Previous daf

1)

(a) The Torah specifically obligates a Sho'el to pay for Shevurah u'Meisah. We cannot however, learn Geneivah va'Aveidah from them - because maybe the Torah confines the obligation to pay to the former, which the owner cannot retrieve (in their original state), unlike the latter, which he can (in which case the Torah might have placed the onus of retrieving the article on the owner.

(b) The Beraisa in fact, learns Geneivah va'Aveidah by Sho'el from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Shomer Sachar - who is Chayav, even though he is Patur from Shevurah u'Meisah, how much more so a Sho'el, who is Chayav for Shevurah u'Meisah.

(c) The Tana concludes 've'Zu Hi 'Kal va'Chomer' she'Ein Alav Teshuvah'. Otherwise, we might have asked a Pircha based on the fact that a Shomer Sachar has a Chumra over Sho'el, inasmuch as he pays Kefel by To'en Ta'anas Listim Mezuyan (which is an O'nes, yet it has the Din of a Ganav).

(d) The Tana dismisses this Kashya either because 'Karna be'Lo Shevu'ah Adifa mi'Kefeila bi'Shevu'ah' - or because he considers an armed robber to be a Gazlan (who does not pay Kefel).

(a) When we ask (with regard to Geneivah va'Aveidah by a Sho'el) 'Ashkechan le'Chumra, le'Kula Minalan', we mean - 'From where do we know that he is Patur be'Ba'alim?

(b) We cannot learn it from Shevurah u'Meisah, where the Torah specifically exempts a Sho'el be'Ba'alim - because Shevurah has the intrinsic leniency of being an O'nes.

(c) So we learn it from the equivalent case by Shomer Sachar, whose P'tur be'Ba'alim we initially learn - from a Sho'el (where the Torah exempts Shevurah u'Meisah be'Ba'alim).

(d) If we cannot learn Shomer Sachar from Sho'el with a 'Mah Matzinu' (for the reason that we just explained by Sho'el itself), we learn it - from the extra 'Vav' in "*ve*'Chi Yish'al Ish", which joins the Parshah of Sho'el to the preceding Parshah of Shomer Sachar with the power of a Hekesh.

(a) We cannot now learn the P'tur of Geneivah be'Ba'alim by Sho'el from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Shomer Sachar - because the latter has a leniency which the former does not have, inasmuch as it is Patur by Shevurah u'Meisah.

(b) So we learn it from the Chiyuv of Geneivah va'Aveidah by a Sho'el, which as we learned earlier, we derive from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Shomer Sachar. We learn the P'tur of be'Ba'alim from there, too ...

1. ... initially - via the principle of 'Dayo', which limits the Chiyuv to where it is not be'Ba'alim (like the Chiyuv of Shomer Sachar).
2. ... even according to those who do not hold of 'Dayo' (see Tosfos DH 'Hanicha') - by applying the principle of 'Vav Mosif' (that we just discussed) to learn Sho'el from Shomer Sachar (lock, stock and barrel), like we learned Shomer Sachar from Sho'el.

(c) And we cannot query this Limud with the Kashya 'Mah le'Shomer Sachar she'Kein Patur bi'Shevurah u'Meisah' - because, as already mentioned, 'Vav Mosif' has the Din of a Hekesh, in which case we will apply the principle 'Ein Mashivin al ha'Hekesh'.

(a) Rav Acha and Ravina argue over Peshi'ah be'Ba'alim. One of them maintains that the Shomer is Chayav - because he holds 'Mikra Nidrash Lefanav ve'Lo Lifnei Fanav' (meaning that the Torah only compares the Parshah that precedes that of the Sho'el [Shomer Sachar] to a Sho'el, but not the Parshah that comes before that [ of a Shomer Chinam], which does not have an extra 'Vav').

(b) We know the Chiyuv of Peshi'ah by Shomer Sachar and Sho'el - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Shomer Chinam.

(c) The P'tur of Peshi'ah be'Ba'alim (which is written by them) does not pertain to Peshi'ah as well - because it is confined to those obligations that are written explicitly by them.

(d) The other one includes Peshi'ah in the Din of be'Ba'alim, because he holds - 'Mikra Nidrash Lefanav ve'Lifnei Fanav' (having indicated that the second and the third Parshah are connected, it follows that the first Parshah is connected with them too.

(a) We try and prove from our Mishnah, which presents all the cases of Shemirah be'Ba'alim by Sho'el, but does not mention a Shomer Chinam - that the first of the two previous opinions is right.

(b) We counter this proof however - by pointing out that he does not mention a Shomer Sachar either, yet everyone agrees that a Shomer Sachar is Patur from Geneivah va'Aveidah be'Ba'alim.

(c) And the reason that the Tana does not discuss the Din of be'Ba'alim by the other Shomrim is - because he is only discussing the cases of be'Ba'alim which are written explicitly in the Torah.

6)

(a) The Beraisa, discussing the P'tur of Ba'alim, lists all the combinations of borrowing and hiring, regarding both the cow and the owner. Assuming that the author is Rebbi Yehudah (who holds Socher ke'Shomer Sachar), we prove - that the Din of Shemirah be'Ba'alim does not extend to a Shomer Chinam (because 'Mikra Nidrash Lefanav ve'Lo Lifnei Fanav'), in which case 'Peshi'ah be'Ba'alim will be Chayav.

(b) We presume the author to be Rebbi Yehudah - on the grounds that Rebbi Yehudah is the author of many Beraisos (whereas Rebbi Meir is not).

(c) We counter this proof however, by establishing the author as Rebbi Meir. In fact though, we could establish it even like Rebbi Yehudah - according to Rabah bar Avuhah, who switches the opinions of the Beraisa which defines a Socher.

(d) We are not concerned that the Tana now omits Shomer Sachar - because if Peshi'ah be'Ba'alim is Patur, then Geneivah va'Aveidah certainly is (in which case, they do not necessarily need to be specifically mentioned).

(a) When we say that, according to Rav Hamnuna, "Be'alav Imo" refers to everything, we mean that a. the owner is required to actually work with the borrowed article (e.g. to plow with his cow or to drive his donkey), and b. that he must do so from the time of borrowing right through until the time of the O'nes, in order to be considered She'eilah be'Ba'alim.

(b) According to Rav Hamnuna, we initially explain the Beraisa's statement 'Af-al-Pi she'ha'Ba'alim Osin Melachah *be'Makom Acher'* to mean - that he is working ahead of the cow (e.g. he is loosening the earth to facilitate the plowing).

(c) To increase the Chidush, the Seifa adds to 'Sha'alah ve'Achar-Kach Sha'al Be'alah Imah ... u'Meisah, Chayav' - 'Af-al-Pi she'ha'Ba'alim Chorshin al-Gabah' (meaning that he is working together with his cow).

(d) We object to the proposal that the Chidush in the Reisha is the fact that the owner is working ahead of his cow, and the Chidush in the Seifa that he is actually leading it, on the grounds - that seeing as both are working with the cow, the difference between them is too minimal to warrant mentioning.

(a) Consequently, we are forced to explain the Chidush in the Reisha as being - that the owner is working (in a different location and) in a different capacity (not with his cow [a Kashya on Rav Hamnuna]).

(b) Another Beraisa points out how, the Torah having written "Im Be'alav Imo, Lo Yeshalem", the inference is obvious. And the Tana justifies the Torah's need to add "Be'alav Ein Imo, Shalem Yeshalem" - by establishing this second statement when the owner is working for the borrower at the time of the borrowing but not when the O'nes occurs.

(c) Another Beraisa learns the same thing from the fact that, after having written "Be'alav Ein Imo, Shalem Yeshalem", the Torah finds it necessary to add "Im Be'alav Imo, Lo Yeshalem" - establishing this Pasuk when the owner is working for the borrower at the time of the borrowing only (and not necessarily at the time of the O'nes).

(d) All this proves conclusively - that Rav Hamnuna erred in this point too, that the owner does not need to work for the borrower from the time of borrowing through to the time that the O'nes occurs.

(a) When we say that Abaye explains the above discrepancy in the Pesukim like Rebbi Yoshiyah, and Rava, like Rebbi Yonasan - we are referring to their Machlokes whether, when the Torah lists two things without a joining word (such as "Yachdav"), it means specifically both (Rebbi Yoshiyah) or either (Rebbi Yonasan).

(b) Bearing in mind that the Pesukim are referring to both the time of She'eilah and that of Shevurah u'Meisah, Abaye therefore interprets ...

1. ... "*Be'alav Ein Imo*, Shalem Yeshalem" - to mean that the owner was not working for the borrower on either occasion.
2. ... "*Im Be'alav Imo* Lo Yeshalem" to mean - that he was working for him on one of them.

(c) Rava interprets ...

1. ... "*Im Be'alav Imo* Lo Yeshalem" to mean - that the owner was working for the borrower either at the time of the borrowing or at the time of Shevurah u'Meisah, or during both.
2. ... "*Be'alav Ein Imo*, Shalem Yeshalem" - that he was not working for him either on one of the two occasions, or on neither of them.

(d) Rava's explaining the two Pesukim in the reverse order to Abaye has nothing to do with the fact that this is the order that the two Beraisos respectively, present them. In fact, both Amora'im's explanations pertain to both Beraisos, and Rava's switching the order of the Pesukim is of no significance.