Elu Metziot shiur #28, 28b

  • Rav Joshua Amaru

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)


Introduction to the Study of Talmud
By Rav Josh Amaru

Elu Metziot shiur #28,  28b.

Today's shiur includes the vocabulary list for the shiur itself. If you wish to consult the full cumulative vocabulary list, it is found at
http://www.vbm-torah.org/talmud2/vocab.htm.  The grammar lessons appear at the end of the vocabulary lists. 

As usual, the citations to the text of the gemara are linked to the online scan of the daf, for those who do not have an open gemara before them.  The gemara can be found on-line at 
http://www.e-daf.com/daf.asp?ID=30801 and
http://www.e-daf.com/daf.asp?ID=30802.

Key words and phrases are marked in blue, and their translation/explanation can be seen by placing the cursor over them.  Other vocabulary words are marked in red and can be found on the vocabulary list at the end of the shiur.  Particularly important vocabulary words will be underlined and either have a link to the vocabulary list or a pop-up window that will appear if you place the cursor on them. 

Summary of last shiur:  In the last shiur we concluded our discussion of announcing and began investigating the obligations of the finder to maintain a lost object.  In this shiur we will focus on the nature of the finder's obligations. 

    The next sugya is is very dense and complicated.  In order to do it justice, I have divided the discussion into two parts, spread over two weeks.  This week's shiur will include an introduction and overview of the laws of "shomerim", of the laws concerning situations in which one person is placed in (temporary) possession of another's property.  Only then will we be able to address the gemara.  This week we will learn only the beginning of the sugya in which the basic issue at hand is set forth.  Next week's shiur will be based on this week's and will discuss the whole sugya in its entirety.  The schematic analysis for the whole sugya (until the mishna on 29b) will appear this week and will be reprinted next week.  

The Laws of Shomerim

    The halakha has a well developed set of laws regarding situations in which one person is in possession of another's property.  Before outlining the rules let us define some terms:  The object that the owner lends, rents, etc., is called a pikadon  פקדון.  The person who has received the pikadon into his care is called a shomer  שומר (literally a guardian or a 'bailee' in English legalese - we will, as usual, use the Hebrew term). 

    Situations in which one person's property are in another's possession present an interesting problem to any legal system.  The question arises as to the degree of responsibility the shomer bears for the pikadon when it is lost of damaged.  In addition, if there are situations in which we do not hold him or her fully responsible, how does the shomer  prove that he or she is not liable?  These issues are addressed in the Torah in the following verses:

Shemot 22

שמות פרק כב

(6)  If someone should give money or utensils to his neighbor for safekeeping and they are stolen from the man's house;  if the thief is found, he shall pay double. 

(7)  If the thief is not found, the owner of the house (i.e. the shomer) shall approach the judges to attest that he has not appropriated his neighbor's property....

(9)  When a person gives to his neighbor a donkey, an ox or a sheep or any animal to guard, and it dies, or is injured or is carried off, and there is no witness. 

(10)  An oath to God shall be between them that he did not appropriate his neighbor's property;  the owner must acquiesce and no compensation shall be paid. 

(11)  But if it [the animal] was stolen from him, he shall recompense its owner. 

(12)  If it was torn by beasts, he shall bring it as evidence - he need not pay for that which has been torn by beasts. 

(13) When a person borrows from is neighbor and it is injured or dies, its owner not being with it, he [the borrower] must pay [for it]. 

(14) If the owner was with it , he need not pay; if it was hired, it comes with the hire.

(ו) כÌÄי יÄתÌÅן אÄישÑ אÆל רÅעÅהוÌ כÌÆסÆף אוÉ כÅלÄים לÄשÑÀמÉר וÀגËנÌÇב מÄבÌÅית הÈאÄישÑ אÄם יÄמÌÈצÅא הÇגÌÇנÌÈב יÀשÑÇלÌÅם שÑÀנÈיÄם: 

(ז) אÄם לÉא יÄמÌÈצÅא הÇגÌÇנÌÈב וÀנÄקÀרÇב בÌÇעÇל הÇבÌÇיÄת אÆל הÈאÁלÉהÄים אÄם לÉא שÑÈלÇח יÈדוÉ בÌÄמÀלÆאכÆת רÅעÅהוÌ: ...

(ט) כÌÄי יÄתÌÅן אÄישÑ אÆל רÅעÅהוÌ חÂמוÉר אוÉ שÑוÉר אוÉ שÒÆה וÀכÈל בÌÀהÅמÈה לÄשÑÀמÉר וÌמÅת אוÉ נÄשÑÀבÌÇר אוÉ נÄשÑÀבÌÈה אÅין רÉאÆה: 

(י) שÑÀבËעÇת יÀקÉוÈק תÌÄהÀיÆה בÌÅין שÑÀנÅיהÆם אÄם לÉא שÑÈלÇח יÈדוÉ בÌÄמÀלÆאכÆת רÅעÅהוÌ וÀלÈקÇח בÌÀעÈלÈיו וÀלÉא יÀשÑÇלÌÅם: 

(יא) וÀאÄם גÌÈנÉב יÄגÌÈנÅב מÅעÄמÌוÉ יÀשÑÇלÌÅם לÄבÀעÈלÈיו: 

(יב) אÄם טÈרÉף יÄטÌÈרÅף יÀבÄאÅהוÌ עÅד הÇטÌÀרÅפÈה לÉא יÀשÑÇלÌÅם:

(יג) וÀכÄי יÄשÑÀאÇל אÄישÑ מÅעÄם רÅעÅהוÌ וÀנÄשÑÀבÌÇר אוÉ מÅת בÌÀעÈלÈיו אÅין עÄמÌוÉ שÑÇלÌÅם יÀשÑÇלÌÅם:

(יד) אÄם בÌÀעÈלÈיו עÄמÌוÉ לÉא יÀשÑÇלÌÅם אÄם שÒÈכÄיר הוÌא בÌÈא בÌÄשÒÀכÈרוÉ:

   

The interpretation of these verses is very complicated and is in fact the subject of a large portion of masekhet Bava Metzia.  We will not try to do that here but merely to outline the way in which the halakha deals with the laws of shomerim (pl. of shomer).  As you can see from the way I divided the verses into sections above, the Torah addresses four different scenarios in which a person can be in possession of another's property (we are not talking about illicit possession, such as theft, but of the different circumstances under which the owner can give the pikadon to the shomer).  They are, in the order of of the verses: 

shomer who works for free; 
A shomer who works for pay;
A borrower;
A renter. 

As we will see, there are two basic principles that guide the laws of shomerim.   

1.  The degree of responsibility borne by the shomer is proportional to the amount of benefit he gains, relative to the owner, by his possession of the object. 

2.  In cases where the pikadon is lost or damaged in a way that the shomer is not liable, he may establish that by taking an oath. 

Based on these principles, the mishna laid out the four different kinds of shomerim

Bava Metzia daf 93a

תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא מציעא דף צג עמוד א

Mishna:  There are four shomerim:  the shomer chinam, (one who guards for free) and the shoel (borrower),  the noseh sakhar (hired guard)  and the renter.  The shomer chinam swears in every case and the shoel pays in every case.  The noseh sakhar and the renter swear for the injured, carried off, or dead [pikadon], and pay for the lost or stolen [pikadon].

משנה. ארבע שומרים הן: שומר חנם והשואל, נושא שכר והשוכר. שומר חנם נשבע על הכל, והשואל משלם את הכל, ונושא שכר והשוכר נשבעים על השבורה ועל השבויה ועל המתה, ומשלמין את האבידה ואת הגניבה.

In the mishna, swearing an oath is opposed to paying.  A shomer who has lost the pikadon for some reason or another must describe the circumstances of that loss.  If he is not responsible under the circumstances described, he takes an oath to support his description of the circumstances, and be absolved of payment.  If, however, the circumstances are such that the shomer is held responsible, he must pay.  The degree of responsibility is a function of the relative benefit the shomer gains from his or her possession of the object:

Type of shomer relative benefit degree of responsiblity
shomer chinam שומר חנם (free bailee) shomer gains no benefit - all the benefit is the owner's not responsible except in cases of negligence.
shomer (noseh) sakhar שומר שכר  (hired bailee) gets paid to take care of the pikadon but may not make use of it. responsible for theft and loss but not for ones אונס; i.e., unexpected loss like the animal's sudden death.
sokher שוכר (renter) gets to use the object but must pay for it. responsible for theft and loss but not for ones אונס; i.e., unexpected loss like the animal's sudden death.
shoel שואל (borrower) gains all the benefit - may use the object for free. always responsible even for ones אונס (except in one specific situation which we won't deal with here)

    Before we finally look at the gemara, let's go back to the mishna on 28b.  There we saw that R. Tarfon and R. Akiva disagree as to whether the finder may use the money he or she has set aside in place of a lost object that is too expensive to maintain.  The question of the permissibility of use of the money seems to give rise to the degree of responsibility the finder has for this money.  According to R. Tarfon, since the finder is permitted to use the money, he is also responsible for its loss.  According to R. Akiva, since the finder is forbidden to make use of the money, he is subsequently not held responsible for its loss.  At this point it is not clear why there is such a relationship. 

    With all of this in mind, look now at the gemara on the bottom of 28b, from "ma yehei ba-damim מה יהא בדמים" until "im avdu - patur אם אבדו - פטור" on the top of 29a. Look at Rashi, s.v. ke-shenishtamesh כשנשתמשLines 1-2 in the schematic analysis. 

    This short gemara appears simple but is actually very difficult. The gemara opens with a qualification of the makhloket between R. Tarfon and R. Akiva.  According to the gemara, the makhloket in the mishna applies only when the finder has actually used the money.  Only then does R. Tarfon hold that he is liable for its loss and R. Akiva hold that he is not so liable.  However, if he or she has not yet used the money, both R. Tarfon and R. Akiva would agree that if the money is lost he is not liable. 

    At first glance, this assertion made by the gemara seems simple enough.  The gemara teaches that the crucial point in which the finder becomes fully responsible according to R. Tarfon is when he actually takes the money and uses it.  Before then we do not hold him fully liable.   R. Akiva holds that since he is forbidden to do so, his taking it changes nothing and he is still not fully liable. 

    However, if we think about this for a moment, it does not make any sense.  We can understand why R. Tarfon would limit responsibility to the point in which the finder actually takes the money, but why would R. Akiva say that one is not responsible for its loss when one takes it.  According to R. Akiva, using the money is tantamount to stealing it!  Someone who steals another's property is certainly responsible for returning it!  Because of this difficulty, none of the commentators interpret this gemara literally.  Look at Rashi on 29a, s.v ke-shenishtamesh כשנשתמש

The Tosafot on the bottom of 28b, s.v. ad kan lo pligi ela be-nishtamesh bahen עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בנשתמש בהן, explicate Rashi's explanation of how the permission to use the money has value.  The benefit incurred is the benefit of having ready cash around, such that if a deal comes up one has money to make it. 

As far as I know, all of the commentators agree that one cannot interpret the gemara at face value, though some take different routes than Rashi's simple insistence not to read so closely. 

    Rashi explains that the crucial point the gemara is trying to make here is not about the actual use of the money set aside but about the right to do so.  The gemara claims that the makhloket between R. Tarfon and R. Akiva about responsibility for the money is a function of the makhloket about the whether it is permitted to use it.  R. Tarfon holds that he is permitted to use it, and this permission itself is deemed to have value.  This added value means that he is a shomer sakhar on these monies, and as such his level of liablity goes up.  R. Akiva holds that he is forbidden to use the money.  He therefore gains nothing from the money being in his possession (besides the performance of the mitzva of hashavat aveida), and as such can only be considered a shomer chinam, with its attendant lower level of liability. 

    With this understanding of the machloket in mind, the gemara confronts a different machloket about the nature of the finder's responsibilities.  Learn now on 29a from "leima tihavi tiyuvta לימא תיהוי תיובתא" until "lo havi shoel alayhu לא הוי שואל עלייהו."  Lines 3-5 in the schematic analysis.

    The gemara suggests that the mishna, as interpreted, seems to undermine Rav Yosef's position regarding the responsibilities of the finder of a lost object.  As the gemara explains, Rav Yosef and Raba disagree about how to categorize the finder of a lost object.  This disagreement is not limited to cases when the object is sold because of maintenance costs, as in our mishna, but rather addresses every case in which someone finds a lost object.  What are his or her subsequent level of responsibility for that object?  According to Raba, the finder is merely a shomer chinam; since, after all, he or she receives no payment for taking care of the lost object. Since he is a shomer chinam, the level of liability should be the lowest. He should not be held responsible for the loss of or damage to the object after it came into his possession, unless it can be established that that loss or damage was the result of negligence. 

    Rav Yosef, however, disagrees.  Rav Yosef thinks we should regard the finder of a lost object as a shomer sakhar, who must reimburse the owner if the object is stolen or lost.  Only if the loss is the result of some unavoidable accident, an ones, אונס should the finder not be held liable.  Why, according to Rav Yosef, does the finder of a lost object have more liability than a person who the owner has asked to take care of his object?  The gemara here does not explain, but look in Rashi, s.v. ke-shomer sakhar כשומר שכר

    Rashi explains that according to Rav Yosef, we should regard the finder of a lost object as one who is in fact being paid, at least minimally.  In performing the mitzva of hashavat aveida, he benefits in that while he is busy with the lost object, he is absolved from performing other mitzvot.  This does not seem to clarify things very well.  Let's look in Rashi's source - the gemara in Bava Kama 56b to see if that will clear things up.  There we encounter a fuller discussion of the makhloket between Rav Yosef and Raba.

Bava Kama 56b

בבלי בבא קמא דף נו עמוד ב

It was stated: [Regarding] the shomer of a lost object - Raba said he is a like a shomer chinam; Rav Yosef said he is like a shomer sakhar.  Raba explained:  he is a like a shomer chinam since what benefit is coming to him? R. Yosef explained:  he is like a shomer sakhar -  on account of the benefit he derives from not being required to give bread to the poor [while occupied in minding the lost article], he becomes a shomer sakhar. Some, explain it thus: R. Yosef said that he is like a shomer sakhar since the Merciful One put this obligation upon him even against his will; he therefore is like a shomer sakhar

איתמר: שומר אבידה - רבה אמר: כשומר חנם דמי, רב יוסף אמר: כש"ש דמי. רבה אמר כשומר חנם דמי, מאי הנאה קא מטי ליה; רב יוסף אמר כש"ש דמי, בההיא הנאה דלא בעיא למיתבי ליה ריפתא לעניא הוי כש"ש. איכא דמפרשי הכי: רב יוסף אמר כש"ש דמי, כיון דרחמנא שעבדיה בעל כורחיה, הלכך כש"ש דמי.

    The gemara here explains Raba's position as we would expect - the finder receives no compensation for looking after the lost object so there is no reason to regard him as anything but a shomer chinam.  The gemara offers two different explanations for Rav Yosef's position.  First, as the Rashi in Bava Metzia alluded to, Rav Yosef seems to think that the finder does receive minimal compensation.  While taking care of the lost object, he is not obligated in other mitzvot, based on the principle that someone who is doing one mitzva is at that moment not obligated in others.  Since this release can be economically beneficial - e.g. one can thus avoid having to feed a poor person - it has monetary value.  This value counts as benefit gained by the finder, making him into a shomer sakhar

    This minimal compensation accrued by the finder seems to be a too formalistic explanation of Rav Yosef's position.  A regular shomer sakhar intentionally accepts a higher level of compensation in exchange for pay.  The finder, on the other hand, does not have a choice.  He or she is obligated to pick up the lost object in order to return it.  Despite the fact that he has no choice and may not want to accept the risk, he is understood to be benefiting and thus is liable for theft and loss.  Presumably, discomfort with this situation gave rise to the alternative explanation of Rav Yosef's position offered by the gemara.

    In this explanation, the greater liability imposed on the finder according to Rav Yosef is not a function of the minimal benefit he receives.  The finder does not become a real shomer sakhar, a hired guardian.  Rather the obligation to return the lost object carries its own weight.  The finder is merely "like a shomer sakhar", i.e. he bears the same level of liability.  The obligation to return the lost object obliges him to look after it as if he were a shomer sakhar, despite the fact that he does not receive real composition. 

    That is the makhloket between Raba and Rav Yosef.  How does it apply to our mishna?  How does our mishna undermine Rav Yosef's position?  The gemara does not elaborate but if we go back to our explanation of the mishna above, the problem will be obvious.   Recall that our mishna relates a machloket between R. Tarfon and R. Akiva regarding the money that a lost object was converted into.  The gemara claims that the makhloket between R. Tarfon and R. Akiva about responsibility for the money is a function of the makhloket about the whether it is permitted to use it.  R. Tarfon holds that he is permitted to use it, and this permission can be understood as having a value.  This added value means that he is a shomer sakhar on these monies, and as such his level of liability goes up.  R. Akiva holds that he is forbidden to use the money.  He therefore gains nothing from the money being in his possession (besides the performance of the mitzva of hashavat aveida) and as such can only be considered a shomer chinam, with its attendant lower level of liability. 

    Implicit in this whole analysis is that the only thing that makes the finder into a shomer sakhar is his right to use the money.  According to R. Tarfon, he has that right, and therefore is a shomer sakhar.  According to R. Akiva, he does not have the right, and therefore is not a shomer sakhar but merely a shomer chinam.  According to Rav Yosef, however, the finder of a lost object should always be a shomer sakhar, regardless of whether or not he may use the money into which  the lost object is converted!  In other words, Rav Yosef must hold that the finder is a shomer sakhar even according to R. Akiva, since he has that status automatically, as the person responsible for a lost object (for the reasons  mentioned above in the discussion of Bava Kama 56b).   How then, does Rav Yosef understand the mishna? 

    The gemara explains that according to Rav Yosef, the machloket about use of the money is not about whether the finder is a shomer chinam or a shomer sakhar.  As Rav Yosef holds in general, the finder is always a shomer sakhar.  R. Akiva and R. Tarfon disagree as to whether the finder may use the money.  If he may, then he becomes a shoel with regard to the money.  If he is not allowed to use it , then he remains a shomer sakhar

    As you can see, Rav Yosef interprets the mishna in much the same way as Raba, but from a different starting point.  Raba starts from the assumption that a finder is a shomer chinam and then explains that R. Tarfon, in allowing the owner to use the money, turns him into a shomer sakhar.  Rav Yosef, in turn, starts from the assumption that a finder is a shomer sakhar, and thus the question of added liability based upon the permissibility of use becomes the question of whether he is a shoel.    

We will stop  here for the time being.  This week we learned about the general laws of shomerim.  We saw the machloket between  Raba and Rav Yosef regarding the level of the finder's liability.  We then tried to understand the mishna, and the machloket between R. Tarfon and R. Akiva as to the permissibility of the use of cash gained through the disposal of lost objects, and its attendant question as to the level of liability.  Next week, we will pick up from here and enter the gemara's discussion of the relationship between Raba and Rav Yosef's machloket and R. Tarfon and R. Akiva's. 

 

Schematic Analysis #28

Schematic analysis from 28b, "ma yehei ba-damim מה יהא בדמים" until the mishna on 29b. 

Translation of gemara

Schematic Analysis

Text of gemara

1.  "What happens with the money?  R. Tarfon says he may use it, etc.  

Quote from the mishna

1. מה יהא בדמים? רבי טרפון אומר ישתמש וכו'.

2. They [R. Tarfon and R. Akiva] disagree only when he [the finder] used it. But had not used it, if it was lost he is absolved [of responsibility]. qualification of the makhloket in the mishna.

2.  עד כאן לא פליגי . [דף כט עמ' א']אלא כשנשתמש בהן, אבל לא נשתמש בהן, אם אבדו - פטור.

3. Shall we say that this refutes R. Yosef?

Difficulty for Rav Yosef based on this interpretation of the mishna

3.   לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב יוסף.

4.  For it has been stated. A shomer of lost property: Raba ruled, he is like a shomer chinam; Rav Yosef said, he is like a shomer sakhar

Elaboration of Rav Yosef's position vis-a-vis Raba.

4.  דאתמר, שומר אבידה. רבה אמר: כשומר חנם, רב יוסף אמר: כשומר שכר.

5.  Rav Yosef would answer you: As for theft and loss, all agree that he is responsible. They differ only in respect to onesin (unavoidable accidents), for which a borrower [alone is responsible]. R. Tarfon holds: The Rabbis permitted him [the finder] to use it, therefore he is a shoel with respect to it.  R. Akiva holds that the Rabbis did not permit him to use it, therefore he is not a shoel with respect to it. Explanation of the mishna according to Rav Yosef.

5.  אמר לך רב יוסף: בגניבה ואבידה - דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דחייב, כי פליגי - באונסין דשואל. רבי טרפון סבר: שרו ליה רבנן לאשתמושי בגוייהו, והוה ליה שואל עלייהו. ורבי עקיבא סבר: לא שרו ליה רבנן לאשתמושי בגוייהו, הלכך לא הוי שואל עלייהו. 

6.  If so, why does R. Akiva say 'Therefore?' 

Difficulty with Rav Yosef's explanation

6.  אי הכי, לפיכך דאמר רבי עקיבא למה לי?

7. if you agree that they differ concerning theft and loss, it makes sense - that is why it is taught:  'R. Akiva says he should not use it, therefore if it is lost he is not responsible.' I might have thought he is a shomer sakhar, in accordance with R. Yosef's view, and [thus] responsible for theft and loss; [the mishna thus] teaches us 'therefore, [etc.] i.e., since you say that he may not use it, he is not a shomer sakhar, and is not responsible for theft and loss. Elaboration of the difficulty - explanation of the mishna according to Raba.

7.  אי אמרת בשלמא בגניבה ואבידה הוא דפליגי - היינו דקתני רבי עקיבא אומר לא ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם אבדו אינו חייב באחריותן, סלקא דעתך אמינא שומר שכר הוי כדרב יוסף, ובגניבה ואבידה מחייב - קא משמע לן, לפיכך, השתא דאמרת לא ישתמש בהן - שומר שכר לא הוי, ולא מחייב בגניבה ואבידה.

8.  But if you say that all agree that he is responsible for theft and loss, and that they differ only in respect of onesin of a shoel,  what is the meaning of R. Akiva's 'Therefore'? Surely he [the Tana] should have stated thus: 'R. Akiva says he should not use it;' then I would have known myself that since he may not use it, he is not a borrower, hence not responsible. What then is the need of R. Akiva's 'Therefore? Elaboration of the difficulty in interpreting the mishna according to Rav Yosef.

8. אלא אי אמרת בגניבה ואבידה דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דחייב, כי פליגי - באונסין דשואל, מאי לפיכך דרבי עקיבא? - הכי מבעי ליה למתנא: רבי עקיבא אומר לא ישתמש בהן ואנא ידענא, דכיון דלא ישתמש בהן - לאו שואל הוי, ואינו חייב באחריותן, לפיכך דרבי עקיבא למה לי?  

9.  On account of R. Tarfon's 'Therefore'.  explanation of the mishna's usage according to Rav Yosef.

9. משום, לפיכך דרבי טרפון. 

10.  And what is the purpose of R. Tarfon's 'Therefore'? Question as to how Rav Yosef interprets the mishna.

10.   ולפיכך דרבי טרפון למה לי? 

11.  He means this: Since the Rabbis permitted him to use it, it is as though he had used it,  and he is [therefore] held responsible for it.

Rav Yosef's interpretation of the rest of the mishna

11.  הכי קאמר: כיון דשרו ליה רבנן לאשתמושי בגוייהו - כמאן דאישתמש בגוייהו דמי וחייב באחריותן. 

12.  But it is taught, 'if it is lost...'! difficulty with this interpretation.

12.  והא אבדו קתני! 

13. [29b] It is in accordance with Raba; for Raba said [elsewhere]: 'stolen' [refers to a case where something was] stolen by armed robbers, 'lost' means that his ship sank at sea.

Explanation of the mishna that avoids the difficulty.

13.  [עמ' ב'] - כדרבה, דאמר רבה: נגנבו - בלסטים מזויין, אבדו - שטבעה ספינתו בים.

14.Rav Yehuda said in Samuel's name: The halakha is according to R. Tarfon. Ruling in the makhloket between R. Tarfon and R. Akiva.

14. אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: הלכה כרבי טרפון.

15.  Rechava had in his charge money belonging to orphans. He went before R. Yosef and enquired. 'May I use it?' Account of a case brought before Rav Yosef.

15.  ביד רחבה הוה ליה הנהו זוזי דיתמי, אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף, אמר ליה: מהו לאשתמושי בגוייהו?

16. He said to him, 'Thus did Rav Yehuda say in Samuel's name, The halakha is according to R. Tarfon. Rav Yosef's ruling.

16.  אמר ליה, הכי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: הלכה כרבי טרפון. 

17.   Abaye protested, But was it not stated thereon: R. Chelbo said in R. Huna's name: This refers only to the money [set aside in place] of a lost article, since he took trouble with it,  but not to money which was itself lost property and he did not have to take trouble with it.   

Difficulty raised by Abaye with that rulinng.

17. אמר ליה אביי: ולאו אתמר עלה, אמר רבי חלבו אמר רב הונא: לא שנו אלא בדמי אבידה, הואיל וטרח בה, אבל מעות אבידה דלא טרח בהו - לא. והני כמעות אבידה דמו. 

18.  Go then,' said he to him;  'they do not permit me to permit you.' Retraction of the ruling.

18.  אמר ליה: זיל, לא שבקו לי דאשרי לך. 

 

 

Selections from Rashi 28b -29a.

Rashi Text

Translation

כשנשתמש - לאו דוקא, אלא משום שכר שימוש קאמר, מפני שמותר להשתמש בהן.

ke-shenishtamesh,when he [the finder] has used it -  not exactly. (i.e. do not interpret that literally).  Rather, he says it is because of the profit from use - since it is permitted to use it. 

כשומר שכר - וחייב בגניבה ואבידה, דשומר שכר מצוה הוא, דהעוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה.

ke-shomer sakhar, like a shomer sakhar - and liable for theft and loss, for he receives the reward of performing a mitzva, in that while he is performing one mitzva he is absolved from performing another.   

Key Words and Phrases

בגוה, בגוייהו בו, בהם

be-gava, be-gavyhu - [with] it, [with] them

הכי מביעי ליה... כך צריך

hakhi miba'i lei - [like] this it is necessary...

סלקא דעתך אמינא היה עולה על דעתך לומר

salka da'atakh amina - you would have thought to say

General vocabulary

ones - unavoidable accident(s)

 

אונס, אונסין

acharayut, acharayutan - responsible, liable (for them)

אחריות, אחריותן

le-mitna - to teach [in a mishna or a baraita] לשנות

למתנא

pikadon - object that has been given to a shomer for safekeeping (and or use)

 

פקדון

shoel - borrower.  Responsible for the object even in cases of unpreventable loss, i.e., ones.

 

שואל

sokher - a renter (of an object rather than property).  The sokher is responsible for theft and loss but not for unavoidable loss, i.e., ones.

שוכר

shomer - a bailee, i.e. a guardian of someone else's property.

שומר

shomer chinam - lit.  'free guardian'.  A shomer who receives no payment.  A shomer chinam is responsible for the object only when it is lost due to his negligence. 

שומר חנם

shomer sakhar - lit. 'hired guardian'.  A shomer who is payed for his keeping of the object.  A shomer sakhar is responsible for theft and loss, but not for unavoidable loss, i.e., ones.

שומר שכר