Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 1, 2017 | 讙壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 97

A borrower is not liable for accidental damage that occurs from聽using the item in the manner it is meant to be used but it was used in an atypical manner, the borrower is responsible. 聽Possible exceptions to this rule are brought. 聽Various other cases are brought to further define the exception of the owner being “with” the shomer. 聽 The mishna describes bases where an animal is rented for a period of time and borrowed for a period of time or two animal are being dealt with – one rented and one borrowed. 聽The animal dies and there is doubt as to whether it was rented at the time or borrowed. 聽Depending on what each side claims (are they sure in their claim or unsure), the halacha changes. 聽This is based on the principal that if one has a sure claim and the other side is unsure, we hold by the one who has the sure claim. 聽The gemara says that the mishna poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan who hold that one is exempt even if he has an unsure claim. 聽The gemara resolves the difficulty by claiming that the mishna is referring to a case where there is an obligation on the borrower to swear and since he can’t (as he is unsure), he is obligated. 聽But if he didn’t have to swear, he would be exempt.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讜砖转讬拽 专讘

Is this the halakha? Is it not sufficient to pay him the difference between the broken ax鈥檚 previous and current value? And Rav was silent; he did not answer.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 讚诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 转讘专讬讛 讜诪诪诇讬讗 诇讬讛 讚诪讬 诪谞讗

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, that he returns to him the broken tool and makes up the remainder of the tool鈥檚 previous value with a monetary payment.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚砖讗讬诇 讚讜讜诇讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗讬转讘专 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚诇讗 砖谞讬转 讘讬讛 讜讗讬驻讟专

The Gemara relates: A certain man borrowed a pail from another and it broke. He came before Rav Pappa for judgment. Rav Pappa said to him: Bring witnesses that you did not deviate from its regular use, and you will be exempt from liability, as this is comparable to a case of a borrowed animal that died due to ordinary labor.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚砖讗讬诇 砖讜谞专讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讞讘讜专 注诇讬讛 注讻讘专讬 讜拽讟诇讜讛讜 讬转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讜拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讻讬 诪转讛 诪讞诪转 诪诇讗讻讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讛讙专讜谞讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讙讘专讗 讚谞砖讬 拽讟诇讜讛讜 诇讗 讚讬谞讗 讜诇讗 讚讬讬谞讗

The Gemara relates: A certain man borrowed a cat from another to hunt and kill mice for him. The mice banded together against it and killed it. Rav Ashi sat and raised a dilemma: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Is this case comparable to a case where a borrowed animal died due to ordinary labor, or not? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronya said this in the name of Rava: With regard to a man who women killed, there is a need for neither judgment nor a judge, i.e., it is obvious that they are liable. In this case as well, it is obvious that the borrower may the bring the cat to hunt mice, and he is therefore exempt from liability.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讻讬诇 注讻讘专讬 讟讜讘讗 讜讞讘讬诇 讜诪讬转 讬转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讜拽讗 诪注讬讬谉 讘讛 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讛讙专讜谞讬讗 讙讘专讗 讚谞砖讬 拽讟诇讜讛讜 诇讗 讚讬谞讗 讜诇讗 讚讬讬谞讗

There are those who say that the incident actually occurred as follows: The cat ate many mice, and was harmed by doing so and died. Rav Ashi sat and deliberated: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronya said this: With regard to a man who overindulged in sexual intercourse to the extent that women killed him by exhausting him, there is neither judgment nor judge, i.e., there is no redress since it is his own fault.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬砖讗诇 诪讬讚讬 诪讞讘专讬讛 讜诇讬驻讟专 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗砖拽讬讬谉 诪讬讗 讚讛讜讬 砖讗讬诇讛 讘讘注诇讬诐

Rava says: With regard to one who wants to borrow something from another and be exempt from liability, let him say to the lender at the time of borrowing: Pour me water. He will thereby be exempt, as it is then a case of borrowing an item and borrowing or hiring the services of its owner with it.

讜讗讬 驻拽讞 讛讜讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 砖讗讬诇 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 讗砖拽讬讬讱

And if the lender is perspicacious and wishes to prevent the borrower from being exempt from liability, let him say to him: Borrow the item first and then I will pour the water for you. Since the owner will not yet be working for the borrower at the time of the borrowing, the exemption does not apply.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪拽专讬 讚专讚拽讬 砖转诇讗 讟讘讞讗 讜讗讜诪谞讗 住驻专 诪转讗 讻讜诇讛讜谉 讘注讬讚谉 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讻砖讗讬诇讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讚诪讜

Rava says: A teacher of children, the local gardener, the local butcher, and the local bloodletter, and a scribe of the city, with regard to all of them, if someone borrows an item from them at the time of their work, he is exempt from liability, as the case is comparable to borrowing an item and borrowing or hiring its owner with it. This people are always considered in the employ of the residents of the place where they work.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 砖讗讬诇 诇谉 诪专 讗拽驻讬讚 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗驻拽讜注讬 诪诪讜谞讗讬 拽讗 讘注讬转讜 讗讚专讘讛 讗转讜谉 砖讗讬诇转讜谉 诇讬 讚讗讬诇讜 讗谞讗 诪爪讬 讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬 诇讻讜 诪诪住讻转讗 诇诪住讻转讗 讗转讜谉 诇讗 诪爪讬转讜 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬

The Gemara relates: The Rabbis said to Rava: Master, you are lent to us to teach us Torah, and so if we borrow an item from you, we should be exempt from liability. These Rabbis stated this based on Rava鈥檚 own ruling. Rava was angered by this and said to them: Do you want to take my money away from me? On the contrary, I am not lent to you; rather, you are lent to me, since you assist me in consolidating my Torah knowledge. And this is the proof that it is you who are assisting me: Whereas I am able to deflect you from one tractate to another tractate because I am not obligated to teach specifically that which you want to learn, you are not able to deflect me from what I wish to teach.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗讬讛讜 砖讗讬诇 诇讛讜 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻诇讛 讗讬谞讛讜 砖讗讬诇讜 诇讬讛 讘砖讗专 讬讜诪讬

The Gemara comments: But it is not so that a teacher is never lent to his students. During the days of the kalla, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar, the teacher is required to teach a specific subject, and therefore he is lent to them. During the rest of the days of the year, they are lent to him, as he can teach whatever subject matter he wishes.

诪专讬诪专 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讜讙专 讻讜讚谞讬讬转讗 讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 谞驻拽 诇讚诇讜讬讬 讟注讜谞讛 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 驻砖注讜 讘讛 讜诪讬转 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讞讬讬讘讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 驻砖讬注讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讬讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇诪讬住专 讟注讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讚谞驻拽

The Gemara relates: Mareimar bar 岣nina rented out a mule to the residents of Bei 岣zai. He went out to raise up a load onto the mule together with those who rented it. Later they were negligent with the animal, and it died. They came before Rava for judgment, and he deemed them liable to pay. The Sages said to Rava: This is a case of a mishap that occurred due to a renter鈥檚 negligence in safeguarding a deposit that was rented together with its owner, and the halakha in such a case is that the renter is exempt. Rava was embarrassed that he had ruled incorrectly. Ultimately it was revealed that Mareimar bar 岣nina had gone out only to supervise the loading but did not actually participate in loading the animal. Accordingly, Rava鈥檚 ruling that the renters were liable proved to be correct.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻砖讬注讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗讬讻住讬祝 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗诪讗讬 讗讬讻住讬祝

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that in a case of a mishap that occurred because of a borrower鈥檚 negligence in safeguarding a deposit that was borrowed together with its owner, the borrower is exempt; for that reason Rava was embarrassed for ruling incorrectly. But according to the one who says that in such a case the borrower is liable, why was he embarrassed; wouldn鈥檛 it appear that he ruled correctly?

诇讗 诪讬驻砖注 驻砖注讜 讘讛 讗诇讗 讗讬讙谞讜讘讬 讗讬讙谞讜讘 讜诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讘讬 讙谞讘 讛讜讬 讜讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讞讬讬讘讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讙谞讬讘讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇诪讬住专 讟注讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讚谞驻拽

The Gemara emends the details of the incident: Those that rented the mule were not negligent with it. Rather, it was stolen from them and then it died naturally in the house of the thief. And those who rented the mule came before Rava for judgment, and he deemed them liable. The Sages said to Rava: This is a case of theft of a deposit that was borrowed together with borrowing the services of the owner, and so the borrower should be exempt. Rava was embarrassed that he had ruled incorrectly. Ultimately it was revealed that Mareimar bar 岣nina had gone out only to supervise the loading but did not actually participate in loading the animal. Accordingly, Rava鈥檚 ruling proved to be correct.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讗诇 讗转 讛驻专讛 砖讗诇讛 讞爪讬 讬讜诐 讜砖讻专讛 讞爪讬 讬讜诐 砖讗诇讛 讛讬讜诐 讜砖讻专讛 诇诪讞专 砖讻专 讗讞转 讜砖讗诇 讗讞转 讜诪转讛 讛诪砖讗讬诇 讗讜诪专 砖讗讜诇讛 诪转讛 讘讬讜诐 砖讛讬转讛 砖讗讜诇讛 诪转讛

MISHNA: There is one who borrowed a cow. He borrowed it for half of the day and rented it for the other half of the day; or he borrowed it for today and rented it for tomorrow; or he rented one cow and borrowed another one from the same person. And in one of the first two cases, the cow died and it is not clear during which period the cow died. Or in the last case, one of the cows died and it is not clear whether it had been the borrowed cow or the rented cow. If the lender then says: The borrowed cow is the one that died; or: It died on the day that it was being borrowed;

讘砖注讛 砖讛讬转讛 砖讗讜诇讛 诪转讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讞讬讬讘

or: It died during the period in which it was being borrowed, so that, according to his claim, the borrower is liable to pay for the cow, and the other one, the borrower, says: I do not know what happened, the borrower is liable to pay.

讛砖讜讻专 讗讜诪专 砖讻讜专讛 诪转讛 讘讬讜诐 砖讛讬转讛 砖讻讜专讛 诪转讛 讘砖注讛 砖讛讬转讛 砖讻讜专讛 诪转讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 驻讟讜专

If the renter says: The rented cow is the one that died; or: It died on the day that it was being rented; or: It died during the period in which it was being rented, and the other one, the owner of the cow, says: I do not know what happened, the renter is exempt.

讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖讗讜诇讛 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖讻讜专讛 讬砖讘注 讛砖讜讻专 砖砖讻讜专讛 诪转讛

If this owner says with certitude: The borrowed cow is the one that died, and that renter says with certitude: The rented cow is the one that died, then the renter takes an oath that the rented cow is the one that died, and he is then exempt from liability.

讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讬讞诇讜拽讜

If this one says: I do not know what happened, and that one says: I do not know what happened, then they divide the disputed amount. The bailee is liable to pay for only half the value of the cow.

讙诪壮 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讬讛 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讞讬讬讘

GEMARA: Conclude from the mishna that in a comparable situation, where one says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other one says: I do not know whether or not I have your money, that the defendant is liable to pay.

诇讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗讬转诪专 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Na岣an. As it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following case: With regard to one who approaches another and says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I do not know, Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say: The respondent is liable to pay, because he did not deny the claim. Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan say: He is exempt from payment.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 注住拽 砖讘讜注讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 注住拽 砖讘讜注讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉

The Gemara refutes this contention: Just as Rav Na岣an says in that context: He is liable to pay only in a case where there is a matter of an oath between them, here too, it is a case where there is a matter of an oath between them. In that case, Rav Na岣an rules that he is liable to pay only if he is already liable to take an oath concerning his denial of part of the claim. Since he does not know if he owes this sum, and he is therefore unable to take the oath he is liable to take, he must pay. In this case as well, since the bailee does not know what occurred, he cannot take an oath, and must pay.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 注住拽 砖讘讜注讛 讻讚专讘讗

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a matter of an oath? The Gemara explains: This in accordance with the statement of Rava,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 97

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 97

讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讜砖转讬拽 专讘

Is this the halakha? Is it not sufficient to pay him the difference between the broken ax鈥檚 previous and current value? And Rav was silent; he did not answer.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 讚诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 转讘专讬讛 讜诪诪诇讬讗 诇讬讛 讚诪讬 诪谞讗

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, that he returns to him the broken tool and makes up the remainder of the tool鈥檚 previous value with a monetary payment.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚砖讗讬诇 讚讜讜诇讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗讬转讘专 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚诇讗 砖谞讬转 讘讬讛 讜讗讬驻讟专

The Gemara relates: A certain man borrowed a pail from another and it broke. He came before Rav Pappa for judgment. Rav Pappa said to him: Bring witnesses that you did not deviate from its regular use, and you will be exempt from liability, as this is comparable to a case of a borrowed animal that died due to ordinary labor.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚砖讗讬诇 砖讜谞专讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讞讘讜专 注诇讬讛 注讻讘专讬 讜拽讟诇讜讛讜 讬转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讜拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讻讬 诪转讛 诪讞诪转 诪诇讗讻讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讛讙专讜谞讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讙讘专讗 讚谞砖讬 拽讟诇讜讛讜 诇讗 讚讬谞讗 讜诇讗 讚讬讬谞讗

The Gemara relates: A certain man borrowed a cat from another to hunt and kill mice for him. The mice banded together against it and killed it. Rav Ashi sat and raised a dilemma: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Is this case comparable to a case where a borrowed animal died due to ordinary labor, or not? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronya said this in the name of Rava: With regard to a man who women killed, there is a need for neither judgment nor a judge, i.e., it is obvious that they are liable. In this case as well, it is obvious that the borrower may the bring the cat to hunt mice, and he is therefore exempt from liability.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讻讬诇 注讻讘专讬 讟讜讘讗 讜讞讘讬诇 讜诪讬转 讬转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讜拽讗 诪注讬讬谉 讘讛 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 诪讛讙专讜谞讬讗 讙讘专讗 讚谞砖讬 拽讟诇讜讛讜 诇讗 讚讬谞讗 讜诇讗 讚讬讬谞讗

There are those who say that the incident actually occurred as follows: The cat ate many mice, and was harmed by doing so and died. Rav Ashi sat and deliberated: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronya said this: With regard to a man who overindulged in sexual intercourse to the extent that women killed him by exhausting him, there is neither judgment nor judge, i.e., there is no redress since it is his own fault.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬砖讗诇 诪讬讚讬 诪讞讘专讬讛 讜诇讬驻讟专 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗砖拽讬讬谉 诪讬讗 讚讛讜讬 砖讗讬诇讛 讘讘注诇讬诐

Rava says: With regard to one who wants to borrow something from another and be exempt from liability, let him say to the lender at the time of borrowing: Pour me water. He will thereby be exempt, as it is then a case of borrowing an item and borrowing or hiring the services of its owner with it.

讜讗讬 驻拽讞 讛讜讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 砖讗讬诇 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 讗砖拽讬讬讱

And if the lender is perspicacious and wishes to prevent the borrower from being exempt from liability, let him say to him: Borrow the item first and then I will pour the water for you. Since the owner will not yet be working for the borrower at the time of the borrowing, the exemption does not apply.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪拽专讬 讚专讚拽讬 砖转诇讗 讟讘讞讗 讜讗讜诪谞讗 住驻专 诪转讗 讻讜诇讛讜谉 讘注讬讚谉 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讻砖讗讬诇讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讚诪讜

Rava says: A teacher of children, the local gardener, the local butcher, and the local bloodletter, and a scribe of the city, with regard to all of them, if someone borrows an item from them at the time of their work, he is exempt from liability, as the case is comparable to borrowing an item and borrowing or hiring its owner with it. This people are always considered in the employ of the residents of the place where they work.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 砖讗讬诇 诇谉 诪专 讗拽驻讬讚 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗驻拽讜注讬 诪诪讜谞讗讬 拽讗 讘注讬转讜 讗讚专讘讛 讗转讜谉 砖讗讬诇转讜谉 诇讬 讚讗讬诇讜 讗谞讗 诪爪讬 讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬 诇讻讜 诪诪住讻转讗 诇诪住讻转讗 讗转讜谉 诇讗 诪爪讬转讜 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬

The Gemara relates: The Rabbis said to Rava: Master, you are lent to us to teach us Torah, and so if we borrow an item from you, we should be exempt from liability. These Rabbis stated this based on Rava鈥檚 own ruling. Rava was angered by this and said to them: Do you want to take my money away from me? On the contrary, I am not lent to you; rather, you are lent to me, since you assist me in consolidating my Torah knowledge. And this is the proof that it is you who are assisting me: Whereas I am able to deflect you from one tractate to another tractate because I am not obligated to teach specifically that which you want to learn, you are not able to deflect me from what I wish to teach.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗讬讛讜 砖讗讬诇 诇讛讜 讘讬讜诪讗 讚讻诇讛 讗讬谞讛讜 砖讗讬诇讜 诇讬讛 讘砖讗专 讬讜诪讬

The Gemara comments: But it is not so that a teacher is never lent to his students. During the days of the kalla, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar, the teacher is required to teach a specific subject, and therefore he is lent to them. During the rest of the days of the year, they are lent to him, as he can teach whatever subject matter he wishes.

诪专讬诪专 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讜讙专 讻讜讚谞讬讬转讗 讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 谞驻拽 诇讚诇讜讬讬 讟注讜谞讛 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 驻砖注讜 讘讛 讜诪讬转 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讞讬讬讘讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 驻砖讬注讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讬讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇诪讬住专 讟注讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讚谞驻拽

The Gemara relates: Mareimar bar 岣nina rented out a mule to the residents of Bei 岣zai. He went out to raise up a load onto the mule together with those who rented it. Later they were negligent with the animal, and it died. They came before Rava for judgment, and he deemed them liable to pay. The Sages said to Rava: This is a case of a mishap that occurred due to a renter鈥檚 negligence in safeguarding a deposit that was rented together with its owner, and the halakha in such a case is that the renter is exempt. Rava was embarrassed that he had ruled incorrectly. Ultimately it was revealed that Mareimar bar 岣nina had gone out only to supervise the loading but did not actually participate in loading the animal. Accordingly, Rava鈥檚 ruling that the renters were liable proved to be correct.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻砖讬注讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗讬讻住讬祝 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗诪讗讬 讗讬讻住讬祝

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that in a case of a mishap that occurred because of a borrower鈥檚 negligence in safeguarding a deposit that was borrowed together with its owner, the borrower is exempt; for that reason Rava was embarrassed for ruling incorrectly. But according to the one who says that in such a case the borrower is liable, why was he embarrassed; wouldn鈥檛 it appear that he ruled correctly?

诇讗 诪讬驻砖注 驻砖注讜 讘讛 讗诇讗 讗讬讙谞讜讘讬 讗讬讙谞讜讘 讜诪转讛 讻讚专讻讛 讘讬 讙谞讘 讛讜讬 讜讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讞讬讬讘讬谞讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讙谞讬讘讛 讘讘注诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇诪讬住专 讟注讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讚谞驻拽

The Gemara emends the details of the incident: Those that rented the mule were not negligent with it. Rather, it was stolen from them and then it died naturally in the house of the thief. And those who rented the mule came before Rava for judgment, and he deemed them liable. The Sages said to Rava: This is a case of theft of a deposit that was borrowed together with borrowing the services of the owner, and so the borrower should be exempt. Rava was embarrassed that he had ruled incorrectly. Ultimately it was revealed that Mareimar bar 岣nina had gone out only to supervise the loading but did not actually participate in loading the animal. Accordingly, Rava鈥檚 ruling proved to be correct.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讗诇 讗转 讛驻专讛 砖讗诇讛 讞爪讬 讬讜诐 讜砖讻专讛 讞爪讬 讬讜诐 砖讗诇讛 讛讬讜诐 讜砖讻专讛 诇诪讞专 砖讻专 讗讞转 讜砖讗诇 讗讞转 讜诪转讛 讛诪砖讗讬诇 讗讜诪专 砖讗讜诇讛 诪转讛 讘讬讜诐 砖讛讬转讛 砖讗讜诇讛 诪转讛

MISHNA: There is one who borrowed a cow. He borrowed it for half of the day and rented it for the other half of the day; or he borrowed it for today and rented it for tomorrow; or he rented one cow and borrowed another one from the same person. And in one of the first two cases, the cow died and it is not clear during which period the cow died. Or in the last case, one of the cows died and it is not clear whether it had been the borrowed cow or the rented cow. If the lender then says: The borrowed cow is the one that died; or: It died on the day that it was being borrowed;

讘砖注讛 砖讛讬转讛 砖讗讜诇讛 诪转讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讞讬讬讘

or: It died during the period in which it was being borrowed, so that, according to his claim, the borrower is liable to pay for the cow, and the other one, the borrower, says: I do not know what happened, the borrower is liable to pay.

讛砖讜讻专 讗讜诪专 砖讻讜专讛 诪转讛 讘讬讜诐 砖讛讬转讛 砖讻讜专讛 诪转讛 讘砖注讛 砖讛讬转讛 砖讻讜专讛 诪转讛 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 驻讟讜专

If the renter says: The rented cow is the one that died; or: It died on the day that it was being rented; or: It died during the period in which it was being rented, and the other one, the owner of the cow, says: I do not know what happened, the renter is exempt.

讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖讗讜诇讛 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖讻讜专讛 讬砖讘注 讛砖讜讻专 砖砖讻讜专讛 诪转讛

If this owner says with certitude: The borrowed cow is the one that died, and that renter says with certitude: The rented cow is the one that died, then the renter takes an oath that the rented cow is the one that died, and he is then exempt from liability.

讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讬讞诇讜拽讜

If this one says: I do not know what happened, and that one says: I do not know what happened, then they divide the disputed amount. The bailee is liable to pay for only half the value of the cow.

讙诪壮 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讬讛 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讞讬讬讘

GEMARA: Conclude from the mishna that in a comparable situation, where one says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other one says: I do not know whether or not I have your money, that the defendant is liable to pay.

诇讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗讬转诪专 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Na岣an. As it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following case: With regard to one who approaches another and says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I do not know, Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say: The respondent is liable to pay, because he did not deny the claim. Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan say: He is exempt from payment.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 注住拽 砖讘讜注讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 注住拽 砖讘讜注讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉

The Gemara refutes this contention: Just as Rav Na岣an says in that context: He is liable to pay only in a case where there is a matter of an oath between them, here too, it is a case where there is a matter of an oath between them. In that case, Rav Na岣an rules that he is liable to pay only if he is already liable to take an oath concerning his denial of part of the claim. Since he does not know if he owes this sum, and he is therefore unable to take the oath he is liable to take, he must pay. In this case as well, since the bailee does not know what occurred, he cannot take an oath, and must pay.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 注住拽 砖讘讜注讛 讻讚专讘讗

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a matter of an oath? The Gemara explains: This in accordance with the statement of Rava,

Scroll To Top