Bava Metzia 61

באסרטיא ופרה רצה בין הכרמים הרי זו אבידה טלית בצד גדר קרדום בצד גדר ופרה רועה בין הכרמים אין זו אבידה ג' ימים זה אחר זה הרי זו אבידה ראה מים ששוטפין ובאין הרי זה גודר בפניהם

on a road, or a cow running among the vineyards it is lost property. [But if he finds] a garment at the side of a wall, or a spade at the side of a wall, or a cow grazing among the vineyards, it is not considered lost; yet [if he sees it] three consecutive days, it is lost. If one sees water overflowing [its banks] and proceeding [onwards], he must put up a wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., any obstacle to hinder its progress. ');">¹</span>

אמר רבא (דברים כב, ג) לכל אבידת אחיך לרבות אבידת קרקע א"ל רב חנניה לרבא תניא דמסייע לך ראה מים ששוטפין ובאין הרי זה גודר בפניהם

before it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That too falls within the category of restoring lost property — i.e., one must take the necessary steps to prevent loss. ');">²</span>

א"ל אי משום הא לא תסייעי הכא במאי עסקינן בדאיכא עומרין אי דאיכא עומרין מאי למימרא לא צריכא דאית בה עומרין דצריכי לארעא מהו דתימא כיון דצריכי לארעא כי גופה דארעא דמיין קמ"ל:

Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M. 'Rabbah.'] ');">³</span>

מצא חמור ופרה [וכו']: הא גופה קשיא אמרת מצא חמור ופרה רועין בדרך אין זו אבידה רועין בדרך הוא דלא הוו אבידה הא רצה בדרך ורועה בין הכרמים הויא אבידה אימא סיפא חמור וכליו הפוכים ופרה רצה בין הכרמים הרי זו אבידה רצה בין הכרמים הוא דהויא אבידה הא רצה בדרך ורועה בין הכרמים אין זו אבידה

said: [And so shalt thou do] with all lost things of thy brother's:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid, 3, ');">⁴</span>

אמר אביי (איוב לו, לג) יגיד עליו ריעו תנא רועה בדרך דלא הויא אבידה והוא הדין לרועה בין הכרמים תנא רצה בין הכרמים דהויא אבידה והוא הדין לרצה בדרך

this is to include the loss of real estate. R. Hananiah observed to Raba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M.: 'Rabbah,' cf. supra 6b.] ');">⁵</span>

א"ל רבא אי יגיד עליו ריעו ליתני קילתא וכ"ש חמירתא ליתני רצה בדרך דהויא אבידה וכ"ש רצה בין הכרמים ולתני רועה בין הכרמים דלא הויא אבידה וכ"ש רועה בדרך

It has been taught in support of you: If one sees water overflowing [its banks] and proceeding [onwards], he must put up a wall before it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He assumed that its purpose was that the soil should not become waterlogged. ');">⁶</span>

אלא אמר רבא רצה ארצה לא קשיא הא דאפה לגבי דברא הא דאפה לגבי מתא

As for that, he replied, it does not support [me]: What are the circumstances here? When there are sheaves [on the field].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence they must be saved, but it is possible, as far as the Baraitha is concerned, that one is not bound to save land. ');">⁷</span>

רועה ארועה נמי לא קשיא כאן באבידת גופה כאן באבידת קרקע

But if it contains sheaves, why state it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is then obvious. ');">⁸</span>

כי קתני רועה בדרך לא הויא אבידה הא רועה בין הכרמים הויא אבידה באבידת קרקע וכי קתני רצה בין הכרמים הויא אבידה הא רועה בין הכרמים לא הויא אבידה באבידת גופה דרצה בין הכרמים מסקבא ורועה בין הכרמים לא מסקבא

— It is necessary [to state it only] when it contains sheaves which [still] need the soil. I might think, since they need the soil, they are as the soil itself:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore, on the hypothesis stated in n. 9, do not need saving. ');">⁹</span>

ורועה בין הכרמים נהי דלא מסקבא תיפוק ליה משום אבידת קרקע בדכותי

therefore we are informed [otherwise].

ותיפוק ליה משום אבידת גופה דדלמא קטלו לה באתרא דמתרו והדר קטלי ודלמא אתרו בה אי אתרו בה ולא אזדהרו בה ודאי אבידה מדעת היא:

IF ONE FINDS AN ASS OR A COW, etc. This is self-contradictory. You say. IF ONE FINDS AN ASS OR A COW FEEDING BY THE WAY, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED LOST PROPERTY: hence, only when feeding by the way are they not [regarded as] lost; but if running on a road, or feeding among the vineyards, they are considered lost! Then consider the second clause: [BUT IF HE FINDS] AN ASS WITH ITS TRAPPINGS OVERTURNED, OR A COW RUNNING AMONG THE VINEYARDS, THEY ARE CONSIDERED LOST; hence, only if running among the vineyards are they lost; but if running on the road, or feeding among the vineyards. they are not lost! — Said Abaye: His companion telleth it concerning him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XXXVI, 33; (E.V.: the noise thereof sheweth concerning it), i.e., each clause illumines the other. ');">¹⁰</span>

החזירה וברחה החזירה וברחה [וכו']: א"ל ההוא מדרבנן לרבא אימא השב חדא זמנא תשיבם תרי זמני

he [the Tanna] mentions feeding by the way, that it is not a lost animal, and the same applies to [a cow] feeding among the vineyards. He states that if running among the vineyards, it is lost, and the same holds good if it was running on the road. Raba said to him, if 'his companion telleth it of him,' let the lighter aspects be taught, from which the graver ones would follow <i>a fortiori</i>. [Thus:] Let him [the Tanna] teach that if it was running on the road it is considered lost; how much more so if running among the vineyards! And let him teach that when feeding among the vineyards it is not considered lost; how much more so when feeding by the way! — But. said Raba, the two statements on 'running'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the explicit ruling in the second clause, and the implicit ruling in the first. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ל השב אפי' ק' פעמים משמע תשיבם אין לי אלא לביתו לגינתו ולחורבתו מנין ת"ל תשיבם מ"מ ה"ד אי דמינטרא פשיטא אי דלא מינטרא אמאי

are not contradictory: in the one case its face is towards the field; in the other, towards the town.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If running on the road townwards, it must have been set in that direction, and is therefore not lost. If running forestwards, it is lost. ');">¹²</span>

לעולם דמינטרא והא קמ"ל דלא בעינן דעת בעלים וכדר' אלעזר דאמר הכל צריכין דעת בעלים חוץ מהשבת אבידה שהתורה ריבתה השבות הרבה

The two statements on 'feeding' are likewise not contradictory: the one treats of the loss of itself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of the animal. ');">¹³</span>

(דברים כב, ז) שלח תשלח אימא שלח חדא זימנא תשלח תרי זמני

the other of the loss of the soil. [Thus:] when he [the Tanna] teaches that if it is FEEDING BY THE WAY. THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED LOST PROPERTY, implying that if it is feeding among the vineyards there is a loss, the reference is to the loss of the soil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an animal feeding in vineyards causes damage. and therefore must be expelled. — Abedah ([H]) means both a lost article and a loss. ');">¹⁴</span>

א"ל שלח אפי' מאה פעמים משמע תשלח אין לי אלא לדבר הרשות לדבר מצוה מנין ת"ל תשלח מ"מ

And when he teaches that if it is running among the vineyards there is a case of loss, implying that if it is feeding among the vineyard there is none, the reference is to the loss of itself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of the animal. ');">¹³</span>

א"ל ההוא מדרבנן לרבא ואימא (ויקרא יט, יז) הוכח חדא זימנא תוכיח תרי זמני

for when running among the vineyard it becomes lacerated, but not when feeding among the vineyards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus on Raba's interpretation the Mishnah does not give a definition of what animal is to be regarded as lost, but treats of losses which the onlooker must prevent. ');">¹⁵</span>

א"ל הוכח אפי' ק' פעמים משמע תוכיח אין לי אלא הרב לתלמיד תלמיד לרב מנין ת"ל הוכח תוכיח מ"מ

Now, if it is feeding among the vineyards, granted that it does not become lacerated, yet it should be necessary [to expel it] on account of the loss of the soil! — This refers to a heathen's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 149. n. 6. ');">¹⁶</span>

(שמות כג, ה) עזב תעזוב עמו אין לי אלא בעליו עמו שאין בעליו עמו מנין ת"ל עזב תעזוב מ"מ

[vineyard]. Yet should it be necessary [to drive it out] on account of its own loss, lest they [the heathens] kill it? — This refers to a place where a warning is first given,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the owners, that the animal is trespassing. ');">¹⁷</span>

(דברים כב, ד) הקם תקים עמו אין לי אלא בעליו עמו שאין בעליו עמו מנין ת"ל הקם תקים מ"מ

and only then is it slain. But perhaps a warning has already been given on its account? — If they gave warning, and care was not taken thereof [to prevent it from trespassing], it certainly ranks as a self-inflicted loss.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner is himself responsible for his loss. ');">¹⁸</span>

ולמה ליה למכתב פריקה ולמה ליה למיכתב טעינה צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא פריקה הוה אמינא משום דאיכא צער בעלי חיים ואיכא חסרון כיס אבל טעינה דלאו צער בעלי חיים איכא ולא חסרון כיס איכא אימא לא

IF HE RETURNED IT AND IT RAN AWAY, RETURNED IT AND IT RAN AWAY, etc. One of the Rabbis said to Raba, Perhaps 'hasheb'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inf. of the verb, meaning 'to restore.' ');">¹⁹</span>

ואי אשמעינן טעינה משום דבשכר אבל פריקה דבחנם אימא לא צריכא

indicates once; 'teshibem'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Thou shalt restore then.' ');">²⁰</span>

ולר"ש דאמר אף טעינה בחנם מאי איכא למימר לר"ש לא מסיימי קראי

denotes twice? — He replied. 'hasheb' implies even a hundred times. As for 'teshibem', I know only [that he must return them] to his [the owner's] house; how do I know [that he can return them to] his garden or his ruins? Therefore Scripture writes, 'teshibem', implying, in all circumstances. How so? If they [the garden or ruins] are guarded, is it not obvious? Whilst if not, why [can one return them thither]? — In truth, it means that they are guarded, but we are informed this, viz., that the owner's knowledge is not required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When lost property is returned, it is unnecessary to inform the owner. ');">²¹</span>

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>