I mean to show here that the Ramban in Bava Metzia 93 [and Tosphot] has a valid derivation for an unpaid guard in a case of minimal guarding, and later there was an unavoidable accident. But that seems obvious. But if his intention is to show with all guards if there was in a case of minimal guarding, and later there was an unavoidable accident, that they too are not liable, that does not seem possible to derive from the source from where the Ramban brings it.
If there is an dangerous ox that gets loose and kills someone, most types of guards have to pay the restitution [kofer] and the amount the ox was worth except an unpaid guard. The kofer for the man that was killed, and the amount of the ox to the owner of the ox. That has to be paid since the ox itself has to be killed. The reason the unpaid guard does not have to pay the price of the ox is because he had limited responsibility or liability. Bava Kama 45a. According to R. Elazar all types of guards are responsible because there is no protection from a dangerous ox except a knife. So all the guards ought to be liable, but not the unpaid guard since he had limited responsibility even from the beginning.
The Ramban [Bava Metzia 93] learns from this that an unpaid guard does not have to pay in a case where he lost an animal he was guarding But this should be obvious. He never pays, but rather swears it was not his fault. But the point is that when the beginning was neglect and then the animal was lost all guards have to pay. That includes an unpaid guard. But the case of the unpaid guard that was guarding at first in a minimum type of way would not have to pay.
But the question is that he never pays if he does the minimum amount of guarding. So what is the new idea? Rather the Ramban is saying that all the other guards also do not pay in a case if they did the minimum amount of guarding, and later there was an unavoidable accident like armed robbers.
But I can not see how that could be the case, since then the Ramban would not be able to derive this from the case of the dangerous ox that killed. The only thing we can learn from there is that an unpaid guard that did a minimum amount of guarding would not be liable. [It is more than a derivation. It is open because all the guards of a dangerous ox are transgressing because the animal needs to be killed, not guarded. And the animal is lost because it is killed after it killed. But all the guards are liable except the unpaid guard.
I would like to answer this question in this way. the Gemara establishes that the case in Bava Mezia is when all the guards did a minimum amount of guarding. If a minimum amount of guarding is considered transgression, then even the unpaid guard would have to be obligated. And yet we see he is not obligated. Therefore a minimum amount of guarding is not transgression. But then why would a paid guard be obligated in paying to the owner of the ox? It has to be because the ox killed someone and that therefore has to be killed. This case must be more severe than a normal case of loss, but the paid guard is not paying because of not because of transgression. iI might mention here that in any case the guards pay kofer because of the killing. here we are dealing only with what the guards owe to the owner of the ox that he loses since the ox is killed.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I mean to show here that the רמב''ן in בבא מציעא צ''ג [and תוספות] have a valid derivation for an unpaid guard in a case of minimal guarding, and later there was an unavoidable accident. But that seem obvious. But if his intention is to show with all guards if there was in a case of minimal guarding, and later there was an unavoidable accident, that they too are not liable, that does not seem possible to derive from the source from where the רמב''ן brings it.
If there is an dangerous ox that gets loose and kills someone most types of guards have to pay the restitution כופר and the amount the ox was worth except an unpaid guard. The the כופר for the man that was killed, and the amount of the ox to the owner of the ox. That has to be paid since the ox itself has to be killed. . The reason the unpaid guard does not have to pay the price of the ox is because he had limited responsibility or liability. בבא קמא מ''ה ע''א. According to ר' אלעזר all types of guards are responsible because there is no protection from a dangerous ox except a knife. So all the guards ought to be liable, but not the unpaid guard since he had limited responsibility even from the beginning.
The רמב''ן בבא צציעא צ''ג learns from this that an unpaid guard does not have to pay in a case where he lost an animal he was guarding But this should be obvious. He never pays, but rather swears it was not his fault. But the point is that when the beginning was פשיעה and then בסוף אונס all guards have to pay. That includes an unpaid guard. But the case of the unpaid guard that was guarding at first in a minimum type of way would not have to pay. But the question is that he never pays if he does the minimum amount of guarding. Rather the רמב''ן is saying that all the other guards also do not pay if they did the minimum amount of guarding and there was, and later there was an unavoidable accident like armed robbers. But I can not see how that could be the case. Since then the רמב''ן would not be able to derive this from the case of the dangerous ox that killed. The only thing we can learn from there is
But I can not how that could be the case, since then the Ramban would not be able to derive this from the case of the dangerous ox that killed. The only thing we can learn from there is that an unpaid guard that did a minimum amount of guarding would not be liable. [It is more than a derivation. It is open because all the guards of a dangerous ox are transgressing because the animal needs to be killed, not guarded. And the animal is lost because it is killed after it killed. But all the guards are liable except the unpaid guard.
I would like to answer this question in this way. The גמרא establishes that the case in בבא מציעא is when all the guards did a minimum amount of guarding. If a minimum amount of guarding is considered פשיעה, then even the שומר חינם would have to be obligated. And yet we see he is not obligated. Therefore a שמירה פחותה is not transgression. But then why would a שומר שכר be obligated in paying to the owner of the ox? It has to be because the ox killed someone, and that therefore has to be killed. This case must be more severe than a normal case of אבידה , but the paid guard is not paying because of פשיעה. I might mention here that in any case the guards pay כופר because of the killing. Here we are dealing only with what the guards owe to the owner of the ox that he loses since the ox is killed.
..
_____________________________________________________
כוונתי להראות כאן שלרמב''ן בבבא מציעא צ''ג (ותוספות ) יש הוכחה תקפה לשומר חינם (ללא שכר) במקרה של שמירה מינימלית, ואחר כך הייתה תאונה בלתי נמנעת. אבל זה נראה מובן מאליו. אבל אם כוונתו להראות עם כל השומרים אם היה במקרה של שמירה מינימלית, ואחר כך אירעה תאונה בלתי נמנעת, שגם הם אינם אחראים, נראה שזה אי אפשר לנבוע מהמקור שממנו הרמב''ן מביא את זה.
ם יש שור מסוכן שמשתחרר והורג מישהו רוב סוגי השומרים צריכים לשלם את הפיצויים כופר ואת הסכום ששווה השור מלבד שומר חינם (שומר ללא תשלום). הכופר בגלל אדם שנהרג ותשלום השור לבעל השור. יש לשלם את זה מכיוון שצריך להרוג את השור עצמו. הסיבה שהשומר ללא תשלום לא צריך לשלם את מחיר השור היא בגלל שהייתה לו אחריות מוגבלת. בבא קמא מ''ה ע''א. לפי ר' אלעזר כל סוגי השומרים אחראים כי אין הגנה מפני שור מסוכן מלבד סכין. אז כל השומרים צריכים להיות אחראים, אבל לא השומר ללא שכר שכן הייתה לו אחריות מוגבלת אפילו מההתחלה. הרמב''ן בבא מציעא צ''ג לומד מכאן ששומר ללא שכר אינו חייב לשלם במקרה שבו איבד בהמה ששמרה, אבל זה צריך להיות ברור. הוא אף פעם לא משלם, אלא נשבע שזו לא הייתה אשמתו. אבל הנקודה היא שכשההתחלה הייתה פשיעה ואז בסוף אונס כל השומרים צריכים לשלם. זה כולל שומר ללא תשלום. אבל המקרה של השומר ללא שכר ששומר בהתחלה בצורה מינימלית לא יצטרך לשלם. אבל השאלה היא שהוא אף פעם לא משלם אם הוא עושה את כמות השמירה המינימלית. אז מה הרעיון החדש? הרמב''ן מכווין שגם כל שאר השומרים לא משלמים אם עשו את כמות השמירה המינימלית,
ובהמשך הייתה תאונה בלתי נמנעת כמו שודדים חמושים. אבל אני לא יכול לראות איך זה יכול להיות המקרה. מאז לא יוכל הרמב''ן להפיק זאת ממקרה השור המסוכן שהרג. הדבר היחיד שאנו יכולים ללמוד משם הוא ששומר ללא שכר שעשה שמירה מינימלית לא יהיה אחראי
וזה יותר מהוכחה. כי כל שומרי שור מסוכן עוברים עבירה כי צריך
להרוג את השור, לא לשמור. והשור אבד כי הוא נהרג לאחר שהרג. אבל כל השומרים אחראים
מלבד השומר ללא תשלום.
אני רוצה לענות על שאלה זו בצורה זו. הגמרא קובעת שהמקרה בבבא מציעא הוא כאשר כל השומרים עשו כמות מינימלית של שמירה. אם כמות מינימלית של שמירה נחשבת כפשיעה, אז אפילו השומר חינם צריך להיות מחויב. ובכל זאת אנו רואים שהוא לא חייב. לכן שמירה פחותה אינה פשיעה. אבל אז למה ששומר שכר יהיה חייב בתשלום לבעל השור? זה חייב להיות בגלל שהשור הרג מישהו, ולכן צריכים להרוג אותו. מקרה זה חמור יותר ממקרה רגיל של אבדה, אבל השומר בתשלום לא משלם בגלל פשיעה אלא בגלל חומר העניין. אולי אציין כאן שבכל מקרה השומרים משלמים כופר בגלל ההרג. כאן אנו עוסקים רק במה שחייבים השומרים לבעל השור שהוא מפסיד מאחר שהשור נהרג