1)

(a)We just concluded that, in order to be She'eilah b'Ba'alim, the owner must work for the Sho'el at the time of the She'eilah, but not necessarily when the Ones occurs. The problem with this conclusion is - how do we know that it is not the other way round (that the owner must work for the Sho'el at the time the Ones occurs, and not necessarily at the time of the She'eilah).?

(b)To answer the question, we point out that She'eilah has an 'advantage' over Onsin, in that it brings the object into the Sho'el's Reshus and obligates him. We counter that however - in that Onsin too has an 'advantage' over She'eilah inasmuch as it obligates him to pay.

(c)Despite the fact that, at the end of the day, one without the other would not obligate the Sho'el, we finally place the criterion on the She'eilah - because it has the edge over Ones, inasmuch as it obligates the Sho'el to feed the animal.

(d)Rav Ashi extrapolates the same thing from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yish'al Ish me'Im Re'eihu ... Shalem Yeshalem" - by Darshening "me'Im Re'eihu", 've'Lo Re'eihu Imo' (with specific reference to the time of borrowing).

(e)The Torah nevertheless needs the two Pesukim "Be'Alav Ein Imo ... " and "Im Be'Alav Imo" - because without them, we would have treated "me'Im Re'eihu" as a manner of speech (not worthy of a Derashah.

2)

(a)Rami bar Chama asks a series of She'eilos. He asks about ...

1. ... someone who borrowed an animal for immoral purposes, who might be Patur from Onsin - because it is unusual to borrow a cow for something like that.

2. ... someone who borrowed it in order to appear wealthy so that merchants should sell him goods on credit, who may be exempt from paying for Onsin - because he has not used the animal directly.

3. ... someone who borrowed two cows to work to the value of one Perutah, who might be exempt because although, on he one hand, he borrowed a Perutah's-worth from the owner, on the other, neither article that he borrowed is worth a Perutah.

(b)This latter She'eilah must assume that, in the case of the She'eilah that precedes it, where he borrowed a cow to work for less than a Perutah - he is Patur.

(c)He also asks what the Din will be if someone borrows something from two partners together with one of the partners, whether "Be'Alav" must be total or the borrower will at least be Patur from the half pertaining to the partner who is working for him, and what the Din will be in the reverse case - where partners borrowed someone's cow together with the owner who was to work for only one of them.

(d)In this latter case however, a major difference between the work of the cows and that of the owner will be - that whereas the partners borrow it to plow a joint field, the one partner borrows the owner to work privately for him.

3)

(a)One of Rami bar Chama two final She'eilos is 'Sha'al min ha'Ishah, ve'Nish'al Ba'alah, Mahu'. The case is - if someone borrowed a woman's Nichsei Melug together with her husband.

(b)The She'eilah is - whether the Kinyan Peiros of the husband makes him the owner, in which case, the borrower will subsequently be Patur should anything happen to the cow, or not.

(c)His last She'eilah is the reverse case of the previous one - where a woman borrowed a cow to plow her Nichsei Melug, but the owner worked for her husband (whether the woman will be Patur or not, should anything happen to the cow).

(d)Ravina asked Rav Ashi about someone who instructed his Shali'ach to lend someone the owner's cow together with himself - whether, in spite of the principle 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso', this might not be considered 'She'eilah b'Ba'alim', because here the Torah requires She'eilah b'Ba'alim Davka (and not a Shali'ach [see Tosfos DH 'Sheli'ach']).

4)

(a)Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Ivya remarked to Rav Ashi that each of the two previous (sets of) She'eilos is rooted in a Machlokes. The last set of She'eilos of Rami bar Chama is in fact a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. The bone of contention regarding Bikurim in the case where Reuven sells Shimon his field for two or three years is - whether Shimon, who owns the Peiros, is called the owner of the field or not.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan says 'Meivi ve'Korei' - because he holds 'Kinyan Peiros ke'Kinyan ha'Guf'.

(c)Reish Lakish says - 'Eino Meivi ve'Korei', because he holds 'Kinyan Peiros Lav ke'Kinyan ha'Guf'.

(d)Rami bar Chama's last set of She'eilos too, depend upon whether a husband, who has a Kinyan Peiros on his wife's Nichsei Melug, is considered their owner or not.

5)

(a)Ravina's She'eilah is rooted in the Machlokes between Rebbi Yonasan and Rebbi Yoshiyah. Rebbi Yoshiyah learns from the Pasuk "Iyshah Yekimenu, ve'Iyshah Yeferenu" - that if a man appoints an Apotropos to annul his wife's Nedarim up until he returns from such and such a place, the latter's nullification is ineffective (because the Pasuk implies that it is the husband alone who can annul his wife's Nedarim, and not his Shali'ach.

(b)Rebbi Yonasan maintains - that the Din of 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso' applies here too.

(c)Likewise, if a man says to his Shali'ach 'Tzei ve'Hisha'el Im Parasi', Rebbi Yonasan will apply 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso'; whereas according to Rebbi Yoshiyah, the Pasuk "Be'Alav Imo" and "Be'Alav Ein Imo" overrides the principle of Shelichus (see Tosfos DH 'Shali'ach').

6)

(a)Rav Ilish asked Rava what the Din will be if a man says to his Eved Tzei ve'Hisha'el Im Parasi'. This might ...

1. ... not be considered She'eilah b'Ba'alim even according to Rebbi Yonasan - because a Shali'ach is a bar Mitzvah (like the Meshale'ach), whereas an Eved is not.

2. ... be considered She'eilah b'Ba'alim even according to Rebbi Yoshiyah - due the principle 'Yad Eved ke'Yad Rabo'.

(b)Rava replied - 'Mistabra Yad Eved ke'Yad Rabo'.

7)

(a)Rami bar Chama asked whether a man is considered a Sho'el or a Socher on his wife's property. Rava objected on the grounds - that it makes no difference which one, since, bearing in mind that a woman is Meshubad to work for her husband, he will always be Patur, because it is either She'eilah b'Ba'alim or Sechirus b'Ba'alim.

(b)And he answered by establishing the case where a man hired a cow from a woman and then married her - in which case the Sechirus will continue as before if he is a Socher, but will turn into She'eilah b'Ba'alim, if he is a Sho'el.

(c)We object to this explanation too however, on the grounds - that even if he is a Socher, the Sechirus that begins when he marries her is a new one, in which case, it too, is considered Sechirus b'Ba'alim ... (like we asked before).

8)

(a)We finally establish the case of Rami bar Chama's She'eilah where a woman hired a cow from a third party, and after she married, an Ones occurred. The She'eilah is now according to Rebbi Yosi, who holds in Hamafkid - that if a Socher lends out the cow that he hired and it dies, the borrower pays a cow to the owner. Consequently, if the husband is a Sho'el with respect to his wife's Nichsei Melug, then, in the event of an Ones, he will be liable to pay the owner (but will be Patur, if he is a Socher).

(b)The She'eilah will not apply according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Yosi, who hold in Hamafkid - that the Sho'el pays the Socher. Consequently, in our case, where the Socher happens to be the man's wife, he will be Patur, because even if he is a Sho'el, it is She'eilah b'Ba'alim.

(c)Rava resolved the She'eilah - by citing Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, who quotes the Chachamim in Usha as having ruled - that if a woman sold her Nichsei Melug during her husband's lifetime, then after her death, he has the right to claim the property from the purchasers, because he is the first purchaser.

9)

(a)Rami bar Chama asks who is Mo'el if a man who receives his wife's property containing some Hekdesh.

1. ... The case is - when the woman inherited the property after they were married, and ...

2. ... the She'eilah is - who is Mo'el for transferring the Hekdesh to the man's domain.

(b)Rava ruled that neither of them is Mo'el - because neither does the man, who did nothing, wish to acquire forbidden property, nor does the woman want him to acquire even the property that is permitted (and Me'ilah only applies to someone who willingly transfers Hekdesh from one domain to another).

(c)Neither are Beis-Din (who are responsible for all Takanos in their generation) Mo'el, for placing the woman's property in her husband's domain - because their Takanah is confined to property that is permitted, not to property of Hekdesh. Note, that according to this, the previous explanation seems unnecessary.

(d)This means - that there is no Me'ilah on the property in question at that stage. The moment however, the husband spends the money of Hekdesh or gives away the articles of Hekdesh, he will be Mo'el.

10)

(a)They asked in the Beis Ha'Midrash whether if a borrowed animal becomes worn out through regular work, the Sho'el is liable to pay, from which Rav Chilkiyah Brei d'Rav Ivya inferred - that if the animal died, he would certainly be liable.

(b)He was surprised by the She'eilah however (and by the inference) - since a person borrows an animal (not to place in the stable, but) to use (so, assuming he did not abuse the article, why should he be liable?).

(c)Rava therefore concluded - that in both of the above cases, the borrower is exempt from paying.

11)

(a)Rava ruled - that a borrower who broke a borrowed ax, had to bring witnesses that he did not misuse it and was Patur from paying.

(b)In a similar case where there were no witnesses, Rav obligated the borrower to replace the broken ax with a new one. His Talmidim, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi - expressed surprise that Rav did not permit him to pay the broken pieces and to add the balance from his pocket.

(c)Rav reacted to their surprise - with silence.

(d)The Halachah is - like Rav Kahana and like Rav Asi.