אִם־טָרֹ֥ף יִטָּרֵ֖ף יְבִאֵ֣הוּ עֵ֑ד הַטְּרֵפָ֖ה לֹ֥א יְשַׁלֵּֽם׃ (פ)
Jeżeli zaś rozszarpaném zostało, przedstawi je jako dowód: - za rozszarpane nie płaci.
Tosafot
[He] should bring witnesses that [the animal] was mauled through circumstances beyond [his] control. The Gemara introduces a Braita that is discussing the meaning of a verse that deals with the obligations of a hired guard. The verse (Shemot 22, 12) reads as follows:
אם טרף ישרף יבאהו עד השרפה לא ישלם
The simple meaning of this verse is quite difficult. The words are the subject of a major dispute among the Tanoim as is mentioned in M’chilto on Parhas Mishpatim. Our Gemara deals with two of the explanations of these words.
We are discussing an animal that was given to a hired guard for safekeeping. The animal was torn to death by some wild animal in a way that was beyond the control of the hired guard. If the hired guard can prove this, he is exempt. According to the first Tano in the Braita this verse is requiring that he bring witnesses to prove that he is not liable. The words יבאהו עד, indicate that he must furnish testimony that the animal was torn to death by a wild animal and he is exempt, as the verse continues: if he furnishes witnesses, השרפה לא ישלם, he need not pay for the torn-apart animal. The situation was an אונס, an unavoidable mishap.
There is another approach to arriving at this very same conclusion. Issee in Bovo M’tzeeo Chapter Ho’umnim offers a different source for this ruling. The verse he quotes is in Sh’mos 22, 9: if a person will give to his neighbor a donkey or an ox or a sheep or any animal to guard and it will die or be broken or be captured, and there is no observer. The verse goes on to say that the guard must swear that his story is true and he need not pay.
And Issee expounds in Chapter Ho’umnim (Bovo M’tzee’o 83a) the verse in Sh’mos 22, 9, “there is no observer”, but if there is an observer who can testify, he, the guard, brings witnesses that it was torn apart and he is exempt.1It is clear from Tosafot that both the first Tano of the Braita and Issee are teaching the same rule. See בית הלוי volume3, 35, 2, who says that there is no repetition because the two Braitas are not saying the same thing. It is clear from the Gemara in Bovo M’tzee’o 83a, that Issee is teaching us that one can exempt himself from payment by taking an oath only when the animal was attacked in an area where there usually are no observers. But if it is a place where there usually are observers, he must furnish witnesses and cannot absolve himself from payment by swearing. Our Braita may be saying something entirely different, that if one can prove by witnesses that the animal was torn to death in circumstances that were beyond his control, he is entirely exempt from all oaths that a hired guard is required to take. When a hired guard swears, he not only swears that the death of the animal was an unavoidable mishap, but that he did not attempt to steal the animal prior to the mishap and also that the animal is no longer in his possession. This ruling may be teaching us that once the guard furnishes witnesses that he was not negligent, he need not take the other two oaths. Actually this is the subject of a dispute between two approaches in Tosafot in Bovo M’tzee’o 6a בית הלוי .ד'ה שבועה שלא שלחתי בה יד concludes that our Tosafot must hold that when furnishing witnesses that the death of the animal was unavoidable, one must still take the other two oaths and the verse is not teaching us that he is entirely exempt from all oaths. If so, there is actually nothing new that is derived from this expounding of the verse. Tosafot is compelled to say that our Tano is in agreement with Issee, the difference between them is how the ruling is derived from the relevant verses.
This is the same ruling that the first Tano of the Braita derives from Sh’mos 22, 12. Is there perhaps a dispute between the first Tano of the Braita and Issee in Bovo M’tzee’o? Tosafot says: no, the difference between them is the way of understanding how to expound a verse. There is no substantial disagreement between the two Tanoim, they each arrive at the same conclusion from a different verse.
אם טרף ישרף יבאהו עד השרפה לא ישלם
The simple meaning of this verse is quite difficult. The words are the subject of a major dispute among the Tanoim as is mentioned in M’chilto on Parhas Mishpatim. Our Gemara deals with two of the explanations of these words.
We are discussing an animal that was given to a hired guard for safekeeping. The animal was torn to death by some wild animal in a way that was beyond the control of the hired guard. If the hired guard can prove this, he is exempt. According to the first Tano in the Braita this verse is requiring that he bring witnesses to prove that he is not liable. The words יבאהו עד, indicate that he must furnish testimony that the animal was torn to death by a wild animal and he is exempt, as the verse continues: if he furnishes witnesses, השרפה לא ישלם, he need not pay for the torn-apart animal. The situation was an אונס, an unavoidable mishap.
There is another approach to arriving at this very same conclusion. Issee in Bovo M’tzeeo Chapter Ho’umnim offers a different source for this ruling. The verse he quotes is in Sh’mos 22, 9: if a person will give to his neighbor a donkey or an ox or a sheep or any animal to guard and it will die or be broken or be captured, and there is no observer. The verse goes on to say that the guard must swear that his story is true and he need not pay.
And Issee expounds in Chapter Ho’umnim (Bovo M’tzee’o 83a) the verse in Sh’mos 22, 9, “there is no observer”, but if there is an observer who can testify, he, the guard, brings witnesses that it was torn apart and he is exempt.1It is clear from Tosafot that both the first Tano of the Braita and Issee are teaching the same rule. See בית הלוי volume3, 35, 2, who says that there is no repetition because the two Braitas are not saying the same thing. It is clear from the Gemara in Bovo M’tzee’o 83a, that Issee is teaching us that one can exempt himself from payment by taking an oath only when the animal was attacked in an area where there usually are no observers. But if it is a place where there usually are observers, he must furnish witnesses and cannot absolve himself from payment by swearing. Our Braita may be saying something entirely different, that if one can prove by witnesses that the animal was torn to death in circumstances that were beyond his control, he is entirely exempt from all oaths that a hired guard is required to take. When a hired guard swears, he not only swears that the death of the animal was an unavoidable mishap, but that he did not attempt to steal the animal prior to the mishap and also that the animal is no longer in his possession. This ruling may be teaching us that once the guard furnishes witnesses that he was not negligent, he need not take the other two oaths. Actually this is the subject of a dispute between two approaches in Tosafot in Bovo M’tzee’o 6a בית הלוי .ד'ה שבועה שלא שלחתי בה יד concludes that our Tosafot must hold that when furnishing witnesses that the death of the animal was unavoidable, one must still take the other two oaths and the verse is not teaching us that he is entirely exempt from all oaths. If so, there is actually nothing new that is derived from this expounding of the verse. Tosafot is compelled to say that our Tano is in agreement with Issee, the difference between them is how the ruling is derived from the relevant verses.
This is the same ruling that the first Tano of the Braita derives from Sh’mos 22, 12. Is there perhaps a dispute between the first Tano of the Braita and Issee in Bovo M’tzee’o? Tosafot says: no, the difference between them is the way of understanding how to expound a verse. There is no substantial disagreement between the two Tanoim, they each arrive at the same conclusion from a different verse.
Bartenura
זאב אחד אינו אונס – and a paid bailee and a renter are liable for it, as it is written (Exodus 22:12): “…he need not replace what has been torn by beasts.” There is something torn by beasts that he does pay, and there is something torn by beasts that he does not pay.
Abarbanel
about the nation and tribes and what will be with them, Gd says "just like the shephard saves from the lion only two hindlegs or a piece of an ear, meaning the shephard is only able to rescue the ear piece as a witness that the lion. Similar to the piece needed as witness in (Shemot 22:12). And that matter that only a small piece is saved from the lion and he wasn't able to consume it, to that extent the Israelites who live in Shomron will be saved. Not the warriors and mighty men but rather the sick ones who are bedridden from their illness in the corner of the bed. And from the trouble of the enemy there will remain a small corner of the bed. The meaning of those "dameshek arish" (the piece of the couch) according to the Radak is the prophet repeating himself in different words. The word "damashek" means "corner" and "arish" is a "bed" as you see in other pesukim in the Torah (Yeshaya 33:4). And the two phrases used for the corner of the bed refer to the sick man who is lying in the corner of the bed unable to move (peat hamitah) and the sick man who can't rest because of his pain who is "mesheck" moving and rolling around from side to side of the bed (damashek arish). Rashi says this is referring to what is says about the end of the King of Aram in King Yehoyachaz ben Yehu and Jerobam ben Joash when they were rescued only a remnant (Malachim 2 14:27) and Hashem did not say to destroy the name of Israel and to save them through Jeroban ben Joash." and Hashem return the borders of Israel. THis is the meaning of the corner of the bed. The corner of the bedi n the corner of the house is the strength of the house and therefore refers to the stregnth of Jerobams reign and Amos lived and prophesized during this time. And he prophesized that they would end up reliant on the King of Aram like they were in the days of the King Pekach ben Remalliyahu who joined with them. This is the meanin of "demeshek arish" that their main source of reliance was on Damascus/demeshek.