טייטשין
אבידה
A LOST OBJECT
How does the Gemara define פשיעה?
Any avoidable negligence — something a normal person would have prevented.
If a שומר gives the item to another שומר who is clearly better (more trustworthy), is he automatically allowed to do that?
No — it still depends on whether the owner would accept that second שומר.
If a שומר returns the item damaged, and says it happened on its own, who has to prove their side?
The שומר — because once the item is damaged, he must show it wasn’t caused by misuse.
If a שומר claims “אבד”, and there are no witnesses and no contradictions, what does he need to do to be פטור?
He must swear, and then he is פטור.
כל לא ידענא
EVERY [PLEA OF] "I DON'T KNOW"
ACCORDING TO RAV PAPA, WHICH TYPE OF SHOMER WHO SAYS "I WILL PAY" DOESN'T GET THE KAIFEL?
A SHOEL (BORROWER)!
A שומר gives the item to another שומר who is the same level as him. The item is then lost. The first שומר argues:
“Since he’s just like me, I’m not responsible — he’s a valid שומר.”
Is that argument accepted?
Not automatically.
The key test is whether the owner would accept that second שומר.
If yes → the first שומר is פטור.
If no → the first שומר is חייב, because he changed the owner’s רשות without permission.
A שומר returns the item damaged and says:
“True, it got damaged — but it happened after I already returned it to your property.”
The owner says:
“It was never returned at all.”Who is believed, and why?
The owner is believed.
He has a חזקה of “לא קיבלתי”, and the שומר is not believed to say “I returned it” unless he can prove it.
Since the שומר can’t prove return, he remains responsible for the damage.
A שומר claims “אבד”, and he’s ready to swear.
Before he swears, the owner says:
“Actually, I found the item — but it’s damaged. You must have damaged it before it got lost.”
The שומר answers:
“If you found it, that proves it wasn’t lost — so my שבועה should still work to exempt me from the damage.”Does the שומר still get to swear?
A:
No.
Once the owner produces the item, the claim of “אבד” collapses, so the שומר no longer has a שבועה.
And since the item is damaged, the שומר must now prove it wasn’t caused by misuse — otherwise he is חייב.
אין
YES
IN THE SEIFA TO WHOM DOES THE KAIFEL GO TO, AND HOW MUCH IS IT?
TO THE MAFKID, IF HE (THE THEIF) SHECHTED OR SOLD THE ANIMAL-4/5 TIMES AND IF NOT 2 TIMES THE THEFT!
A שומר gives the item to another שומר.
The owner would accept the second שומר — but only for some types of items, not for this specific one (because this item is more valuable or fragile).
The first שומר argues:
“Since the owner trusts him in general, that should count.”Is the first שומר פטור or חייב?
He is חייב.
The test is whether the owner would accept this second שומר for this specific item, not in general.
Since the owner would not trust him with this particular deposit, the first שומר changed the רשות without permission..
A שומר returns the item undamaged, but the owner says:
“This isn’t mine — mine had a small identifying mark.”
The שומר answers:
“There was no mark. You’re just mistaken.”Who is believed?
The owner.
For a דבר המסויים, the owner is believed to say “this isn’t mine,” even if the שומר brings back something that looks identical.
Since the item is identifiable, the שומר must prove it’s the original.
A שומר claims “אבד” and is ready to swear.
Before he swears, the owner brings witnesses that the item was actually stolen.
The שומר now switches his claim and says:
“Fine — it was stolen. That still makes me פטור as a שומר חינם.”Is he believed to switch his claim?
No.
Once witnesses contradict his original claim, he becomes הוחזק כפרן, and a כפרן cannot switch to a new טענה to save himself.
Since he can no longer swear and his claim collapsed, he must pay.
גילגול שבועה
AN OATH ONE MUST SWEAR ONLY BECAUSE OF ANOTHER REQUIRED OATH!
IN THE ברייתא, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE SOCHER SAYS 'I WILL PAY AND I WILL NOT SWEAR' AND AFTER THAT THE THIEF WAS FOUND?
THE THIEF PAYS THE DOUBLE PAYMENT TO THE SOCHER!
A שומר returns an item that is the same type but not the same individual. Is he believed?
No — for דבר המסויים, the owner can say “this isn’t mine.”
A שומר returns the item and it looks fine.
Later, the owner discovers a hidden internal defect and says:
“This damage definitely happened while it was by you.”
The שומר answers:
“It was already like that when you gave it to me — you just didn’t notice.”Who is believed?
The owner is believed.
Since the defect is something the שומר should have noticed when accepting the item, his claim “it was already damaged” is weak.
A שומר is responsible to check the item when receiving it; if he didn’t, he can’t later claim the defect pre‑existed.
A שומר claims “אבד” and prepares to swear.
Before he swears, the owner brings witnesses that the שומר actually gave the item to another שומר without permission.
The second שומר then claims the item was stolen from him.
The first שומר argues:
“Since the second שומר says it was stolen, I would have been פטור anyway — so my original claim of ‘אבד’ shouldn’t matter.”Is the first שומר חייב or פטור?
He is חייב.
Three reasons converge:
Even though the second שומר claims גניבה, the first שומר never had permission to transfer the item — so he carries full liability.
אדרכטה
A DOCUMENT ISSUED BY BEIS DIN CONTAINING ITS DECISION AND AUTHORIZING THE SEIZURE OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY!
A שומר חינם says “נאנסו”.
Witnesses come and say the item was actually lost (אבידה).
Is he still believed with a שבועה?
No. Once witnesses contradict his claim, he becomes הוחזק כפרן, loses the שבועה, and must pay.
A שומר gives the item to another שומר.
The owner would accept the second שומר — but only if the first שומר had told him he was transferring it.
Here, the first שומר never told him.
The item is then lost in a way that would make a שומר חינם פטור.Is the first שומר חייב or פטור?
He is חייב.
Even though the owner would accept the second שומר, the owner only accepts him with knowledge and consent.
Since the first שומר transferred it without informing the owner, he changed the רשות improperly and becomes fully responsible.
A שומר returns the item and it looks fine.
Later, the owner finds damage that could only have happened during use.
The שומר says:
“I never used it — it must have happened naturally.”
The owner says:
“This type of damage never happens naturally. ”Who is believed, and why?
The owner is believed.
Damage that clearly comes from שימוש creates a presumption that the שומר used it.
Once there’s a סימן of שימוש שלא ברשות, the שומר is treated like a גזלן, and his claim of “natural damage” is rejected.
A שומר חינם says:
“נשברה באונס — ולא החזרתי.”
Witnesses testify:
“לא נשברה — אלא נגנבה.”
The owner now says:
“If you admit it was stolen, pay me like a שומר חינם.”
The shomer replies:
“Had I wanted to lie, I could have claimed ‘החזרתי.’ So believe me that it was an אונס.”
Question:
Since the עדים contradict him only on the type of loss (שבירה vs. גניבה) but not on the non‑return, does he still have a מיגו to say “החזרתי,” or does the contradiction on the cause of loss make him a מוחזק כפרן on the entire story — killing the מיגו even though the “better claim” relates to a different axis (return vs. liability)?
He loses the מיגו.
Even though the witnesses contradict him only on the cause of loss, the sugya treats this as a collapse of the core narrative that gives his claim credibility.
Once he is shown to have lied about the event itself, he becomes a מוחזק כפרן on the entire package of claims tied to that event — including the part the witnesses didn’t address (the non‑return).
Since מיגו requires ne’emanus, and he no longer has baseline credibility, the מיגו to say “החזרתי” cannot activate.
Conceptual punchline:
When the lie is about the ma’aseh ha‑hefsed, the sugya considers the whole story contaminated.
A מיגו cannot survive when the factual foundation of the claim is proven false, even if the “better claim” would have been fully believed had he said it initially.