In terms of Rav Shach's idea in laws of hiring I:6 I do not have a lot to add to what God granted to me to write yesterday. The only thing is that I am not so sure if the actual approach really works.
The idea is in short that in Bava Metzia page 35b Rav Aidi bar Abin and Abyee disagree about the sages of the Mishna. Rav Shach brings a good idea from Rav Aaron Kotler that fits well in the place his brings it. But to me it does not look that it fits well with Abyee and Rav Aidi.
\
The basic idea of Rav Aaron Kotler makes a lot of sense. It is this. Two people come to the court of law and one claims payment for a loan and the other says you forgave the loan.If it is during the period before the loan is due to be paid the borrower is not believed but if after that period he is believed because he could say I already paid you back. Rav Aaron asks then why not during the time of the loan also? He answers it is a "weak plea." since no loan is standing to be forgiven, It is standing to be paid,
Now Rav Shach applies this idea to when a work animal dies during the time it is being hired out. The Torah does believe the one that hired the animal with an oath but the actual plea itself seems weak. The animal is not standing in order to die. And Rav Shach in fact says that was the argument between Abyee and Rav Aidi.
What bothers me here is that neither Abyee nor Rav Aidi say that that is what they are arguing about. They say they are arguing about when does possession pass to the one that hired the animal--the time of the oath of the time the animal died? That to me sounds like the whole argument between them is this: They agree that possession of the fruits in not like possession of the object, And that hiring does not give possession of the object. But in a case when the animal dies then that changes. Then the possession or hiring does mean there is a possession in the object itself. And there is a simple proof of this idea. A thief that damages the object he stole, he has to give back double the price or whole objects, and he keeps the vessel he broke. [See what I wrote about אין שמין לגנב] So damage can confer possession in the case of hiring also. Maybe this counts as a new idea?
I ought to mention that when I was learning with my learning partner David Bronson-we found ways of answering difficult issues in Rav Shach and if I would be learning with him now perhaps I also could find an answer. However right now I think that my approach here makes more sense.
The idea is in short that in Bava Metzia page 35b Rav Aidi bar Abin and Abyee disagree about the sages of the Mishna. Rav Shach brings a good idea from Rav Aaron Kotler that fits well in the place his brings it. But to me it does not look that it fits well with Abyee and Rav Aidi.
\
The basic idea of Rav Aaron Kotler makes a lot of sense. It is this. Two people come to the court of law and one claims payment for a loan and the other says you forgave the loan.If it is during the period before the loan is due to be paid the borrower is not believed but if after that period he is believed because he could say I already paid you back. Rav Aaron asks then why not during the time of the loan also? He answers it is a "weak plea." since no loan is standing to be forgiven, It is standing to be paid,
Now Rav Shach applies this idea to when a work animal dies during the time it is being hired out. The Torah does believe the one that hired the animal with an oath but the actual plea itself seems weak. The animal is not standing in order to die. And Rav Shach in fact says that was the argument between Abyee and Rav Aidi.
What bothers me here is that neither Abyee nor Rav Aidi say that that is what they are arguing about. They say they are arguing about when does possession pass to the one that hired the animal--the time of the oath of the time the animal died? That to me sounds like the whole argument between them is this: They agree that possession of the fruits in not like possession of the object, And that hiring does not give possession of the object. But in a case when the animal dies then that changes. Then the possession or hiring does mean there is a possession in the object itself. And there is a simple proof of this idea. A thief that damages the object he stole, he has to give back double the price or whole objects, and he keeps the vessel he broke. [See what I wrote about אין שמין לגנב] So damage can confer possession in the case of hiring also. Maybe this counts as a new idea?
I ought to mention that when I was learning with my learning partner David Bronson-we found ways of answering difficult issues in Rav Shach and if I would be learning with him now perhaps I also could find an answer. However right now I think that my approach here makes more sense.
