Hasocher 81B

Hashoel Daf 81

By Rabbi Lieberman

​(Mishnah): Anyone who told the owner 'take your item and pay' is a Shomer Chinam.

(Mishnah): If Reuven told Shimon 'send your animal (for me to borrow)' and it died on the way, Reuven is liable; Similarly, if Reuven sent it back and it died on the way, he is liable.

(Rafram bar Papa): This is only if he returned it within the time he borrowed it for. After this, he is exempt (because he's a shomer Chinam once he's done).

מְתִיב רַב נַחְמָן בַּר פַּפָּא: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ ״טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ וְהָבֵא מָעוֹת״, שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. הָא ״גְּמַרְתִּיו״, שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר! לָא, הָא ״הָבֵא מָעוֹת וְטוֹל אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ״, שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר,אֲבָל ״גָּמַרתיו״, מַאי? שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ ״טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ וְהָבֵא מָעוֹת״, שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, נִשְׁמְעִינַן ״גְּמַרְתִּיו״, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן ״טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ״! ״טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ״ אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ: סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נַמֵי לָא הָוֵי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

​Question (Rav Nachman bar Papa - Mishnah): Anyone who told the owner 'take your item and pay' is a Shomer Chinam.

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

Answer: No. Rather, we infer that if he said 'pay me and take your item' (he keeps the item for security for his wages), he is a Shomer Sachar.

Question: Can you say that if he said 'I finished it', he would be a Shomer Chinam?!

If so, why does it teach that one who said 'take your item and pay' is a Shomer Chinam? It should teach that if he said 'I finished it', he is a Shomer Chinam, and all the more so if he said 'take your item and pay'!

Answer: We must teach 'take your item and pay'.

One might have thought that he is not even a Shomer Chinam. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Multiple Choice

What Diyuk did the Gemara make from the Mishna saying "Anyone who told the owner 'take your item and pay' is a Shomer Chinam?

• If he said, "I finished", he's not responsible to watch it at all

• If he does not pay, he can keep it

• If he said, "I finished", he's a shomer sachar

• If he does not pay, he is a shomer sachar

Multiple Choice

Why is it a chiddush that if a craftsman said "take your item and pay", he's a Shomer Chinam?

• You might've thought that the guy doesn't have to pay

• You might've thought he can keep it

• You might've thought he's not a shomer at all

• You might've thought he's a shomer sachar

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר פַּפָּא: אַף אֲנַן נַמֵי תְּנֵינָא: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ ״טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ וְהָבֵא מָעוֹת״, שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. מַאי, לָאו הוּא הַדִּין ״גְּמַרְתִּיו״? לָא, ״טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ״ שָׁאנֵי.

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

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

Rejection: No, 'take your item' is different.

Multiple Choice

In version #2, what was Rav Nachman trying to bring a proof to?

• If a craftsman says "I finished", he is a shomer sachar

• If a craftsman says "I finished", he is a shomer chinam

• If a craftsman says "take your money and pay" he is a shomer chinam

• If a craftsman says "take your money and pay" he is a shomer sachar.

​הוּנָא מָר בַּר מָרִימָר קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּינָא רָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין אַהֲדָדֵי וּמְשַׁנֵּי: תְּנַן: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁאָמְרוּ ״טוֹל אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ וְהָבֵא מָעוֹת״, שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְ״גְּמַרְתִּיו״. וּרְמִינְהוּ: אָמַר לוֹ שׁוֹאֵל ״שְׁלַח״ וּשְׁלָחָהּ וּמֵתָה, חַיָּיב, וְכֵן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמַּחֲזִירָהּ. וּמְשַׁנֵּי, אֲמַר רַפְרָם בַּר פַּפָּא אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֵלָּא שֶׁהֶחֱזִיר בְּתוֹךְ יְמֵי שְׁאִילָתָהּ, אֲבָל לְאַחַר יְמֵי שְׁאִילָתָהּ, פָּטוּר.

​Huna Mar bar Mereimar): In our Mishnah, also if he said only 'I finished it', he is a Shomer Chinam.

Contradiction (Huna Mar - Mishnah): If Reuven told Shimon 'send your animal (for me to borrow)' and it died on the way, Reuven is chayav;

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

Answer (Huna Mar): Rafram bar Papa taught that this is only if he returned it within the time he borrowed it for. After this, he is patur.

Open Ended

Explain the Stira that Huna Mar bar Mereimar asked.

​אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פָּטוּר מִשּׁוֹאֵל וְחַיָּיב כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, אוֹ דִּלְמָא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר נַמֵי לָא הָוֵי? אֲמַר אֲמֵימָר: מִסְתַּבְּרָא פָּטוּר מִשּׁוֹאֵל וְחַיָּיב כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, הוֹאִיל וְנֶהֱנֶה מְהַנֶּה הֲוָה. תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דַּאֲמֵימָר: דהַלּוֹקֵחַ כֵּלִים מִבֵּית הָאוּמָּן לְשַׁגְּרָן לְבֵית חָמִיו, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״אִם מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן מִמֶּנִּי, אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָךְ דְּמֵיהֶן, וְאִם לָאו, אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָךְ לְפִי טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה שֶׁבָּהֶן״ וְנֶאֶנְסוּ בַּהֲלִיכָה, חַיָּיב; בַּחֲזִירָה, פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר.

​Question: Is he exempt from liability of a borrower and liable like a Shomer Sachar, or is he totally exempt?

Answer (Ameimar): Presumably, he is liable like a Shomer Sachar, since he already benefited.

Support (Beraisa): Reuven took Kelim 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. If Ones occurred on the way back he is exempt, for he is a Shomer Sachar.

Multiple Choice

The question of the Gemara was, when a Shoel sends something back after the borrowing period...

• Is he responsible to accompany the item?

• Can he change his mind on the way?

• Is he still chayav like a shomer sachar?

• Is he still chayav like a shoel?

Multiple Choice

Ameimar answered the question saying that he's like a shomer sachar since he

• rented it

• got paid for it

• borrowed it

• benefited from it

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּזַבֵּין לֵיהּ חֲמָרָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״קָא מַמְטֵינָא לֵיהּ לְדוּכְתָּא פְּלוֹנִי; אִי מִזְדַּבְּנָא, מוּטָב, וְאִי לָא, מַהְדַּרְנָא לֵיהּ נִהֲלִיךְ.⁠״ אֲזַל וְלָא אִזְדַּבְּנָא, וּבַהֲדֵי דְּקָא אֲתָא אִתְּנִיס. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן. וחַיְּיבֵיהּ. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבָּה לְרַב נַחְמָן: ״נֶאֶנְסוּ בַּהֲלִיכָה, חַיָּיב, וּבַחֲזָרָה, פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר.⁠״ אָמַר לוֹ: חֲזָרָה דְּהַאי, הֲלִיכָה הִיא. מַאי טַעֲמָא? סְבָרָא הוּא: בַּחֲזִירָתוֹ, אִילּוּ אַשְׁכַּח לְזַבּוֹנֵיהּ, מִי לָא זַבְּנֵהּ!

​Yehudah sold a donkey to Levi, who said that he will try to sell it in a certain place, and if he fails, he will return it. He failed to sell it; Ones occurred on the way back.

Rav Nachman: Levi is liable.

Question (Rava - Beraisa): If Ones occurred on the way, he is liable. If Ones occurred on the way back he is exempt, for he is a Shomer Sachar.

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.

Multiple Choice

On what condition was the donkey sold in the story

• That it would be used for plowing

• That he would use the donkey for 30 days

• That the buyer would sell it to someone else

• That the donkey would carry a certain amount of wheat

Multiple Choice

How did Rav Nachman answer why his psak of being chayav is not against the Mishna

• He's a shomer sachar

• He brought the animal to a slippery place so its his fault in this case

• He's a Shoel

• The animal dying on the way back is the same as dying on the way in this case

שְׁמוֹר לִי וְאֶשְׁמוֹר לָךְ, שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. וְאַמַּאי? חשְׁמִירָה בַּבְּעָלִים הִיא! אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: טדַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״שְׁמוֹר לִי הַיּוֹם, וְאֶשְׁמוֹר לָךְ לְמָחָר.⁠״

​(Mishnah): If Reuven told Shimon 'guard for me and I will guard for you', he is a Shomer Sachar.

Question: This is Shemirah b'Ba'alim (a Shomer of one's employee. Such a Shomer is exempt!)

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.

Multiple Choice

What did the Mishna say the halacha is if I guard your thing and you guard mine?

• You are a shomer chinam

• You are a Socher

• You are a Shoel

• You are a shomer sachar

Multiple Choice

What question did the Gemara ask on the Mishna's halacha in the case of you guarding my thing and me guarding yours?

• You should be patur because the owner is there

• You should be chayav because the shomer is working for the employes (shmira b'baalim)

• You should each be responsible for each others item

• You should be considered a Shoel

​

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: י״שְׁמוֹר לִי וְאֶשְׁמוֹר לָךְ״, ״הַשְׁאִילֵנִי וְאַשְׁאִילָךְ״, ״שְׁמוֹר לִי וְאַשְׁאִילָךְ״, ״הַשְׁאִילֵנִי וְאֶשְׁמוֹר לָךְ״, כּוּלָּן נֶעֱשׂוּ שׁוֹמְרֵי שָׂכָר זֶה לַזֶּה. וְאַמַּאי? כשְׁמִירָה בַּבְּעָלִים הִיא! אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: לדַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״שְׁמוֹר לִי הַיּוֹם וְאֶשְׁמוֹר לָךְ לְמָחָר.⁠״

​

(Beraisa): If one said 'guard for me and I will guard for you', 'lend to me and I will lend you', 'guard for me and I will lend to you', or 'lend to me and I will guard for you' each is a Shomer Sachar to the other.

Question: This is Shemirah b'Ba'alim!

Answer (Rav Papa): He said 'guard for me today and I will guard for you tomorrow'.

Multiple Choice

How did Rav Papa answer why the Beraisa is not a case of Shmira B'baalim?

• It's only Shmira B'ba'alim if he doesn't get paid

• He did not own the item

• He wasn't actually there when they agreed to watch it

• They were guarding it on 2 different days

​הַנְהוּ אַהֲלוֹיֵי דְּכָל יוֹמָא הֲוָה אָפֵי לַהּ חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, הַהוּא יוֹמָא אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ: ״זִיל אֱפֵי לַן!⁠״ אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״נְטֻרוּ לִי גְּלִימַאי!⁠״ אַדַּאֲתָא, פְּשַׁעוּ בַהּ וְאִגְּנוּב. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פַּפָּא. חַיְּיבִינְהוּ.

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב פַּפָּא: אַמַּאי? פְּשִׁיעָה בַּבְּעָלִים הִיא! אִכְּסִיף. לַסּוֹף אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא דְּהַהוּא שַׁעְתָּא שִׁכְרָא הֲוָה קָא 

​

There were sellers of aloe who used to take turns baking for each other. One day, they asked Reuven to bake, and he asked them to guard his garment. They were negligent, and it was stolen.

Rav Papa: They are liable.

Objection (Rabanan): This is negligence b'Ba'alim!

Rav Papa was embarrassed.

It was later found that Reuven was drinking beer (not working for them) at the time of the theft (so it was not Shemirah b'Ba'alim, and they were truly liable).

Multiple Choice

Why did the rabanan think that the workers should not be chayav for the garment in the story?

• They weren't negligent

• Reuven was working for them

• They were a shomer chinam

• They were a shomer sachar

Multiple Choice

What was discovered at the end of the story?

• Reuven took the garment back

• Reuven was drinking beer when he was supposed to be working

• The workers watched the garment properly

• The workers were sleeping on the job

​

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״פְּשִׁיעָה בַּבְּעָלִים פָּטוּר״, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי אִכְּסִיף, אֵלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״חַיָּיב״, אַמַּאי אִכְּסִיף? אֵלָּא הַהוּא יוֹמָא לָאו דִּידֵיהּ הֲוָה, וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ: ״זִיל אֱפֵי לַן אַתְּ!⁠״ וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: ״בְּהַהוּא אַגְרָא דְּקָא אָפֵינָא לְכוּ, נְטוּרוּ גְּלִימַאי!⁠״

עַד דַּאֲתָא, אִגְּנִיב. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פַּפָּא. חַיְּיבִינְהוּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב פַּפָּא: הָא שְׁמִירָה בַּבְּעָלִים הִיא! אִכְּסִיף. לַסּוֹף אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא דְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא שִׁכְרָא הֲוָה שָׁתֵי.

​This is like the opinion that negligence b'Ba'alim is exempt.

Question: According to the opinion that negligence b'Ba'alim is liable, why was Rav Papa embarrassed?

Answer - Version #2: Rather, that day was not his day to bake. He agreed to bake if they would guard his garment to be wages for his baking. It was stolen (without negligence).

Rav Papa: They are liable.

Objection (Rabanan): This is guarding b'Ba'alim!

Rav Papa was embarrassed.

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

Multiple Choice

According to which opinion does the Gemara ask based on the story?

• The opinion that you are chayav for Ones even when it' B'Ba'lim

• The opinion that you are chayav for Geneiva even when it' B'Ba'lim

• The opinion that you are chayav for P'shia even when it' B'Ba'lim

• The opinion that you are patur for P'shia even when it' B'Ba'lim

Multiple Choice

How does the Gemara answer the question?

• By saying that they were working for each other

• By saying that it was a shomer sachar and it wasn't really a case of B'balim

• By saying that it was a shomer sachar and P'shia nd not Geneiva

• By saying that it was a shomer sachar and Geneiva and not P'shia

​Reuven (a tall man) was riding on a donkey, wearing a linen garment. Shimon (a short man) was walking, wearing a wool coat. They came to a river; Shimon put his coat on the donkey (not to become waterlogged). He borrowed Reuven's garment, and it got washed away.

(Rava): Shimon is liable.

Objection (Rabanan): This is guarding b'Ba'alim (the tall guy was leading the donkey carrying Shimon's coat)!

Rava was embarrassed.

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

הַנְהוּ בֵּי תְרֵי דַּהֲווֹ קָא מְסַגּוּ בְּאוֹרְחָא, חַד אֲרִיךְ וְחַד גּוּצָא, אֲרִיכָא רָכֵיב חֲמָרָא וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ סְדִינָא, גּוּצָא מִיכַּסֵּי סַרְבָּלָא וְקָא מְסַגֵּי בְּכַרְעֵיהּ. כִּי מָטֵי לְנַהְרָא, שַׁקְלֵיהּ לְסַרְבָּלֵיהּ וְאוֹתְבֵיהּ עִילָּוֵי חֲמָרָא, וְשַׁקְלֵיהּ לִסְדִינֵיהּ דְּהַהוּא וְאִיכַּסֵּי בֵּיהּ. שַׁטְפוּהּ מַיָּא לִסְדִינֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. חַיְּיבֵיהּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: אַמַּאי? שְׁאֵלָה בַּבְּעָלִים הִיא! אִכְּסִיף. לַסּוֹף אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא, דִּבְלָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ שַׁקְלֵיהּ וּבְלָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ אוֹתְבֵיהּ.

Multiple Choice

Why did the Rabanan think that Shimon should'nt be chayav in the previous case?

• Shimon was protecting the donkey

• Reuven was working for him by leading the donkey with his coat

• Shimon was not negligent

• Reuven should've known that the coat may get ruined

Multiple Choice

WHy did Rava's psak of making Shimon chayav make sense in the last case?

• Shimon took the coat without permission

• Reuven was negligent

• There was no need to protect the donkey

• There was no need for Shimon to put his coat on the donkey in the 1st place

​הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאוֹגַר לֵיהּ חֲמָרָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״חֲזִי, לָא תֵּיזוּל בְּאוֹרְחָא דִּנְהַר פְּקוֹד, דְּאִיכָּא מַיָּא, זִיל בְּאוֹרְחָא דִּנְרַשׁ דְּלֵיכָּא מַיָּא.⁠״ אֲזִיל בְּאוֹרְחָא דִּנְהַר פְּקוֹד וּמִית חֲמָרָא. כִּי אֲתָא אֲמַר: ״אִין, בְּאוֹרְחָא דִּנְהַר פְּקוֹד אֲזַלִי, וּמִיהוּ לֵיכָּא מַיָּא.⁠״

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מַה לֵיהּ לְשַׁקֵּר? אִי בָעֵי, אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״אֲנָא בְּאוֹרְחָא דִּנְרַשׁ אֲזַלִי״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: ״מַה לִּי לְשַׁקֵּר״ בִּמְקוֹם עֵדִים לָא אָמְרִינַן.

​Reuven rented his donkey to Shimon, and warned him not to go near the Pekod river, for it is wet there. Shimon went there, and the donkey died.

Shimon: It was dry there!

Rabah: We believe him. If he wanted to lie, he could have said that he did not go there!

Objection (Abaye): We do not apply Migo (to believe someone because if he wanted to lie, he could have lied better) against witnesses (we can testify that it is wet near the river).

Multiple Choice

Why did Raba say that we should believe Shimon that it was dry in the above case?

• He had witnesses that it was dry

• The dryness doesn't make it any safer there

• It was usually dry there

• If he was lying, he could say he didn't go there

Multiple Choice

Why did Abaye disagree with Raba's logic?

• Shimon didn't have witnesses that it was dry

• If we know it's wet, a Migo doesn't work

• A person who lies can never be trusted

• Shimon didn't follow instructions

​

שְׁמוֹר לִי!⁠״ וְאָמַר לוֹ ״הַנַּח לְפָנַי!⁠״ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא: גאָמַר לוֹ ״הַנַּח לְפָנֶיךָ!⁠״ אֵינוֹ לֹא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְלֹא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״הַנַּח!⁠״ סְתָמָא, מַאי?
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״שְׁמוֹר לִי!⁠״ וְאָמַר לוֹ ״הַנַּח לְפָנַי!⁠״ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. הָא סְתָמָא, וְלֹא כְלוּם.

(Mishnah): If Reuven told Shimon 'guard this for me', and Shimon said 'leave it in front of me', he is a Shomer Chinam.

(Rav Huna): If Shimon said 'leave it in front of yourself (i.e. guard it yourself)', he is neither a Shomer Chinam nor Shomer Sachar.

Question: If he said only 'leave it', what is the law?

Answer #1 (Mishnah): If Reuven told Shimon 'guard this for me', and Shimon said 'leave it in front of me', he is a Shomer Chinam;

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

Multiple Choice

What was Rav Huna's question about what type of shomer you are?

• If Reuven told Shimon 'guard this in front of me', and Shimon said 'guard it yourself'

• If Reuven told Shimon 'guard this for me', and Shimon said 'leave it in front of me'

• If Reuven told Shimon 'guard this for me', and Shimon said 'guard it yourself'

• If Reuven told Shimon 'guard this for me', and Shimon said 'leave it'

Multiple Choice

What inference does the Gemara first bring to answer the question?

• If he said leave it in front of me, he's a shomer chinam- this implies if he says 'leave it', he's not a shomer at all

• If he said leave it in front of me, he's a shomer chinam- this implies if he says 'leave it', he's a shomer sachar

• If he said leave it he's a shomer chinam- this implies if he says 'leave it in front of me', he's not a shomer at all

• If he said leave it he's a shomer chinam- this implies if he says 'leave it in front of me', he's a shomer sachar

​

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִדַּאֲמַר רַב הוּנָא ״הַנַּח לְפָנֶיךָ״, הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ לֹא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְלֹא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, הָא סְתָמָא, שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם הָוֵי! אֵלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

לֵימַא כְּתַנָּאֵי: אִם הִכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת – בַּעַל חָצֵר חַיָּיב, רִבִּי אוֹמֵר: הבְּכוּלָּם אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב, עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לִשְׁמוֹר.

​Rejection: Rav Huna taught that if Shimon said 'leave it in front of yourself', he is neither a Shomer Chinam nor Shomer Sachar;

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

The inferences contradict each other. We cannot determine which is valid.

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about this.

(Mishnah): If Shimon had permission to bring his Peros or ox into Reuven's Chatzer (and they were damaged), Reuven is liable;

Rebbi says, in all cases one is liable only if he accepted responsibility for the other's property.

Multiple Choice

Why does the Gemara feel that we cannot bring a proof what his status would be when he says 'leave it' from our Mishna?

• Our Mishna wasn't talking about guarding objects

• Our Mishna only talks about a case when you are chyav

• Our Mishna only talks about a case when you are patur

• Our mishna has contradictory inferences

Multiple Choice

What similarity does the case of bringing fruits into a courtyard have to our case of guarding someone's object?

• In both cases it's P'shia B'balim

• In both cases the owner said was clear in his instructions

• In both cases the owner said bring it but wasn't specific

• In both cases theer is an object that got damaged

​

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָתָם אֵלָּא בֶּחָצֵר, דְּבַת נְטוּרֵי הִיא, וְכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ ״עַיֵּיל!⁠״, ״עַיֵּיל דְּאֶינְטַר לָךְ״ קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא, שׁוּקָא לָאו בַּר נְטוּרֵי הוּא, ״אַנַּח וְתִיב נְטַר לָךְ!⁠״ קָאָמַר לֵיהּ.

אִי נַמֵי, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רִבִּי הָתָם אֵלָּא ובַּחֲצֵרוֹ, דִּלְעַיּוֹלֵי, רְשׁוּתָא קָא בָעֵי לְמִשְׁקַל מִינֵּיהּ, וְכִי יָהֵיב לֵיהּ רְשׁוּתָא לְעַיּוֹלֵי, ״תִּיב וּנְטַר לָךְ!⁠״ קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא ״הַנַּח, וַאֲנָא מְנַטַּרְנָא״ קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ ״הַנַּח וְתִיב וּנְטַר״ קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, אִי לְאוֹתֹבֵהּ, רְשׁוּתָא בָּעֵי לְמִשְׁקַל מִינֵּיהּ?

​Rejection #1: Perhaps Chachamim say only regarding a Chatzer, in which things are easily guarded, that saying 'come in' is acceptance to guard, but in the market, 'leave it' means 'guard it yourself'!

Rejection #2: Perhaps Rebbi says only regarding a Chatzer, for which 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', for we cannot say that he gives him permission to enter!

Multiple Choice

The first reason why we could not bring a proof to Rav Huna's question from the chatzer was...

• A chatzer is more likely to be accepting to watch it because it's a threshing floor

• A chatzer is less likely to be accepting to watch it because it's his personal property

• A chatzer is more likely to be accepting to watch it because it's easily guarded there

• A chatzer is less likely to be accepting to watch it because it's harder to guard there

Multiple Choice

The second reason why we could not bring a proof to Rav Huna's question from the chatzer was...

• By a chatzer, he doesn't need permission to enter, so come in means come in and I'll watch it

• By a chatzer, he needs permission to enter, so come in means come in

• By a chatzer, he owns the property, so come in means come in

• By a chatzer, he owns the property, so come in means come in and I'll guard it

​הִלְוָהוּ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. לֵימַא, מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר! דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, וְאָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, יִשָּׁבַע וְיִטּוֹל מָעוֹתָיו. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״כְּלוּם הִלְוִיתָנִי אֵלָּא עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, אָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, אָבְדוּ מָעוֹתֶיךָ.⁠״ אֲבָל הִלְוָהוּ אֶלֶף זוּז בִּשְׁטָר וְהִנִּיחַ לוֹ מַשְׁכּוֹן עֲלֵיהֶם, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל, אָבַד הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אָבְדוּ מָעוֹתָיו.

​Mishnah): If Reuven lent to Shimon Al ha'Mashkon (relying on a security), he is a Shomer Sachar on it.

Suggestion: Our Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer:

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If Reuven lent to Shimon Al ha'Mashkon and lost the security, he swears (that he lost it) and collects the debt. (He is only a Shomer Chinam, because the security is not for collection. It is only a reminder of the loan.)

R. Akiva says, he lent only due to the security. Now that he lost it, he lost the loan.

If there was also a loan document, all agree that the security was for collection. He is a Shomer Sachar; he lost the loan.

Multiple Choice

What does our Mishna say about someone who lends money and takes back a mashkon?

• The guy who borrowed money is a shomer chinam on the money

• The guy who borrowed money is a shomer sachar on the money

• He's a shomer sachar on the Mashkon

• He's a Shomer Chinam on the mashkon

Multiple Choice

What does Rebbe Eliezer say that doesn't seem to fit with our Mishna?

• If you lose the mashkon, you can still collect the loan

• If you lose the mashkon, you can no longer collect the loan

• If there is a loan document, you can no longer collect the loan

• He said you are a shomer sachar

​אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ בְּשָׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ, כָּאן שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּשָׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ. וְהָא אִידִי וְאִידִי ״הִלְוָהוּ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן״ קָתָנֵי! אֵלָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ מָעוֹת, כָּאן שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ פֵּירוֹת.

​Rejection #1: Our Mishnah is like R. Eliezer. He discusses a security taken at the time of the loan;

Our Mishnah discusses a security taken after the loan was given. That is surely for collection!

Objection: The Mishnah and Beraisa both say Al ha'Mashkon (which connotes at the time of the loan)!

Rejection #2: In the Mishnah, Reuven lent Peros; in the Beraisa, he lent money.

Multiple Choice

In the last slide, we had 2 rejections. WHAT were we rejecting in that slide?

• That the Mishna had to be after the loan

• That the Mishna had to be R' Eliezer

• That the Mishna could not be R' Eliezer

• That the Mishna had to be at the time of the loan

Multiple Choice

What was wrong with the suggestion that the Mishna is talking about after the loan?

• It would be a Migo B'Makom Eidim

• Then it would not fit with R' Eliezer

• It says "Al Hamashkon" which implies at the time of the loan

• You cannot give a Mashkon after the loan

Multiple Choice

What was the 2nd way we attempted to explain that the Mishna could be R' EIiezer?

• By saying that the Mishna is talking about watching money, so he agrees that you are a shomer sachar there

• By saying that the Mishna is talking about watching fruits, so he agrees that you are a shomer chinam there

• By saying that the Mishna is talking about watching money, so he agrees that you are a shomer sachar there

• By saying that the Mishna is talking about watching fruits, so he agrees that you are a shomer sachar there

​וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הִלְוָהוּ מָעוֹת, שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם; הִלְוָהוּ פֵּירוֹת, שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. מִכְּלָל דִּלְתַנָּא קַמָּא לָא שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ! כּוּלָּהּ רִבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, וְחַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הִלְוָהוּ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ פֵּירוֹת, אֲבָל הִלְוָהוּ מָעוֹת, שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, שֶׁרִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הִלְוָהוּ מָעוֹת, שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם; הִלְוָהוּ פֵּירוֹת, שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר. אִי הָכִי, קָמָה לַהּ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָא! אֵלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא, מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

​Question (Seifa - R. Yehudah): If he lent to him money, he is a Shomer Chinam, If he lent to him Peros, he is a Shomer Sachar.

Inference: The first Tana does not distinguish between lending Peros and money!

Answer: The entire Mishnah is R. Yehudah. It is abbreviated, and it means as follows:

If Reuven lent to Shimon Al ha'Mashkon, he is a Shomer Sachar;

This is if he lent Peros. If he lent to him money, he is a Shomer Chinam, for R. Yehudah says that if he lent to him money, he is a Shomer Chinam, and if he lent to him Peros, he is a Shomer Sachar.

Objection: If so, the Mishnah is unlike R. Akiva!

Answer: Indeed, we must say that the Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer. (We assume that an anonymous Mishnah is R. Meir, and is like his Rebbi, R. Akiva.)

Multiple Choice

What was the inference from the Mishna that the Gemara made to explain why it can't fit with R' Eliezer?

• It lists the opinions of the Tana Kama nd R' Yehuda, but not R' Eliezer, that implies that R' Eliezer argues

• The Mishna says that R' Yehuda differentiated between money and fruits, which sounds like the Tana Kama doesn't

• The Mishna said that you are a shomer sachar for watching money, so kal v'chomer you're a shomer sachar for watching fruits

• The Mishna said that you are a shomer sachar for watching fruits, so kal v'chomer you're a shomer sachar for watching money

Multiple Choice

How did we attempt to fit the Mishna into R' Elizer's opinion in the last slide?

• By saying that the whole Mishna goes like R' Yehuda who differentiates between fruits and Money

• By saying that R' Elizer agrees with R' Akiva

• By saying that teh Tana Kama argues with R' Yehuda

• By saying that the whole Mishna goes like R' Yehuda and there is no difference between fruits and Money

Multiple Choice

Why did we end up saying that the Tana Kama of the Mishna can't differentiate between watching fruits and watching money (in regards to the type of shomer you are)?

• Because then it would not fit with R' Eliezer

• Because the Mishna explicitly says that there is no difference between fruits and money

• Because R' Yehuda argues with the Tana Kama

• Because we need the Tana Kama to agree with R' Akiva

Multiple Choice

What does the word מְחַוַּורְתָּא mean?

• It is missing

• it is inferred

• It is clear

• it lines up