Bava Metzia 60

לא יהיה בך אביון שלך קודם לשל כל אדם

there shall be no poor among you:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut, XV, 4. ');">¹</span> [this teaches,] thine takes precedence over all others!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the verse as an exhortation against bringing oneself to poverty. ');">²</span> — Hence [it is needed] in respect of an old man for whom it is undignified [to return the lost article].

אלא לזקן ואינו לפי כבודו

Rabbah said: If he [the old man] smote it [the lost animal], he is [henceforth] under an obligation in respect thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">³</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the principle of the preceding dictum. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבה הכישה חייב בה אביי הוה יתיב קמיה דרבה חזא להנך עיזי דקיימו שקל קלא ושדא בהו א"ל איחייבת בהו קום אהדרינהו

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁵</span> 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 <i>zuz</i>,' was the answer. So he gave him the half <i>zuz</i> and declared it hefker.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ownerless.' ');">⁶</span>

איבעיא להו דרכו להחזיר בשדה ואין דרכו להחזיר בעיר מהו מי אמרינן השבה מעליא בעינן וכיון דלאו דרכיה להחזיר בעיר לא לחייב או דלמא בשדה מיהת הוא דאיחייב ליה וכיון דאיחייב ליה בשדה איחייב ליה בעיר תיקו

Thereupon he [the carrier] re-acquired it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And again asked R. Ishmael to help him. ');">⁷</span> He gave him another half <i>zuz</i> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁸</span> — 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]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then pay him off? ');">⁹</span>

אמר רבא כל שבשלו מחזיר בשל חבירו נמי מחזיר וכל שבשלו פורק וטוען בשל חבירו נמי פורק וטוען

— He acted beyond the requirements of the law. For R. Joseph learnt: And thou shalt shew them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XVIII, 20. ');">¹⁰</span> — this refers to their house of life;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹¹</span> the way — that means the practice of loving deeds;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.] ');">¹²</span>

רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי הוה קאזיל באורחא פגע ביה ההוא גברא הוה דרי פתכא דאופי אותבינהו וקא מיתפח א"ל דלי לי אמר ליה כמה שוין א"ל פלגא דזוזא יהיב ליה פלגא דזוזא ואפקרה

they must walk — to sick visiting; therein — to burial;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹³</span> and the work — to strict law; that they shall do — to [acts] beyond the requirements of the law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'within the line of judgment;' v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 584, n. 2. ');">¹⁴</span> The Master said: <i>'they must walk</i> — this refers to sick visiting.' But that is the practice of loving deeds! — That is necessary only in respect of one's affinity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 171. n. 1. ');">¹⁵</span>

הדר זכה בהו הדר יהיב ליה פלגא דזוזא ואפקרה חזייה דהוה קא בעי למיהדר למזכיה בהו א"ל לכולי עלמא אפקרנהו ולך לא אפקרנהו

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yet even he must take part in burial. ');">¹⁶</span> '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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H] from [H], 'to cut,' 'to decide;' so Jast. Cf. however B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 671, n. 10.] ');">¹⁷</span> — But say thus: because they based their judgments [strictly] upon Biblical law, and did not go beyond the requirements of the law.

ומי הוי הפקר כי האי גוונא והתנן בש"א הפקר לעניים הפקר וב"ה אומרים אינו הפקר עד שיהא הפקר לעניים ולעשירים כשמיטה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁸</span> IF HIS LOST TIME IS WORTH S <i>SELA'</i>, HE MUST NOT DEMAND, GIVE ME A <i>SELA'</i>,' BUT IS PAID AS A LABOURER. IF A <i>BETH DIN</i> IS PRESENT, HE MAY STIPULATE IN THEIR PRESENCE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁹</span> BUT IF THERE IS NO <i>BETH DIN</i> BEFORE WHOM TO STIPULATE, HIS OWN TAKES PRECEDENCE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he is not bound to return the article at all and involve himself in loss. ');">²⁰</span>

אלא רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי לכולי עלמא אפקרינהו ובמלתא בעלמא הוא דאוקמיה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. And all these that were mentioned already — are they then not lost property?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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? ');">²¹</span> — Said Rab Judah: It means this: What is the general principle of lost property for which one is responsible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., how may one recognise whether a particular article is lost or intentionally placed there by its owner? ');">²²</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Can one say that no matter how long an animal is seen grazing by the way it was intentionally placed there? ');">²³</span>

והא רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי זקן ואינו לפי כבודו הוה ר' ישמעאל ברבי יוסי לפנים משורת הדין הוא דעבד

— Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: Up to three days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if there longer, it must be assumed lost. ');">²⁴</span> 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

דתני רב יוסף (שמות יח, כ) והודעת להם זה בית חייהם את הדרך זו גמילות חסדים [(אשר) ילכו זה ביקור חולים בה זו קבורה ואת המעשה זה הדין אשר יעשון זו לפנים משורת הדין:

there shall be no poor among you:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut, XV, 4. ');">¹</span> [this teaches,] thine takes precedence over all others!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the verse as an exhortation against bringing oneself to poverty. ');">²</span> — Hence [it is needed] in respect of an old man for whom it is undignified [to return the lost article].

אמר מר (אשר) ילכו זה ביקור חולים היינו גמילות חסדים לא נצרכה אלא לבן גילו דאמר מר בן גילו נוטל אחד מששים בחליו ואפי' הכי מבעי ליה למיזל לגביה

Rabbah said: If he [the old man] smote it [the lost animal], he is [henceforth] under an obligation in respect thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">³</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the principle of the preceding dictum. ');">⁴</span>

בה זו קבורה היינו גמילות חסדים לא נצרכה אלא לזקן ואינו לפי כבודו

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁵</span> 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 <i>zuz</i>,' was the answer. So he gave him the half <i>zuz</i> and declared it hefker.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ownerless.' ');">⁶</span>

אשר יעשון זו לפנים משורת הדין דאמר ר' יוחנן לא חרבה ירושלים אלא על שדנו בה דין תורה אלא דיני דמגיזתא לדיינו אלא אימא שהעמידו דיניהם על דין תורה ולא עבדו לפנים משורת הדין:

Thereupon he [the carrier] re-acquired it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And again asked R. Ishmael to help him. ');">⁷</span> He gave him another half <i>zuz</i> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁸</span> — 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]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then pay him off? ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אי זו היא אבידה מצא חמור או פרה רועין בדרך אין זו אבידה חמור וכליו הפוכין פרה רצה בין הכרמים הרי זו אבידה החזירה וברחה החזירה וברחה אפי' ארבעה וחמשה פעמים חייב להחזירה שנאמר (דברים כב, א) השב תשיבם

— He acted beyond the requirements of the law. For R. Joseph learnt: And thou shalt shew them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XVIII, 20. ');">¹⁰</span> — this refers to their house of life;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹¹</span> the way — that means the practice of loving deeds;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.] ');">¹²</span>

היה בטל מסלע לא יאמר לו תן לי סלע אלא נותן לו שכרו כפועל אם יש שם בית דין מתנה בפני ב"ד אם אין שם ב"ד בפני מי יתנה שלו קודם:

they must walk — to sick visiting; therein — to burial;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹³</span> and the work — to strict law; that they shall do — to [acts] beyond the requirements of the law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'within the line of judgment;' v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 584, n. 2. ');">¹⁴</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 171. n. 1. ');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אטו כל הני דאמרינן לאו אבידה הוו אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר אי זו היא כלל אבידה שהוא חייב בה מצא חמור ופרה רועין בדרך אין זו אבידה ולא מיחייב בה חמור וכליו הפוכים פרה ורצה בין הכרמים הרי זו אבידה ומיחייב בה

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yet even he must take part in burial. ');">¹⁶</span> '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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H] from [H], 'to cut,' 'to decide;' so Jast. Cf. however B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 671, n. 10.] ');">¹⁷</span> — But say thus: because they based their judgments [strictly] upon Biblical law, and did not go beyond the requirements of the law.

ולעולם אמר רב יהודה אמר רב עד שלשה ימים היכי דמי אי בלילותא אפי' חדא שעתא נמי אי ביממא אפי' טובא נמי לא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁸</span> IF HIS LOST TIME IS WORTH S <i>SELA'</i>, HE MUST NOT DEMAND, GIVE ME A <i>SELA'</i>,' BUT IS PAID AS A LABOURER. IF A <i>BETH DIN</i> IS PRESENT, HE MAY STIPULATE IN THEIR PRESENCE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁹</span> BUT IF THERE IS NO <i>BETH DIN</i> BEFORE WHOM TO STIPULATE, HIS OWN TAKES PRECEDENCE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he is not bound to return the article at all and involve himself in loss. ');">²⁰</span>

לא צריכא דהוה חזי לה בקדמתא ובחשכתא תלתא יומי אמרינן איתרמויי אתרמי לה ונפקא טפי ודאי אבידה היא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. And all these that were mentioned already — are they then not lost property?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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? ');">²¹</span> — Said Rab Judah: It means this: What is the general principle of lost property for which one is responsible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., how may one recognise whether a particular article is lost or intentionally placed there by its owner? ');">²²</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Can one say that no matter how long an animal is seen grazing by the way it was intentionally placed there? ');">²³</span>

תניא נמי הכי מצא טלית וקרדום

— Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: Up to three days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if there longer, it must be assumed lost. ');">²⁴</span> 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