask what the Din will be if both the shepherd and the robber are armed, and we conclude that this is indeed an O'nes - because the robber, who is desperate, has come to kill or to be killed, whereas the shepherd is under no obligation to give up his life for the sheep.

(e) Abaye asked Rava what the Din will be if the shepherd met the robber, and after showing him the location of his camp, he warned him that their camp comprised so many shepherds, and that they had so many dogs and weapons between them. Rava replied that in the event that the robber subsequently stole his sheep - the shepherd would be considered negligent, for having divulged the location of their camp.