Bava Metzia 64

מדברי שניהם נלמד צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא ואפי' ר"ש לא קאמר אלא משום דלא מסיימי קראי אבל מסיימי קראי דרשי' ק"ו משום מאי לאו משום צער בעלי חיים דרשינן

From the arguments of both we may infer that [relieving] the suffering of an animal is a Biblical law. For even R. Simeon said [this]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That unloading needs be explicitly commanded, besides loading. ');">¹</span>

דלמא משום דאיכא חסרון כיס וה"ק ומה טעינה דלית בה חסרון כיס חייב פריקה דאית בה חסרון כיס לא כ"ש

only because the verses are not clearly defined. But if they were, we would infer a <i>minori</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one is bound to unload, as above, and the verse would be unnecessary. ');">²</span>

וטעינה אין בה חסרון כיס מי לא עסקינן דאדהכי והכי בטיל משוקיה אי נמי אתו גנבי ושקלי כל מה דאיכא בהדיה

On what grounds: Surely we infer it on the grounds of the suffering of dumb animals?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one is bound to load, though no suffering is entailed, etc., as on 32a. ');">³</span>

תדע דצער בעלי חיים דאורייתא דקתני סיפא ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר אם היה עליו יתר [על] משאו אין זקוק לו שנאמר (שמות כג, ה) תחת משאו משאוי שיכול לעמוד בו לאו מכלל דת"ק סבר זקוק לו מאי טעמא לאו משום דצער בעלי חיים דאורייתא

— [No.] Perhaps it is because financial loss is involved, and the argument runs thus: If one is obliged to load, though no financial loss is involved; how much more so to unload, seeing that financial loss is involved. But is there no financial loss involved when loading [is required]: may not the circumstances be that in the meanwhile he loses the market, or that thieves can come and rob him of all he has!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the argument must be based on the suffering of the animal, which proves that such suffering must be averted by Biblical law. ');">⁴</span>

דלמא בתחת משאו פליגי דרבי יוסי סבר דרשינן תחת משאו משאוי שיכול לעמוד בו ורבנן סברי לא דרשינן תחת משאו

Now, the proof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thou mayest know.' ');">⁵</span>

תדע דצער בעלי חיים לאו דאורייתא דקתני רישא הלך וישב לו ואמר לו הואיל ועליך מצוה לפרוק פרוק פטור שנאמר עמו ואי סלקא דעתך צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא מה לי איתיה למריה בהדיה ומה לי כי ליתיה למריה בהדיה

that [relieving] the suffering of an animal is Biblically enjoined is that the second clause states: R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAID: IF IT [THE ANIMAL] BORE MORE THAN ITS PROPER BURDEN, HE [THE PASSER-BY] HAS NO OBLIGATION TOWARDS HIM [THE OWNER], BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN, [IF THOU SEE THE ASS OF HIM THAT HATETH THEE LYING] UNDER ITS BURDEN, WHICH MEANS, A BURDEN UNDER WHICH IT CAN STAND: hence it follows that in the view of the first Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon included. ');">⁶</span>

לעולם צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא מי סברת פטור פטור לגמרי ודלמא פטור בחנם וחייב בשכר וה"ק רחמנא כי איתיה למריה בהדיה עבד גביה בחנם וכי ליתיה למריה בהדיה עבד גביה בשכר ולעולם צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא

he is obligated towards him [to help him]. Why so? Surely because relieving the suffering of an animal is Biblically enjoined!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that the first Tanna admits the feasibility of R. Jose's interpretation of 'its burden,' consequently the only possible reason of the first Tanna is that relieving the suffering of an animal is a Biblical law, ');">⁷</span>

(סימ"ן בהמ"ת בהמ"ת אוה"ב שונ"א רבצ"ן)

— [No] Perhaps they differ as to [the connotation of] 'under its burden,' R. Jose maintaining that we interpret 'under its burden,' a burden under which it can stand; whilst the Rabbis hold that we do not interpret 'under its burden' [thus.] [Moreover,] it may be proved that relieving the suffering of an animal is no Biblical [injunction], because the first clause states, IF HE [THE OWNER OF THE ANIMAL] WENT, SAT DOWN, AND SAID [TO THE PASSERBY], SINCE THE OBLIGATION RESTS UPON YOU TO UNLOAD, UNLOAD: HE [THE PASSER-BY] IS EXEMPT, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, 'WITH HIM'. Now, should you think that [relieving] the suffering of an animal is a Biblical injunction, what difference does it make<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is it to me?' ');">⁸</span>

לימא מסייע ליה בהמת עובד כוכבים מטפל בה כבהמת ישראל אי אמרת בשלמא צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא משום הכי מטפל בה כבהמת ישראל אלא אי אמרת צער בעלי חיים לאו דאורייתא אמאי מטפל בה כבהמת ישראל התם משום איבה

whether the owner joins him [in relieving the animal] or not? — In truth, [relieving] the suffering of an animal is Biblically enjoined; for do you think that 'EXEMPT' means entirely exempt? Perhaps he is exempt [from doing it] without payment, yet he is bound [to unload] for payment, Scripture ordering thus: When the owner joins him, he must serve him for nought; when the owner abstains, he must serve him for payment;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he must relieve the animal, but is entitled to demand payment. ');">⁹</span>

הכי נמי מסתברא דקתני אם היתה טעונה יין אסור אין זקוק לה אי אמרת בשלמא לאו דאורייתא משום הכי אין זקוק לה אלא אי אמרת דאורייתא אמאי אין זקוק לה ה"ק ולהטעינה יין אסור אין זקוק לה

yet after all [relieving] the suffering of an animal is Biblically enjoined.

תא שמע בהמת עובד כוכבים ומשאוי ישראל וחדלת ואי אמרת צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא אמאי וחדלת עזב תעזב מבעי ליה לעולם צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא התם בטעינה

(Mnemonic: <i>Animal, animal, Friend, enemy, habitually lying down</i>.) Shall we say that the following supports him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba. ');">¹⁰</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא בהמת ישראל ומשאוי עובד כוכבים עזב תעזב ואי בטעינה אמאי עזב תעזב משום צערא דישראל

'One must busy himself with an animal belonging to a heathen just as with one belonging to an Israelite'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To relieve it from its burden. ');">¹¹</span>

אי הכי אפילו רישא נמי רישא בחמר עובד כוכבים סיפא בחמר ישראל מאי פסקת סתמא דמלתא איניש בתר חמריה אזיל

Now, if you say that [relieving] the suffering of an animal is a Biblical injunction, it is well; for that reason he must busy himself therewith as with one belonging to an Israelite. But if you say that [relieving] the suffering of an animal is not Biblically enjoined, why must he busy himself therewith as with an Israelite's animal? — There it is on account of enmity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in order not to arouse the enmity of the heathen. ');">¹²</span>

והא וחדלת ועזב תעזב בפריקה הוא דכתיבי

Logic too supports this. For it states: If it is laden with forbidden wine, he has no obligation towards it. Now if you say that [relieving the suffering of an animal is not Biblically enjoined, it is well: therefore he has no obligation toward it. But if you say it is Biblically enjoined, why has he no obligation toward it? — It means this: but he has no obligation to load it with forbidden wine.

א"ל הא מני רבי יוסי הגלילי היא דאמר צער בעלי חיים לאו דאורייתא

Come and hear: In the case of an animal belonging to a heathen bearing a burden belonging to an Israelite, thou mayest forbear.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to Ex. XXIII, 5: If thou seest the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldst forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him, The Talmud disjoins the two phrases 'and wouldst forbear' (one word in Heb. we-hadalta) and 'thou shalt surely help him,' teaching that sometimes the first applies, i.e., one is permitted to withhold his aid, and sometimes the second, viz., 'thou shalt surely help him.' ');">¹³</span>

ת"ש אוהב לפרוק ושונא לטעון מצוה בשונא כדי לכוף את יצרו ואי סלקא דעתך צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא הא עדיף ליה אפ"ה כדי לכוף את יצרו עדיף

But if you say that [relieving] the suffering of an animal is Biblically enjoined, why mayest thou forbear: surely 'thou shalt surely help with him' is applicable! — After all, [relieving] the suffering of an animal is Biblically [enjoined]: the reference there is to loading. If so, consider the second clause: In the case of an animal belonging to an Israelite and a load belonging to a heathen, 'thou shalt surely help.' But if this treats of loading, why [apply] 'thou shalt surely help him'? — On account of the inconvenience of the Israelite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is forced to stay with the animal until it is laden and able to proceed. ');">¹⁴</span>

ת"ש שונא שאמרו שונא ישראל ולא שונא עובד כוכבים אי אמרת צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא מה לי שונא ישראל ומה לי שונא עובד כוכבים

If so, the same applies in the first clause? — The first clause treats of a heathen driver, the second of an Israelite driver. How can you make a general assumption?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On what grounds can one assume that the first clause treats of a heathen driver etc.? ');">¹⁵</span>

מי סברת אשונא דקרא קאי אשונא דמתניתין קאי

— As a rule, one goes after his ass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, seeing that the first clause refers to an ass belonging to a heathen, the driver too is a heathen — probably the owner; and the same holds good of the second clause. ');">¹⁶</span>

תא שמע

But both 'and thou mayest forbear' and 'thou shalt surely help' refer to unloading! — Well [answer thus:] Who is the authority of this? R. Jose the Galilean, who maintained that [relieving the suffering of an animal is not Biblically [enjoined].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As may be seen from his view in the Mishnah; but Raba's dictum is based on the view of the Rabbis. ');">¹⁷</span> Come and hear: If a friend requires unloading, and an enemy loading.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one meets two asses: one, belonging to a friend, is tottering under its burden, and help is needed to unload it; the other, belonging to an enemy, has fallen, and assistance is wanted to reload it. ');">¹⁸</span> one's [first] obligation is towards his enemy, in order to subdue his evil inclinations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.M. II. ');">¹⁹</span> Now if you should think that [relieving the suffering of an animal is Biblically [enjoined], [surely] the other is preferable! — Even so, [the motive] 'in order to subdue his evil inclination' is more compelling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'better'. ');">²⁰</span> Come and hear: The enemy spoken of is an Israelite enemy, but not a heathen enemy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. ibid. It is now assumed that this refers to Ex. XXIII, 5 ('him that hateth thee' = thine enemy). ');">²¹</span> But if you say that [relieving] the suffering of an animal is Biblically [enjoined], what is the difference whether [the animal belongs to] an Israelite or a heathen enemy? — Do you think that this refers to 'enemy' mentioned in Scripture? It refers to 'enemy' spoken of in the Baraitha.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Quoted above: If a friend requires unloading, and an enemy loading etc. ');">²²</span> Come and hear: