Dec 302016

From where do we derive various halachot about a borrower that are not mentioned in the verses explicitly: That “captivity” is also included in cases where the borrower is obligated?  That a borrower is responsible for theft and loss?  That the exemption of the owner being “with the borrower” applies also for theft and loss?  If the shomer was negligent and the owner was “with the shomer” is he exempt?  There is a debate about this.  Rav Hamnuna has a narrow view of the exemption of  “the owner is with the borrower”. He claims it is a case where the owner was working with the animal itself at the time of its break or death and was also with him from the time of borrowing until the time of its death.  The gemara knocks down each of these statements and rejects this explanation.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.