Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's shiur will be Masechet Shevuot דף מ\"ט, the last דף of the מסכת, and we will start from the beginning of the page. And the Mishnah starts: ארבעה שומרים הן, there are four watchmen, which means there are four cases where people are obligated to watch objects of other people, and there are different dinim in their responsibilities. There is a שומר חנם, a person who watches an object for somebody else for free. והשואל is a person who borrows an object, so he is also responsible to watch it. נושא שכר, if he carries it for pay, which means he watches the object for somebody else and gets paid for it. והשוכר, if he hires the object from somebody else. But the din is: שומר חנם נשבע על הכל, if he watches it for free, he swears for everything, which means he is patur for everything, whether something happened to it by accident, b'oness, by force, or it happened naturally that it was stolen or lost. So the din is that a שומר חנם is patur for all that, but in order to be patur he must swear. He must swear שלא פשע, that he wasn't negligent, and then he is patur. והשואל משלם את הכל, the borrower pays for everything, even if an accident happened to it which was not a normal thing, still he has to pay. The only thing he is patur is if מתה מחמת מלאכה, if it died during the work. Because when he borrowed it, obviously he borrowed it to work with it, he didn't borrow it to have it locked up, so therefore if it died through the work, then he is patur. But otherwise, he is obligated whatever happens to it. נושא שכר והשוכר, the one that watches it for pay or the one that hires it, נשבעין על השבורה ועל השבויה ועל המתה. They would swear if it got broken or captured or died. These are all examples of an oness. So a שומר שכר and a שוכר are patur for onessin, but they have to swear that it wasn't their fault. ומשלמין את האבדה ואת הגנבה, but they pay if it got lost or stolen, because a שומר שכר and a שוכר are chayav for גנבה ואבדה and are patur for oness. And in the Gemara, in פרק השואל in Bava Metzia, the Gemara learns out the פסוקים from where we know the difference in these dinim. But this is not the purpose of the Mishnah. The Mishnah doesn't intend to tell us these dinim because these dinim are already told in a different Mishnah in פרק השוכר את הפועלים in Bava Metzia. The reason that the Mishnah mentions it here again is only as an introduction to what the Mishnah is going to say further on. The purpose of the Mishnah is to tell us the dinim of קרבן שבועת הפקדון. The din is that if a person watches an object for somebody, and then when he is asked to give it back he denies it, and not only he denies it, but he swears on it, and then later he admits that he swore false, so then he is obligated to bring a korban, and also has to pay a chomesh, has to add a fifth to the amount that this is worth. Now the din, when is a person chayav the korban for שבועת הפקדון? Only is if when he swore false, he wanted to save himself with money. Which means that had he admitted the truth, he would have to pay. By lying and swearing false, he tried to get away from paying. So then later on when he admits, he is chayav a korban for שבועת הפקדון. But if the case is that even when he denied it he still didn't save himself any money, because even if he would have admitted, for instance, he would have been patur anyway, so when he denied and he lied and he swore false, he didn't save himself any money, so then even when he admits that he swore false, he doesn't have to bring a korban for שבועת הפקדון. So in order to know the exact cases, the Mishnah first had to tell us when you're chayav and when you're patur. And then the Mishnah continues to tell us concerning the cases when he is חייב שבועת הפקדון or when he is not חייב שבועת הפקדון. And the Mishnah says like this: אמר לשומר חנם, the owner says to the שומר חנם, \"היכן שורי? Where is my ox?\" אמר לו, he says to him, \"מת, died.\" And if it would have been true that it died, he would have been פטור. But really, והוא שנשבר, really it was broken, או נשבה, it was captured, או נגנב, it was stolen, או אבד, it was lost. Now if he would have said the truth, he also would have been פטור, because as we learned before, a שומר חנם is פטור for all these things. So in the טענה that he said, he wouldn't have saved himself money. Or the case is that he answered, \"נשבר, it was broken, injured.\" והוא שמת או נשבה או נגנב או אבד, and really what happened to it, or it died, or it was captured, or stolen or lost. So here's another example that he by claiming the false claim did not save himself any money. Or he answered, \"נשבה, it was captured.\" And really והוא שמת או נשבר או נגנב או אבד, really it died, or it was injured, or it got stolen or lost. So again, the טענה that he claimed did not save him any money, because if he would have said the truth, he would have been patur anyway. Or he answered, \"nignav, it was stolen.\" והוא שמת או נשבר או נשבה או אבד, and really it died, or it was injured, or it was captured, or it was lost. But here again, if he would have said the truth, he also would have been patur. Or he answers, \"avad, it was lost,\" והוא שמתה או נשברה או נשבית או נגנבה, and really what happened to it, it died, or it was injured, or captured, or stolen. So here again, had he admitted to the truth, he still would have been patur.

משביעך אני, after he answered, he answered, the owner says to him, \"I want you to swear,\" ואמר, and he says, \"אמן.\" And the din is that when someone says, \"I make you swear,\" and he says, \"אמן,\" this is as if he swore himself. But the din is, in all these cases, patur, and he is patur from bringing a korban. Why? Because with his swearing false, he did not save himself any money, because even if he would have said the truth, he would have been patur. But what happens if he says to him, היכן שורי, \"Where is my ox?\" אמר לו, he says, איני יודע מה אתה סח, \"I don't know what you're talking about.\" והוא שמתה או נשברה או נשבית או נגנבה או נאבדה, and really what happened to it, or it died, or it was injured, or it was captured, or it was stolen, or lost, and he says, משביעך אני, \"I make you swear,\" ואמר, and he says, \"אמן,\" patur, and he is still patur. And the reason is, because even if he would have admitted to what really happened to it, that it died, or it was injured, etc., he still would have been patur, because a shomer chinam is patur for that. If he says to him, היכן שורי, \"Where is my ox?\" אמר לו, he says to him, נאבדה, \"It was lost.\" משביעך אני, and he says to him, \"I make you swear,\" ואמר, and he says, \"אמן,\" והעדים מעידים אותו שאכלו, and witnesses are there to testify that he ate it up himself, then משלם את הקרן, he has to pay the principle, and he doesn't bring a korban, even though here, with the ta'anah that he said, and the shevuah that he swore, he did try to save himself money, because if he would have admitted that he ate it, he would have had to pay. Now that he swore that it was lost, he wanted to save himself money. So it is a case where he swore to save himself money, and still in this case he's patur from a shevuah. Why? Because when are you chayav a shevuah? Only if, after you swear false, he admits on his own. Because when is a person chayav this shevuah? Only if he admits and he does teshuvah, and he wants to regret for the aveirah. Because it says by shevuah of גזל הגר, והתודו את חטאתם אשר עשו, and they have to confess the aveirah they did. So from there, we know that only if he admits on his own. And here is a case where he didn't admit later on. First he swore false, and the way we know he swore false was because witnesses came. So therefore, since he is not admitting himself, so he's still patur from a korban. So all he has to do is pay for the object that he took away. If הודה מעצמו, but if he admitted by himself later on that he was lying, משלם קרן, you pay the keren, which is the principle, vechomesh, and you add a fifth, ve'asham, and you have to bring the קרבן אשם, because this is a real case where he swore false, and through his shevuah he wanted to save himself money, and later he admitted. So this is the case where you have to bring the korban, and you also have to add a fifth to the amount that he took. What would be the din if he says to him, היכן שורי, \"Where is my ox?\" ואמר לו, and he answers him, נגנב, \"It got stolen.\" And he says to him, משביעך אני, \"I make you swear,\" ואמר, and he answers, \"אמן.\" והעדים מעידים אותו שגנבו, and witnesses testified that he stole it really, that he took it, משלם תשלומי כפל, he has to pay double. He doesn't bring a korban here, even though when he claimed that it was stolen, he wanted to, he patur from paying. Really, he took it himself. So, if he would have admitted, he would have been chayav. So his swearing false was to patur himself from money, nevertheless, he's patur from the korban, and from the chomesh, because as we said before, he didn't admit on his own, but the eidim came to testify that he took it. On the other hand, in this case, he also has to pay kefel, he has to pay double, because the din is that if you are טוען טענת גנב, and you swear, you have to pay kefel like a ganav. The din is that when a person steals, he's a ganav and he is caught, he has to pay kefel, he has to pay double. The din is also that if a shomer claims that it was stolen, and then swears on it, and later is found to be lying, so he also has to pay kefel. And that is the difference between this case and the previous case. In the previous case, where he claimed it was lost, and eidim came and said that he ate it up, he just pays the keren, he just pays the principle, and doesn't pay kefel, because there, since his ta'anah was that it was lost, so he doesn't pay kefel, only if he is a טוען טענת גנב, only if he טענת it was stolen, and we find out that he stole it, and he had sworn for it, that's when he pays kefel like a ganav. But if he טענת טענת אבדה, that it was lost, so even though we find out later that he stole it, he doesn't take kefel. But in this case, where he said it was stolen, and the eidim come and say that he stole it, so he pays kefel, but there is no korban, because the eidim were the ones that testified that he was lying, but he didn't admit. הודה מעצמו, but if he admitted himself, משלם קרן וחומש ואשם. So here he pays the principle, he also has to pay an extra fifth, and bring a korban, because here, he swore false in order to patur himself, because if he would admitted that he stole it, he would have to pay. Lefoel, he swore that it was stolen, so he wanted to save himself the money. And later, he admitted himself. This is a real case where he has to bring a korban, the asham, and has to add the fifth, and has to pay the principal. But on the other hand, kefel he doesn't have to pay in this case, because the din by kefel is that if you admit yourself that you stole it, then you are patur from kefel, because מודה בקנס פטור. Whenever a person is obligated to pay a kenas, a fine, if he admits himself, he's patur from the fine. And therefore, a ganav who admits on his own before the witnesses come that he stole it, so then he just pays the keren, not the kefel. And in this case also, this shomer who is a טוען טענת גנב, since he admitted himself without witnesses, so he doesn't have to pay kefel. On the other hand, he has to bring the korban and add the fifth, because this is a real case of a korban of שבועת הפקדון. Then the Mishnah continues: אמר לאחד בשוק, if you see somebody in the street and you say to him, היכן שורי שגנבת, where is my ox that you stole? הוא אומר, and if he says, לא גנבתי, I didn't steal it, והעדים מעידים אותו שגנבו, and עדים testify that he did steal it, משלם תשלומי כפל, he has to pay double. This is a regular דין of a גנב. טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה. If he didn't only steal it, but he also שחט-ed it or he sold it, then he pays four or five. And this is only if it happened to be a שור or a שה, an ox or a sheep, for the דין is that if he stole an ox or a sheep and he שחט-ed it or sold it, so then for the ox he has to pay five times as much, and for the sheep he has to pay four times as much. So if he didn't admit to it, but the witnesses testified that this is what he did, so then he pays arba'ah vachamishah. ראה עדים שממשמשין ובאין, he saw witnesses coming, אמר, he said, גנבתי, I stole it. When they came to say to him, \"You stole it,\" and he was ready to deny it, but he saw witnesses coming, and he knew that if the witnesses come, he would have to pay double, if he admits before the witnesses, so then he only pays the principal and doesn't have to pay the kefel. So when he saw them coming, he says, \"I stole it,\" but he still denies that he שחט-ed it, אבל לא טבחתי, I didn't שחט it, ולא מכרתי, I didn't sell it. And לפועל, the witnesses come and they say that not only did he steal it, but he also שחט, also שחט-ed it, or also sold it, אינו משלם אלא קרן. In this case, he would only pay the keren, only the principal. He wouldn't pay kefel, because he admitted that he stole, so he admitted concerning the kefel, so he is patur, and even though he admitted because he saw the witnesses coming, nevertheless, לפועל, he admitted before the witnesses came, so he is patur from the kefel. And because of that, he's also patur for טביחה ומכירה, and even though he denied that he שחט-ed it or he sold it, and the witnesses testify that he did שחט or sell it, so concerning that fine, he did not admit, so lechora he should be chayav for that, nevertheless he is patur. Since he is patur from kefel, from the second, you can't make him pay four or five, because if you're going to make him pay four or five, you'll only make him pay three or four, because concerning the kefel he is patur. So the second one he doesn't have to pay. So for the שור he would have to pay four, meaning the keren, the principal, plus three more, because the second one he will be patur. For the sheep he will have to pay only three, because he's chayav for the keren, and the second one he's patur because he admitted concerning the geneivah, concerning the kefel, so he'd have to pay just more. Now the Torah says, you pay four or five, but not three or four. So therefore, as soon as he is patur from the kefel, automatically he cannot be chayav anymore for טביחה ומכירה, four or five. And it's important to note that we see here that from the case where it says that he said to the person in the street, היכן שורי, up to here, the Mishnah did not mention that he said to him, משביעך אני, I make you swear. In the previous cases, the Mishnah mentioned משביעך אני, I make you swear, ואמר אמן, but in this case here, the Mishnah did not say it. And the reason is very simple, because before we are talking about the korban for שבועת הפקדון, for the only time you're chayav a korban is if he swore. Even in the case of a טוען טענת גנב, when he claims that it was stolen and really he stole it, even if he is not חייב שבועת הפקדון, he's only חייב כפל if he swore. But in the case of a regular גנב, when you're חייב כפל, or you are chayav four or five, in a regular case of טביחה ומכירה, there's nothing to do with a shevuah. Just for stealing and then witnesses testify, you're חייב כפל. And if you sold it or you שחט-ed it, you're חייב ארבעה וחמשה, there's nothing to do with a shevuah. And that's why the Mishnah here doesn't mention משביעך אני. Then the Mishnah continues:

אמר לשואל, if the owner says to the borrower, היכן שורי, where is my ox? אמר לו, he says to him, מת, it died, והוא שנשבר או נשבה או נאבד, and really what happened to it It was injured, or captured, or stolen, or lost. And here is a case that if he would have admitted to the truth, he would have been chayav, because as we said in the beginning of the Mishnah, a shoel is chayav for onasin. But, even the way he denied, he is still chayav. So again here we have a case where by lying and swearing false, he's not patur'ing himself, but not as in the previous cases, because if he would have admitted, he would have been patur anyway. But here the case is that even when he denied, he is still chayav. Or a case is that he answered, נשברה, it was injured, והוא שמת או נשבית או נגנבה או נאבדה. What really happened to it was it died, or it was captured, or stolen, or lost. Or he answered, נשבית, it was captured, והוא שמת או נשברה או נגנבה או נאבדה. And really what happened to it, it died, or it was injured, or stolen, or lost. But here again are cases where even the way he denied, it's still mechayev him. Or he answers, נגנבה, it was stolen, והוא שמת או נשברה או נשבית או נאבדה, and really it died, or it was injured, or captured, or lost. Or he answered, נאבדה, it was lost, והוא שמת או נשברה או נשבית או נגנבה, and really, it died, or it was injured, or captured, or stolen. משביעך אני, he says to him, \"I make you swear,\" ואמר אמן, and he says, \"אמן\". So, he swore for what he says, patur, he is patur. And the reason he is patur, because even though he swore false, but that false shevuah did not save him any money, because even according to the way he claimed and swore on it, he also would be mechuyav. And as we said before, you're only chayav a shevuah, a korban or שבועת הפקדון, and vechomesh, only if you try to patur yourself from money. But in this case, he wouldn't have patur'ed himself anyway. What happens if he says to him, היכן שורי, where is my ox? אמר לו, he says to him, איני יודע מה אתה סח, I don't know what you're talking about. So, here with his ta'anah, he is trying to save himself money, because he claims he doesn't know what he's talking about, he doesn't own any ox. והוא, and really, what happened to it? שמת או נשברה או נשבית או נגנבה או נאבדה, really it died, or it was injured, or it was captured, or it was stolen, or lost. And he says to him, משביעך אני, \"I make you swear on what you're saying that you don't know what I'm talking about,\" ואמר אמן, and he says, \"amen\". Chayav, here he's a chayav, because in the ta'anah that he said and the shevuah that he swore, he tried to save himself money, because he said he doesn't know what he's talking about, so he didn't want to pay. לפועל he was lying, and if he would have admitted to what happened, then he would have mechuyav, so now that he admits he swore false, he's chayav to bring the korban and also has to add the chomesh. Then the Mishnah continues, אמר לשומר שכר או לשוכר, he said to the shomer sachar or to the שוכר, היכן שורי, where is my ox? אמר לו, he says to him, met, it died. Now, if it would have died, he would have been patur, because, as we said before, a shomer sachar and a socher are patur for ones. So when he answered, it died, he wanted to make himself patur, but really, והוא שנשברה או נשבית, really what happened to it, it was injured, or it was captured, which is also an ones, which means that if he would have admitted to the truth, truth, he also would have been patur. Or he answers, נשברה, it was injured, והוא שמת או נשבית, and really what happened to it, it died, or it was captured. So what he claimed is something that wants to make him patur, and really, if he would have admitted, he also would have been patur. Or he answered, נשבית, it was captured, והוא שמת, and really it died, או נשברה, or it was injured. So here again we have a case that the way he lied, he would have been patur, and if he would have admitted, he would have been patur. Or what happened was he answered, נגנבה, it got stolen, והוא שאבדה, and really it got lost. So here again, if he would have said the truth, he would have been chayav, and now that he lied, he's also chayav, because he is chayav for גניבה ואבידה. Or he said, נאבדה, it got lost, והוא שנגנבה, and really it got stolen. משביעך אני, and the owner says to him, \"I make you swear,\" ואמר אמן, and he says, \"אמן\", patur, he is patur. And the reason is, because by lying and swearing false, he wouldn't have saved himself money. In some of the cases, he wouldn't have saved himself, because if he would have said the truth, he would have been patur anyway. In the other cases, even the way he is lying, he is chayav. But nevertheless, he did not patur himself with the טענה, and therefore, he is patur from the korban. But if he answered, מת או נשברה או נשבית, that it died, or it was injured, or it was captured, which are all אונסין, which he is patur in, but really, והוא שנגנבה או נאבדה, really it was stolen or lost, which means, according to his claim and his swearing false, he should be patur. Really, what happened to it, he should be chayav. So if he would have admitted to the truth, he would have been chayav. Now he swore false, and he wanted to patur himself from money. And he says to him, משביעך אני, \"I make you swear,\" ואמר אמן, and he says, \"אמן\", chayav, and in this case he is chayav, because here his false shevuah was going to save him from money. If he answered, נאבדה או נגנבה, it got lost or stolen, והוא שמת או נשברה או נשבית, and really what happened to it, it died, or was injured, or was captured, so according to his טענה, he is chayav, because the way he claims that it got stolen or lost, he is chayav. Really, what happened to it, he would have been patur. And he says to him משביעך, I make you swear, ואמר אמן, and he says amen, patur, he is patur. Why? Because here, he did not want to patur himself with his taanah, with his false shevuah. The contrary, here with his false shevuah, he makes himself chayav. So certainly in this case, he is patur from the korban. The Mishnah adds, זה הכלל, this is the rule. כל המשנה מחובה לחובה ומפטור לפטור, anybody who changes and swears falsely from chovah to chovah, from obligation to obligation, which means if he would have admitted, he would have been chayav, and now by swearing falsely he is chayav, or mipatur lipatur, from being patur to being patur, if he would have admitted he would have been patur, and now that he swore falsely he's also patur, or mipatur lachovah, or from being patur to being chayav, had he admitted to the truth, he would have been patur, and by swearing falsely he is chayav, so in all these cases, patur, he's patur from the korban and from the chumash. Only mechovah lipatur, if he's changing from chiyuv to patur, that if he would have admitted to the truth, he would have been chayav to pay, now that he swore falsely he is patur, so then, when he admits that he swore falsely, chayav, he has to bring the korban, he has to add the chumash. זה הכלל, this is the rule. כל הנשבע להקל על עצמו חייב, anybody who swears to make it easier on himself, he is chayav a קרבן, להחמיר על עצמו פטור, if he swears to make it worse for himself, to machmir on himself, so then he is patur from the korban and from the chumash. The Gemara says, מאן תנא ארבעה שומרים, who is the tana that holds that there are four שומרים? And the Gemara will soon explain what the pshat in this question is.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה, that Rav Nachman said in the name of רבה בר אבוה, רבי מאיר היא, this is Rabbi Meir. Because as we know, the Gemara will bring later that there is a machloket between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda concerning the din of a שוכר. Rabbi Meir holds that a שוכר has a din like a שומר חנם, that if he rents the object, then he is patur from גניבה ואבידה like a שומר חנם. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that a שוכר has a din like a שומר שכר, that he is chayav for גניבה ואבידה, and he is patur for אונסין. So Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha that who is the one that holds that there are four שומרים, this goes according to Rabbi Meir who holds that a שוכר is like a שומר חנם. אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן, said Rava to רב נחמן, מי איכא תנא דלית ליה ארבעה שומרים? Is there any תנא that doesn't hold that there are four שומרים? What was your question, who is the תנא that holds that there are four שומרים, and what was the answer that it goes according to Rabbi Meir? Why is it that it's more according to Rabbi Meir that there are four שומרים than according to Rabbi Yehuda? The machloket between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is only whether a socher has a din like a shomer sachar or like a shomer chinam. But what does it have to do to this fact that there are four shomrim? אמר ליה, so he said to him, הכי קאמינא, this is what I meant to say: מאן תנא דאמר שוכר כשומר שכר, who is the tana that holds that a socher has a din like a shomer sachar? Because in our Mishnah, when it mentioned the different dinim of the four shomrim, it mentioned that a shomer sachar and a socher have the same din, which means that a socher has a din like a shomer sachar. Who is the tana who holds like that? So אמר רבה בר אבוה, so that's what I said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha, רבי מאיר היא, this goes according to Rabbi Meir. And then the Gemara asks, והא רבי מאיר איפכא שמעינן ליה, but didn't we hear that רבי מאיר holds just the opposite? דתניא, because we learned in the ברייתא, שוכר כיצד משלם, how does a socher pay? רבי מאיר אומר כשומר חנם, רבי מאיר holds like a shomer chinam, that he's patur even for geneivah va'aveidah. רבי יהודה אומר כשומר שכר, רבי יהודה holds he's like a shomer sachar and is chayav for geneivah va'aveidah. So we see clearly that רבי מאיר holds he is not like a shomer sachar, but like a shomer chinam. So how can you say that the tana of our Mishnah who says that a socher is like a shomer sachar goes according to רבי מאיר? So the Gemara answers, רבה בר אבוה איפכא תני, רבה בר אבוה, he learned just the opposite. He learned that רבי מאיר was the one that held that he's like a shomer sachar, and רבי יהודה is the one that holds that he's like a shomer chinam. And then the Gemara asks,

הני ארבעה? השלשה הוו! How can you say there are four, because the Mishnah started off by saying ארבעה שומרים הן, there are four shomrim, when really they're only three? And this is not a קשיא דוקא on רבי מאיר, it's a kashya on both. Because according to both, a socher has a din like one of the others, or like a shomer chinam or like a shomer sachar. So really there are only three separate dinim. And from the Mishnah it's mashma that there are four shomrim, that there are four separate dinim concerning the shomrim. אמר Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, so Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said, what we mean is, ארבעה שומרים ודיניהם שלשה. There are four shomrim, four different kinds of shomrim, but their dinim are only three, there are only three different kinds of dinim. There's a din of a shomer chinam, a shomer sachar, and a shoel, and then the socher has a din like one of the others. So there are only three dinim, but there are four shomrim. Then the Gemara quotes from the משנה, כיצד, אמר לשומר חנם, כולי. היכן שורי וכולי, אמר ליה אבד וכולי, אמר לשואל וכולי, היכן שורי, אמר לו איני יודע מה אתה סח וכולי, as he mentions all the dinim mentioned in the Mishnah, אמר רב, Rav said, דכולם פטורין משבועת שומרין, all the cases in the Mishnah where we said that they are patur from the שבועת שומרין, וחייבין משום שבועת ביטוי, that nevertheless, they are chayav for a שבועת ביטוי. שבועת ביטוי means if someone swears false, for instance, he swears that he didn't eat something, and really he did, so then he is chayav for that shevuah, a קרבן עולה ויורד. A קרבן עולה ויורד is a korban that if you have money, you could afford it, you bring a בהמה, an animal as a korban, if you can't afford it, then you bring birds as a korban, and if you can't even afford that, you bring a קרבן מנחה. So that comes for the case where you swore false, lemashal you said that you didn't eat something, and really you did, but it also only comes if you did it beshogeg, which means that you didn't know that for swearing false, you would have to bring a korban. Even if you knew that you're not allowed to swear false, but as long as you didn't know that you are chayav a korban for it, it's called a shogeg, and then you are chayav the קרבן עולה ויורד for swearing false. Now we can't say in our Gemara it's talking here when it's a real shogeg, when he actually didn't know it was false, because then the Mishnah wouldn't have to say that the reason he's patur for שבועת הפקדון is because when he swore false, he wouldn't have פטר himself with money anyway. He would have been patur from the korban anyway, because it was beshogeg. Now since the Mishnah is telling us the case that the reason he's patur from the korban of שבועת הפקדון is because he did not try to פטר himself with a false shevuah, so obviously, it was not beshogeg. Now if it was not beshogeg, how can Rav say that he's chayav for שבועת ביטוי? So we must say it is not beshogeg, but nevertheless it's enough shogeg to be chayav for שבועת ביטוי, the קרבן עולה ויורד. So that is the case where he knew that you're not allowed to swear false, and he knew he was swearing false, but he didn't know that you are chayav a korban for it. So then it's still considered shogeg and you are chayav a korban for שבועת ביטוי. And this is what Rav said that in all these cases of the Mishnah, you are patur for שבועת שומרין, but you are chayav for שבועת ביטוי. ושמואל אמר, but Shmuel says, אף פטורין משום שבועת ביטוי, that they are also patur for שבועת ביטוי, they're not chayav for swearing false. And the Gemara asks: מאי קא מיפלגי, what is their argument? Why should Shmuel hold that you are not chayav for שבועת ביטוי? And the Gemara answers: שמואל סבר, Shmuel holds, ליתא בלהבא. Since this could not be done for the future, so therefore there is no שבועת ביטוי. In other words, the din of שבועת ביטוי could be for the future or for the past. For instance, if he swears that I will or will not eat a certain thing, in the future, tomorrow, whenever it is, and later he doesn't keep his shvuah, so he is chayav for שבועת ביטוי. Or for the past, for instance, if he swore that I did or did not eat something, and lefoal he was swearing false, so he is chayav for שבועת ביטוי. So Shmuel says that when are you chayav a שבועת ביטוי? Only if you swear it in such a way that it's possible to be done for the past or for the future. So whichever one of the two you do, you're chayav a שבועת ביטוי. But if you swear a shvuah for the past, a false shvuah, which that same shvuah could not have been for the future, so then you are not chayav a שבועת ביטוי even if it's for the past. And that's the case here, because let's say the case where he swore that it died, and swore false, so this is a shvuah for the past, but that same shvuah could not have taken place for the future. He couldn't have sworn that it will die. So therefore, since it's a kind of shvuah that you couldn't do להבא, you couldn't do it for the future, so even if he swore false for the past, you are not chayav a שבועת ביטוי. ורב סבר, Rav holds, איתא בלאו והן. As long as it's possible in the positive and the negative, you're chayav a שבועת ביטוי. Even though you can't do it in the future, but as long as it could be yes or no. For instance, he could have sworn that it died, or he could have sworn that it didn't die. So it's a shevuah that's possible in positive and negative, so there is a din of שבועת ביטוי here. And this is the machloket between Rav and Shmuel, whether in all these cases you are chayav for שבועת ביטוי or not. But the Gemara asks: והא איפליגו בה חדא זימנא, didn't they argue in the same argument once before? דאיתמר, because we learned: שבועה שזרק פלוני צרור לים, if a person swears that this and this person threw in a pebble לים, into the ocean, the river, שבועה שלא זרק, or he swore that that person did not throw it in, רב אמר חייב, Rav says he is chayav for a שבועת ביטוי if it was a lie, ושמואל אמר פטור, and Shmuel says he is patur from שבועת ביטוי. And it's in the positive and the negative. He could have sworn that he did throw it in, or he could swear that he didn't throw it in. And as long as it could be in לאו והן, so then you are chayav שבועת ביטוי. ושמואל אמר פטור, Shmuel holds patur, דליתיה בלהבא, because this is a shevuah that he couldn't have sworn for the future. He couldn't swear that that person will throw the pebble in or not throw it in, because he is not a בעל הבית on that person. How could he know what that person is going to do? So since he couldn't have sworn for the future, so even if he swears in the past, which he could swear, nevertheless he is patur, because only a shevuah that could be for the past and for the future, you're chayav for שבועת ביטוי. So since they already argued over there, why would they have to argue here too if it's the same argument? And the Gemara says, tzricha, we need both arguments. דאי אשמועינן בהא, if they would only tell us their argument in this case, in the second case, where a person swears that the other guy threw the צרור into the ים or didn't throw, I would say, בהא קאמר רב, here Rav holds that he is חייב שבועת ביטוי, משום דמנפשיה קא משתבע, he swears on his own. No one forced him to swear. And that's why he is chayav for that shevuah. אבל בהך, but in the other case, in our case here, דבי דינא משבעו ליה, that the beit din makes him swear, אימא, I would say, מודי ליה לשמואל, that he is modeh to Shmuel, that in a case like this there is not the din of שבועת ביטוי. And why would we think that since בית דין makes him swear, then he should not be חייב שבועת ביטוי? K'deRav Ami, like Rav Ami said. דאמר רב אמי, because רב אמי said: כל שבועה שהדיינים משביעין אותה, any shevuah that the dayanim, the judges, make you swear, אין חייבין עליה משום שבועת ביטוי, you are not chayav for שבועת ביטוי. And the Gemara soon will explain where Rav Ami took his din from. But we would think that Rav holds like Rav Ami, and therefore, if we would just know the machloket in the case of the shevuah that the person threw the pebble in, we would think that in the case of our Mishnah, Rav would hold like Rav Ami and say that there is no din of שבועת ביטוי. That's why we have to have the machloket specifically in the case of our Mishnah. ואי איתמר בהא, if you would just have learned the machloket between Rav and Shmuel in the case of our Mishnah, I would say בהא קאמר שמואל, that only in the case of our Mishnah, that's where Shmuel holds that there is no din of שבועת ביטוי, because of what Rav Ami said. Since it's a shevuah that the dayanim put on the person, so then there is no din of שבועת ביטוי. אבל בהך, but in the other case, where the dayanim did not make him swear, he swore on his own, ima, I would think, מודי ליה לרב, that he admits to Rav, that there is a din of שבועת ביטוי. Tzricha, that's why it has to say that case also. And that's why we have to have the machloket in both cases. Now the Gemara continues, גופא, we are going to discuss the guf of what we had learned before. אמר רב אמי, רב אמי says, כל שבועה שהדיינים משביעין אותה, any שבועה that the דיינים, the judges, make him swear, אין בה משום שבועת ביטוי, if he swore false, he would not be chayav the korban for a שבועת ביטוי. What is his re'aya? שנאמר, because the פסוק says: או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים. This is the פסוק which is the introduction to the din of שבועת ביטוי. The פסוק says if a person, כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים, he says it with his lips. Now what does כי תשבע mean? So he says כי תשבע means if he will swear, because he says that the word כי means if. Now, since it says if he will swear, that means מעצמו, by himself. If the דיינים make him swear, then it doesn't mean if he will swear. He has to swear. If he will swear means, if he wants to, he could swear, if he wouldn't have wanted to, he didn't have to swear, so if he does swear, he is chayav the korban. So from here he learns out that only if you wanted to swear on your own, that's when you're חייב שבועת ביטוי. But if you were obligated to swear, swear through the דיינים, you are patur. And how does he know if the פסוק says כי תשבע it means if you will swear? K'd'Reish Lakish, like Reish Lakish. דאמר ריש לקיש, ריש לקיש said, כי משמש בארבע לשונות, that the word כי in the Torah could be used in four expressions: אי - if, דילמא - perhaps, אלא - but, daha - and because. So he learns that the כי תשבע here means if. And therefore he learns out from here that only if he swears on his own he is חייב שבועת ביטוי, not if he was forced to swear. And obviously Rav, who argues against Rav Ami, as we said before, Rav holds that in this case where the dayanim made him swear he's also חייב שבועת ביטוי, he learns the peshat in the pasuk that the word ki here does not mean if, but means because. The pasuk is saying, או נפש, because he will swear לבטא בשפתים, then he has to bring the korban. So therefore, it makes no difference whether he swore on his own or he swore because the judges made him swear. Then the Gemara continues that Rabbi Elazar אומר, Rabbi Elazar says: כולם פטורין משבועת שומרין, all of them in the Mishnah are patur for שבועת שומרין, וחייבין משום שבועת ביטוי, and they are חייב משום שבועת ביטוי. In other words, he doesn't hold like Shmuel, but he holds like Rav. Chutz, except מאיני יודע מה אתה סח דשואל, in the case of the שואל, where he says to him, where is my ox, and he says I don't know what you're talking about, and really it was lost or stolen. or an accident happened to it. So in that case, he is patur from שבועת ביטוי. Why? Because he is chayav for the שבועת הפקדון. או גניבה ואבידה דנושא שכר ושל שוכר. The case where there is a נושא שכר or the שוכר, when they say an accident happened to it, and really it was lost or stolen, so there also they are patur from שבועת ביטוי. Why? Shehu chayav, because there the Mishnah says that you are chayav for שבועת הפקדון, שהרי כפר ממון, because they denied money through their טענה and they are swearing falsely, they wanted to save themselves money. So they are חייב שבועת הפקדון. That's why they are patur from שבועת ביטוי. But all those cases where you are patur from שבועת הפקדון, you are chayav for שבועת ביטוי. The truth is there are more cases in the Mishnah where they are חייב שבועת הפקדון and therefore פטור from שבועת ביטוי, and he doesn't mention it. Those are the case of the שומר חנם, where the שומר חנם claims it was lost and really he ate it, or the case where the שומר חנם claims it was stolen and really he stole it. So there too you are חייב שבועת הפקדון and therefore פטור from שבועת ביטוי. Why doesn't Rabbi Elazar mention it? So Rashi says because there it says clearly in the Mishnah that you are חייב in the קרבן for שבועת הפקדון. So therefore it's obvious you are פטור from the קרבן of שבועת ביטוי. The ones Rabbi Elazar has to mention is only where the Torah the Mishnah says the word חייב, and the Mishnah doesn't say you are חייב in a קרבן for שבועת הפקדון, that's why he tells us that in those cases when it says in the Mishnah חייב, it means the קרבן of שבועת הפקדון, and therefore you are פטור from שבועת ביטוי. But in the case of the שומר חנם, the לשון in the Mishnah is clearly that he is חייב קרן וחומש ואשם, so it says clearly he is חייב the קרבן אשם. So Rabbi Elazar doesn't have to say that, but really he means that in all the cases where you are חייב שבועת הפקדון, you are פטור from שבועת ביטוי. הדרן עלך ארבעה שומרים וסליקא לה מסכת שבועות, הדרן עלך ארבעה שומרים וסליקא לה מסכת שבועות, הדרן עלך ארבעה שומרים וסליקא לה מסכת שבועות. הדרן עלך מסכת שבועות ודעתך עלן, דעתן עלך מסכת שבועות ודעתך עלן, לא נתנשי מינך מסכת שבועות ולא תתנשי מינן, לא בעלמא הדין ולא בעלמא דאתי. Concerning the order of the Mishnah of the four שומרים where it says שומר חנם, שואל, נושא שכר, והשוכר, so Tosafot asks: even though the order in the Torah is first it speaks about a שומר חנם, then it speaks about a שומר שכר, but the order of the Mishnah is that he goes to extremes. First he says the easiest extreme that a שומר חנם is patur for everything, just has to swear. Then he goes into the שואל, who is the other extreme, the strictest, that he is chayav for everything. And then he mentions the ones that are in between. Concerning the case of the Mishnah where it says that if he said to him, \"Where is the object that you stole?\" and he saw עדים coming, and before they managed to come, he said, \"I stole it,\" because he knew that if he would wait for the עדים to come, then he would be חייב כפל, but since he admitted, he is patur from כפל. So the din is that since lafoal he admitted himself, he is patur from כפל. And then even if later on you have עדים that he שחט it, or he sold it, he's still patur from ד' וה' because since he's patur from כפל, so he will not be able to pay four or five, but three or four, and there is no such din of three or four, that's why he's patur from that also. But Tosafot asks a kashya, that we know that there is a machloket between Rav and Shmuel in Bava Kamma דף ע\"ה, whether מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים, חייב or patur. That if a person admits in the fine, and we know the din is that because of that he is patur, what happens if עדים come afterwards? Is he still patur, or do we say he is only patur if עדים never came? He only admitted, but if עדים came later, he is chayav. So Rav holds מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים פטור, but Shmuel holds מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים חייב. Now lichora from our Mishnah it's משמע that מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים are פטור, since it says in the Mishnah he admitted when he saw the עדים coming. So it seems to be saying that the עדים came later. He just made sure to admit before the עדים came, and we say he is פטור from כפל. So it's משמע that even though עדים came after he admitted, still he is פטור, so it's a קשיא on Shmuel who says that מודה בקנס ואחר כך באו עדים are חייב. But Tosafot says that the answer that is given there we have to say is that we're talking here that the עדים did not actually come. He saw עדים coming, so he thought the עדים are going to come to testify, and that's why he made sure to admit, and lefoal the עדים never came. If the עדים would have come take later, so his admitting wouldn't have helped according to Shmuel, and he still would have been חייב. But the case is where the עדים turned back and never came, so all we have is his admission, and that's why the דין is he is פטור. Concerning the beginning of the Gemara, where the Gemara first asks the question: who is the תנא that holds ארבעה שומרים? And Rav Nachman answers that this is Rabbi Meir. And later we ask him: what do we mean who is the תנא who holds ארבעה שומרים? Everyone holds ארבעה שומרים! Whether we hold that a שוכר has a דין like a שומר חנם, like a שומר שכר. Everyone agrees there are four שומרים. So what do you mean, who is the תנא that holds four שומרים and you answered me it's Rabbi Meir? So he said to him: הכא קאמינא לך, this is what I meant to say to you. Who is the תנא that holds that a שוכר has a דין like a שומר שכר? And on that he answers that this goes according to Rabbi Meir who holds like that. And later on the Gemara asks, how can we say it's four when really it's three? Because a שומר שכר has the same דין as one of the other two. And the Gemara answers what we mean is there are four שומרים with three דינים. So the Lubavitcher Rebbe in one of his שיחות, which is going to be part of Likutei Sichos כרך ל\"א the 31st volume, he asked the question on this Gemara: from the פשטות of the לשון of Rav Nachman, where he says to him הכא קאמינא לך, this is what I meant to ask you, who is the תנא that holds that a שוכר has a דין like a שומר שכר, is משמע that Rav Nachman does not mean to ask a new question and change the question that he asked before. He's saying הכא קאמינא לך, this is what I meant to ask you, which means that by saying that his question really is, who is the תנא that holds that a שוכר is like a שומר שכר, was really the meaning of his question when he asked, who is the תנא that holds ארבעה שומרים? But לכאורה what kind of connection does that have to that question? They are two separate questions. The question, who is the תנא that holds ארבעה שומרים, is משמע that who is the תנא that divides it into four. And then he explains himself, \"What did I mean? Who is the תנא that holds that a שוכר is like a שומר שכר\", which means that there are only three! So how is it that the question the way he explained it later should fit into the words that he said before, \"Who is the תנא that holds that there are four שומרים\"? And the Lubavitcher Rebbe explains it as follows. He says that Rashi in Bava Metzia דף פ' עמוד ב' explains what is really the reason for the מחלוקת between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda whether a שוכר has a din like a שומר חנם or like a שומר שכר. So Rashi says there, the one that holds that he has a din like a שומר חנם is because דכי יהיב אגר מלאכתו, ואינו נוטל שכר על שמירתו. Since the שוכר pays for his work, and he doesn't receive any payment for his watching. Which means as follows: that even though the שוכר has hana'ah from the object, because he uses the object, but nevertheless, by using the object we do not consider that this is payment for his watching the object. Because for his using the object, he pays the rent that he pays. So it comes out that the rent that cancels out the fact that he's able to use it. Now in addition to being able to use it he's also obligated to watch it, now for that he doesn't get paid. So he's like a שומר חנם, and that's why he holds he's like a שומר חנם. The other מ\"ד who holds he's like a שומר שכר, his reason is, Rashi says, since this שוכר has the object for his own hana'ah, the reason he has it is so he's able to use it, so he is like a שואל. Just like a borrower, since he has the full hana'ah from it, the full benefit from it, that's why he's fully responsible for it. So a שוכר is also fully responsible for it because he has the hana'ah. אי he pays for the hana'ah that he has, all that this does is that through the payment it takes it away from being a שואל and turns him into a שומר שכר. Which means that the reason for this מ\"ד that a שוכר has a din like a שומר שכר is not because he holds that the fact that he's able to use the object is another form of payment for his watching, which means that the התחייבות of the שוכר to watch the object is part of his payment for using the object, so it comes out that he gets paid for watching it. But that's not the reason according to Rashi. But the reason is because since the שוכר is able to use the object, he has hana'ah from it, so he's really like a שואל. So therefore he is responsible. But because he pays rent for it, that minimizes, takes it off from being a שואל and turns him into a שומר שכר. What is the explanation? So the Lubavitcher Rebbe says the explanation is as follows. There is a very fundamental difference between the obligations of a שומר, which is a שומר חנם or a שומר שכר, לגבי the obligations of a שואל. The inyan of a שומר is exactly as his name is: he is a watcher, which means his inyan is that he accepted upon himself a חיוב to watch the object of that person. The reason there is a difference between a שומר חנם and a shomer sachar is, a shomer sachar who gets paid for his watching, he is supposed to watch it with a שמירה מעולה יותר, with a better watching. He's supposed to watch it even from גניבה ואבידה. That's what he's responsible for, and therefore if he didn't watch it from גניבה ואבידה he has to pay for that. A shomer chinam who doesn't get paid for his watching, so he is only obligated to watch it with a lower level of shemirah, and therefore he's patur from גניבה ואבידה. But a shoel, his התחייבות doesn't come as a result of his obligation to watch it. His התחייבות is because when he borrows it, it's as if it becomes his. So since it becomes his, so now he is obligated to return the object. By the shomrim, the pshat is the object still belongs to remains theirs. He is just obligated to watch it. So we say the shomer is only obligated to watch based on how much he took upon himself. So if he gets paid for it, he took upon himself to watch it from גניבה ואבידה. If he doesn't get paid for it, he only took upon himself to watch it a lower level of watching. But a shoel, as soon as he borrows it, it becomes his. So now it's his, it's not the other person's anymore. He has just the התחייבות to return it, just like somebody who borrows money. So then the money is being used and used up, and now he is obligated to return. We don't care what happened to the money. No one would ever say if someone borrows money and later something happens to it, he is patur from paying, because it's his money that got lost or stolen or whatever happened to it, and he is still obligated to give back. The same thing in the case of a shoel. Even though a shoel does not borrow it in a form of borrowing money, because when you borrow money you use it up, a shoel can't use it up, but nevertheless, when he borrows it to use, it becomes his. And now, since he is קונה the חפץ, he is קונה it even to be מתחייב באונסין, and therefore a shoel is חייב באונסין. And this is the explanation when Rashi says that the מאן דאמר who holds that a socher is a shomer sachar since he also has the full hanaah, it means like this: that the fundamental חיוב of the socher according to this מאן דאמר is not because he is מחוייב to watch the חפץ like a shomer. But the reason is since the חפץ is by him not because he took it to watch, the contrary, he took the object in order to have hanaah from it, to use it, so he's exactly like a shoel. But since after all he pays rent for it, so he's not a complete shoel, but he is a shomer sachar, which means that after all not כל הנאה שלו. By a shoel, all of the hanaah is his, since he doesn't pay anything for it, so it is only a benefit for him. So there we say he is קונה it completely, so therefore he is חייב באונסין. A שוכר who also uses it, also has הנאה, so he's also קונה it, but nevertheless not כל הנאה שלו. What do we mean not כל הנאה שלו? Because he pays for his הנאה. So what that is, that deducts from his חיוב of being a שואל, so he's not like a שואל, but he's like a שומר שכר. Which means that the payment that he gives just makes his level of being a שואל lower, that he is not חייב באונסין, but he is only חייב for גניבה ואבידה like a שומר שכר. So it comes out that a שוכר is like a ממוצע, like a level in between, between a שומר שכר and a שואל. Which means essentially the essence of his חיוב is like a שואל, just technically, because he pays for it, it minimizes, takes off his level, and he's חייב like a שומר שכר. So the payment he gives as a שומר שכר is not because essentially he is in the same category as a שומר שכר. He is essentially in the category of a שואל, but just because he pays for his הנאה, his דין is like the דין of a שומר שכר. So now we will understand the המשך of the Gemara there. When the Gemara asked the question, מאן תנא ארבעה שומרים נינהו, what was the meaning of the Gemara's question? The Gemara's question was as follows: since the תנא in the Mishnah mentions the amount, the מנין, he mentions four, and לכאורה we could ask, מנינא למה לי, why does he have to mention four, it's a question that the Gemara asks many times. We could count ourselves, and we'll be able to see. So why does the Gemara have to mention this four? The fact that the Gemara mentions this four, so Rav Nachman learned out that the Mishnah is trying to tell us that there are four separate categories of שומרים. That not only physically there are four ways an object could be found in the possession of a shomer, that one is for free, and one gets paid, and one is a sho'el, and one is a socher, but the fact that the Mishnah says that there are four shomrim is trying to tell us that there are four separate gederim, four separate concepts of shomer. And that's why Rav Nachman asked, who is the tanna that holds that there are four separate categories of shomrim, not only four separate ways you could watch someone's object? So he says this goes according to Rabbi Meir. Because only according to the shita of Rabbi Meir that a socher has a din like a shomer sachar, we are able to say that there are four separate categories of shomrim. Because according to the one that holds that a socher is like a shomer chinam, as we have explained before from Rashi, the reason he has a din like a shomer chinam is because for the fact that he uses the object, he pays; for the fact that he watches the object, for that he doesn't get paid, so therefore he's like a shomer chinam. So according to that, essentially a socher is the same category as like a shomer chinam. Not only is his obligation like a shomer chinam, but he is actually a shomer chinam, because he watches the object for the other person for free. But according to Rabbi Meir who holds that a socher pays like a shomer sachar, so it's not because essentially the geder, the concept of a socher and the cause of his התחייבות is because he is like a shomer sachar. It is only that technically speaking his din, his obligation, is like a shomer sachar. So he's only like a shomer sachar in the outward, כמות part of his התחייבות. but not that he is in that same category as a shomer sachar, because as we said before, essentially, the socher, according to this opinion, is like a sho'el. But in that itself, he's a separate category in itself, because since he pays for the hana'ah he has, so he's not completely like a sho'el, so but he is a category in between a shomer sachar and a sho'el. So it comes out that according to Rav Meir that a socher is like a שומר שכר, we have four categories: we have a שומר חנם, a שומר שכר, a שואל, and then we have another category which is a category for itself, he is like a שואל, but he is not like a שואל, he is in between the שומר שכר and the שואל. And that's what Rav Nachman meant when he said who is the Tanna that holds ארבעה שומרים הן, that there are four separate categories? It only goes according to Rav Meir who holds that a שוכר is like a שומר שכר. But Rava, when he heard Rav Nachman ask him who is the Tanna that holds ארבעה שומרים, and Rav Nachman answered that this is Rav Meir, he didn't understand that this was his question. He thought that he just meant to ask, who is the Tanna that holds ארבעה שומרים? So therefore, he asked the question, and according to the other מאן דאמר it's not four שומרים? So Rav Nachman answered him, הכא קאמינא לה. This is what I meant to ask, that who is the Tanna that holds that a שוכר is like a שומר שכר? And this question is exactly the same question as his original question, who is the Tanna that holds ארבעה שומרים? Because the whole basis of the question is who holds that it's four שומרים, which means four categories of שומרים, and that could only fit according to the מאן דאמר who holds that a שוכר is like a שומר שכר. So the question מאן תנא ארבעה שומרים is exactly the same question as who is the Tanna that holds that a שוכר is like a שומר שכר. So that's what he said to him, this is what I meant to ask, that who is the Tanna that holds that a שוכר is like a שומר שכר? And the answer is it's Rav Meir who holds that way. And the Lubavitcher Rebbe continues that based on this, we can understand the next question of the Gemara where the Gemara asks, why is it four, really it's only three? So the way we have the girsa in this Gemara, the way Rashi has the גירסא here, the Gemara does not say אי הכי, if so. It's a separate question as we learned before. The Gemara's question is on the Mishnah itself. How could the Mishnah say there are four שומרים, when really there are three? And it's a question whether we go according to Rav Meir or according to Rav Yehuda, because whether it is that a שוכר is like a שומר שכר or like a שומר חנם, there are nevertheless three דינים, and the question is, why do we say there are four שומרים when really there are three? But the same Gemara we have in Bava Metzia דף צ״ג עמוד א׳, and there the גירסא in the Gemara is אי הכי. It's משמע that this question is a continuation to before, that if so, that you're telling me that this goes according to Rav Meir who holds that a שוכר is like a שומר שכר, I have a question, so why do you call it four, why don't you call it three? לכאורה, what is the pshat, what is the connection that because of what he said before, that's why we have the kashya that it should be three, not four? And the Lubavitcher Rebbe shlita explains in continuation to what he said before, that the question is that since you're telling me that there are four categories, because this is the whole idea in this whole Gemara that we're trying to show, that there are four separate categories, not three categories, but four separate categories, so the one that's asking this question is saying, אי הכי, if you're telling me that it goes according to Rav Meir who holds that a שוכר is like a שומר שכר, and therefore there are not just four ways of watching an object, but there are four categories in שומרים, so how come the דין is only three? In other words, this מקשן holds that if there are four categories, there should have been four דינים. And if there are three דינים, that shows there are three categories. So what he's asking, אי הכי, if so that you're telling me that it goes according to Rav Meir, and according to Rav Meir there are four categories, but really there are three דינים, so his question is, אי הכי, הני ארבעה, שלשה הוו? How can you say there are four, really there should be three? How can you say there are four categories when we see there are only three דינים? And the answer is that דלת שומרים ודיניהם שלשה. That means that even though they are divided into four categories of שומרים, but nevertheless, this is no סתירה to the fact that there are three dinim. Because this din that a socher is like a shomer sachar is not because he's in the category of a shomer sachar, but technically it comes out that way. Since be'emet he's like a sho'el, but on the other hand, since he pays, he can't be like a sho'el, so he's in between a shomer sachar and a sho'el, so he pays like a shomer sachar, so his din is like a shomer sachar, but that doesn't mean that he's not a separate category. And that's what the Gemara meant to answer, that ארבעה שומרים, they takeh are four separate categories of שומרים, ודיניהם שלשה, but the dinim and the obligations technically came out to be three different kinds. And he goes a step further and he says that we could say that what was the sevara of the one that asks, אי הכי, הני ארבעה הוו, שלשה הוו, the sevara of the makshan who felt that if they are four categories, there should be four dinim, and Is because he holds that the reason why a socher is like a shomer sachar is not the way we brought before from Rashi, that it is because essentially he is like a sho'el, and because he pays he becomes a memutza in between shomer sachar and sho'el, but he holds because he actually gets paid for his watching, which means he is actually shomer sachar. Because he holds that the reason he is mechuyav to watch the object is because he has a right to use it. Which means his right to use it is one, because he pays for it, and second of all, because he took upon himself to watch it. So his using is like payment for his obligation to watch. So mimela he is a regular shomer sachar. So according to this opinion, there are no four categories, because the socher is mamash like a shomer sachar. So not only according to the one that holds that a socher is like a shomer chinam, there is no four categories, if you hold this is the reason for the din of a socher, then even if you hold that he's like a shomer sachar, there are also only three categories. So we're able to say that the one that asks the question אי הכי, ארבעה הוו? שלושה הוו! - why are they four really when there's three? - because he holds that even if you hold like Rabbi Meir that a socher is like a shomer sachar, still there are only three categories. And that was his kashya: how can you say it's four, it is still three even according to Rabbi Meir? And he answered him, \"No, we hold different, that there are four categories, because we hold the pshat in why a שוכר is like a שומר שכר is because, as we said before from Rashi, and therefore it's a separate category. And it is just that דיניהם שלושה, that technically the דינים are three, that the דין of a שוכר is like a שומר שכר, but not because he is in his category.\" And באמת, he says, from Yerushalmi in שבועות פרק ח הלכה א, is משמע like the other pshat why a שוכר is like a שומר שכר, not like we quoted from Rashi. Because there it says, נושא שכר והשוכר, לפי שנהנה מקצת ומהנה מקצת, נשבע מקצת ומשלם מקצת, which is משמע that the reason he is like שומר שכר is because he is נהנה, because he is able to use it, is משמע like the other סברא that he actually gets paid for his watching. On the other hand, from the פסוקים is more משמע like Chasdei David says, because in Parashat Mishpatim the Torah puts the דין of a שוכר right next to the דין of a שואל, is משמע that he is in the category of a שואל. In other words, we're able to say that the reason the Torah put it together is not just because they seem to be the same מציאות, that both of them have the right to use it, but more than that, because the שוכר is actually in the same category as a שואל, just in that category itself, he's a little bit different, he's like a ממוצע between a שואל and a שומר שכר. And he adds: והעיר מהלבוש חושן משפט, ראה סימן רצ״א, סעיף א. And he also calls concerning some of the ענינים here to look up the Machaneh Efraim הלכות שאלה פקדון סעיף א. And also he brings many more מראה מקומות where we could find more elaboration on the ענין that was mentioned here.