Shomerim/2

Shomerim

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

The first passage is dealing with an unpaid guard, while the second is dealing with a paid guard.

Sources:Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot22:822:11About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot, Bavli Bava MetziaBava Metzia 94bAbout the Bavli, RashiShemot 22:9About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RashbamTosafot Bava Metzia 41bAbout R. Shemuel b. Meir, Ibn EzraShemot First Commentary 22:6Shemot First Commentary 22:9About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 22:6-9About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambanShemot 22:6About R. Moshe b. Nachman, RalbagShemot Beur HaParashah 22:8Shemot Beur HaParashah 22:13-14About R. Levi b. Gershom, AbarbanelShemot 22About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

Sources:Targum Pseudo-JonathanShemot 22:6-14About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

The first passage is dealing with a guardian of "כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים", while the second is dealing with "כׇל בְּהֵמָה".

Sources:Possibility in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot22:8About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot, RashbamShemot 22:6About R. Shemuel b. Meir, ShadalShemot 22:6About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, Hoil MosheShemot 22:6About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

"וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים" – Both Rashbam and Shadal understand this to mean an investigation by the court ("הָאֱלֹהִים"), rather than an oath.

"עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע" – According to Rashbam, verse 8 is continuing the case of verse 7. However, according to Shadal, verse 8 is dealing with a separate case, in which the guardian denies that the object is a deposit, but rather claims ownership on it.

The first passage deals with a case where the deposit disappeared, while the second deals with a damaged deposit.

"וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ" – According to this approach, the statement (in the first passage) that the deposit was stolen is not an established fact but only the guardian's claim.

"וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים" – If the burglar is not found, the guardian must approach the court with proof (more substantial than the oath required by verse 10) that an actual burglary occurred.

"אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ" – This approach understands the two claims of "שָׁלַח יָדוֹ" differently. While the first refers to fears that the guardian stole the deposit himself, the second refers to the possibility the guardian simply did not guard it appropriately (but did not actively harm it).

"עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע" – According to this approach, verse 8 says is that the rules of the first passage apply not only to money and vehicles but to animals as well.

"וּמֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר" – In both of these cases, the dead (or wounded) body of the animal is available for inspection, as proof of what occurred.

"נִשְׁבָּה" – This approach must understand "נִשְׁבָּה" to mean that the animal is still around, but shows evidence of harm of some sort caused by brigands.

"אֵין רֹאֶה" – While it is clear what actually happened (the animal died or was wounded), there are no witnesses that can say whether the guardian was negligent or not.

"שְׁבֻעַת י"י תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם" – In the first passage, the main issue disputed between the sides is the current physical reality – where is the deposit, and therefore one must perform a comprehensive investigation ("וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים"). In the second passage, the only dispute is regarding the historical causes of the current situation – was the guardian negligent, and therefore an oath from the guardian is enough.

"וְלָקַח בְּעָלָיו וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם" – The owner of the animal will take with him the body of the animal, but the guardian will not be required to pay the difference in value.