ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 81
BAVA METZIA 81-85 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the
Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal
(a) Rav Nachman bar Papa extrapolates from the Beraisa 've'Chulan she'Amru
Tul es she'Lecha ve'Havei Ma'os, Shomer Chinam' - 'ha Gemartiv, Shomer
Sachar', clashing with Rav Chisda who just said that once the days of
Shemirah have come to an end, the Sho'el is Patur.
(b) We answer that the inference from the Beraisa is 'Ha Havei Ma'os ve'Tul
es she'Lecha, Shomer Sachar', but 'Gemartiv' has the same Din as 'Tul es
she'Lecha ve'Havei Ma'os'. Nevertheless, the Tana saw fit to present the
case of 'Tul es she'Lecha ve'Havei Ma'os' (rather than the bigger Chidush of
'Gemartiv'), to teach us - that even in that case, he remains at least
Shomer Chinam (since we might otherwise have thought that, having washed his
hands of the Shemirah, he is even Patur from Peshi'ah as well).
(c) The case in our Mishnah requires the Uman to inform the owner
'Gemartiv', whereas a Sho'el does not - because in the former case, the
owner needs to be informed that his article is ready, whereas in the latter,
the owner knows anyway that the time of Shemirah has terminated.
(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Nachman comes (not to ask a Kashya on Rav
Chisda, but) to support his statement, to which end, he asks 'Mai La'av, Hu
ha'Din Gemartiv'. We refute his proof however, by responding - 'Lo, Tul es
(b) Assuming that 'Gemartiv' is equivalent to 'Tul es she'Lecha ve'Havei
Ma'os' (like the conclusion of the first Lashon), Huna Mar bar Mereimar
asked Ravina how to reconcile this with the Mishnah 've'Chein be'Sha'ah
she'Machzirah', which implies that as long as the owner has not asked the
Sho'el to return the article, he remains liable. Rafram bar Papa Amar Rav
Chisda resolves the problem - by establishing the Mishnah when the Shemirah
has not yet terminated (but once it has, he is Patur).
(a) They asked whether, when Rafram bar Papa said 'Patur', he meant Patur
from being a Sho'el, but he remains a Shomer Sachar, or whether he is not
even a Shomer Sachar either. Ameimar replied - that he remains a Shomer
Sachar, because of the S'vara 'Ho'il ve'Neheneh, Mehaneh' (someone who
derived benefit gives benefit, meaning that having derived the benefit of
being a Sho'el, a person does not withdraw fully from all responsibilities,
and remains a Shomer Sachar, to retain the responsibility for Geneivah and
(b) The Beraisa discusses the case of someone who purchases vessels from a
factory, intending to send them as gifts to his betrothed. He stipulates
with the manufacturer - that, in the event that she accepts his gift, he
will pay for it in full; but if she does not, then he will pay for the Tovas
Hana'ah (the benefit that he derives from the fact that his betrothed and
her family see the gifts that he sent, even if they do not accept them), and
return the article.
(c) If the vessels are destroyed by means of an O'nes that occurred ...
1. ... on the outward journey - he is considered to have acquired them and
is therefore Chayav.
(d) Shmuel says (in Bava Basra) that if someone buys vessels on the
understanding that if, after inspection, they meet with his approval, he
will purchase them, and if not, he will return them, then, should an O'nes
occur before he had a chance to inspect them, and they are destroyed - he is
Chayav (provided their price is fixed) because he is considered the owner
until a blemish is found that negates the sale.
2. ... on the way back - he is Patur, because he has the Din of a Shomer
Sachar (and not a Sho'el), a clear proof for Ameimar.
(a) In any case, we have proved Ameimar's ruling, as we explained. There
even a 'Kal va'Chomer' from there on to the case of a Sho'el - because if
the purchaser (who pays something [as stipulated] for the retracted sale) is
a Shomer Sachar, then how much more so a Sho'el (who pays nothing for the
(b) In a case similar case, where Reuven stipulated that if he was unable to
sell a donkey (or wine), he would return it, Rav Nachman - obligated him to
pay for Onsin even though it occurred on the return journey.
(c) When Rava asked Rav Nachman how this case differed from the previous
one, where he was Patur from Onsin on the return journey - he replied that,
here was different, because had he found customers on the return journey, he
would have sold them the donkey.
(a) Our Mishnah rules 'Sh'mor Li ve'Eshmor Lach, Shomer Sachar'. What
forces Rav Papa to explain this to mean 'You guard for me today and I will
guard for you tomorrow' is the fact - that 'You guard for me today and I
will guard for you today' would be a case of Shemirah be'Ba'alim (a Shomer
for whom the owner is working is Patur, as we shall learn in Perek
(b) We repeat the same Kashya on the Beraisa 'Sh'mor Li ve'Eshmor Lach,
Hash'ileini, ve'Ash'ilcha (with reference to borrowing vessels), Sh'mor Li
ve'Ash'ilcha ... ', 've'Ha Havi Shemirah be'Ba'alim?' (like we asked on the
Mishnah, and Rav Papa repeats the same answer). The Kashya there can only
pertain to the first case, and not to the other cases - because someone who
guards his friend's vessels is not considered to be working for him.
(a) In the case of those Ahalu'i, it was customary for one of them to bake
each day for all of them. Besides a kind of washing soap - the 'Ahalu'i'
might have sold spices.
(b) When they asked one of their group to bake that day, he agreed but asked
the others to look after his coat.
(c) When the coat was stolen due to the Ahalui's negligence, Rav Papa
obligated the Ahalu'i to pay. The coat must have been stolen specifically
due to their negligence - based on the fact that it was the appointee's
turn to bake (or so we currently think, [in which case, the others were
Shomrei Chinam, who would not be Chayav in an ordinary case of Geneivah]).
(a) Rav Papa became embarrassed when the Rabbanan pointed out - that it was
a case of Shemirah be'Ba'alim, and that the Ahalu'i should therefore have
(b) They then discovered - that the appointee had been drinking beer at the
time that they begun guarding his coat (in which case it was not Shemirah
(c) This answer will not work out however- according to those who hold
'Peshi'ah be'Ba'alim is not included in the P'tur of Shemirah be'Ba'alim,
because, according to them - there is no reason for Rav Papa to have been
embarrassed (since his initial ruling was correct).
(d) We therefore amend the case to turn the 'Ahalu'i' into Shomrei Sachar,
rather than Shomrei Chinam - to when it was not really the appointee's turn
to bake, in which case the other Ahalu'i were benefiting from his working
out of turn, turning them into Shomrei Sachar. Consequently, the Geneivah no
longer had to come about through Peshi'ah, and all the other details fit
(a) In the case of the two co-travelers, the tall man was riding a donkey
whilst the short one walked. The tall one had 'a Sadina', and the short one,
'a Sarb'la'. When they had to cross a river, the short man put on the Sadin
and placed the Sarb'la on the donkey - because a Sarb'la is made of wool,
and sinks easily (whereas a Sadin is made of linen).
(b) When they came to him for a Din Torah, after the Sadin sunk - Rava
obligated the short man to pay.
(c) If Rava was embarrassed when the Rabbanan pointed out that it was
Shemirah be'Ba'alim (because the man on the donkey was transporting his
Sarb'la at the time, he subsequently discovered - that the short man had
made the exchange without the tall man's consent, in which case it cannot
even be considered 'Shemirah (let alone Shemirah be'Ba'alim, setting his
mind at rest.
(a) Reuven rented Shimon a donkey, warning him to take the route of Neresh,
not of Nahar Pakud - because there was water on that route (making it
dangerous for donkeys to travel).
(b) Shimon took the forbidden route and the donkey died. Upon his return
however - he claimed that there had been no water along the route.
(c) Rabah wanted to exempt him from paying, on the grounds - of 'Mah Lo
Le'shaker' ('a Migu', because he could have said that he took the route of
(d) Abaye objected however - because it was a Migu be'Makom Eidim (since we
are witnesses that there is water along that route), and even a 'Migu is not
believed when it contradicts Eidim.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that 'Sh'mor Li, ve'Amar Lo, Hanach Lefanai
Shomer Chinam'. Rav Huna rules - that 'Hanach Lefanecha' is neither a Shomer
Chinam nor a Shomer Sachar (because he is only pulling his leg, and is
simply telling the owner to guard it himself).
(b) We try and infer from our Mishnah ('Sh'mor Li, ve'Amar Lo Hanach
Lefanai, Shomer Chinam') - that if he said 'Hanach' S'tam, he is not a
Shomer (resolving our current She'eilah).
(c) We refute the proof from there by citing Rav Huna, who said that 'Hanach
Lefanecha' is not a Shomer - from which we can infer the opposite
'ha'Hanach' S'tam, is a Shomer Chinam.
(d) When the inference from the Reisha clashes with the inference from the
Seifa - we ignore both inferences (and end up by learning nothing).
(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Bava Kama (concerning a potter who takes his
pots into Reuven's field and Reuven's ox subsequently breaks them) 'Im
Hichnis bi'Reshus, Ba'al Chatzer Chayav' - because when the owner permits
the potter to enter, he means 'Enter, and I will look after them'.
(b) Rebbi - exempts the owner from paying, because, in his opinion, 'Enter'
implies that he has permission to enter, but not that the owner undertakes
to look after his pots for him.
(c) We try to prove from here - that 'Hanach' S'tam is a Machlokes Tana'im;
that according to the Rabbanan it implies an undertaking to look after the
object concerned, whereas according to Rebbi, it means that he should place
the article in the street and look after it himself.
(d) We refute this proof however, on the grounds that perhaps ...
1. ... the Rabbanan's ruling is confined to the case of Chatzer - because it
is a protected place (and it stands to reason that 'Enter' incorporates
looking after the article), but will not extend to our case of placing the
article in the street, which is not.
2. ... Rebbi's ruling too, is confined to the case of Chatzer - because it
is the personal property of the owner, and one needs permission to enter.
But it will not extend to our case of placing the article in the street,
which does not need the Shomer's permission (so unless he meant 'Put it down
and I will guard it', why would he need to tell the owner to put it down
(a) Rebbi Eliezer says in a Beraisa 'ha'Malveh es Chaveiro al ha'Mashkon,
ve'Avad ha'Mashkon, Yishava ve'Yitol Ma'osav' - because the creditor takes a
Mashkon (not to claim from, but) as a lever to force the debtor to pay. He
swears that he was not negligent in looking after it, because he is a Shomer
Chinam on it.
(b) According to Rebbi Akiva - 'Avad ha'Mashkon, Avad Ma'osav', because the
creditor takes a Mashkon in order to claim from, in which case, he is a
(c) Rebbi Eliezer concedes that if he loses the Mashkon, he loses his
money - in the event that the loan was documented, because then, seeing as a
Sh'tar includes Shibud Karka'os, the creditor has all the property of the
debtor to claim from, so why take a security unless he wants to have
something in his hand to claim from?
(d) We initially think - that the author of our Mishnah, 'Hilveihu al
ha'Mashkon Shomer Sachar,' must then be Rebbi Akiva, and not Rebbi Eliezer
(according to whom he is a Shomer Chinam, as we just explained).