On Bava Metzia 94b, the gemara begins an analysis of the four shomrim and their roots in the chumash. This is odd (to me) because the analysis begins "Tena'an Hasam" (it was taught there) and makes reference to the last mishna in the seventh perek (found on Bava Metzia 93a). Tosafos on 94b (d'h "tena'an) asks why the gemara chooses to mention this here? Tosafos answers that since a prior piece of gemara on 94b mentions the verse "im ba'alav imo", it was appropriate to get into a discussion of the elements of each class of shomer.
I am not comfortable with the answer given by Tosafos. While the reason for reference here may link to the pasuk previously quoted on the page, it does not explain to my satisfaction why the discussion also was not contained immediately after that mishna on 93a and why it only follows the new perek. If anyone has other ideas as to the reason for the division, please comment to this post and I will b'n publish it, if it is on-topic.
The other point has to do with a discussion as to why a sho'el (borrower) pays regardless of fault or act taken in relation to the item. [Yes, Tosafos d'h "Shomer" states that this does not include the animal which dies while it is being used for its borrowed purpose].
The gemara asks on 94b, why is the borrower responsible to pay the owner if the animal is forcibly kidnapped? The gemara answers that one cannot compare it to where an animal dies or breaks a leg after it is borrowed, as these events are forseeable to the borrower, whereas he cannot anticipate that it might be forcibly kidnapped.
It was interesting to me to see the forerunner for the modern rule of law that forseeability plays an important role in the rules of liability.
If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!