אמאי שמירה בבעלים היא—Why; it is guarding with the owner

OVERVIEW שמואל ruled regarding partners that each one is considered as a שומר שכר to the other; meaning that each partner is liable¹ for the assets of their partnership if it was lost or stolen when it was in the possession of one of the partners.² The גמרא asked why should they be liable since this is a case of שמירה בבעלים.³ Our תוספות qualifies and clarifies this question.

פירוש⁴ אם התחילו שניהם לשמור יחד⁵ – The explanation as to when it is considered שמירה בבעלים is if they both began to guard (the items of their partnership) simultaneously, so that – כל אחד בשעה שהוא משמר חלק חבירו חבירו נמי משמר לו חלקו⁶-– Each one of the partners, at the same time that he guards his partner’s share, his partner is guarding his share ואף על פי שאין עמו במלאכה בשעת אונס⁷ – And even if the other partner was not in his employ at the time of the accident – כיון שהיה עמו בתחילת שמירה בעליו עמו קרינן ביה⁸ – Nevertheless since the partner was with him (in his employ) at the beginning of the guarding, we call it בעליו עמו, and he is פטור – תוספות proves this point: כדתניא (בבא מציעא דף צו,א) היה עושה עמו בשעת שאלה – As the ברייתא taught, if the owner was working for (with) the borrower, at the time of the borrowing⁹ – אין צריך להיות עמו בשעת שבורה ומתה – It is not necessary for the owner to be with him (in his employ) when the borrowed cow broke or died, for he is פטור regardless, since he was in his employ בשעת שאלה – היה עמו בשעת שבורה ומתה צריך להיות עמו בשעת שאלה¹⁰ – However. If the owner was employed with the borrower at the time it broke or died, that is not sufficient to exempt the שואל from paying, but rather it is necessary that he be employed by the borrower at the time of borrowing – תוספות qualifies (that the שמירה must not begin simultaneously): ואפילו¹¹ לא התחילו שניהם לשמור יחד¹² – And even if both of them did not begin guarding simultaneously – מכל מקום האחרון פטור שהראשון היה עמו במלאכה בשעה שהתחיל השני¹³ לשמור: Nevertheless the last one to guard is פטור, since the first one was in his employ at the time the second one began to guard.

SUMMARY The פטור of שמירה בבעלים is if the owner was in the employ of the שומר when the שמירה began.

THINKING IT OVER According to תוספות that we require שמירה בבעלים at the beginning, why did the גמרא not answer the question of 'ואמאי שמירה בבעלים הוא', that we are discussing a case where there was no שמירה בבעלים together at the same time, so one of them can be a ש"ש?¹⁴

footnotes: ¹ A שומר שכר (a paid custodian) is liable to pay for גניבה ואבידה (if the item he was watching was lost or stolen). ² The partner is liable (even though he is not receiving payment), since his partner will also watch the items (another time; see רשב"ם מב,ב ד"ה ונעשין). This is considered payment to render him to be a ש"ש. This means that if $100 worth of goods were lost, the שומר must pay his partner $50. ³ There is a rule which applies to the responsibility of all types of custodians that if the owner of the item was in the employ of the custodian, the custodian has no liability for the item which is by him. See שמות (משפטים) כב,יד where the פסוק states, אם בעליו עמו לא ישלם (if the owner is with him [in his employ] he need not pay). ⁴ Perhaps תוספות writes 'פירוש' to exclude the פי' רשב"ם ד"ה שמירה who writes וכיון שהיה ראובן משמר מחלק שמעון בשעה שנגנבה (see also the רשב"ם in footnote # 2). ⁵ Let us assume they own 20 pots in partnership. After they bought the pots each partner took half the pots to store them in their respective homes. ⁶ When partner # 1 (ראובן) is guarding the ten pots, half of these pots belong to שמעון, and at the same time שמעון is guarding half of his pots on behalf of ראובן, so ראובן is working for שמעון (guarding his pots), but שמעון is also working for ראובן by guarding sראובן' pots (and vice versa). Therefore it is considered שמירה בבעלים. ⁷ When the item was stolen or lost from ראובן, at that time שמעון was no longer watching the other pots (perhaps they were sold already), nevertheless ראובן is פטור. ⁸ See (end of) footnote # 3. ⁹ The פסוק of בעליו עמו (see footnote # 3) is written regarding a שואל (a borrower) specifically, however the גמרא derives that it applies to all the שומרים. i.e. שמר חנם, שומר שכר ושוכר. ¹⁰ The same applies here by the שותפין as long as they both started guarding simultaneously, it is considered שמירה בבעלים, regardless what the situation was בשעה גניבה ואבידה. ¹¹ See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹² ראובן was guarding and שמעון was not guarding yet. ¹³ ראובן began guarding first (so he is in the employ of שמעון) at 8:00am and שמעון began guarding at 1:00 pm while ראובן was still guarding. Therefore שמעון is פטור מגניבה ואבידה, since ראובן (the [partial]owner was working for him when שמעון began his שמירה. However ראובן is חייב to שמעון for his loss since שמעון was not employed by ראובן, when ראובן began his שמירה. ¹⁴ See נחלת משה and footnote # 11.[Seemingly the conclusion of תוס' by writing ואפילו וכו' מ"מ האחרון פטור, explains the difficulty on שמואל who states נעשין ש"ש זל"ז, which indicates that there are both ש"ש, on which the גמרא asks that they cannot both be ש"ש, since it is שמירה בבעלים for at least one of them.]

דאמר שמור לי היום כולי—Where he said; guard for me today, etc. Overview¹ The גמרא explained the reason the two partners are considered שומרי שכר for each other, and it is not considered שמירה בבעלים, since they watched it on consecutive days, and they did not watch it at the same time.² תוספות clarifies the rules of שמירה בבעלים and שומרי שכר.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר אכתי שמירה בבעלים היא דאמרינן בריש השואל³ – And if you will say; but it is still considered שמירה בבעלים, for the גמרא states in the beginning of פרק השואל – דבעלים באמירה⁴ גבי שואל את הפרה ובעלה עמה – Regarding what the משנה stated; ‘one who borrowed a cow together with its owner’, that the owner is considered to be in the employ of the שואל by merely saying, ‘I am employed by you’ – תוספות answers by distinguishing between the two cases: ויש לומר שאני התם דבאמירה משעבדי עצמן ליכנס במלאכתם מיד⁵ – And one can say; there (by the שואל) it is different, for the owner is obligating himself with his statement to immediately begin working – אבל הכא לא משתעבד עד למחר – However here (by the שותפין) he is not committing himself to begin work only until tomorrow, but not immediately, therefore he is not in the employ of his partner as of yet, and it is not שמירה בבעלים. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ומאי קא משמע לן שמואל דנעשין שומרי שכר זה לזה – And if you will say; what is שמואל coming to teach us; that they become ש"ש one to another – מתניתין היא בהשוכר את האומנים (בבא מציעא דף פ,ב) שמור לי ואשמור לך שומר שכר – But this is a משנה in פרק השוכר את האומנים; if one says to another ‘guard for me and I will guard for you’, they each become a ש"ש to the other, so why was it necessary for שמואל to repeat a ruling that is stated explicitly in the משנה?!⁶ תוספות answers and distinguishes between the two cases: ויש לומר דאי מהתם הוה אמינא לפי שהם אינן שותפין⁷ – And one can say that if all we had was the משנה there in השוכר וכו', I would have said that only there, are they considered to be ש"ש, since they are not partners – אבל הכא שהם שותפין כל אחד ואחד כששומר חלק חבירו שומר גם⁸ בשביל עצמו: However here where they are partners, so each one while he is watching his friend’s portion he is also watching for his portion.

SUMMARY If the owner commits himself verbally to be in the employ of the שומר immediately it is considered שמירה בבעלים, but not if his commitment will begin after the שמירה. It is more reasonable that שמור לי ואשמור לך is considered ש"ש where they are not partners than when they are guarding items which are owned in partnership.

THINKING IT OVER Why did תוספות not ask his question⁹ on שמואל (what is his חידוש) previously when שמואל stated his ruling; why did he wait to ask it now (after the first question and answer in this תוספות)?!

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’ to previous תוס' ד"ה אמאי. ² They said to each other you watch for me today and (in return) I will watch for you tomorrow. ³ בבא מציעא צד,ב. ⁴ [The גמרא there questioned how is it possible that both the cow and the owner are borrowed by the שואל simultaneously (as it seems from the expression השואל את הפרה ובעלה עמה), since the owner is employed as soon as he says and agrees to be employed, while the cow is not considered borrowed, until the שואל makes a משיכה in the cow.] In any event it is obvious that the owner is considered in the employ of the שומר by merely saying that he will work for him, so here too, since the שותפין agree that they will watch for each other; they should be considered in the employ of the other שותף and it should be considered שמירה בבעלים even if they said שמור לי היום ואני אשמור לך מחר! ⁵ Therefore since he is committing himself to begin working immediately he is considered in the employ of the שואל now! ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁷ ראובן said to שמעון if you will watch my cow today, I will watch your cow tomorrow, the cows belong exclusively to their respective owner’s only, therefore when ראובן watches the cow of שמעון for free. it is as if שמעון is receiving payment for him watching sראובן' cow the next day and vice versa. The service of watching is a bona fide payment. ⁸ When ראובן (the partner) is watching the entire stock of which half belongs to him and half to שמעון, one may argue that he is not giving something to שמעון, but rather he is watching his own (share of the) stock. Therefore perhaps they are not considered ש"ש. Therefore שמואל informs us that indeed they are ש"ש זל"ז. See רשב"ם ד"ה אמר where he writes, דס"ד אמינא דשומר חנם הוא דבלאו חלק חבירו היה צריך לשמור את שלו ושמירה אחת היא בין הכל ולא ליהוי שומר שכר קמ"ל. ⁹ See footnote # 6.

וכיון דאסהיד דלוי הוא כולי—But since he is testifying that it belongs to Levi, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא is discussing a case where ראובן stole a field from שמעון and sold it to לוי. Afterwards יהודה comes and claims that it is his field, the rule is that שמעון cannot testify on behalf of לוי against יהודה (for he is a נוגע בדבר).¹ The גמרא asks if שמעון will testify that it belongs to לוי, how will שמעון be able to dislodge לוי, since he testified already on his behalf. The גמרא offers an answer.² תוספות offers an alternate answer.

תוספות comments: הוה מצי לשנויי כגון דאסהיד שמעון דשל אבותיו דלוי הוה³ – The גמרא could have answered that for instance שמעון testifies that this property belonged to sלוי' ancestors, so it could not belong to יהודה –

And later (after sיהודה' claim will be dismissed [based on sשמעון' testimony]), שמעון will come and claim that he (שמעון) subsequently bought it from לוי, and שמעון will produce witnesses that ראובן stole it from him and sold it back to לוי.⁴

SUMMARY שמעון can claim that it belonged to sלוי' ancestors (disqualifying יהודה) and later will claim that he (שמעון) bought it from לוי.

THINKING IT OVER Is there any advantage in תוספות proposed answer over the sגמרא' actual answer? If there is, why indeed did the גמרא not answer in this manner?!⁵

footnotes: ¹ שמעון prefers to challenge לוי rather than יהודה. ² שמעון will not testify on behalf of לוי, he will merely testify that sיהודה' claim is bogus. ³ It would seem that this testimony of שמעון is valid to challenge יהודה if sיהודה' claim is that this field always belonged to him from generations past. ⁴ This allows שמעון to testify on behalf of לוי to negate sיהודה' claim, and subsequently for שמעון to dislodge לוי. ⁵ See נחלת משה.

כגון דאית ליה סהדי למר כולי—For instance one has witnesses, etc.

Overview¹ The גמרא answered that the reason שמעון cannot remove יהודה from the field, in the same manner as he is removing לוי, is because in the dispute between שמעון ויהודה, both have witnesses that it belongs to them, and if יהודה will win his case against לוי, he will be the מוחזק, and שמעון will not be able to dislodge him. However in his confrontation with לוי it is only יהודה who has the witnesses (that ראובן stole the field from שמעון and sold it to לוי illegally). It seems from the גמרא that this answer כגון דאית ליה סהדי למר וכו', is something new which the תרצן informs us, however תוספות argues that seemingly we knew all along that שמעון and יהודה have witnesses supporting their claim; why does the גמרא say 'כגון'?!

תוספות asks: תימה דלא הוה ליה למימר כגון² – It is astounding! for the גמרא should not have said 'כגון' (for instance) – דהא מעיקרא נמי ידעינן דאית ליה לשמעון סהדי דדידיה היא – For initially we also knew that שמעון has עדים that it belongs to him – כדקתני³ ראובן שגזל שדה משמעון⁴ ואי לית ליה לשמעון סהדי שגזלה ראובן ממנו – As the ברייתא states, ‘ראובן who stole a field from שמעון’, and if שמעון has no עדים that ראובן stole it from him – אנן היכי ידעינן שגזלה ומכח מה הוא מערער⁵ – How do we know that ראובן stole it, and on what basis is שמעון protesting the occupation of the field. This proves that we always realized that שמעון has עדים – ויהודה נמי על כרחך אית ליה סהדי דאי לאו הכי מאיזה כח מערער – And perforce you must say that יהודה also has עדים that he owns this field, for otherwise, what is sיהודה' basis to protest sלוי' occupation of the field. We have thus proven that even initially we were aware that both שמעון and יהודה have עדים supporting their claim that they are the owners, so why does the תרצן say 'כגון'?! והכי הוי ליה למימר כיון דאית ליה סהדי למר כולי ומאי סלקא דעתיה דמקשה⁶ – Rather this is what the תרצן should have said, ‘since this one has עדים etc. (and the other one has עדים)’, so what did the questioner even think?! תוספות dismisses a proposed solution: ואין לומר דמעיקרא סלקא דעתיה דאיירי כגון דאית ליה ליהודה עדים דשל אבותיו היא – And one cannot say that originally we assumed that this is a case where יהודה has witnesses that it belonged to his parents – ולשמעון הנגזל אית ליה סהדי דאכלה שני חזקה וטעין מיהודה זבנה⁷ – And שמעון, whose field was stolen by ראובן, has witnesses that he (שמעון) consumed the produce of this field for the three years required for a חזקה, and שמעון claims that he bought it from יהודה, this would seemingly answer our question. However תוספות maintains that we cannot understand the גמרא in this manner – דאם כן מאי קאמר בהאי זכותא⁸ דמפיק לה מלוי ליפקה מיהודה – For if indeed this is so (that יהודה only has עדים that it belonged to אבותיו), what is this which the גמרא states, ‘with the same power that שמעון can dislodge לוי, he can dislodge יהודה’, but according to the proposed solution this is not so – הא בהאי זכותא דמצי לאפוקי מלוי לא מצי לאפוקי מיהודה – For with the power that he can dislodge לוי, he cannot dislodge יהודה – דבעדי גזילה המעידין שגזל ראובן ממנו מצי מפיק לה מלוי שבא מכח ראובן – For with the witnesses of theft, who testify that ראובן stole from שמעון, he (שמעון) can dislodge לוי whose claim to ownership) comes from his purchase from ראובן, and when the witnesses will testify to the theft, ראובן and thus לוי, no longer have any claim to the field – ומיהודה לא מצי מפיק לה אלא בעדי חזקה – However שמעון cannot dislodge יהודה, only with עדי חזקה, so how can the גמרא ask that he can remove יהודה, just as he can remove לוי.⁹ תוספות answers: ונראה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם דסלקא דעתין דמעיקרא דיהודה בעי לאפוקי מלוי – And it appears to the רשב"א that initially the גמרא assumed that יהודה wanted to remove לוי from the field – משום דאית ליה סהדי דראובן מכר לו וללוי אין עדים ובא שמעון להעיד ללוי דשל לוי היא – Because יהודה had עדים that ראובן sold the field to him (יהודה), however לוי has no עדים that ראובן sold it to him (he merely claims it), and שמעון is coming to testify on behalf of לוי that it belongs to לוי – ומשום הכי פריך כיון דמסהיד דהאי ארעא דלוי היא היכי מפיק לה מיניה – So therefore the גמרא initially asked, since שמעון testified that this land belongs to לוי, how can he dislodge him – והוה מצי לשנויי דלא מסהדי בהאי לישנא דלוי היא אלא דאמר דראובן מכרה ללוי – And the גמרא could have answered that he does not testify with this language, ‘that it belongs to לוי’, but rather שמעון stated that ראובן sold it to לוי; the גמרא could have answered that – אלא דעדיפא מינה משני¹⁰ – However that גמרא offered an even better answer – והשתא פריך שפיר דבההיא זכותא דמפיק לה מלוי ליפקה מיהודה – So now (that both לוי and יהדה claim that they bought it from ראובן), the גמרא properly asks that with the same power that שמעון can remove לוי, he can remove יהודה – דשניהם באין מכח ראובן ואם יביא שמעון עדים דראובן גזלה ממנו מצי לאפוקי מתרוייהו: Since they both (לוי ויהודה) are coming from the strength of ראובן, so if שמעון will bring עדים that ראובן stole it from him he will be able to remove both of them (לוי ויהודה).¹¹

SUMMARY לוי and יהודה both claim that they bought if from ראובן.

THINKING IT OVER

1. The proposed solution of the 'ואין לומר' was that יהודה claimed that it was של אבותיו and שמעון claims that he bought it from יהודה.¹² In this scenario, how is שמעון testifying on behalf of לוי against יהודה. He cannot claim that יהודה is not the owner, since sשמעון' claim of his ownership is that he bought it from יהודה; so how is שמעון supporting לוי?!¹³
2. תוספות writes that the גמרא could have answered that שמעון merely stated that לוי bought it from ראובן, but not that it belongs to לוי; however the גמרא offers a better answer.¹⁴ Since the גמרא is עדיפא מיניה משני; why does תוספות mention his answer at all?! Is there any advantage in תוספות proposed answer?

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’ to the previous תוס' ד"ה וכיון. ² The term 'כגון' indicates that the גמרא is giving us a new scenario in this case, when in fact we always knew this, as תוספות goes on to explain. ³ This does not say in the actual ברייתא, however רב ששת interpreted the ברייתא in this manner. ⁴ The ברייתא is teaching us the ruling in a case where ראובן stole a field from שמעון; the only way we can know that ראובן stole a field from שמעון is if שמעון has עדים that it belonged to him before ראובן took possession (and ראובן has no proof of ownership at all). ⁵ The ruling is that שמעון cannot testify against יהודה since he has a vested interest that the field should remain by לוי so that he (שמעון) will later be able to dislodge לוי. However, if שמעון has no עדים that he owns it, how can he protest against לוי occupying this field?! ⁶ תוספות is asking two questions. Firstly why say כגון, since we always assumed that both שמעון and יהודה have עדים that it belongs to them (as תוספות just proved). Secondly, how could the מקשן ask that the same way שמעון can dislodge לוי, he should dislodge יהודה (and even if we say that the גמרא means that שמעון can dislodge יהודה just as he can dislodge לוי [even if it is not in the same manner]), but that is not true, since against לוי he has witnesses that לוי bought his stolen field from ראובן, however regarding יהודה (who, if he wins the case against לוי, will be in possession of the field), שמעון cannot dislodge יהודה, for they both have (contradicting) עדים and the land will remain in the possession of יהודה who is the מוחזק. ⁷ Since יהודה merely has witnesses that it belonged to his parents and שמעון claims that he (subsequently) bought it from יהודה and has שני חזקה, so obviously שמעון will win the case, so why is שמעון concerned that יהודה may win the case from לוי, since in any event שמעון will be able to dislodge יהודה? This would explain the sגמרא' question. Therefore the תרצן answered that we are discussing a situation where the עדים of שמעון and יהודה are contradicting each other (each set of עדים testify that שמעון/יהודה own the field currently). The result will be that יהודה will retain the field (if he wins against לוי and is currently the מוחזק). However, תוספות negates this solution. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁸ תוספות now emphasizes that the גמרא when it states בהאי זכותא, it does not mean just as he can remove לוי he can remove יהודה (albeit in a different manner), but rather it is apparent from the language בהאי זכותא וכו', that the manner of removing לוי ויהודה are identical. תוספות therefore asks that they are different methods and are not identical. ⁹ The question of תוספות is how can the גמרא ask that בההוא זכותא דקא מפיק ליה מלוי ליפקה מיהודה, when we know that they are two different claims. ¹⁰ שמעון testified that he knows that it certainly does not belong to יהודה. This way לוי does not enter into the equation at all. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹¹ The גמרא answered כגון דאית ליה סהדי למר וכו'; that יהודה has witnesses that it is his (but not that he bought it from ראובן), so therefore we can no longer say בההוא זכותא דקא מפיק לה מלוי לפיקה מיהודה. The term כגון is appropriate since we are changing the scenario, where initially we assumed that יהודה claimed that he bought it from ראובן, but now we are saying that יהודה claims it was always and currently his; no connection to ראובן. ¹² See footnote # 7. ¹³ See מהרש"א and מהודרא בתרא. ¹⁴ See footnote # 10.