Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a

Baba Mezi'a 30a

to [workers with] oxen, who can cause much loss.¹

AND SPREAD IT OUT FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT, BUT NOT FOR HIS HONOUR. The scholars propounded: What if it is for their mutual benefit?²  — Come and hear: HE MAY SPREAD IT FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT; this proves, only for its own benefit, but not for their mutual benefit! — Then consider the second clause: BUT NOT FOR HIS HONOUR; thus, it is forbidden only for his own honour, but permitted for their mutual benefit! Hence no inference can be drawn from this.

Come and hear: He may not spread it [a lost article] upon a couch or a frame for his needs, but may do so in its own interests. If he was visited by guests, he may not spread it over a bed or a frame, whether in his interests or in its own!³  — There it is different, because he may thereby destroy it,⁴  either through an [evil] eye or through thieves.

Come and hear: If he took it [the heifer] into the team⁵  and it [accidentally] did some threshing, it is fit;⁶  [but if it was] in order that it should suck and thresh, it is unfit.⁷  But here it is for their mutual benefit, and yet it is taught that it is unfit! — There it is different, because Scripture wrote, which hath not beets wrought with — under any condition. If so, the same should apply to the first clause too?⁸  This [then] can only be compared to what we learnt: If a bird rested upon it [the red heifer] — it remains fit;⁹  but if it copulated with a male, it becomes unfit.¹⁰  Why so? — In accordance with R. Papa's dictum. For R. papa said: Had Scripture written 'ubad,¹¹  and we read it 'ubad, I would have said [that the law holds good] even if it were of itself;¹²  whilst if it were written 'abad,¹³  and we read it 'abad, I would have said, [it becomes unfit] only if he himself wrought with it. Since, however, it is written 'abad [active], whilst read 'ubad [passive],¹⁴  we require that 'it was wrought with' shall be similar to 'he wrought with it';¹⁵  just as 'he wrought [with it]' must mean that he approved of it, so also 'it was wrought with' refers only to what he approved.¹⁶

SILVER AND COPPER VESSELS MAY BE USED, etc. Our Rabbis taught: If one finds wooden utensils he may use them — to prevent them from rotting; copper vessels — he may use them with hot [matter], but not over the fire, because that wears them out; silver vessels, with cold [matter], but not with hot, because that tarnishes them; trowels and spades, on soft [matter], but not on hard, for that injures them; gold and glassware, [however], he may not touch until Elijah comes. Just as they [the Sages] ruled in respect of lost property, so also with reference to a bailment. What business has one with a bailment?¹⁷  — Said R. Adda b. Hama in R. Shesheth's name: This treats of a bailment the owner of which has gone overseas.

IF ONE FINDS A SACK OR A BASKET, OR ANY OBJECT WHICH IT IS NOT DIGNIFIED FOR HIM TO TAKE, HE NEED NOT TAKE IT. How do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: And thou shalt hide thyself:¹⁸  sometimes thou mayest hide thyself, and sometimes not. E.g., if one was a priest, whilst it [the lost animal] was in a cemetery; or an old man, and it was inconsistent with his dignity [to lead the animal home]; or if his own [work] was more valuable than his neighbour's¹⁹  — therefore it is said, and thou shalt hide thyself.²⁰  In respect of which [of these instances] is the verse required? Shall we say, in respect of a priest when it [the lost animal] is in a cemetery? — but that is obvious: one is a positive, whereas the other is a negative and a positive injunction, and a positive injunction cannot set aside a negative together with a positive injunction?²¹  Moreover, a ritual prohibition cannot be abrogated on account of money!²²  If, again, [it is required] where 'his own [work] was more valuable than his neighbour's' — that may be inferred from Rab Judah's dictum in Rab's name, for Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Save that

1. Either by failing to plough up the land properly, so that the subsequent crop is a poor one (Tosaf.), or through carelessly driving the ox carts over the crops when engaged in reaping or vintaging, and so causing damage both to oxen and plants (Rashi).
2. Lit., 'for its purpose and for his purpose?'
3. Pes. 26b. Thus proving that he may not use it for their mutual benefit.
4. Lit., 'burn it.'
5. Of three or four cows used for threshing; his purpose was that it should suck.
6. To be used to make atonement for a murder by an unknown person. V. Deut. XXI, 1-9. The heifer had to be one 'which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke' (v. 3). Though this heifer had done some threshing, it remains fit, because it had been taken into the team to feed, not to thresh.
7. Pes. 26b.
8. Though not intending that it should thresh, it nevertheless ought to become disqualified.
9. And is not disqualified on the score that it has been put to some use.
10. Parah II, 4.
11. [H] passive. 'was wrought with.'
12. I.e., even if it 'was wrought with' entirely without its owners volition.
13. [H] active, 'with which he (the owner) had not wrought.'
14. [ = M.T. [H] The form is thus taken as passive Kal not Pu'al, v. Ges. K. § 52e.]
15. I.e., though it may have been put to work without the knowledge of its master, it shall nevertheless be only such work as its master would have approved.
16. Now, if a bird rests on it, the master does not approve, since he derives no benefit; but he does derive benefit from its copulation. Similarly, if he takes it into the team and it accidentally does some threshing, he does not benefit thereby, as the team itself would have sufficed. Therefore it is not invalidated, unless that was his express purpose.
17. How can there be a question of using a bailment? Let its owner come and use it to prevent it from rotting or otherwise being injured through disuse!
18. Deut. XXII, 2. The beginning of the verse reads, Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray. In the exegesis that follows, it is assumed that the 'not' may or may not refer to 'and thou shalt hide thyself' according to circumstances.
19. I.e., the value of the time he would lose in returning it exceeded that of the lost animal.
20. Sanh. 18b.
21. It is a positive command to return lost property, viz., thou shalt restore them unto thy brother; whereas a priest is forbidden to defile himself through the dead both by a positive command — They shall be holy unto their God (Lev. XXI, 6) — and a negative one — Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people (ibid. 1).
22. The returning of lost property is after all only a monetary matter.

there shall be no poor among you:¹  [this teaches,] thine takes precedence over all others!²  — Hence [it is needed] in respect of an old man for whom it is undignified [to return the lost article].

Rabbah said: If he [the old man] smote it [the lost animal], he is [henceforth] under an obligation in respect thereof.³  Abaye was sitting before Rabbah when he saw some [lost] goats standing. whereupon he took a clod and threw it at them. Said he [Rabbah] to him, 'You have thereby become bound in respect of them. Arise and return them.'

The scholars propounded: What if it is dignified for one to return [a lost animal] in the field, but not in town? Do we say, a complete return is required, and since it is undignified for him to return it in town, he has no obligation at all; or perhaps, in the field at least he is bound to return it, and since he incurs the obligation in the field, he is likewise obligated in town?⁴  The question stands.

Raba said: Where one would lead back his own, he must lead back his neighbour's too. And where one would unload and load his own, he must do so for his neighbour's.⁵

R. Ishmael son of R. Jose was walking on a road when he met a man carrying a load of faggots. The latter put them down, rested, and then said to him, 'Help me to take them up.' 'What is it worth?' he enquired. 'Half a zuz,' was the answer. So he gave him the half zuz and declared it hefker.⁶  Thereupon he [the carrier] re-acquired it.⁷  He gave him another half zuz and again declared it hefker. Seeing that he was again about to re-acquire it, he said to him, 'I have declared it hefker for all but you.' But is it then hefker in that case? Have we not learnt: Beth Shammai maintain, hefker for the poor [only] is valid hefker; whilst Beth Hillel rule, It is valid only if declared hefker for the poor and the rich, as the year of release.⁸  — But R. Ishmael son of R. Jose did in fact render it hefker for all; and he stopped the other [from taking possession again] by mere words. Yet was not R. Ishmael son of R. Jose an elder for whom it was undignified [to help one to take up a load]?⁹  — He acted beyond the requirements of the law. For R. Joseph learnt: And thou shalt shew them¹⁰  — this refers to their house of life;¹¹  the way — that means the practice of loving deeds;¹²  they must walk — to sick visiting; therein — to burial;¹³  and the work — to strict law; that they shall do — to [acts] beyond the requirements of the law.¹⁴

The Master said: 'they must walk — this refers to sick visiting.' But that is the practice of loving deeds! — That is necessary only in respect of one's affinity.¹⁵  For a Master said: A man's affinity takes away a sixtieth of his illness: yet even so, he must visit him 'Therein to burial.' But that [too] is identical with the practice of loving deeds? — That is necessary only in respect of an old man for whom it is undignified.¹⁶  'That they shall do — this means [acts] beyond the requirements of the law.' For R. Johanan said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because they gave judgments therein in accordance with Biblical law. Were they then to have judged in accordance with untrained arbitrators?¹⁷  — But say thus: because they based their judgments [strictly] upon Biblical law, and did not go beyond the requirements of the law.

MISHNAH. WHAT IS LOST PROPERTY? IF ONE FINDS AN ASS OR A COW FEEDING BY THE WAY, THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED A LOST PROPERTY; [BUT IF HE FINDS] AN ASS WITH ITS TRAPPINGS OVERTURNED, OR A COW RUNNING AMONG THE VINEYARDS, THEY ARE CONSIDERED LOST. IF HE RETURNED IT AND IT RAN AWAY, RETURNED IT AND IT RAN AWAY, EVEN FOUR OR FIVE TIMES, HE IS STILL BOUND TO RESTORE IT, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT SURELY RESTORE THEM.¹⁸  IF HIS LOST TIME IS WORTH S SELA', HE MUST NOT DEMAND, GIVE ME A SELA',' BUT IS PAID AS A LABOURER. IF A BETH DIN IS PRESENT, HE MAY STIPULATE IN THEIR PRESENCE;¹⁹  BUT IF THERE IS NO BETH DIN BEFORE WHOM TO STIPULATE, HIS OWN TAKES PRECEDENCE.²⁰

GEMARA. And all these that were mentioned already — are they then not lost property?²¹  — Said Rab Judah: It means this: What is the general principle of lost property for which one is responsible?²²  IF ONE FINDS AN ASS OR A COW FEEDING BY THE WAY, THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED LOST PROPERTY, and he bears no responsibility toward it: [BUT IF HE FINDS] AN ASS WITH ITS TRAPPINGS OVERTURNED, OR A COW RUNNING AMONG THE VINEYARDS, THEY ARE CONSIDERED LOST, and he is bound [to return it]. And for ever?²³  — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: Up to three days.²⁴  How so? If [he sees it] at night, even a single hour [shews that it is lost]; if by day, even if it is there longer, it is still [not proof it is lost]! — This arises only if it was seen either before daybreak or at twilight; now, for three days we assume that it is mere chance that it went forth [at these unusual hours]; but if more, it is certainly lost.

It has been taught likewise: If one finds a garment or a spade

1. Deut, XV, 4.
2. Regarding the verse as an exhortation against bringing oneself to poverty.
3. To return it. By smiting it to make it go in a certain direction he commences the work of returning it, and therefore must complete it.
4. On the principle of the preceding dictum.
5. V. Deut. XXII, 4, which is interpreted as meaning that one must help his neighbour to load or unload his animals. Here too he is exempt if it is inconsistent with his dignity, and Raba observes that the test is whether he would do this for his own.
6. 'Ownerless.'
7. And again asked R. Ishmael to help him.
8. Pe'ah VI, 1; 'Ed. IV. 3. Produce acquired from hefker was exempt from tithes. If, however, it was only partially declared hefker i.e., for the poor alone, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel dispute whether that is valid. Since in all cases of dispute between these two academies the halachah was according to Beth Hillel, we see that partial hefker is invalid; hence R. Ishmael's declaration was illegal. — The seventh year was called the year of release (shemittah), and its crops were free to all; v. Lev. XXV, 1-7.
9. Why then pay him off?
10. Ex. XVIII, 20.
11. Rashi: i.e., industry and trade, the means of a livelihood. In B.K. 100a Rashi refers it to study, the life of the Jew.
12. This is the literal translation of the phrase, gemiluth hasadim. It is sometimes translated, 'the practice of charity,' but that is inexact. Every act of kindness is regarded as done out of one's love for his fellow beings. [V. Abrahams, I., C.P.B. p. XIII. The inner meaning of the phrase is, 'making good.' 'requiting' — a making good to man for goodness of God, and it is connected with tenderness and mercy to all men and all classes; cf. J. Pe'ah IV.]
13. To give burial to the poor who cannot pay for it. Directly arising out of this teaching, the Burial Societies (chevra kaddisha — 'holy society') have always formed an important part of Jewish communal organization.
14. Lit., 'within the line of judgment;' v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 584, n. 2.
15. V. p. 171. n. 1.
16. Yet even he must take part in burial.
17. [ [H] from [H], 'to cut,' 'to decide;' so Jast. Cf. however B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 671, n. 10.]
18. Deut. XXII, 1. [H]; the doubling of the verb — the usual idiom for emphasis — intimates that one is bound to return the same article many times, if necessary.
19. Any three people constitute a Beth din, and the finder may stipulate before them that if he returns the article he shall be paid for lost time according to what he himself could earn; then he can claim his loss in full.
20. And he is not bound to return the article at all and involve himself in loss.
21. The article mentioned in the previous Mishnahs were all examples of lost property; why then state here 'WHAT IS LOST PROPERTY? as though the previous ones were not?
22. I.e., how may one recognise whether a particular article is lost or intentionally placed there by its owner?
23. Can one say that no matter how long an animal is seen grazing by the way it was intentionally placed there?
24. But if there longer, it must be assumed lost.

there shall be no poor among you:¹  [this teaches,] thine takes precedence over all others!²  — Hence [it is needed] in respect of an old man for whom it is undignified [to return the lost article].

Rabbah said: If he [the old man] smote it [the lost animal], he is [henceforth] under an obligation in respect thereof.³  Abaye was sitting before Rabbah when he saw some [lost] goats standing. whereupon he took a clod and threw it at them. Said he [Rabbah] to him, 'You have thereby become bound in respect of them. Arise and return them.'

The scholars propounded: What if it is dignified for one to return [a lost animal] in the field, but not in town? Do we say, a complete return is required, and since it is undignified for him to return it in town, he has no obligation at all; or perhaps, in the field at least he is bound to return it, and since he incurs the obligation in the field, he is likewise obligated in town?⁴  The question stands.

Raba said: Where one would lead back his own, he must lead back his neighbour's too. And where one would unload and load his own, he must do so for his neighbour's.⁵

R. Ishmael son of R. Jose was walking on a road when he met a man carrying a load of faggots. The latter put them down, rested, and then said to him, 'Help me to take them up.' 'What is it worth?' he enquired. 'Half a zuz,' was the answer. So he gave him the half zuz and declared it hefker.⁶  Thereupon he [the carrier] re-acquired it.⁷  He gave him another half zuz and again declared it hefker. Seeing that he was again about to re-acquire it, he said to him, 'I have declared it hefker for all but you.' But is it then hefker in that case? Have we not learnt: Beth Shammai maintain, hefker for the poor [only] is valid hefker; whilst Beth Hillel rule, It is valid only if declared hefker for the poor and the rich, as the year of release.⁸  — But R. Ishmael son of R. Jose did in fact render it hefker for all; and he stopped the other [from taking possession again] by mere words. Yet was not R. Ishmael son of R. Jose an elder for whom it was undignified [to help one to take up a load]?⁹  — He acted beyond the requirements of the law. For R. Joseph learnt: And thou shalt shew them¹⁰  — this refers to their house of life;¹¹  the way — that means the practice of loving deeds;¹²  they must walk — to sick visiting; therein — to burial;¹³  and the work — to strict law; that they shall do — to [acts] beyond the requirements of the law.¹⁴

The Master said: 'they must walk — this refers to sick visiting.' But that is the practice of loving deeds! — That is necessary only in respect of one's affinity.¹⁵  For a Master said: A man's affinity takes away a sixtieth of his illness: yet even so, he must visit him 'Therein to burial.' But that [too] is identical with the practice of loving deeds? — That is necessary only in respect of an old man for whom it is undignified.¹⁶  'That they shall do — this means [acts] beyond the requirements of the law.' For R. Johanan said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because they gave judgments therein in accordance with Biblical law. Were they then to have judged in accordance with untrained arbitrators?¹⁷  — But say thus: because they based their judgments [strictly] upon Biblical law, and did not go beyond the requirements of the law.

MISHNAH. WHAT IS LOST PROPERTY? IF ONE FINDS AN ASS OR A COW FEEDING BY THE WAY, THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED A LOST PROPERTY; [BUT IF HE FINDS] AN ASS WITH ITS TRAPPINGS OVERTURNED, OR A COW RUNNING AMONG THE VINEYARDS, THEY ARE CONSIDERED LOST. IF HE RETURNED IT AND IT RAN AWAY, RETURNED IT AND IT RAN AWAY, EVEN FOUR OR FIVE TIMES, HE IS STILL BOUND TO RESTORE IT, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT SURELY RESTORE THEM.¹⁸  IF HIS LOST TIME IS WORTH S SELA', HE MUST NOT DEMAND, GIVE ME A SELA',' BUT IS PAID AS A LABOURER. IF A BETH DIN IS PRESENT, HE MAY STIPULATE IN THEIR PRESENCE;¹⁹  BUT IF THERE IS NO BETH DIN BEFORE WHOM TO STIPULATE, HIS OWN TAKES PRECEDENCE.²⁰

GEMARA. And all these that were mentioned already — are they then not lost property?²¹  — Said Rab Judah: It means this: What is the general principle of lost property for which one is responsible?²²  IF ONE FINDS AN ASS OR A COW FEEDING BY THE WAY, THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED LOST PROPERTY, and he bears no responsibility toward it: [BUT IF HE FINDS] AN ASS WITH ITS TRAPPINGS OVERTURNED, OR A COW RUNNING AMONG THE VINEYARDS, THEY ARE CONSIDERED LOST, and he is bound [to return it]. And for ever?²³  — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: Up to three days.²⁴  How so? If [he sees it] at night, even a single hour [shews that it is lost]; if by day, even if it is there longer, it is still [not proof it is lost]! — This arises only if it was seen either before daybreak or at twilight; now, for three days we assume that it is mere chance that it went forth [at these unusual hours]; but if more, it is certainly lost.

It has been taught likewise: If one finds a garment or a spade

1. Deut, XV, 4.
2. Regarding the verse as an exhortation against bringing oneself to poverty.
3. To return it. By smiting it to make it go in a certain direction he commences the work of returning it, and therefore must complete it.
4. On the principle of the preceding dictum.
5. V. Deut. XXII, 4, which is interpreted as meaning that one must help his neighbour to load or unload his animals. Here too he is exempt if it is inconsistent with his dignity, and Raba observes that the test is whether he would do this for his own.
6. 'Ownerless.'
7. And again asked R. Ishmael to help him.
8. Pe'ah VI, 1; 'Ed. IV. 3. Produce acquired from hefker was exempt from tithes. If, however, it was only partially declared hefker i.e., for the poor alone, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel dispute whether that is valid. Since in all cases of dispute between these two academies the halachah was according to Beth Hillel, we see that partial hefker is invalid; hence R. Ishmael's declaration was illegal. — The seventh year was called the year of release (shemittah), and its crops were free to all; v. Lev. XXV, 1-7.
9. Why then pay him off?
10. Ex. XVIII, 20.
11. Rashi: i.e., industry and trade, the means of a livelihood. In B.K. 100a Rashi refers it to study, the life of the Jew.
12. This is the literal translation of the phrase, gemiluth hasadim. It is sometimes translated, 'the practice of charity,' but that is inexact. Every act of kindness is regarded as done out of one's love for his fellow beings. [V. Abrahams, I., C.P.B. p. XIII. The inner meaning of the phrase is, 'making good.' 'requiting' — a making good to man for goodness of God, and it is connected with tenderness and mercy to all men and all classes; cf. J. Pe'ah IV.]
13. To give burial to the poor who cannot pay for it. Directly arising out of this teaching, the Burial Societies (chevra kaddisha — 'holy society') have always formed an important part of Jewish communal organization.
14. Lit., 'within the line of judgment;' v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 584, n. 2.
15. V. p. 171. n. 1.
16. Yet even he must take part in burial.
17. [ [H] from [H], 'to cut,' 'to decide;' so Jast. Cf. however B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 671, n. 10.]
18. Deut. XXII, 1. ocha, cav; the doubling of the verb — the usual idiom for emphasis — intimates that one is bound to return the same article many times, if necessary.
19. Any three people constitute a Beth din, and the finder may stipulate before them that if he returns the article he shall be paid for lost time according to what he himself could earn; then he can claim his loss in full.
20. And he is not bound to return the article at all and involve himself in loss.
21. The article mentioned in the previous Mishnahs were all examples of lost property; why then state here 'WHAT IS LOST PROPERTY? as though the previous ones were not?
22. I.e., how may one recognise whether a particular article is lost or intentionally placed there by its owner?
23. Can one say that no matter how long an animal is seen grazing by the way it was intentionally placed there?
24. But if there longer, it must be assumed lost.