(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 36


(a) The Socher and Sho'el referred to in our Mishnah are both obligated to swear. Assuming they swore falsely, they would have to bring either a Chatas or an Asham.
Why is the Sho'el obligated to swear, seeing as he is Chayav to pay anyway?

(b) When do they bring ...

  1. ... a Chatas?
  2. ... an Asham?
(c) What do each of these Korbanos comprise?

(d) If the animal died a natural death and they both swore that an O'nes occurred, why will they both bring a Chatas?

(a) What will they both bring if the animal was stolen and they both swore that it died naturally from work?

(b) Which Korban will each of them bring if they both swore that the animal ...

  1. ... died from work, when in fact, it died naturally?
  2. ... died naturally, when in fact it was stolen?
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah, who lists all these cases, is coming to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Ami.
What does Rebbi Ami learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "O Nefesh Ki Sishava le'Vatei bi'Sefasayim"?
(a) Rav holds 'Shomer she'Masar le'Shomer Patur'. Abaye explains that this even pertains to a Shomer Sachar who handed the deposit to a Shomer Chinam (thereby effectively diminishing the Shemirah).
Why is that?

(b) What exactly is he Patur from?

(c) What does Abaye comment with regard to Rebbi Yochanan, who declares a Shomer she'Masar le'Shomer liable? What is Rebbi Yochanan's reason?

(d) What is the Shomer then liable, according to Rebbi Yochanan?

(a) In the story of the gardeners and their hoes, what did the gardener do with his colleagues spades when he went to participate in a local wedding?

(b) When the hoes were stolen from the old woman, and Rav ruled that the appointed Shomer was Patur, the Talmid (who cited Rav above) thought that it was because Rav holds 'Shomer she'Masar le'Shomer, Patur'.
How did Rav Chisda disillusion him? Why is that case different?

(c) In that case, Rebbi Ami explained to Rebbi Aba bar Mamal, our Mishnah, which gives validity to a Socher who lends the Pikadon to a Sho'el, must be speaking when the owner authorized him to do so.
That being so, why does the Sho'el pay the Socher, and not the owner?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about a Shomer who accepts money as a deposit and slings it over his shoulders, or places it in the charge of his young children without securing the door properly?

(b) What can we infer from the fact that the Tana refers to *young* children?

(c) What does Rami bar Chami ask on this from the current ruling of Shomer she'Moser le'Shomer?

(d) How does Rava answer this Kashya? Why is this case different?

Answers to questions



(a) How do the Neherda'i prove that when someone deposits something with a Shomer, he does so on the understanding that his wife and grown-up children will share the responsibility - from the Lashon of the Tana 'O she'Masran li'V'no u'le'Vito ha'Ketanim'? What does this Lashon imply?

(b) What should the Tana otherwise have said?

(a) Rava concludes that 'Shomer she'Masar le'Shomer Chayav'.
What reason does *he* give for this ruling?

(b) What is the difference between Rava's reason and that of Abaye ('Ein Retzoni she'Yehei Pikdoni be'Yad Acher') - see Tosfos DH ?

(a) According to Abaye quoting Rabah, if, due to the negligence of the Shomer, the animal walked out of the field into a public meadow and died, the Shomer is Chayav. Is this connected with the Machlokes whether 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'O'nes' is Chayav or Patur?

(b) Then what *is* Abaye's reason?

(c) What does Abaye (and subsequently Rava) say about a Dayan who rules otherwise?

(d) And why does Rava quoting Rabah rule that he is Patur (even according to those who hold 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'O'nes Chayav'?

(a) In which case does ...
  1. ... Abaye concede that the Shomer is Patur in spite of his initial\ negligence?
  2. ... Rava concede that he is Chayav because of his negligence?
(b) On the previous Amud, Rebbi Aba bar Mamal queried the ruling that 'Shomer she'Masar le'Shamar Chayav', from our Mishnah, which discusses a Socher who lent a Pikadon to a Sho'el; and we answered by establishing the Mishnah when he did so with the owner's consent.
What Kashya does Abaye pose on Rava from there on the latter's current stance?

(c) What is Rava's reply?

(a) The Mishnah in 'ha'Socher es ha'Po'alim' holds the Shomer liable if the animal that he took up to the cliff-top fell off and died. What can we infer from there regarding a case where the animal died there naturally (a Kashya on Abaye, in whose opinion one is Chayav because 'the air of the mountain killed it').
If not the mountain air, what else might have killed it?

(b) How do we reconcile Abaye with the Mishnah?

(c) Why is he ...

  1. ... then Chayav even if the animal fell off?
  2. ... then Patur in the Reisha, where the animal climbed up on its own initiative and fell off? Why is he not Chayav there too, because he should have held on to it?
Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,