1)

What is the Pasuk referring to when it declares the Shomer liable to pay double "al Kol D'var Pesha"?

1.

Rashi, Ramban, Seforno and Rashbam #1 (citing Bava Kama, 63b): It is referring to where the Shomer swears falsely that the article was stolen (To'en Ta'anas Ganav), when in fact, he is the one who 'stole' it.

2.

Targum Yonasan: It is referring to where the Shomer has to swear, and depending upon whether he swore 1 or paid, 2 the Ganav, when he is found, pays either the Shomer or the owner.

3.

Oznayim la'Torah: It refers to his false claim (D'var - Dibur) of To'en Ta'anas Ganav.


1

See Yayin ha'Tov.

2

See Na'ar Yonasan.

2)

What are the connotations of "al Kol D'var Pesha" ... "?

1.

Targum Yonasan: It teaches us that a Shomer Chinam is Chayav for negligence.

3)

What is the word "Al Kol D'var Pesha" comng to include?

1.

Bava Kama, 63a: It includes every article - whether it has a spirit of life or not - in the Din of To'en Ta'anas Ganav. 1


1

See Torah Temimah, note 107. Bava Kama, 54b: And the Torah mentions Shor and Chamor ... because they are the most commonly used by people. See Torah Temimah, note 109.

4)

Why does the Torah insert the word "Al Kol D'var Pesha"?

1.

Bava Metzi'a, 42a: To include where the Shomer instructed his Eved or his Shali'ach to use the article in the Din of Shole'ach Yad. 1


1

In spite of the principle 'Ein Shali'ach li'Devar Aveirah'. See Torah Temimah, note 108.

5)

Having written "Al Kol D'var Pesha", why does the Pasuk need to specifically mention "Shor, Chamor, Seh and Salmah'?

1.

Rashi (on Beraisa de'R. Yishmael): It is a K'lal u'Perat u'Kelal, 1 to preclude whatever is not moveable (Karka, and Avadim, which are compared to Karka) and whatever has no intrinsic value (Sh'taros), from the Din of Shevu'as Shomrim and to exempt the Shomer from paying. 2

2.

Da'as Zekenim and Hadar Zekenim (in Pasuk 5): The Pasuk alludes to Hashem's claim against Aharon for making the Eigel (a baby ox). The Eirev Rav - who were from Egypt, which is compared to a donkey, caused Yisrael - who are xompared to a 'Seh Pezurah - to sin. Salmah is like Tzelem (an idol). Also Aveidah refers to idolatry - "Abed Te'abdun." Ki hu Zeh - they said "Zeh Elohecha" (Nechemyah 9:18). Ad ha'Elohim is Moshe - "Nesaticha Elohim." Devar Sheneihem - of Hashem and Aharon. Yeshalem Shenayim - two of Aharon's children (Nadav and Avihu) died.

3.

Bava Kama, 63a: Refer to 22:6:2.3:2 - for a similar set of D'rashos. And "Salmah" comes to preclude from the Din of Kefel a Davar she'Einah Mesuyam - something that is not specific (that has no Si'man - Rashi). 3


1

The second Klal is "al Kol Aveidah".

2

Refer also to 22:6:2.3:2. See als Torah Temimah, note 122.

3

Torah Temimah, note 110: Refer to 22:6:2.3:2 4

for Tosfos' explanation.

6)

Why does the Torah insert "al Kol Aveidah"?

1.

Bava Kama, 106b: To teach us that To'en Ta'anas Ganav applies to a lost article as well as to a Pikadon. 1


1

See Torah Temimah, note 112.

7)

Why does the Torah insert the word "Elohim" (Judges) three times (in Pasuk 7 & 8) in the Parshah of Shomrim

1.

Sanhedrin, 3b: To teach us that Dinei Mamonos require three Dayanim 1 (who have Semichah). 2

2.

Sifri (at the beginning of Va'eschanan): We learn from here ("Ad ha'Elohim Yavo D'var Sheneihem") that "Elokim" denotes Midas ha'Din. 3


1

Mechilta: From "Asher Yarshi'un Elohim" (in this Pasuk) indicates that the word is not referring to 'Hashem', in which case it would require consulting the Urim ve'Tumim.

2

See Torah Temimah, note 101 & 102.

3

See Torah Temimah, note 102 .

8)

What are the connotations of the words "Ki hu Zeh"?

1.

Rashi #1 and Rashbam: It refers to the testimony of the witnesses or of the owner that the Shomer has the article in question in his possession.

2.

Rashi #2, Seforno and Targum Yonasan: It is the Shomer who claims Ki Hu Zeh" - and the Chachamim learn from here that a Shomer (and a borrower) 1 is only Chayav a Shevu'ah if he admits that he did indeed steal part of the Pikadon but that part of it was stolen (Modeh be'Miktzas), 2 but not if he claims that the entire Pikadon was stolen (Kofer ba'Kol). 3

3.

Ramban: According to the Halachah, what Chazal extrapolate from here, is that the Shomer is only Chayav a Shevu'ah if he admits to having received part of the Pikadon, but not if he denies it completely. 4

4.

Bava Kama, 107a: Although the Pasuk is written by Pikadon, it applies to Milveh exclusively - to teach us 'Modeh Miktzas ha'Ta'anah, Chayav Shevu'ah' (that if the debtor admaits to part of the loan, he is Chayav a Shevu'ah).

5.

Bava Metzi'a, 5a: "Ki Hu Zeh" implies that the Shomer admits to part of the claim, to preclude where Reuven claims wheat, and Shimon admits to barley, in which case he is Patur from a Shevu'ah. 5

6.

Refer to 22:8:4.1.


1

Refer to 22:8:4.1:1.

2

See also Seforno and Ba'al ha'Turim.

3

The Ramban points out that this is an individual opinion, and that, according to the Halachah, the Shomer is Chayav a Shevu'ah even if he claims that the entire Pikadon was stolen (See Ramban). See answer #4.

4

See Torah Temimah, note 114, who discusses the various opinions on this point at length.

5

See Torah Temimah, note 115.

9)

How can we make a person swear and pay by his own admission - without witnesses?

1.

Rashi (in Kidushin, 65b): We learn from "Ki Hu Zeh" that a person's admission (regarding money matters) as equal to a hundred witnessses. 1


1

See Torah Temimah, note 113.

10)

What are the implications of "Ad ha'Elohim Yavo D'var Sheneihem"?

1.

Mechilta: It implies that the two litigants 1 must present their respective cases before Beis-Din directly, and not through interpreters or lawyers. 2

2.

Bava Kama, 106b: Following the D'rashah "Ki YIten Ish" , 've'Lo Katan', it teaches us that the giving and the claiming must be on a par, and that, consequently, if the claimant was a Katan when he gave the Shomer the article to look after, even though he is now a Gadol, his claim is not accepted in Beis-Din. 3


1

Seforno: Whether they are an owner and a Shomer or a creditor and a debtor (Seforno)

2

See Torah Temimah, note 117.

3

Refer to 22:6:2.2:2.

11)

What are the connotations of the words "Asher Yarshi'un Elohim "?

1.

Rashi: It implies that if the Shomer is found to be guilty through witnesses, then he must pay double, but if it is the witnesses who testified against him falsely, then they must pay double.

2.

Bava Kama, 64b: The Shomer is only Chayav to swear (and to subsequently pay) if, based on the testimony of the witnesses, it is the Dayanim who declare him guilty him, but not if he admits of his own accord (Modeh bi'Kenas, Patur). 1


1

Refer to 22:3:1:2.

12)

What if, after claiming that the animal was stolen, the Shomer Shechts or sells it?

1.

Bava Kama, 106b: The Torah compares "Im Lo Nimtza ha'Ganav" to Im Nimtza ha'Ganav". Consequently, just as a Ganav is Chayav Arba'ah va'Chamishah if he Shechts or sells the stolen animal, so too must a To'en Ta'anas Ganav.

13)

Who is "asher Yarshi'un Elohim referring to?

1.

Rashi: It refers to the Shomer - if he stole the article or to the witnesses - should they turn out to be Eidim Zom'min.

14)

What are the implications of Yeshalem Shenayim le'Re'ehu"?

1.

Mechilta: "le'Re'ehu", 've'Lo le'Hekdesh'; "le'Re'ehu", 've'Lo le'Nochri' - to preclude someone who steals from Hekdesh 1 or from Nochrim from having to pay Kefel.


1

Refer to 22:6:2.2:3.

Sefer: Perek: Pasuk:

KIH Logo
D.A.F. Home Page
Sponsorships & DonationsReaders' FeedbackMailing ListsTalmud ArchivesAsk the KollelDafyomi WeblinksDafyomi CalendarOther Yomi calendars