Commentary for Bava Metzia 59:17

אלא לשלו מרובה משל חבירו מדרב יהודה אמר רב נפקא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב (דברים טו, ד) אפס כי

we require that 'it was wrought with' shall be similar to 'he wrought with it';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁵</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁶</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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! ');">¹⁷</span> — 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁸</span> 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's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the value of the time he would lose in returning it exceeded that of the lost animal. ');">¹⁹</span> — therefore it is said, and thou shalt hide thyself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 18b. ');">²⁰</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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). ');">²¹</span> Moreover, a ritual prohibition cannot be abrogated on account of money!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The returning of lost property is after all only a monetary matter. ');">²²</span> 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

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 59:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.