Previous daf

1)

(a) We just concluded that, in order to be She'eilah be'Ba'alim, the owner must work for the Sho'el at the time of the She'eilah, but not necessarily when the O'nes occurs. And we learn this from a superfluous Pasuk. The problem with this conclusion is - how we know that it is not the other way round (that the owner must work for the Sho'el at the time the O'nes occurs, and not necessarily at the time of the She'eilah)?

(b) Despite the fact that the She'eilah would not obligate the Sho'el without the O'nes, we nevertheless place the criterion on the time of the She'eilah - because it has an advantage over the O'nes, inasmuch as it obligates the Sho'el to feed the animal.

(c) Rav Ashi extrapolate that from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yish'al Ish me'Im Re'eihu ... Shalem Yeshalem" - by Darshening "me'Im Re'eihu", 've'Lo Re'eihu Imo'.

(d) According to Rav Ashi, the Torah nevertheless needs the two Pesukim "Be'alav Ein Imo ... " and "Im Be'alav Imo" - because without them, we would have treated "me'Im Re'eihu" as a manner of speech (not worthy of a D'rashah.

(a) Rami bar Chama asks a series of She'eilos. He asks about ...

1. ... someone who borrowed an animal for sinful purposes, who might be Patur from Onsin - because it is unusual to borrow a cow for something like that.
2. ... someone who borrowed it in order to appear wealthy so that merchants should sell him goods on credit, who may be exempt from paying for Onsin - because he has not actually made direct use of the animal.
3. ... someone who borrowed two cows to work to the value of one Perutah, who might be exempt because although he borrowed a P'rutah's-worth from the owner, neither article that he borrowed is worth a P'rutah.

(b) This latter She'eilah must assume in the case of the previous She'eilah, where he borrowed a cow to work for less than a Perutah - that he is Patur.

(c) He also asks what the Din will be if someone borrows from two partners together with one of the partners, whether "Be'alav" must be total or the borrower will at least be Patur from the half pertaining to the partner who is working for him. In the reverse case, where partners borrowed someone's cow together with the owner who was to work for only one of them, a major difference between the work of the cows and that of the owner will be - that whereas the partners borrowed it to plow a joint field, the owner was borrowed to work privately for one of the partners.

(a) Finally, Rami bar Chama asks two She'eilos. One of them, is 'Sha'al min ha'Ishah, ve'Nish'al Ba'alah, Mahu'. The case is - if someone borrowed a woman's Nechsei Milug together with her husband.

(b) The She'eilah is - whether the Kinyan Peiros of the husband makes him the owner, in which case, the borrower will subsequently be Patur should anything happen to the cow, or not.

(c) His last She'eilah is the reverse case of the previous case - where a woman borrowed a cow to plow her Nechsei Milug, but the owner worked for her husband (whether the woman will be Patur or not, should anything happen to the cow).

(d) Ravina asked Rav Ashi about someone who instructed his Sheli'ach to lend someone the owner's cow together with himself - whether, in spite of the principle 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso', this might not be considered 'She'eilah be'Ba'alim', because here the Torah requires She'eilah be'Ba'alim Davka (and not a Sheli'ach [see Tosfos DH 'Sheli'ach']).

(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ivya remarked to Rav Ashi that each of the two previous (sets of) She'eilos is rooted in a Machlokes. The last set of She'eilos of Rami bar Chama is in fact a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish. The bone of contention regarding Bikurim in the case where Reuven sells Shimon his field for two or three years is - whether Shimon, who owns the Peiros, is called the owner of the field or not.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan says 'Meivi ve'Korei' - because he holds 'Kinyan Peiros ke'Kinyan ha'Guf'.

(c) Resh Lakish says - 'Eino Meivi ve'Korei', because he holds 'Kinyan Peiros La'av ke'Kinyan ha'Guf'.

(d) Rami bar Chama's last set of She'eilos too, depend upon whether a husband, who has a Kinyan Peiros on his wife's Nechsei Milug, is considered their owner or not.

(a) Ravina's She'eilah is rooted in the Machlokes between Rebbi Yonasan and Rebbi Yoshiyah. Rebbi Yoshiyah learns from the Pasuk "Iyshah Yekimenu, ve'Iyshah Yeferenu" - that if a man appoints an Apotropus to annul his wife's Nedarim, the latter's nullification is inaffective (because the Lashon overrides the principle 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso').

(b) Rebbi Yonasan maintains - that the Din of 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso' rules supreme.

(c) Likewise, if a man says to his Sheli'ach 'Tzei ve'Hisha'el Im Parasi', Rebbi Yonasan will apply 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso'; whereas according to Rebbi Yoshiyah, the Pasuk "Be'alav Imo" and "Be'alav Ein Imo" overrides the principle (see Tosfos DH 'Sheli'ach').

(a) Rav Ilish asked Rava what the Din will be if a man says to his Eved Tzei ve'Hisha'el Im Parasi'. This might ...

1. ... not be considered She'eilah be'Ba'alim even according to Rebbi Yonasan - because a Sheli'ach is a bar Mitzvah (like the Meshale'ach), whereas an Eved is not.
2. ... be considered She'eilah be'Ba'alim even according to Rebbi Yoshiyah - because of the principle 'Yad Eved ke'Yad Rabo'.

(b) Rava replied - 'Mistabra Yad Eved ke'Yad Rabo'.

7)

(a) Rami bar Chama asks whether a man is considered a Sho'el or a Socher on his wife's property. Rava objects on the grounds - that it makes no difference which one, since, bearing in mind that a woman is Meshubad to work for her husband, he will always be Patur, because it is either She'eilah be'Ba'alim or Sechirus be'Ba'alim.

(b) He answers by establishing the case where a man hired a cow from a woman and then married her - in which case the Sechirus will continue as before if he is a Socher, but will turn into She'eilah be'Ba'alim, if he is a Sho'el.

(c) We object to this explanation too however, on the grounds - that even if he is a Socher, the S'chirus that begins when he marries her is a new one, in which case, it is S'chirus be'Ba'alim ... (like we asked before).

(a) We finally establish the case of Rami bar Chama's She'eilah where a woman hired a cow from a third party, and after she married, an O'nes occurred. The She'eilah is now according to Rebbi Yossi, who holds in Hamafkid - that if a Socher lends out the cow that he hired and it dies, the borrower pays a cow to the owner. Consequently, if the husband is a Sho'el with respect to his wife's Nechsei Milug, then, in the event of an O'nes, he will be liable to pay the owner (but will be Patur, if he is a Socher).

(b) The She'eilah will not apply according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi, who hold in Hamafkid - that the Sho'el pays the Socher. Consequently, in our case, where the Socher happens to be the man's wife, he will be Patur, because even if he is a Sho'el, it is She'eilah be'Ba'alim.

(c) Rava resolved the She'eilah - by citing Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who quotes the Chachamim in Usha as having ruled - that if a woman sold her Nechsei Milug during her husband's lifetime, then after her death, he has the right to claim the property from the purchasers, because he is the first purchaser.

(a) Rami bar Chama asks who is Mo'el if a man who receives his wife's property containing some Hekdesh.

1. ... The case is - when the women inherited the property after they were married, and ...
2. ... the She'eilah is - who is Mo'el for transferring the Hekdesh to the man's domain.

(b) Rava ruled that neither of them is Mo'el - because neither does the man, who did nothing, wish to acquire forbidden property, nor does the woman want him to acquire even the property that is permitted (and Me'ilah only applies to someone who *willingly* transfers Hekdesh from one domain to another).

(c) Neither are Beis-Din (who are responsible for all Takanos in their generation) Mo'el, for placing the woman's property in her husband's domain - because their Takanah is confined to property that is permitted, not to property of Hekdesh. Note, that according to this, the previous explanation seems unnecessary.

(d) This means - that there is no Me'ilah on the property in question at that stage. The moment however, the husband spends the money of Hekdesh or gives away the articles of Hekdesh, he is Mo'el.

(a) They asked in the Beis-Hamedrash whether if a borrowed animal becomes worn out through regular work, the Sho'el is liable to pay, from which Rav Chilkiyah B'rei de'Rav Ivya inferred - that if the animal die, he would certainly be liable.

(b) He was surprised by the She'eilah however (and by the inference) - since a person borrows an animal (not to place in the stable, but) to use (so, assuming he did not abuse the article, why should he be liable?).

(c) Rava concluded - that in both of the above cases, the borrower is exempt from paying.

(a) Rava ruled - that a borrower who broke the borrowed ax, must bring witnesses that he had not abused it and is Patur from paying.

(b) In a similar case where there were no witnesses, Rav obligated the borrower to replace the broken ax with a new one. His Talmidim, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi - expressed surprise that Rav did not permit him to pay the broken pieces and to add the balance from his pocket.

(c) Rav reacted to their surprise - with silence.

(d) The Halachah is - like Rav Kahana and like Rav Asi.