{"id":3734,"date":"2016-11-01T09:17:19","date_gmt":"2016-11-01T07:17:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/?p=3734"},"modified":"2016-11-01T09:17:19","modified_gmt":"2016-11-01T07:17:19","slug":"bava-metzia-36","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/2016\/11\/bava-metzia-36\/","title":{"rendered":"Bava Metzia 36"},"content":{"rendered":"

Some unique cases are brought where the owner rentout out an animal and subsequently borrowed it for part of the time and then rented out for part of the time and then borrowed it again for part of the time. \u00a0If the animal dies during the borrowing period, one can be obligated to pay 3 or 4 cows to the renter. \u00a0Others disagree with this. \u00a0Can a shomer<\/em> give an item to someone else to watch? \u00a0Different reasons are given to explain why this would be a problem. \u00a0They thought that Rav held it was ok, but it was later explained that it was based on a misunderstanding from a psak of Rav’s. \u00a0If one was negligent and brought the animal to a marsh (where thieves could come or predators) but the animal died in a typical manner, Abaye and Rava debate what Raba held – whether he would be exempt or obligated. \u00a0They each explain in their own way how this case is different from a classic case of tchilato b’pshia vesofo b’ones\u00a0<\/em>(one who does a negligent act but in the end there is accidental damage.<\/p>\n

\n