{"id":3854,"date":"2016-12-30T09:02:24","date_gmt":"2016-12-30T07:02:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/?p=3854"},"modified":"2016-12-30T09:02:24","modified_gmt":"2016-12-30T07:02:24","slug":"bava-metzia-95","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/2016\/12\/bava-metzia-95\/","title":{"rendered":"Bava Metzia 95"},"content":{"rendered":"

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? \u00a0That a borrower is responsible for theft and loss? \u00a0That the exemption of the owner being “with the borrower” applies also for theft and\u00a0loss? \u00a0If the shomer<\/em>\u00a0was negligent\u00a0and the owner was “with the shomer<\/em>” is he exempt? \u00a0There is a debate about this. \u00a0Rav Hamnuna has a narrow view of the exemption of \u00a0“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. \u00a0The gemara knocks down each of these statements and rejects this explanation.<\/p>\n

\n