Explanation: He uses it.

Explanation: We require that he lend to him Mamon (something with monetary value), and this is fulfilled, and he also benefits from it.

Question: What was his question? Since if all of the owners were working for him, he would be exempt for everything, now he should be exempt for half, like we say in Bava Kama (71b, regarding one who stole, and then sold or slaughtered) "five cattle, and even five half cattle" (i.e. if he stole cattle that he owns jointly with a partner)!

Answer: There, it is logical that he pays according to what he stole;

However, She'elah b'Ba'alim, there is no logic to exempt him. It is like a Chidush, and we cannot extrapolate (perhaps it applies only like the Torah said, when all of the owners were working for him).

Question: Why does a woman have rights to lend from her Nichsei Melug? Her husband owns the Peros!

Her husband has rights to lend without her permission, and she cannot lend at all! Why does it say "if he borrowed from the woman"?

Answer #1: Her husband cannot lend or sell Peros of her Nichsei Melug without her permission, like Rava said in Kesuvos (80b), so there will be abundance in the house.

Answer #2: He asks "if he borrowed from a man Nichsei Melug of his wife, what is the law?

Implied question: Why didn't he say that Tana'im argue [about the husband? Tana'im] argue about one who sells his slave on condition that he serve [the seller] for 30 days, whether the law of Yom Oh Yomayim applies to the seller or buyer! (If one strikes his Eved Kena'ani and he dies more than 24 hours later, he is exempt. The one who holds that Kinyan (rights to eat the) Peros is like Kinyan ha'Guf (owning the matter itself), it is as if the seller still owns him. Similarly, he considers a husband to own his wife's property.)

Answer #1: We can say that [the Tana'im there] argue about [a different matter]. One opinion expounds "Tachtav" (the exemption is for the one whom he serves now), and the other opinion expounds "Kaspo" (the exemption is for his owner, i.e. the buyer).

Answer #2: Alternatively, even according to the opinion that [Kinyan Peros] is like Kinyan ha'Guf, this is because the seller leaves Peros for himself generously, but normally, it is not.

Question: How do we compare She'elah b'Ba'alim to vows? [Surely] R. Yoshiyah has some Drashah that his Shali'ach is unlike him (for vows), for elsewhere, they do not argue!

Answer #1: R. Yoshiyah's reason there is because it says twice "Ishah" - Ishah Yekimenu v'Ishah Yeferenu, to exclude his Shali'ach. Also here, it says "Ba'alav" twice.

Answer #2: The expressions of "Ba'alav" (ownership) and "Ishus" (her husband) connote to [R. Yoshiyah] him only him, and not his Shali'ach.

Implied question: Rava could have asked from the Mishnah in Yevamos (66a), which teaches that if Nichsei Melug decrease [in value], she loses. This shows that her husband does not have Achrayus!

Answer #1: He asked a better question.

Answer #2: We could establish that Mishnah to discuss land, which was excluded from the law of Shemirah;

It says above (56a) that a Shomer Chinam does not swear [about land], and a Shomer Sachar does not pay [for it];

The same applies to a borrower, for "v'Chi Yish'al" applies to what the verses above discuss.

Implied question: We could have said that he borrowed a cow from her!

Answer: He mentioned a common matter. (People usually charge rent for cows.)

Explanation: He holds that it is unreasonable to say that only She'elah, in which he additionally became liable for Ones, uproots the initial rental.

Explanation (Ri): However, he is a Shomer Chinam, and he is liable for negligence.

Consequence: One who buys an animal for 30 days, even though he is not a borrower and not a renter, for he took it with an expression of buying, in any case he is a Shomer Chinam.

Question: He should say that he is an heir, for when there is a loss to others, he is an heir, and not a buyer, like it says in Bava Basra (139b)!

Here there is a loss, for if a woman borrowed, [her husband] will be obligated for theft or loss, if he is an heir!

Source: Rava said in Kesuvos (94b) that if orphans' father left to them a borrowed cow, and it died during the time [for which he borrowed it] or Ones occurred, they are not liable for Ones;

Inference: They are liable for theft or loss!

Answer: Rabanan made him an heir only due to a loss to his widow, in order that she will be fed from his property, like we say there;

However, due to the lender's loss, we should not make him an heir to obligate him for theft and loss. If he wants, he need not lend it. Who forced him to lend it? It is as if he caused a loss to himself.

Explanation: Do we say that the husband transgressed Me'ilah, for he does the primary action, i.e. he married her, and through this he merits the coins?

Or, perhaps she did the primary action, i.e. she became married to him?

Or, perhaps Beis Din did the primary action. They enacted that he acquires the coins!

Explanation: [The husband is not Mo'el], for he did not do anything forbidden. He does not want to acquire!

Implied question: We did not need this reason. Even if he wanted to acquire everything in her hand, even of others and of Hekdesh, he would not acquire, for Chachamim did not give [others' property] to him;

If so, how could he transgress Me'ilah through Nisu'in alone, without taking coins?

Answer #1: Since we needed this reason regarding Beis Din, we mentioned it also here.

Answer #2: We mentioned it to say that even if he took the coins, he was not Mo'el, for he does not want to acquire Isur;

He did not intend to acquire from others. He does not intend to take from the owner's Reshus. He thinks that it is his!

He is Mo'el only when he comes to take from the owner's Reshus, e.g. he steals Hekdesh from his friend's Reshus;

Source - Citation (Chagigah 10b): If one took a rock or beam of Hekdesh, he was not Mo'el. If he gave it to his friend, he was Mo'el, and his friend was not Mo'el;

We ask that he stole it! What is the difference if he took it for himself, or gave it to his friend? We answer that we discuss a Gizbar entrusted with rocks for building.

Inference: Since it is in his Reshus, he does not intend to remove it from the owner's Reshus. Rather, he thinks that it is his. He is not Mo'el through taking it.

Explanation: [We suggested that] she should be Mo'el, [and rejected this, for] also she did not do anything. She wants [her husband] to acquire through Nisu'in only Heter, which Chachamim enacted for him;

Even if she took them and gave them to him, she was not Mo'el, since she does not intend to remove it from the owner's Reshus. Rather, she intends to give to him what it is [proper] for him.

Explanation: [We suggested that] Beis Din should be Mo'el...

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He gives to him a new lamp, and the borrower keeps the shards.

Rebuttal (Rashbam): Even a Ganav or Gazlan, [the Gemara] connotes that they may pay with [any Metaltelim, even] bran, like a damager;

We say in Bava Kama (5a) that all are Avos, to pay from Idis (best quality land). This refers to the 24 Avos, and a Ganav and Gazlan are among them.

Inference: Payments of a Ganav and Gazlan are compared to payments of damage. If so, he may pay with bran!

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): He pays a proper lamp. I.e. the decrease in value from the time of breakage until Beis Din rules, the borrower suffers it;

He adds to the value of the shards at the time of the Din, until it equals a proper lamp, for Rav compares him to a Ganav and Gazlan;

Shmuel taught in Bava Kama (11a) that we do not estimate [the value of the shards] for a Ganav and Gazlan, only for damages, and Rav holds that even for a borrower we estimate;

There, we bring Rav's teaching regarding Shmuel's teaching, and there, the entire previous Halachah discusses that the victim suffers decreased value of the carcass.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to him "is this the Halachah? The shards decreased in value in the lender's Reshus. The borrower is not like a Gazlan. A Gazlan totally acquires the theft through Shinuy, death or breakage;

Therefore, a borrower returns the pieces, and they estimate for him what the shards were worth at the time of breakage, and [the borrower] completes for him the value of the Kli, and the decrease [in value of the shards] is of the lender, just like a victim of damage.