What kind of Shomer is the Pasuk referring to?
Rashi (on Pasuk 9), Ramban, Rashbam (both citing Bava Kama, 94b) and Targum Yonasan: It is referring to a Shomer Chinam, whom the Torah renders not liable for theft (and loss). 1
Why, in this Parshah, does the Torah list money or vessels, whereas in the next Parshah (in Pasuk 9) it lists animals?
Ramban and Seforno: Because, whereas the current Parshah is referring to a Shomer Chinam, who tends to look after money and vessels without payment, the following Parshah (Pasuk 9-12) is referring to a Shomer Sachar, who generally looks after animals for a fee.
Why does the Torah insert the word "Ish"?
Shevu'os, 42a: To preclude where the claimant is a Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan, in which case one is Patur from a Shevu'ah. 1
Because his transactions have no validity. See Torah Temimah, note 74.
Why does the Torah insert "el Re'eihu"?
Yerushalmi Gitin, 5:9: To teach us that a Katan cannot even acquire for himself
See Torah Temimah, note 75.
Why does the Torah mention specifically "Kesef O Keilim"
Refer to 22:6:2:1.
Bava Metzi'a, 57b: To teach us via a 'K'lal ("Yitein") u'Perat ("Kesef O Keilim") u'Kelal' ("Lishmor"), that a Shomer Chinam only swears 1 on things that, like Kesef and Keilim, can be moved and that have an intrinsic value
Why does the Torah write "Keilim" in the plural?
Shevu'os, 38b: To compare Kesef to Keilim in that, just as the vessels are two, so too must the minimum claim comprise two silver Ma'os 1
See Torah Temimah, note 79.
Shevu'os, (Ibid.): And the Torah compares Keilim to Kesef, inasmuch as, just as Kesef is a Davar Chashuv (two P'rutos), so too, must the Keilim be worth at least two P'rutos (one P'rutah each). On the other hand, the claim is valid even if they are not worth two Ma'os (Shevu'os, 40b). See also Torah Temimah, note 83.
See Torah Temimah, note 84.
How do we know that a Shomer Chinam who is given animals to look after is also subject to a Shevu'ah?
Mechilta: From the word "Lishmor", which implies whatever he is given for safe-keeping.
What are the implications of "Lishmor"?
Bava Kama, 93a: 'To look after', and not to destroy or to tear (or break), or to distribute to the poor. 1
Yerushalmi Shevu'os, 8:5: 'To look after', and not to give as a gift to whoever he wishes. 2
Mechilta: Refer to 22:6:151:1.
Why does the Torah render a Shomer Chinam Patur from Geneivah va'Aveidah, and a Shomer Sachar, Chayav?
Rashbam: Because, since the former is safekeeping inanimate objects, 1 the owner knows that the Shomer will place them in his house together with his own belongings, which he guards with care; whereas the latter, he places in the field, 2 and he expects him to keep a watchful eye on them.
How will we reconcile this Pasuk "Vegunav mi'Beis ha'Ish" with Pasuk 8, which implies that the article was not stolen?
Rashi and Rashbam (both citing Bava Kama, 63b): "Vegunav mi'Beis ha'Ish" is referring to the Shomer's claim (To'en Ta'anas Ganav) not to what actually happened, 1 the Pasuk ends where his claim is substantiated. Whereas Pesukim 7 & 8 are speaking where his claim turns out to be false
What are the implications of "ve'Gunav mi'Beis ha'Ish"?
Yerushalmi Shevu'os, 8:1: It implies that if the Shomer places the article on his (unguarded) roof, from where it is stolen, he is considered a Poshe'a and is liable. 1
Bava Kama, 69b: "mi'Beis ha'Ish", 've'Lo mi'Beis ha'Ganav'
What is considered giving to guard?
Moshav Zekenim: The owner must say 'here, guard this for me.' If he said only 'keep your eyes on it', he is not a Shomer, and he is exempt for [passive] negligence. If he gave it to another Shomer, and we know that Ones occurred, he is exempt; the Halachah does not follow Rava, who says that the owner can say 'I do not want my item in another's hands.' 1 If one deposited with a woman in front of her husband, he is liable, as if it was deposited with him.
Moshav Zekenim: One may not do so l'Chatchilah. One may lend Seforim to others (who will not ruin them) without the owner's permission, for one is pleased that his property be used for Mitzvos.