Commentary for Bava Metzia 61:24

למה לי למכתב הני תרתי ולמה לי למכתב ' אבידה צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא הני תרתי משום דצערא דמרה איתא צערא דידה איתא אבל אבידה דצערא דמרה איתא וצערא דידה ליתא אימא לא ואי אשמעינן אבידה משום דליתא למרה בהדה

In accordance with R. Eleazar, who said: All require the owner's knowledge,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A thief, robber, or bailee, when returning the article stolen or left in his charge, must inform the owner; otherwise he remains responsible in the case of mishap. ');">²²</span> excepting in the case of the return of lost property, since Scripture extended the law to many forms of return.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., providing it is returned, it does not matter how. ');">²³</span> [<i>If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young</i>:] But shaleah teshalah [<i>thou shalt surely let go</i>] <i>the dam</i> etc.:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 6, 7: the Heb. lit., 'to let go thou shalt let go'; v. p. 192. n. 5. ');">²⁴</span> let us say that shaleah means once, teshalah twice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if the dam returns after being sent away twice, one may take both it and the young. ');">²⁵</span> — He replied, shaleah implies even a hundred times. As for teshalah: I know [this law] only [when the bird is required] for a permissive purpose;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for food. ');">²⁶</span> how do I know it when it is required for the fulfilment of a precept?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., as a leper's sacrifice (v. Lev. XIV. 4): how do I know that even then the dam must not be taken? ');">²⁷</span> Therefore Scripture writes,'teshalah', implying under all circumstances. One of the Rabbis said to Raba: [<i>Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart</i>:] hokeah tokiah [<i>thou shalt surely rebuke] thy neighbour</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX. 17; cf. n. 1. ');">²⁸</span> Perhaps hokeah means once, tokiah twice? — He replied, hokeah implies even a hundred times. As for tokiah: I know only that the master [must rebuke] the disciple: whence do we know that the disciple [must rebuke] his master? From the phrase. 'hokeah tokiah', implying under all circumstances. [<i>If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under its burden and wouldst forbear to help him,] thou shalt surely<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is expressed in Hebrew by the inf. ');">²⁹</span></i> help with him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII, 5; this is an exhortation to help to unload the animal. ');">³⁰</span> [From this] I know it only if the owner is with it; whence do I know [the law] if its owner is not with it? From the verse, 'thou shalt surely help with him' — in all circumstances. [<i>Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them:] thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII. 4. Cf. n. 1. ');">³¹</span> [From this] I know it only if the owner is with it; whence do I know [this law] if the owner is not with it? From the verse, 'thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again'. Now, why must both unloading and loading be stated? — Both are necessary. For had Scripture mentioned unloading [only], I would have thought, that is because it entails suffering of dumb animals and financial loss;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a result of the depreciation of the animal if it is not unloaded. ');">³²</span> but as for loading, where neither suffering of dumb animals nor financial loss is involved,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra p. 20. ');">³³</span> I might have thought that one need not [help], Whilst had we been informed in respect of loading, [I would have thought, that is] because it is remunerated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the passer-by is bound to help in the loading, he must be paid for his services. ');">³⁴</span> but unloading, which is unremunerated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 32a. ');">³⁵</span> I would have thought one need not [help]. Thus both are required. But on R. Simeon's view that loading too is without remuneration, what can you say? — In R. Simeon's view the verses are not explicit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not clear which refers to unloading and which to loading. Therefore, had there been only one verse, I would have taken it to refer to one or the other, but not to both. ');">³⁶</span> Why need these two be written and also [the return of] the lost [animal]? — They are all needed. For had Scripture written these two [only]. [I would think it was] because they entail the suffering of both the owner and itself [sc. the animal]; but as for a lost [animal], which causes grief to the owner but not to itself, [the law] would not apply.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., there is no need to trouble to return it. ');">³⁷</span> And if we were informed this of a lost animal, [I would think it was] because the owner is not with it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, since it is quite helpless, the passer-by is called upon to render assistance by restoring it. ');">³⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 61:24. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.