- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
926
Acharonim present two explanations for this rule: 1) Since the shomer was to a significant degree negligent, he cannot claim exemption due to oness. 2) At the time that he was negligent, the shomer became provisionally obligated to pay unless he would succeed in returning the object intact. Upon failing to do so, even if it ended up being due to oness, he pays based on the earlier obligation.
To better understand the explanations, we will discuss two Talmudic cases in this context. The gemara (Bava Metzia 36a) deals with a shomer who allowed an animal to run free, but instead of being stolen, it died of natural causes. Although this seems like a classic case of tbpvsb, the gemara cites different opinions on the matter. Abayei said he is obligated because "the air of the meadow killed it." Rava says he is exempt because "the angel of death does not care if it is here or there." It follows that, according to Rava, there has to be some circumstantial connection between the negligence and the eventual death.
The gemara (ibid. 93b) discusses a shepherd who left his flock and came to town, during which time wild animals killed some sheep. The shepherd must pay because of tbpvsb. The Rif says that this gemara follows Rava’s approach. Abayei would not agree with this conclusion because the shepherd’s absence did not have an impact on the outcome, even coincidentally. The Ra’avad says that even Abayei would agree with the latter gemara because, had the shepherd been there, he might have been possessed with a spirit of bravery and saved the sheep (see Rosh, Bava Metzia 3:9).
The Gilyon Maharsha (CM 291:9) says that the above machloket depends on the two approaches to tbpvsb. If the idea is that we consider that there was p’shi’ah based on what he did in the beginning, this would apply only when there is some connection between the original p’shi’ah and the eventual damage. If the idea is that an obligation is created that remains until the object is returned safely, then even if the cause for it not returning is unrelated to the shomer’s negligence, he still must pay.

P'ninat Mishpat (771)
Various Rabbis
101 - Damage to an Illegally Parked Car
102 - Laws of Shomrim Watchmen
103 - A Shomer Who Gave to Another Shomer
Load More

Returning Pre-Payment for a Rental
Various Rabbis | Shvat 5768

An Abrupt End to a Rental
Various Rabbis | Tevet 5768

Buying a Driving School Car
Various Rabbis | 6 Av 5767

Unsigned Estimates for a Contractor
part II
Various Rabbis | 5772

Understanding the Prohibition of Avodah Zarah
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Av 26 5777

How Does a Heter Iska Work?
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5770

Hamapil for Those Who Take a Long Time to Fall Asleep
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Shvat 5773
Birkot HaShachar – The Morning Blessings
Chapter nine-part one
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5775
Daf Yomi Makkot Daf 15
R' Eli Stefansky | 25 Nisan 5785

Adding Elements to Strengthen the Heter Mechira – #313
Date and Place: 21 Sivan 5670 (1910), Yafo
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Nisan 5785

Parashat Hashavua: Two Sides to a Coin
Rabbi Yossef Carmel | Nisan 5785
