THE KORBANOS FOR FALSE OATHS
(R. Yirmiyah): (In the setting of the Mishnah, if the renter and borrower swore falsely and later repented -) sometimes each brings a Korban Chatas. Sometimes each brings an Asham. Sometimes the renter brings a Chatas and the borrower brings an Asham, and sometimes vice-versa.
For a false oath that denies money, one brings an Asham. For a false oath of Bituy (utterance, that does not deny money) he brings a sin-offering.
Each brings a Chatas, e.g. it died normally, and they swore that it died through Ones;
Even had they sworn truthfully, the law would be the same. The renter is exempt, and the borrower is liable.
Each brings an Asham, e.g. it was stolen, and they swore that it died while working;
Really, each is liable. By swearing falsely, they exempted themselves.
The renter brings a Chatas and the borrower brings an Asham, e.g. it died normally, and they swore that it died while working;
Really, the renter is exempt, and the borrower is liable. By swearing falsely, the borrower exempted himself.
The renter brings an Asham and the borrower brings a Chatas, e.g. it was stolen, and they swore that it died normally;
Really, each is liable. By swearing falsely, the renter exempted himself.
Question: What Chidush did R. Yirmiyah come to teach?
Answer: He teaches unlike R. Ami, who says that any oath administered by Beis Din is not considered an oath of Bituy for which one brings a Chatas.
R. Ami learns from "Ki Sishava (when will swear)." This connotes that he himself chose to swear.
A SHOMER WHO GAVE TO A SHOMER
(Rav): If Reuven was guarding a deposit, and he gave it to another Shomer, Reuven is exempt;
(R. Yochanan): He is liable.
(Abaye): Rav's law is not only when a Shomer Chinam gave it to a Shomer Sachar, who guards it better (he is liable for theft and loss);
Rather, even if a Shomer Sachar gave it to a Shomer Chinam, who does not guard it as well, he is exempt.
Question: What is the reason?
Answer: He gives it to one with intellect.
(Abaye): R. Yochanan's law is not only when a Shomer Sachar gave it to a Shomer Chinam, who does not guard as well;
Rather, even if a Shomer Chinam gave it to a Shomer Sachar, who guards it better, he is liable.
Question: What is the reason?
Answer: The owner does not want others handling his object.
(Rav Chisda): Rav did not say his law explicitly, rather it was inferred from the following episode.
There were some gardeners who used to deposit their hoes with a certain woman. One day, they left them by Reuven (one of the gardeners). He heard a wedding, and left them with her. They were stolen. Rav exempted Reuven.
The one who heard this ruling inferred that Rav (normally) exempts a Shomer who gave to another Shomer is exempt. This is wrong!
Rather, because they always deposited their hoes with her, they showed that they consent for her to guard them.
Question (against R. Yochanan - R. Aba bar Mamal - Mishnah): If Reuven rented Shimon's cow, and lent it to Levi, and it died normally, Reuven swears that it died normally, and Levi pays Reuven.
We do not say that (Reuven is liable because) Shimon does not want others handling his object!
Answer (R. Ami): The case is, Shimon permitted Reuven to lend the cow.
Question: If so, it is as if Levi borrowed from Shimon. He should pay Shimon!
Answer: Shimon told Reuven 'if you want to lend the cow, that is your decision.'
Question (Rami bar Chama - Mishnah): If Shimon deposited coins with Reuven, and Reuven wrapped them and carried them (hanging) over his back, or gave them to his children (minors) to guard, or locked them up inadequately, he is liable, for people do not guard like this.
Inference: If his children were adults, he would be exempt. We do not say that Shimon does not want others handling his coins!
Answer (Rava): One who deposits expects that the Shomer will entrust the deposit with (adult) members of the Shomer's family.
Support (Chachamim of Neharda'a- Mishnah): He gave them to his children (minors);
Inference: If his children were adults, he would be exempt. This distinction applies only to his own children. If he gave to other people, children or adults, he would be liable!
If the distinction between children and adults always applied, it should just say 'he gave to children'!
(Rava): The Halachah is, not only a Shomer Sachar who gave to a Shomer Chinam (who does not guard as well) is liable, rather, even a Shomer Chinam who gave to a Shomer Sachar (who guards it better) is liable;
The reason is, the owner can say that he trusts the oath of the first Shomer, but not of the second.
THE BEGINNING WAS NEGLIGENCE AND THE END WAS ONES
(Abaye citing Rabah): If Reuven was negligent with the animal he was guarding, and it went to the swamp (where it is not guarded), and died normally, he is liable.
(Rava citing Rabah): He is exempt.
Abaye: He is liable not only according to the opinion that obligates when the beginning was negligence and the end was Ones. Rather, even the opinion that exempts in that case obligates in this case;
(Perhaps) the hot air of the swamp caused the death. It died due to the negligence.
Rava: He is exempt not only according to the opinion that exempts when the beginning was negligence and the end was Ones. Rather, even the opinion that obligates in that case exempts in this case;
The angel of death would have killed it no matter where it was.
Abaye admits that if he returned it to the owner's house (after being negligent, and it died there) he is exempt. The hot air of the swamp did not cause the death.
Rava admits that if it was stolen from the swamp and died in the thief's house, Reuven is liable.
Question: What is the reason?
Answer: Even had it not died, Reuven would be liable. The theft was due to his negligence.
Question (Abaye): R. Aba bar Mamal asked (why the renter in the Mishnah is exempt), and R. Ami said that the case is, he had permission to lend it. He did not merely say that the angel of death would have killed it no matter where it was!
Answer (Rava): You understand that a Shomer who gave to a Shomer is liable because the owner does not want others handling his object. Therefore, R. Aba could ask;
I obligate because the owner trusts only an oath of the first Shomer, but not of the second. R. Aba has no question (for in the Mishnah, the first Shomer saw it die, and can swear that it died normally)!
Question (against Abaye - Rami bar Chama - Mishnah): If a Shomer brought the animal up a steep mountain and it fell, this is not Ones, he is liable.
Inference: Had it died by itself, he would be exempt. We do not say that the cold air of the mountain or the exertion killed it!
Answer: The case is, the Shomer took it to a good pasture (this is normal care of an animal).
Question: If so, he should be exempt even if it fell!
Answer: He should have grabbed it.
Question: The previous clause taught that if the animal went up by itself and it fell, this is Ones, and he is exempt!
Answer: The case is, he tried to grab it, and it evaded him and went up. He tried to grab it, and it evaded him and went down.