Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran Michelle Cohen Farber

Today's learning is sponsored by Lori Schuldiner Schor, on the occasion of her 65th birthday. "With gratitude for access to meaningful learning, and with appreciation for the love and support of my family and friends, throughout the years, to this very day (ad haYom haZeh)."
Today's daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar in loving memory of Dennis. "Today was Dennis’ birthday. He was 6 months older than me, both being born in 56. He died at 65, two years ago. On June 6, in two years time, we will complete the daf yomi learning cycle of 7 1/2 years. I thank Hadran, Rabbanit Michelle, and all the daffers for their support."
At what point does a borrower assume responsibility for unanticipated damage? The Mishna rules that if the borrower agrees that the lender can send the object to them with someone else, the borrower is already responsible, even if the lender sends it with their slave. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether this law relates to a Jewish slave or a Canaanite slave. The Gemara questions Rav's position that it refers to a Canaanite slave, as a Canaanite slave is considered an extension of the owner. However, the issue is resolved by employing an ukimta, establishing the Mishna in a particular situation. There are different opinions about when an owner can change their mind and decide not to loan out a borrowed item. Shmuel rules on a different issue: if one steals an item that can be sold in bulk at a lower price or sold by unit at a higher price, what price does the thief need to reimburse the owner? He holds that a robber would pay the higher amount if it is hekdesh (consecrated item) and the lower amount if it is to an individual. However, a difficulty is raised as Shmuel in a different context equates hekdesh and non-hekdesh. To resolve the difficulty, they say that Shmuel changed his mind about the latter source.

Presentation Bava Metzia 98
Today's daf is sponsored by Rebecca and Ezra Darshan in loving memory of Helene Isaacs on her 24th yahrzeit, on Yom Yerushalayim. "She was an optimist who loved learning, and would be so proud of all of the women learning daf."
To resolve the difficulty raised against Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan, the cases in the Mishna must be explained as a situation in which the borrower admitted to part of the lender's claim. The Gemara explains that an extra cow must be added to each case and delineates each party's claim. According to Rami bar Hama, two cows must be added to each case, as Rami requires any case of shomrim to have both a partial acceptance of the claim and a partial admission by the shomer. The Mishna ruled that if both are definite in their claim, the borrower/renter needs to take an oath - this oath can only be explained by gilgul shevua, rolling over another oath. If each is unsure of their claim, the money is divided - this follows Sumchus' position, but the rabbis disagree. Questions are asked regarding cases where one borrows an item "with the owner" and then before the rental time is up, he/she decides to rent it without the owner or the reverse. Does the exemption of "with the owner" apply because the agreement is viewed as a continuation of the first agreement or not?  What about from renting to borrowing or from borrowing to renting to borrowing or vice versa. If an item is sent via messenger to the borrower, at what point does the borrower assume responsibility for the item?

A borrower is not liable for accidental damage that occurs from using the item in the manner it is meant to be used, however, if it was used in an atypical manner, the borrower is responsible. Various cases are presented to explain further what is and is not considered damage or death from typical use. Rava discusses additional scenarios in which the exemption of shmira b'baalim would apply, such as if the borrower asks the lender to bring them a cup of water while borrowing the item, or if the lender holds a public position. The rabbis told Rava that if he lent them items, they would not be responsible as he "works for them." Rava retorted that they are subjugated to him, as he can choose what material to teach and they have no choice but to learn it. The Mishna describes cases where an animal is rented for some time and borrowed for some time, or where there are two animals—one rented and one borrowed. If the animal dies and there is doubt as to whether it was during the time it was rented or borrowed, or which animal was rented or borrowed, the halakha changes depending on what each side claims (whether they are sure in their claim or unsure). This is based on the principle that if one has a sure claim and the other side is unsure, we hold by the one who has the sure claim. The Mishna poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan, who hold that one is exempt even if one has an unsure claim, as the status quo remains and the burden of proof is on the one trying to get money from the other. They resolve the difficulty by claiming that the Mishna refers to a case where there is an obligation on the borrower to swear, and since one who is unsure of one's claim cannot take an oath, the borrower must pay. However, the borrower would be exempt if the case does not require an oath.

Abaye, Rava and Rav Ashi each bring a different derivation for the rule that shmira b'baalaim is a valid exemption only when the owner was working for the borrower at the moment of the act of borrowing. Rami bar Hama asks four questions regarding the borrower's liablity for unexpected damages (oness). Then he asks three questions, and Ravina asks a fourth regarding the exemption of shmira b'baalim. Each of these eight questions relates to a unique case and asks whether the general halakha applies in these exceptional circumstances. The last two questions, regarding a husband/wife and an agent are answered: they depend on amoraic debates. Is there a difference if the agent is the owner's slave? Rami bar Hama asks a question regarding a husband's level of responsibility for his wife's usufruct property and about who is responsible for meila for her property if it was sanctified. Rava answers both questions. A borrower is not liable for depreciation or for an animal dying from use as the borrower can claim: "I didn't borrow it just to leave it on the windowsill!"

This week's learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak in loving memory of Lucille Fliegler on her yahrzeit. "Thinking about her warmth and her love of family. We honor her memory with our learning."
This week's learning is sponsored by Rachel Savin in honor of the upcoming marriage of her daughter Lior to Daniel this Thursday.
The various halakhot about a borrower (sho'el) that are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah are derived from rabbinic interpretations and extrapolations from the biblical text. First, the borrower's responsibility for items that are captured. While the Torah explicitly states that a borrower is responsible if an item is damaged or dies (Shmot 22:13-14), the rabbis extend this responsibility to cases where the item is captured from the extra word "or". Second, the borrower is responsible for theft and loss. Although the Torah mentions a borrower being liable for damages and death, the rabbis also include theft and loss under the borrower's responsibility. This inclusion is based on a kal v'chomer argument from a paid bailee who is liable for theft or loss, as a borrower takes on a higher level of responsibility since they benefit from using the item without paying for it. Third, the exemption of she'ela b'baalim (borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower) also applies to theft and loss. The rabbis derive this from a paid bailee, but need to also explain the source for this law for a paid bailee and what method of derivation is used to extend the exemption from a paid bailee to a borrower. Regarding shmira b'baalim, there is a debate about whether the exemption applies if the shomer (bailee) was negligent and the owner was working for the shomer. Two difficulties are raised against the position that one is exempt. However, both difficulties are resolved. Rav Hamnuna holds a narrow view of this exemption, limiting it to cases where the owner was working with the borrowed item at the time of its break or death and was with the borrower from the time of borrowing until the time of its death. However, the Gemara discusses and ultimately rejects Rav Hamnuna's limitations, suggesting that the exemption can apply in broader circumstances.

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan, Jessica Shklar, and Emily Michelson in loving memory of their mother, Kadimah Michelson, Kadimah bat haRav Avraham Tzvi Bentzion v'Chaya, on her 6th yahrzeit. "May her memory be a blessing."
What is considered circumstances beyond one's control that a shomer would be exempt from? One animal attacking or two animals?  Does it depend on what type of animal? One can stipulate that one will be a shomer but will not be obligated to pay according to the Torah laws. How is this different from a condition that goes against Torah law that is not a valid condition? Other laws of conditions are discussed.  The Mishna discusses in which circumstances one is exempt as a borrower because the owner was "with the shomer" - she'eila b'baalim.  The Gemara then discusses the derivation of the laws of shomrim from the verses in the Torah.