Bava Metzia 59

בתורי דנפיש פסידייהו:

to [workers with] oxen, who can cause much loss.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either by failing to plough up the land properly, so that the subsequent crop is a poor one (Tosaf.), or through carelessly driving the ox carts over the crops when engaged in reaping or vintaging, and so causing damage both to oxen and plants (Rashi). ');">¹</span>

שוטחה לצורכה אבל לא לכבודו וכו': איבעיא להו לצורכו ולצורכה מאי

AND SPREAD IT OUT FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT, BUT NOT FOR HIS HONOUR. The scholars propounded: What if it is for their mutual benefit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for its purpose and for his purpose?' ');">²</span>

ת"ש שוטחה לצורכה לצורכה אין הא לצורכו ולצורכה לא אימא סיפא אבל לא לכבודו לכבודו הוא דלא הא לצורכה ולצורכו שפיר דמי אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה

— Come and hear: HE MAY SPREAD IT FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT; this proves, only for its own benefit, but not for their mutual benefit! — Then consider the second clause: BUT NOT FOR HIS HONOUR; thus, it is forbidden only for his own honour, but permitted for their mutual benefit! Hence no inference can be drawn from this.

ת"ש לא ישטחנה לא על גבי מטה ולא על גבי מגוד לצרכו אבל ישטחנה על גבי מטה ועל גבי מגוד לצרכה נזדמנו לו אורחים לא ישטחנה לא על גבי מטה ולא על גבי מגוד בין לצורכו בין לצורכה

Come and hear: He may not spread it [a lost article] upon a couch or a frame for his needs, but may do so in its own interests. If he was visited by guests, he may not spread it over a bed or a frame, whether in his interests or in its own!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pes. 26b. Thus proving that he may not use it for their mutual benefit. ');">³</span>

שאני התם דמקלא קלי לה אי משום עינא אי משום גנבי

— There it is different, because he may thereby destroy it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'burn it.' ');">⁴</span>

תא שמע הכניסה לרבקה ודשה כשירה בשביל שתינק ותדוש פסולה והא הכא דלצורכו ולצורכה הוא וקתני פסולה

either through an [evil] eye or through thieves.

שאני התם דאמר קרא (דברים כא, ג) אשר לא עובד בה מ"מ

Come and hear: If he took it [the heifer] into the team<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of three or four cows used for threshing; his purpose was that it should suck. ');">⁵</span>

אי הכי אפילו רישא נמי

and it [accidentally] did some threshing, it is fit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be used to make atonement for a murder by an unknown person. V. Deut. XXI, 1-9. The heifer had to be one 'which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke' (v. 3). Though this heifer had done some threshing, it remains fit, because it had been taken into the team to feed, not to thresh. ');">⁶</span>

הא לא דמיא אלא להא דתנן שכן עליה עוף כשירה עלה עליה זכר פסולה מאי טעמא

[but if it was] in order that it should suck and thresh, it is unfit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pes. 26b. ');">⁷</span>

כדרב פפא דאמר רב פפא אי כתיב עובד וקרינן עובד הוה אמינא אפילו ממילא ואי כתיב עבד וקרינן עבד הוה אמינא עד דעבד בה איהו

But here it is for their mutual benefit, and yet it is taught that it is unfit! — There it is different, because Scripture wrote, which hath not beets wrought with — under any condition. If so, the same should apply to the first clause too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though not intending that it should thresh, it nevertheless ought to become disqualified. ');">⁸</span>

השתא דכתיב עבד וקרינן עובד בעינן עובד דומיא דעבד מה עבד דניחא ליה אף עובד דניחא ליה:

This [then] can only be compared to what we learnt: If a bird rested upon it [the red heifer] — it remains fit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is not disqualified on the score that it has been put to some use. ');">⁹</span>

כלי כסף וכלי נחושת משתמש בהן וכו': ת"ר המוצא כלי עץ משתמש בהן בשביל שלא ירקבו כלי נחושת משתמש בהן בחמין אבל לא על ידי האור מפני שמשחיקן כלי כסף משתמש בהן בצונן אבל לא בחמין מפני שמשחירן מגריפות וקרדומות משתמש בהן ברך אבל לא בקשה מפני שמפחיתן כלי זהב וכלי זכוכית לא יגע בהן עד שיבא אליהו

but if it copulated with a male, it becomes unfit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Parah II, 4. ');">¹⁰</span>

כדרך שאמרו באבידה כך אמרו בפקדון פקדון מאי עבידתיה גביה אמר רב אדא בר חמא אמר רב ששת בפקדון שהלכו בעליהן למדינת הים:

Why so? — In accordance with R. Papa's dictum. For R. papa said: Had Scripture written 'ubad,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] passive. 'was wrought with.' ');">¹¹</span>

מצא שק או קופה [וכל דבר] שאין דרכו ליטול הרי זה לא יטול: מנהני מילי דת"ר (דברים כב, א) והתעלמת פעמים שאתה מתעלם ופעמים שאי אתה מתעלם

and we read it 'ubad, I would have said [that the law holds good] even if it were of itself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if it 'was wrought with' entirely without its owners volition. ');">¹²</span>

הא כיצד היה כהן והיא בבית הקברות או שהיה זקן ואינה לפי כבודו או שהיתה מלאכה שלו מרובה משל חבירו לכך נאמר והתעלמת מהם

whilst if it were written 'abad,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] active, 'with which he (the owner) had not wrought.' ');">¹³</span>

למאי איצטריך קרא אילימא לכהן והיא בבית הקברות פשיטא האי עשה והאי לא תעשה ועשה ולא אתי עשה ודחי את לא תעשה ועשה ותו לא דחינן איסורא מקמי ממונא

and we read it 'abad, I would have said, [it becomes unfit] only if he himself wrought with it. Since, however, it is written 'abad [active], whilst read 'ubad [passive],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ = M.T. [H] The form is thus taken as passive Kal not Pu'al, v. Ges. K. § 52e.] ');">¹⁴</span>

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