Answer: This is even like R. Yoshiyah. Here, we do not need "Oh" to separate.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Breakage is like partial death. Since he is liable for full death, he should pay also for partial death.

Question: What is the source that a borrower is liable for theft or loss?

Suggestion: We learn from breakage or death.

Rejection: He is liable for those because the owner cannot retrieve it. If it was stolen or lost, the owner can toil and retrieve it!

Answer (Beraisa): "V'Nishbar Oh Mes" - we learn theft or loss from a Kal va'Chomer:

A Shomer Sachar is exempt for breakage or death, yet he is liable for theft or loss. A borrower is liable for breakage or death. All the more so he is liable for theft or loss!

This Kal va'Chomer cannot be refuted.

Question: What does this mean?

Answer: The following question does not refute the Kal va'Chomer.

Question: There is a stringency of a Shomer Sachar. He pays Kefel if he claims that armed robbers stole it (and really, he stole it himself)!

Answer #1: It is more stringent to pay principal, than to swear and be exempt (and pay Kefel if he stole it himself).

Answer #2: The Tana holds that armed robbers are like regular robbers. (Kefel is only for a claim of theft.)

Question: What is the source that if one borrows b'Ba'alim (from his employee) he is exempt for theft or loss?

Suggestion: We learn from breakage or death.

Rejection: We cannot learn from them. They are Onesim!

Answer #1: Rather, we learn from a Shomer Sachar.

Question: What is the source that a Shomer Sachar is exempt for these b'Ba'alim (if the depositor was working for the Shomer)?

Answer: We learn liabilities of a Shomer Sachar (theft or loss) from the liabilities (explicit in the Torah) of a borrower (breakage or death). Just like a borrower is exempt b'Ba'alim, also a Shomer Sachar.

Question: What method teaches this?

Suggestion: We learn from a 'Mah Matzinu' (just like we find here, the same applies there).

Rejection: We cannot learn from breakage or death. They are Onesim!

Answer: Rather, we learn from "v'Chi Yish'al" - the Vov teaches that the former Parshah (a Shomer Sachar) is learned from the latter (a borrower).

Objection: We cannot learn from a Shomer Sachar, for he is exempt for breakage or death!

Answer #2: Rather, we learned that a borrower is liable for theft or loss from (a Kal va'Chomer from) a Shomer Sachar. We say Dayo (we cannot learn more than the source, i.e. not b'Ba'alim).

Question: This is according to the opinion that says Dayo. According to the opinion that does not say Dayo, how can we answer?

Answer#3: "V'Chi Yish'al" connects the Parshiyos. We learn each from the other.

(Rav Acha or Ravina): One who borrowed b'Ba'alim and was negligent is liable.

(The other of Rav Acha and Ravina): He is exempt.

The first opinion learns the exemption of b'Ba'alim to the previous Parshah (a Shomer Sachar), not to the Parshah before the previous Parshah (a Shomer Chinam);

Therefore, a Shomer Chinam (who is liable only for negligence) is liable b'Ba'alim. We learn from a Kal va'Chomer that a Shomer Sachar or borrower is liable for negligence b'Ba'alim.

The exemption of b'Ba'alim was written only regarding the other obligations of a Shomer Sachar and borrower.

The latter opinion holds that we learn also to two Parshiyos earlier. (A Shomer Chinam is liable only for negligence, and he is exempt b'Ba'alim. There is no source to obligate other Shomrim for negligence b'Ba'alim.)

(Implied question: What is the law?)

Answer #1 (Mishnah): If Reuven borrowed Shimon's cow and at the same time asked or hired Shimon to work for him, or if he asked or hired Shimon to work and later borrowed it, and the cow died, Reuven is exempt.

The Mishnah does not say that a Shomer Chinam is exempt b'Ba'alim. (It must be that he is liable)!

Rejection: It does not mention a Shomer Sachar, even though he is exempt!

We must say that the Tana teaches only a borrower because the Torah wrote b'Ba'alim regarding a borrower.

Answer #2 (Beraisa): If Reuven borrowed Shimon's cow and (at the same time) asked Shimon to work for him, or if he rented the cow and hired Shimon, or he borrowed the cow and hired Shimon, or he rented the cow and asked Shimon to work, even if Shimon was working somewhere else when the cow died, Reuven is exempt.

We are thinking that the Beraisa is R. Yehudah, who says that a renter is liable like a Shomer Sachar.

The Tana teaches a renter, (even though his exemption b'Ba'alim is learned by expounding), but he does not teach about a Shomer Chinam. We must say that a Shomer Chinam is liable b'Ba'alim!

Rejection #1: The Beraisa is R. Meir, who says that a renter is liable like a Shomer Chinam;

The Tana teaches that a Shomer Chinam is exempt b'Ba'alim, and the same applies to a Shomer Sachar.

Rejection #2: The Beraisa is R. Yehudah, according to Rabah bar Avuha, who switches the opinions.

(Rabah bar Avuha): R. Meir says that a renter is like a Shomer Sachar, and R. Yehudah says that he is like a Shomer Chinam;

(Rav Hamnuna): Reuven (the borrower) is liable unless the owner was working with his animal, and he was working for Reuven from the moment he borrowed it until it broke or died.

He holds that "Ba'alav Imo" applies to the entire Parshah.

Question #1 (Rava - Beraisa): If (at the same time) Reuven borrowed Shimon's cow and asked Shimon to work for him, or if he rented the cow and hired Shimon, or he borrowed the cow and hired Shimon, or he rented the cow and asked Shimon to work, even if Shimon was working somewhere else when the cow died, Reuven is exempt.

Suggestion: Shimon was not working on the same task as his cow.

Answer: No, he was working on the same task.

Question: It says 'even if Shimon was working somewhere else'!

Answer: It means that he was softening the ground in front of it.

Question: Since the Seifa says that he was on (i.e. working with) the animal, the Reisha means he was doing a different task!

(Seifa): If Reuven borrowed Shimon's cow and later asked Shimon to work for him, or if he rented the cow and later hired Shimon, even if Shimon was on the cow when it died, Reuven is liable.

Answer: In both clauses, Shimon was working with it. Each clause teaches a Chidush;

The Reisha teaches that even though he was not on it, just engaged in the same task, since he was hired from the beginning of the rental, Reuven is exempt;

The second clause teaches that even though he was on it, since he was not hired from the beginning of the rental, Reuven is liable.

Rejection: If in the Reisha he was doing a different task and in the Seifa he was engaged in the same task, each would be a Chidush;

But if in both clauses, Shimon was engaged in the same task, what difference does it make it he was on it?

Question #2 (Beraisa) Question: Since it says "Im Ba'alav Imo Lo Yeshalem", we can infer that "Ba'alav Ein Imo Shalem Yeshalem"!

Answer: The latter verse is extra, to teach that the exemption is only if Shimon was working for him when the animal was borrowed. It does not matter whether or not he was working for him when it broke or died.

Question #3 (Beraisa) Question: Since it says "Ba'alav Ein Imo Shalem Yeshalem", we can infer that "Im Ba'alav Imo Lo Yeshalem"!

Answer: "Im Ba'alav" is extra, to teach if the animal was borrowed b'Ba'alim, whenever it may die (even after the owner stops working for the borrower) he is exempt.

Rav Hamnuna is refuted.

Abaye holds like R. Yoshiyah, and expounds the verses like R. Yoshiyah. Rava holds like R. Yonason, and expounds the verses like R. Yonason.

(Abaye): "Ba'alav Ein Imo Shalem Yeshalem" - he is liable because the owner was not working for him at either time, not the time of borrowing nor the time of death;

If he was working for him at one time, he is exempt.

Question: It says "Im Ba'alav Imo Lo Yeshalem" - he is exempt only if the owner was working for him at both times;

If he was working for him at only one time, he is liable!

Answer: If he was working for him only at the time of borrowing, he is exempt. If he was working only at the time of death, he is liable!