Shomerim/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
Shomerim
Exegetical Approaches
The first passage is dealing with an unpaid guard, while the second is dealing with a paid guard.
Sources:Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
"כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים"
"וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ"
"וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים"
"אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ"
"עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע"
The first passage is dealing with a guardian of "כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים", while the second is dealing with "כׇל בְּהֵמָה".
"וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ"
"וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים" – Both Rashbam and Shadal understand this to mean an investigation by the court ("הָאֱלֹהִים"), rather than an oath.
"אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ"
"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.
"וּמֵת אוֹ נִשְׁבַּר"
"נִשְׁבָּה"
"אֵין רֹאֶה"
The first passage deals with a case where the deposit disappeared, while the second deals with a damaged deposit.
"כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ... לִשְׁמֹר" – Both verse 6 and verse 9 use the same language (in contrast to verse 13), to indicate that there is no difference between the passages regarding the guardianship agreement.
"כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים" – As evidenced by verse 8, these rules do not apply exclusively to money and vehicles, but to animals as well. However, it is much easier for money or vehicles to be hidden without a trace than animals to do so with animals, which is why the verse uses "כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים" as an example.
"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.
"אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה"
"אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעֻן אֱלֹהִים יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵהוּ"
"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.
"וְאִם גָּנֹב יִגָּנֵב מֵעִמּוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם לִבְעָלָיו" – Since the second passage is dealing with cases where the physical situation is known, verse 11 must be referring to a case where the burglar was caught, and the verse is explaining that the burglar must pay the double penalties to the owner, not the guardian. However, one must then explain why this ruling is duplicated here, as it was already stated in verse 6.
"אִם טָרֹף יִטָּרֵף יְבִאֵהוּ עֵד"
