Version #1 - Question (Rav Nachman bar Papa - Mishnah): Anyone who told the owner 'take your item and pay' is a Shomer Chinam.

Inference: If he said only 'I finished it', he is still a Shomer Sachar.

Answer: No. Rather, we infer that if he said 'pay me and take your item' (he keeps the item for security for his wages), he is a Shomer Sachar.

Question: Can you say that if he said 'I finished it', he would be a Shomer Chinam?!

If so, why does it teach that one who said 'take your item and pay' is a Shomer Chinam? It should teach that if he said 'I finished it', he is a Shomer Chinam, and all the more so if he said 'take your item and pay'!

Answer: We must teach 'take your item and pay'.

One might have thought that he is not even a Shomer Chinam. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Version #2 - Support (Rav Nachman bar Papa - Mishnah): Anyone who told the owner 'take your item and pay' is a Shomer Chinam.

Suggestion: The same applies if he said only 'I finished it.'

Rejection: No, 'take your item' is different.

(Huna Mar bar Mereimar): In our Mishnah, also if he said only 'I finished it', he is a Shomer Chinam.

Contradiction (Huna Mar - Mishnah): If Reuven told Shimon 'send your animal (for me to borrow)' and it died on the way, Reuven is liable;

Similarly, if Reuven sent it back and it died on the way, he is liable. (We do not say that when he finishes using it he is only a Shomer Chinam!)

Answer (Huna Mar): Rafram bar Papa taught that this is only if he returned it within the time he borrowed it for. After this, he is exempt.

Question: Is he exempt from liability of a borrower and liable like a Shomer Sachar, or is he totally exempt?

Answer (Ameimar): Presumably, he is liable like a Shomer Sachar, since he already benefited.

Support (Beraisa): Reuven took Kelim from a craftsman to send them to his father-in-law. He stipulated: if he likes them, I will buy them. If not, I will give you the benefit I got (from showing my father-in-law that I wanted to give him a gift). If Ones occurred on the way to his father-in-law, Reuven is liable. If Ones occurred on the way back he is exempt, for he is a Shomer Sachar.

Yehudah sold a donkey to Levi, who said that he will try to sell it in a certain place, and if he fails, he will return it. He failed to sell it; Ones occurred on the way back.

Rav Nachman: Levi is liable.

Question (Rava - Beraisa): If Ones occurred on the way, he is liable. If Ones occurred on the way back he is exempt, for he is a Shomer Sachar.

Answer (Rav Nachman): Here, even on the way back is like on the way, for he would sell it on the way back if he could.

(Mishnah): If Reuven told Shimon 'guard for me and I will guard for you', he is a Shomer Sachar.

Question: This is Shemirah b'Ba'alim (a Shomer of one's employee. Such a Shomer is exempt!)

Answer (Rav Papa): He said 'guard for me today and I will guard for you tomorrow.' When he was guarding, the owner was not guarding for him.

(Beraisa): If one said 'guard for me and I will guard for you', 'lend to me and I will lend you', 'guard for me and I will lend to you', or 'lend to me and I will guard for you' each is a Shomer Sachar to the other.

Question: This is Shemirah b'Ba'alim!

Answer (Rav Papa): He said 'guard for me today and I will guard for you tomorrow'.

Version #1: There were sellers of aloe who used to take turns baking for each other. One day, they asked Reuven to bake, and he asked them to guard his garment. They were negligent, and it was stolen.

Rav Papa: They are liable.

Objection (Rabanan): This is negligence b'Ba'alim!

Rav Papa was embarrassed.

It was later found that Reuven was drinking beer (not working for them) at the time of the theft (so it was not Shemirah b'Ba'alim, and they were truly liable).

This is like the opinion that negligence b'Ba'alim is exempt.

Question: According to the opinion that negligence b'Ba'alim is liable, why was Rav Papa embarrassed?

Answer - Version #2: Rather, that day was not his day to bake. He agreed to bake if they would guard his garment to be wages for his baking. It was stolen (without negligence).

Rav Papa: They are liable.

Objection (Rabanan): This is guarding b'Ba'alim!

Rav Papa was embarrassed.

It was later found that Reuven was drinking beer at the time of the theft.

Reuven (a tall man) was riding on a donkey, wearing a linen garment. Shimon (a short man) was walking, wearing a wool coat. They came to a river; Shimon put his coat on the donkey (lest it become waterlogged). He borrowed Reuven's garment, and it got washed away.

(Rava): Shimon is liable.

Objection (Rabanan): This is guarding b'Ba'alim!

Rava was embarrassed.

It was later found that Shimon put his coat on the donkey and took Reuven's garment without asking.

Reuven rented his donkey to Shimon, and warned him not to go near the Pekod river, for it is wet there. Shimon went there, and the donkey died.

Shimon: It was dry there!

Rabah: We believe him. If he wanted to lie, he could have said that he did not go there!

Objection (Abaye): We do not apply Migo (to believe someone because if he wanted to lie, he could have lied better) against witnesses (we can testify that it is wet near the river).

(Mishnah): If Reuven told Shimon 'guard this for me', and Shimon said 'leave it in front of me', he is a Shomer Chinam.

(Rav Huna): If Shimon said 'leave it in front of yourself (i.e. guard it yourself)', he is neither a Shomer Chinam nor Shomer Sachar.

Question: If he said only 'leave it', what is the law?

Answer #1 (Mishnah): If Reuven told Shimon 'guard this for me', and Shimon said 'leave it in front of me', he is a Shomer Chinam;

Inference: Had he not said 'in front of me', he would not be a Shomer at all!

Rejection: Rav Huna taught that if Shimon said 'leave it in front of yourself', he is neither a Shomer Chinam nor Shomer Sachar;

Inference: Had he not said 'in front of yourself', he would be a Shomer Chinam!

The inferences contradict each other. We cannot determine which is valid.

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about this.

(Mishnah): If Shimon had permission to bring his Peros or ox into Reuven's Chatzer (and they were damaged), Reuven is liable;

Rebbi says, in all cases one is liable only if he accepted responsibility for the other's property.

Rejection #1: Perhaps Chachamim say only regarding a Chatzer, in which things are easily guarded, that saying 'come in' is acceptance to guard, but in the market, 'leave it' means 'guard it yourself'!

Rejection #2: Perhaps Rebbi says only regarding a Chatzer, for which one needs permission to enter, that 'come in' means 'you may enter, but guard it yourself', but in the market, 'leave it' means 'I will guard it', for we cannot say that he gives him permission to enter!

(Mishnah): If Reuven lent to Shimon Al ha'Mashkon (relying on a security), he is a Shomer Sachar on it.

Suggestion: Our Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer:

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If Reuven lent to Shimon Al ha'Mashkon and lost the security, he swears (that he lost it) and collects the debt. (He is only a Shomer Chinam, because the security is not for collection. It is only a reminder of the loan.)

R. Akiva says, he lent only due to the security. Now that he lost it, he lost the loan.

If there was also a loan document, all agree that the security was for collection. He is a Shomer Sachar; he lost the loan.

Rejection #1: Our Mishnah is like R. Eliezer. He discusses a security taken at the time of the loan;

Our Mishnah discusses a security taken after the loan was given. That is surely for collection!

Objection: The Mishnah and Beraisa both say Al ha'Mashkon (which connotes at the time of the loan)!