Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
The mishna (Bava Metzia 81b) says that if one asks his friend to watch something for him and the latter says, "place it before me," he is a shomer chinam (an unpaid watchman). The gemara says that acceptance of being a shomer obligates him. Tosafot (ibid. 89a) says that the obligation is not dependent on there having been a kinyan. As opposed to the Rambam, they posit that kinyan is relevant only regarding backing out. According to the Rambam, the gemara must be discussing a case where the object was in the shomer’s domain, a situation which is itself a kinyan (chatzer) when he accepted the shemira. The Ran cites a compromise opinion. Regarding a borrower and a renter, who have rights in the object which require a kinyan, their obligations are also dependent on it. Regarding a simple shomer, where kinyan is not naturally relevant, the obligations begin when he accepts to watch the object. The Ran himself feels that regarding a paid shomer, the kinyan is significant as it represents the beginning of the work for which he is paid and thus becomes responsible too. Conceptually, both opinions in the Ran are like Tosafot, just that the kinyan becomes a significant indicators if it creates new rights.
One can ask, according to Tosafot: what actually obligates the shomer before a kinyan, which is usually that which creates monetary consequences? The K’tzot Hachoshen (307:1) says that a shomer is like a worker, in regard to whom the beginning of the work is the time that the mutual obligations and rights begin. This is not simple for two reasons: he admits that according to the Ran, it is kinyan, not the beginning of work, that begins the consequences; it is not clear that a shomer chinam is a worker.
The stronger explanation seems to be along the lines of arev (a guarantor). The gemara (end of Bava Batra) says that if one is willing to lend money only if there is an arev, the arev becomes obligated by the loan if necessary without a kinyan. Many learn a broad concept from here: one becomes obligated by an assurance he gives someone where the latter acted based on the assurance. This applies in the case of a shomer, as the object’s owner leaves the object based on the shomer’s assurance that he is watching it and will pay if he fails to do so properly.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Various Rabbis
92 - A Shomer Who Gave to Another Shomer
93 - The Manner in Which a Shomer Becomes Obligated
94 - Dayanim With Authentic Semicha
Load More
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part II
based on ruling 84061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Agricultural Water Rights – part I
based on ruling 84122 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part V
based on appeal ruling 82138 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Various Events FOR WHOM NOT TO VOTE
Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook stressed that Israeli politics is G-dly, so I have no problem answering this common question on a Torani blog. Also, Free-Will is a G-d-given right and obligation, to "destine one's fate" (R. Soloveichik, Kol Dodi Dofek, 67), so I obviously don't tell others how to vote. But once not a few (especially young) have already asked, a couple of personal words from experience and thoughts from chazal & Rav Kook which may be of help to others, mainly for whom NOT to vote.
P'ninat Mishpat Fallout from Failure to Install Elevator – part II
based on ruling 85007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
