POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Metzia 82
BAVA METZIA 81-85 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the
Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal
1) WATCHING A MASHKON (cont.)
(a) Rejection #2: In the Mishnah, Reuven lent produce; in the
Beraisa, he lent money.
2) THE ARGUMENT OF R. ELIEZER AND R. AKIVA
(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
(d) Question: If so, the Mishnah argues with R. Akiva!
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.
(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
(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";
(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!
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
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.
(e) (Surely, R. Akiva argues on Rabah's law - he has no other
way to explain the argument.)
2. (Rabah): One who guards a lost object is a Shomer
3. (Rav Yosef): (Since he exempt from giving Tzedakah
while caring for the lost object,) he is considered
to be a Shomer Sachar.
(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;
3) TRANSPORTING A BARREL
1. They argue when the lender needs the Mashkon (Rashi
- to use it; Tosfos - he would not lend without a
(h) (Mishnah): Aba Sha'ul says, a lender can rent out a poor
person's Mashkon and deduct the money from the loan.
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.
(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
(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
(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
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
(g) Answer #1 (R. Elazar (the Amora)): We must say that
Tana'im argue about R. Meir's opinion;
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
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
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.