Shiur Supplement - Daf 95b-96a

DAF 95b

A. Ve-od tanya... tiyuvta de-Rav Hamnuna tiyuvta [lines 31-37] The Torah refers to both the case of ba'alav IMO and the case of EIN ba'alav imo. This creates an obvious difficulty - if we know the din in ONE case, we should be able to logically deduce the din in the other. The beraitot cited by the gemara to refute R. Hamnuna deal with this problem and conclude that the Torah is indicating the junctures at which the owner must be in the employ of the shomer for the din of ba'alav imo to apply. The only critical moment is the time of BORROWING - the owner's status at the time when the damage occurs is wholly irrelevant. This is in contradistinction to the opinion of R. Hamnuna and, being that the Amora is contradicted by a Tana'itic source we reject his criterion of ba'alav imo.

B. Abaye savar la... be-sha'at she'ila [lines 38-44] The gemara (daf 94b) records an argument between R. Yoshiya and R. Yonatan: According to R. Yoshiya, if there are two possible conditions for a din to apply, unless the Torah specifies otherwise, BOTH must be met. According to R. Yonatan, however, even if the Torah does not specify, it is not mandatory for both conditions to be met.

            The Torah uses the phrase "ba'alav IMO." The term "imo" can refer to the time of BORROWING, the time the DAMAGES occurred or to BOTH. Abaye, who bases himself on R. Yoshiya must assume that it refers to BOTH. This presents an obvious ambiguity - what happens if the ba'alim were with the object for only ONE of the two time periods? According to the first passuk, the shomer should be liable to pay (the condition of ba'alav imo to exempt payment applies to BOTH the time of borrowing and the time of damages). According to the second passuk, however, the shomer should be exempt from payment (the condition of EIN ba'alav imo to mandate payment applies to BOTH the time of borrowing and the time of damages). This problem is solved by differentiating between the time of borrowing and the time of damages: If the owner was in the shomer's employ at the time of BORROWING there is no liability. If he is under the shomer's employ at the time of damages ONLY, there IS liability.

DAF 96a

B. Rava savar la... she'eila adifa [lines 1-10] Rava who bases himself on R. Yonatan, must assume that IMO can refer to either time of borrowing OR the time of damages. Once again, this creates a contradiction between the two pesukim which is resolved by the beraita's solution: If the owner was in the shomer's employ at the time of BORROWING there is no liability. If he is under the shomer's employ at the time of damages ONLY, there IS liability.

C Eipukh ana... chayav be-mezonoteha [lines 10-16] The gemara has explained why the ba'alim do NOT need to be present at BOTH junctures. The question remains, however, why is the critical moment the time of BORROWING as opposed to the time of DAMAGES? The gemara attempts to explain the rationale behind this.

D. Bai Rami bar Chama... le-rav'a [lines 20-21] Rami bar Chama asks: What will the din be if one borrows an animal in order to commit the forbidden act of bestiality? Is this considered within the confines of the sho'el- ba'alim connection?