1)

(a)If someone who borrows a cow and the owner together with it, the Mishnah rules - that the borrower is Patur from Onsin.

(b)'Borrows the owner together with it' means - that the owner works for the borrower simultaneously (See Tos. Yom-Tov) in whichever way, irrespective of what the cow has been hired for.

(c)The same will apply if ...

1. ... the borrower hires the owner, or ...

2. ... it is a hirer who borrows or hires the owner together with the cow (in which case he is Patur also from Geneivah va'Aveidah).

2)

(a)We learn this from the Pasuk "Im Be'alav Imo, Lo Yeshalem". Based on this Pasuk, the Sho'el or Socher - will be Chayav if the owner began working for him when he borrowed the cow.

(b)On the other hand, we learn that if he 'borrowed the owner after the cow, that he is Chayav - from the Pasuk there "Be'alav Ein Imo, Shalem Yeshalem" (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)If the owner had already begun working for him when the Oneis happened to the cow - he is Chayav.

(d)The criterion that makes him Patur is - that he must be working for him when he borrows the cow.

3)

(a)Two of three cases now discussed by the Mishnah are where Reuven borrows a cow for half a day and rents it for the other half and where he borrows it for one day and rents it for the next (See Tos. Yom-Tov). The third case is - where he rented one cow and borrowed another.

(b)The Tana discusses a case where one of the cows dies (note, that we are dealing with the third case, though exactly the same rulings will pertain to the first two). If it is the rented cow, he will be Patur, whereas if it is the borrowed one, he will be Chayav.

4)

(a)The Mishnah rules that if Shimon claims that the borrowed cow died and Reuven doesn't know (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - the latter is Chayav.

(b)The Din in that case ought to follow the same pattern as where Shimon claims a Manah from Reuven and Reuven cannot remember whether he borrowed it (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - where the latter swears (a Shevu'as Heses [See Tos. Yom-Tov]) that he doesn't know and is Patur from paying.

(c)To reconcile the Mishnah with the actual Halachah, the Gemara therefore establishes the case where Shimon claims that he gave Reuven two cows, one day on loan and one day on rent, and that they both died on the day that were on loan. Reuven then admitted that one of them did, but claimed that he did not know on which the other one died ...

(d)... rendering him Chayav to swear - and to the principle - that if someone is Chayav to swear (a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa) and is unable to, he is obligated to pay.

5)

(a)In the reverse case, where Reuven claims that the rented cow died and Shimon says that he doesn't know - the former is Patur (See Tos. Yom-Tov) ...

(b)... as he is if Shimon claims that it was the borrowed cow that died and he claims that it was the rented one ...

(c)... based on the principle - that 'If Reuven claims wheat from Shimon, and Shimon admits to barley, he is Patur from paying (even barley)'.

6)

(a)To explain why, in the previous case, the Tana obligates Reuven to swear, we establish the case by a 'Gilgul Shevu'ah' - where the defendant is Chayav another Shevu'ah, in which case the claimant can make him swear on the current claim too (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)The case here is - that Shimon demands a Shevu'as ha'Shomrim (that the cow died naturally) and via a Gilgul Shevu'ah, that that it was the hired one that died, in which case, Reuven is obligated to swear that the rented cow died, as well.

7)

(a)If both Reuven and Shimon don't know which cow died, the Tana rules that they divide it (Reuven pays half). The author of the Mishnah is - Sumchus (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)According to the Chachamim - Reuven is Patur ...

(c)... based on the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, alav ha'Re'ayah' (Without a proof, one cannot extract anything from the person who has it).

(d)Reuven is nevertheless Chayav to swear - that he doesn't know.

8)

(a)The Mishnah rules in a case where the cow that the lender sends the borrower dies on the way, assuming he sends it with ...

1. ... his son, daughter or Eved or with ...

2. ... the son, daughter or Eved of the borrower - that the borrower is Patur.

(b)Some commentaries explain the latter case even where he did not appoint them as Sheluchim - because if he did, he would be Chayav.

(c)'Shelucho' then - refers to one of his workers (whom he did actually appoint as a Shali'ach).

9)

(a)Others establish the case - where he actually appointed them as Sheluchim.

(b)We know that he did - because he did so in front of witnesses (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

10)

(a)If the borrower specifically asks the owner to send the cow with any of the six above-mentioned people and the cow dies on the way, the borrower is Chayav. The definition of 'the owner's Eved' in this case is - an 'Eved Ivri' ...

(b)... because if it was an Eved Cana'ani, the cow would not leave the domain of the owner until it reached the hand of the borrower, in which case he would not be Chayav if it died on the way.

(c)The borrower is Chayav even if the lender informs him that he is sending the cow with one of the six people - if he responds in the affirmative ('Send it!').

11)

(a)When the Tana concludes 've'Chein be'Sha'ah she'Machzirah', he means - that if he sends the cow back with any of the six Sheluchim and it dies, he remains Chayav. But if the owner asks him to send it or he informs the owner that he is about to send it and the owner replied in the affirmative, he is Patur.

(b)If he returns the cow after the termination of the borrowing period - he is Patur anyway ...

(c)... since he is no longer a Sho'el, only a Shomer Sachar ...

(d)... not simply a Shomer Chinam, since having received Hana'ah, he is willing to give Hana'ah ('Ho'il ve'Neheneh, Mahaneh') by accepting that much responsiblity.

12)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses someone who exchanges a cow for a donkey and the cow gives birth. The case is - where the owner of the cow makes a Kinyan on the donkey, at which point the owner of the donkey acquires the cow automatically.

(b)The problem is - that we do not know whether the calf was born before or after, the transaction.

(c)The similar case that the Tana incorporates in the current ruling is - where Reuven who sells his Shifchah to Shimon, who gives birth, and we do not know whether the baby was born before or after, the transaction.

(d)The reason that he does not present the first case too, where he purchased the cow is - because (whereas one can purchase an Eved Cana'ani with money) one cannot purchase a cow with money.

13)

(a)The actual Halachah in the current cases is - 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero alav ha'Re'ayah', and the calf belongs to the owner of the cow (See Tiferes Yisrael) ...

(b)... and the Mishnah says 'Yachloku', because the author is Sumchus.

14)

(a)The Mishnah rules, in a case where the owner owns two Avadim or two fields, one big and one small, and where ...

1. ... the purchaser claims that he bought the big one, and the seller says that he doesn't know which one he sold (See Tiferes Yisrael & Tos. Yom-Tov)) - that he receives the big one.

2. ... the seller claims that he sold the small one, and the seller says that he doesn't know which one he bought - that he receives the small one.

(b)The Tana rules, if, in the same case ...

1. ... the purchaser claims the big one and the seller counters that he sold the small one - that the seller swears that he sold him the small one, and that is what he receives.

2. ... neither remembers what they agreed upon - that they divide it (like Sumchus).

(c)There are two reason why the third case must be speaking when they are arguing over the value of the Eved and the field (See Tos. Yom-Tov), and not the Eved or the field itself. One of them is because one does not swear over Avadim (or Karka); the other - because if they were arguing over the Eved or the field, the seller would be Patur, seeing as the seller does not concede anything of what the purchaser is claiming...

(d)... based on the principle 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh lo Se'orin, Patur').

15)

(a)If Reuven sells Shimon olive-trees that are still attached to the ground for firewood; he leaves them in the ground and they produce olives, if they produce less than a Revi'is per Sa'ah - the olives belong to Shimon ...

(b)... because we assume that Re'uven, like other people, he is not Makpid on such a small amount.

(c)If they produce more than a Revi'is per Sa'ah but on account of the expenses and upkeep of the trees it amounts to less - it is considered less than a Revi'is per Sa'ah.

(d)The Mishnah is speaking to where Reuven stipulated that Shimon must cut down the trees S'tam; but if he specifically states that he should cut them down ...

1. ... immediately - and he leaves them there until they grow a new batch of olives - they belong to Reuven (under all circumstances).

2. ... whenever it suits him - then they belong to Shimon.

16)

(a)If the olives produce more than a Revi'i s per Sa'ah - Reuven claims that it is his land that caused the olives to grow, whereas Shimon argues that it is his trees that grew them.

(b)The Halachah is 'Yachloku' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

17)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses a case where the river washes away Reuven's olive-trees and re-plants them in Shimon's field, and they are involved in the same dispute as in the previous case. The olives that grew are not Asur on account of Orlah - because it speaks where the trees were washed away together with a section of earth in which they were originally growing (in which case they are not subject to Orlah).

(b)The Tana Pasken in this case too - 'Yachloku' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)This ruling however, is confined to the first three years after the incident; after that - all the olives belong to Shimon ...

(d)... because he can say to Shimon 'If I would have planted them, would I not have eaten them after three years?' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(e)And the reason that Reuven shares the olives during the first three years is - because were it not for his earth, the trees would have been forbidden because of Orlah.

18)

(a)In a case where Reuven rents out a house any time during the winter S'tam (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - the Mishnah rules that he cannot force him to leave between Succos and Pesach.

(b)When the Tana says 'During the summer, thirty days', he means - that should he rent it to him during the summer S'tam he cannot force him to leave before Pesach unless he warns him thirty days before the winter season begins ...

(c)... i.e. before the fifteenth of Ellul.

(d)If Reuven rents Shimon a house in the city, he is obligated to give him - a year's notice ...

(e)... since everybody is drawn to the city, and it is difficult to find a house to rent.

19)

(a)Exactly the same conditions apply to Shimon, in the event that he wants to leave.

(b)According to the Tana Kama, the equivalent Din by a store is twelve months (See Tos. Yom-Tov). Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that - a baker's store ...

(c)... and a dyer's store - require three years' notice ...

(d)... since their proprietors tend to give longer credit terms than other storekeepers.

(e)The Halachah is - like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

20)

(a)If Reuven rents out an apartment to Shimon, he is Chayav to install the door, the bolt and the lock - and anything that needs a craftsman to install (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)Items that an amateur is able to install - Shimon must install himself.

(c)The dung that animals leave in the courtyard - belongs to Reuven (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(d)The Tana is referring - to stray animals that wander into the courtyard ...

(e)... whereas Shimon can claim the spent ashes that are found in the oven (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

21)

(a)The problem in a case where Reuven rents out an apartment to Shimon for a year, and the year turns out to be a leap year is - whether Shimon needs to pay for the extra month or not.

(b)In fact - he is Patur.

(c)If he rents it to him for twelve months and the year turns out to be a leap year - he is obligated to pay for the extra month (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

22)

(a)The Mishnah cites a case that occurred in Tzipori where the owner rented out a house for twelve golden Dinrim per year, one golden Dinar Dinar per month. The problem with the fact that the Tana cites this incident here is - that it does not conform with the previous cases, where the Din is either with Reuven or with Shimon.

(b)We answer the Kashya - by adding that case to the text, before citing the incident which supports it.

(c)The basis of the Safek was - whether to go after the first Lashon (in favor of the renter) or the last Lashon (in favor of the owner).

23)

(a)The case came before Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and his Beis-Din. The other Tana whom we know sat with him was Rebbi Yossi.

(b)They ruled - 'Yachloku' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)The actual Halachah is - that we go after the least of the two Leshonos (to the benefit of the owner) ...

(d)... because Karka is always in the domain of the owner (in which case, we will apply the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, alav ha'Re'ayah').

24)

(a)In a case where the house (or room) that Reuven rented Shimon collapses, the Mishnah rules - that he is obligated to replace it (for the remaining period of the rental [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).

(b)He is permitted to give him neither a smaller house than the one he rented - nor a larger one (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)This is speaking where he stipulated, when renting him the house - that he would give him a house like the one in front of him.

(d)But if he said ...

1. ... 'Bayis Zeh' - then he would not be Chayav to replace it at all (See Tos. Yom-Tov); whereas if he said ...

2. ... 'Bayis' Stam - then he may replace it with anything that is called a house, irrespective of the size.