Bava Metzia 95a

בבא מציעא צ״ה ע״א

Learn Bava Metzia 95a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Metzia 95a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

The liability and the 'owner with him' (בבעלים) exemption of a שואל and a שומר שכר: injury and death, theft and loss, and negligence.

Overview

The amud opens by finishing a challenge to רבי נתן, who uses the word 'או' in 'ונשבר או מת' for an extra teaching. The גמרא answers that even רבי יאשיה agrees, because logic alone shows that injury is just a 'partial death.' So 'או' is not needed to divide the two cases. Next the גמרא looks for the source that a שואל pays for גניבה ואבידה. It finds it in a ברייתא's קל וחומר from the שומר שכר, and defends that קל וחומר against a refutation about כפל for an armed bandit. Then it asks why a שואל בבעלים is exempt for theft and loss. After several attempts fail, it answers with the rule of דיו and with the ו׳ of 'וכי ישאל', which links the שואל and שומר שכר sections. Finally, רב אחא and רבינא disagree whether negligence בבעלים is exempt. The disagreement depends on whether a verse reaches back to the שומר חנם section. A proof from our משנה is pushed away, and the גמרא's explanation of the משנה's wording continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (29)

1. ChallengeEnd of the quoted source: separate items stand alone unless the verse says 'together'
2. ResolutionEven רבי יאשיה agrees here, because logic already splits the cases
3. QuestionWhere do we learn that a borrower pays for theft and loss?
4. ProofA suggested source: learn it from injury and death
5. RejectionRejected: injury and death cannot be undone, but a stolen or lost animal might be recovered
6. ResponseA ברייתא learns theft and loss through a קל וחומר from a paid watchman
7. QuestionWhat does 'it has no refutation' mean?
8. ChallengeA possible refutation: the paid watchman pays double for a false armed-bandit claim
9. ResolutionThe borrower is still stricter because he pays the principal outright
10. ResolutionSecond answer: an armed bandit counts as a robber, so there is no double payment
11. QuestionWe know the borrower pays for theft, but where is his exemption?
12. RejectionWe cannot learn it from injury and death
13. ResponseLearn it from the paid watchman instead
14. QuestionWhere does the paid watchman's exemption come from?
15. ResponseThe paid watchman learns from the borrower
16. ChallengeThat comparison falls to the same objection
17. ResolutionThe letter ו׳ links the paid watchman to the borrower
18. ChallengeThe borrower still cannot learn from the paid watchman
19. Resolutionדיו: the borrower cannot be stricter than his source
20. ChallengeWhat about someone who does not accept דיו?
21. ResolutionThe ו׳ links the two sections in both directions
22. Statementרב אחא and רבינא disagree about negligence with the owner present
23. StatementThe liable view: a verse links only to the section right before it
24. StatementLiability for negligence comes only from a קל וחומר
25. StatementWhy the owner-exemption does not cover negligence
26. StatementWhy the other view says he is exempt
27. ProofA proof from the משנה, which mentions only a borrower
28. RejectionThe משנה leaves out the paid watchman too
29. ResolutionStarting to explain the תנא's choice