What kind of Shomer is the Pasuk referring to?
Rashi (in 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 (Pesukim 9-12) is referring to a Shomer Sachar, who generally looks after animals for a fee.
Why does the Torah insert the word "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'ehu"?
Shevu'os, 42a: To preclude where the claimant is a Cheresh, Shoteh or Katan, in which case one is Patur from a Shevu'ah. 1
Because his transactions have no validity. See Torah Temimah, note 74.
Whaat are the implicatons of the words "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'ehu"?
Yerushalmi Gitin, 5:9: It implies that a Katan cannot even acquire for himself - 'ad she'Yih'yeh ke'Re'ehu'. 1
Yerushalmi Shevu'os, 6:5: It implies that, even if the claimant gave the Shomer the money or the vessels to look after when he was a Katan but when claiming he is a Gadol, the Shomer is Patur - because "Re'ehu" implies that the giving and the claiming must be on a par. 2
Shevu'os, 42a: It implies "Re'ehu", 've'Lo Hekdesh' - to exempt a Shomer of Hekdesh from swearing. 3
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 - to preclude Karka'os (which are not movable), Avadim (which are compared to Karka'os 2 ), and Sh'taros, which have no intrinsic value. 3
Mechilta: To compare Keilim to Kesef - inasmuch as, just as Kesef is specific and can be counted, to preclude where it cannot, 4 so too, nusr Keilim be able to be counted. 5
Shevu'os, 39a: Refer to 22:6:3.4:1 and note.
See Torah Temimah, note 71.
See Torah Temimah, note 72.
Such as where the claimant claims a purse full of money and the Shomer (pointing to a purse containing money) says 'I don't know, but what you gave me, take! - he is Patur from a Shevu'ah (Torah Temimah).
To preclude the equivalent case of a room full of fruit (Torah Temimah). From here Chazal said that Beis-Din do not consider a claim that does not state a measure, weight or number (Mechilta).
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 - to which the Shomer admits one in order to be Chayav a Shevu'ah. 2
Shevu'os, 40b: To include where Reuven claims two needles and Shimon admits to one in the Din of Modeh be'Miktzas. 3
Yerushalmi, Shevu'os 6:1: The general term "Keilim" implies even earthenware vessels, which are cheap. 4
See Torah Temimah, note 79. See answer #2.
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.
Torah Temmimah: Even though Shimon is only Chayav to swear if Reuven claims at least two Ma'ah. See answer #1.
See Torah Temimah, note 84, who equates this answer with the previous one.
How do we know that the Din of Shevu'ah pertaining to a Shomer Chinam extends to where he is given animals to look after?
Mechilta: From the word "Lishmor", which implies whatever he is given for safe-keeping.
What are the implications of "Lishmor"?
Bava Kama, 93a: It implies to look after and not to destroy or to tear (or break), or to distribute to the poor. 1
Yerushalmi Shevu'os, 8:5: It implies to look after, and not to give away as a gift. 2
Mechilta #1: It incorporates anything that needs guarding - not just Kesef and Keilim.
Mechilta #2: Refer to 22:6:151:1.
Why does the Torah render a Shomer Chinam Patur from Geneivah va'Aveidah, and a Shomer Sachar, Chayav?
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 - where he in fact, stole the article.
Ramban, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: The current Pasuk is indeed speaking where the article was stolen, and Pesukim 7 & 8 go on to discuss the Din , first where the Ganav is not found, and then, where the Shomer himself is found to have stolen the article.
Ramban: As in Shoftim, Devarim, 13:2 and Yirmiyah, 28:1.
What are the implications of "ve'Gunav mi'Beis ha'Ish"?
Yerushalmi Shevu'os, 8:1: "mi'Beis ha'Ish", 've'Lo me'Rosh Gago' - to preclude where the Shomer places the article on his (unguarded) roof, from where it is stolen from the Din of Shevu'ah - sinde he is considered a Poshe'a and is Chayav to pay. 1
Bava Kama, 69b: "mi'Beis ha'Ish", 've'Lo mi'Beis ha'Ganav' - to preclude someone who steals a stolen article from the house of the Ganav who stole it from the original owner from paying Kefel. 2
Bava Kama, 76a: "mi'Beis ha'Ish", 've'Lo mi'Beis Hekdesh - to preclude someone who steals a Hekdesh article from paying Kefel. 3
Yerushalmi Shevu'os, 8:1: "mi'Beis ha'Ish", 've'Lo mi'Beis ha'Sho'el', where the Ganav pays Kefel to th owner and not to the borrower. 4
Oznayim la'Torah: The Shomer Chinam is only Patur for Geneivah if the article is stolen from him, but not if he handed it to someone else to look after and it srolen from him, since he is then considered a Poshe'a. 5
What are the connotations of the word "Li'shmor"?
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 from negligence. Moreover, if he gave it to another Shomer, 1 and we know that an Oneis occurred, he is Patur. 2 If one deposited with a woman in front of her husband, he is liable, as if it was deposited by him.
Moshav Zekenim: Bedi'eved - He may not do so Lechatchilah.
This does not follow the opinion of Rava, who rules that he is Chayav, because the owner can say 'I do not want my item in another person's hands'. One may not do this Lechatchilah. The Shomer may however, lend Seforim to others (who will not ruin them) without the owner's express permission, on the assumption that he will be pleased that his property is being used to perform a Mitzvah.
