What is a person’s level of responsibility toward the lost item once one picks it up and begins searching for its owner? If it is an animal, the finder needs to feed the animal. But if the animal is not producing enough to cover its cost, the owner can sell the animal and will return the money when they find the owner. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva debate whether this money can be used or needs to be set aside – this then affects their level of responsibility for the money in the event of loss/theft. The Gemara assumes that they both agree the responsibility is dependent upon whether or not they can use the object, meaning in a case where they cannot use the object (like a regular case of a lost item), both agree that the finder is not liable for loss/theft. However, this raises a difficulty with Rav Yosef who ruled that one watching a lost item (the finder, who is not permitted to use the object) is considered like a shomer sachar, who is liable for loss/theft. To resolve this difficulty, one can answer that their debate is regarding oness, unexpected damages, and not loss/theft, and regarding loss/theft all would agree that the finder is responsible. A difficulty is raised against this explanation from the language of the Mishna, but is resolved. There was a case where Rav Yosef tried to rule like Rabbi Tarfon and allow one who was watching money of orphans to use the money, but Abaye challenged his ruling by differentiating between a case of a regular shomer and our case where the finder took care of the animal and then sold it. Details regarding taking care of lost items are discussed – how should the finder take care of the object? What kind of use is permitted, if any? Shmuel rules that one who finds tefillin there is a unique ruling that one is allowed to sell the tefillin and use them – why? A braita compares laws of one who borrows a sefer Torah to one who finds a sefer Torah. The Gemara goes through the different parts of the braita and raises questions and answers them. The Mishna rules that two people cannot read together from a book that was found, but a braita rules that two can, but three cannot. How do they resolve this contradiction? The Mishna rules that if one finds clothing, one must shake it out once every thirty days. However, a statement from Rabbi Yochanan implies that shaking out clothing can ruin it. Several resolutions are suggested.
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Bava Metzia 29
אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. אֲבָל לֹא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, אִם אָבְדוּ – פָּטוּר.
only in a case where the finder used the money. But in a case where the finder did not use the money, everyone agrees that if the money is lost, the finder is exempt from paying restitution for its loss.
לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף? דְּאִתְּמַר: שׁוֹמֵר אֲבֵידָה, רַבָּה אָמַר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this shall be a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Yosef, as it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to the legal status of a bailee charged with safeguarding a lost item. Rabba said: His legal status is like that of an unpaid bailee, who is liable to compensate the owner of the deposited item only in cases of negligence. Rav Yosef said: His legal status is like that of a paid bailee, who is liable to compensate the owner of the deposited item even in cases of theft or loss. When the mishna teaches that if the finder did not use the money everyone agrees that he is exempt from paying restitution for its loss, it apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Yosef.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב יוֹסֵף: בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּחַיָּיב, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּאוּנְסִין דְּשׁוֹאֵל, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן סָבַר: שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ שׁוֹאֵל עֲלַיְיהוּ. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: לָא שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ, הִלְכָּךְ לָא הָוֵי שׁוֹאֵל עֲלַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef could have said to you: In cases of theft or loss, everyone agrees that a bailee charged with safeguarding a lost item is liable to pay restitution for it. When they disagree is in a case of damage caused by circumstances beyond his control, for which it is the obligation of a borrower to pay compensation. The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Tarfon holds: The Sages permitted him to use the money, and he is therefore a borrower with regard to it, and is liable to compensate the owner even in the event of circumstances beyond his control. And Rabbi Akiva holds: The Sages did not permit him to use the money, and he is therefore not a borrower with regard to it.
אִי הָכִי, ״לְפִיכָךְ״ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, לְמָה לִי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה הוּא דִּפְלִיגִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָבְדוּ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן״. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר הָוֵי כִּדְרַב יוֹסֵף, וּבִגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה מְחַיֵּיב, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״לְפִיכָךְ״. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר לָא הָוֵי וְלָא מְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה.
The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need the statement that Rabbi Akiva said: He may not use the money; therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it? Granted, if you say that it is in cases of theft or loss that they disagree, I understand that is the reason that the tanna teaches in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money; therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it. The Gemara explains: Since it enters your mind to say that the legal status of the finder is like that of a paid bailee, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, and that in cases of theft and loss the finder is liable to pay restitution, Rabbi Akiva teaches us: Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution. Now that you said that he may not use the money, he is not a paid bailee and is not liable to pay restitution in cases of theft and loss.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּחַיָּיב, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּאוּנְסִין דְּשׁוֹאֵל, מַאי ״לְפִיכָךְ״ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? הָכִי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמִתְנֵא: ״רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן״, וַאֲנָא יָדַעְנָא דְּכֵיוָן דְּלֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן – לָאו שׁוֹאֵל הָוֵי וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, ״לְפִיכָךְ״ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְמָה לִי?
But if you say that in cases of theft or loss, everyone agrees that a bailee charged with safeguarding a lost item is liable to pay restitution for it, and when they disagree it is in cases of damage caused by circumstances beyond his control for which it is the obligation of a borrower to pay compensation, what is the meaning of the statement of Rabbi Akiva: Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it? Rather, this is what the mishna should have taught: Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money; and I would know that since he may not use the money, he is not considered a borrower, and consequently bears no financial responsibility. Why do I need the statement that Rabbi Akiva said: Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it?
מִשּׁוּם ״לְפִיכָךְ״ דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.
The Gemara answers: The explanation appended to the statement of Rabbi Akiva is indeed extraneous. It was added in order to create a parallel between the formulation of the statement of Rabbi Akiva and the formulation of the statement of Rabbi Tarfon. The phrase: Therefore, if the money is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it, was appended to the statement of Rabbi Akiva due to the explanation: Therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for it, stated by Rabbi Tarfon.
וּלְפִיכָךְ דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן לְמָה לִי? הָכִי קָאָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ כְּמַאן דְּאִישְׁתַּמַּשׁ בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ דָּמֵי וְחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן.
The Gemara asks: And why do I need the statement that Rabbi Tarfon said: Therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for it? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: Since the Sages permitted him to use the money, his legal status is like that of one who actually used it and therefore, he is liable to pay restitution for it.
וְהָא ״אָבְדוּ״ קָתָנֵי!
The Gemara asks: How can Rav Yosef explain that the dispute in the mishna is with regard to damage caused by circumstances beyond his control? But doesn’t the mishna teach: Therefore, if the money is lost? The disagreement between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva is with regard to a case of damage due to loss, and not with regard to a case of damage caused by circumstances beyond one’s control.
כִּדְרַבָּה. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: ״נִגְנְבוּ״ בְּלִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין, ״אָבְדוּ״ שֶׁטָּבְעָה סְפִינָתוֹ בַּיָּם.
The Gemara answers that the statement in the mishna: Therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for it, can be explained in accordance with the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says concerning another mishna (58a): When the tanna says that they were stolen, the reference is to a case where the item was stolen by armed bandits; when he says that they were lost, the reference is to a case where the agent’s ship sank at sea.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן. בְּיַד רַחֲבָה (הֲוָה לֵיהּ) [הֲווֹ] הָנְהוּ זוּזֵי דְיַתְמֵי, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.
Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who said that it is permitted for the finder to use the money. The Gemara relates: There were these dinars that belonged to orphans that were in the possession of Raḥava. Raḥava came before Rav Yosef and said to him: What is the halakha; is it permitted for me to use these dinars? Rav Yosef said to him: This is what Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלָאו אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּדְמֵי אֲבֵידָה הוֹאִיל וְטָרַח בַּהּ, אֲבָל מָעוֹת אֲבֵידָה דְּלָא טָרַח בְּהוּ – לָא. וְהָנֵי כְּמָעוֹת אֲבֵידָה דָּמוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל לָא שְׁבַקוּ לִי דְּאֶשְׁרֵי לָךְ.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Wasn’t it stated concerning this halakha that Rabbi Ḥelbo says that Rav Huna says: The Sages taught this halakha, that it is permitted to use the money, only in a case of money received from the sale of a lost item that one found and that is no longer financially viable for one to tend to it. This is permitted, since he exerted himself and tended to it. But in the case of lost coins, where he did not exert himself in order to tend to them, it is not permitted for him to use them. And the case of these dinars in Raḥava’s possession is similar to a case of lost coins. Rav Yosef accepted Abaye’s objection and said to Raḥava: Go; as they did not allow me to permit the use of the dinars for you.
מַתְנִי׳: מָצָא סְפָרִים – קוֹרֵא בָּהֶן אֶחָד לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת – גּוֹלְלָן. אֲבָל לֹא יִלְמוֹד בָּהֶן בַּתְּחִילָּה, וְלֹא יִקְרָא אַחֵר עִמּוֹ.
MISHNA: If one found scrolls, he reads them once in thirty days in order to ventilate them and prevent mold. And if he does not know how to read, he rolls and unrolls them in order to ventilate them. But he shall not study passages in them for the first time, as he would leave the scroll exposed to the air for a lengthy period, thereby causing damage. And another person shall not read the scroll with him, as each might pull it closer to improve his vantage point, which could cause the scroll to tear.
מָצָא כְּסוּת – מְנַעֲרָהּ אֶחָד לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם וְשׁוֹטְחָהּ לְצׇרְכָּהּ, אֲבָל לֹא לִכְבוֹדוֹ.
If one found a garment, he shakes it once in thirty days, and he spreads it out for its sake, to ventilate it, but he may not use it as a decoration for his own prestige.
כְּלֵי כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי נְחוֹשֶׁת – מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְצׇרְכָּן, אֲבָל לֹא לְשַׁחֲקָן. כְּלֵי זָהָב וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית – לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ.
If one found silver vessels or copper vessels, he may use them for their own sake to prevent tarnish and rust, but he may not use them to the extent that he will erode them. If he finds gold vessels or glass vessels, which are not ruined by neglect, he may not touch them until Elijah will come and identify the owner.
מָצָא שַׂק אוֹ קוּפָּה וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לִיטּוֹל – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִטּוֹל.
If a person found a sack or a basket or any other item that it is not his typical manner to take and carry because it is beneath his dignity, he shall not take it, as one need not demean himself in order to return a lost item.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמּוֹצֵא תְּפִילִּין בַּשּׁוּק – שָׁם דְּמֵיהֶן וּמַנִּיחָן לְאַלְתַּר.
GEMARA: Shmuel says: One who finds phylacteries in the marketplace and is in need of phylacteries assesses their value and immediately places the money aside for the owner.
מֵתִיב רָבִינָא: מָצָא סְפָרִים – קוֹרֵא בָּהֶן אֶחָד לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְאִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת – גּוֹלְלָן. גּוֹלְלָן – אִין, שָׁם דְּמֵיהֶן וּמַנִּיחָן – לָא, אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תְּפִילִּין בֵּי בַּר חָבוּ מִשְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי, סְפָרִים לָא שְׁכִיחִי.
Ravina raises an objection from the mishna: If one found scrolls, he reads them once in thirty days; and if he does not know how to read, he rolls and unrolls them. Ravina infers: To roll and unroll them, yes, he may do so, but assess their value and place the money aside, no, he may not. Abaye said: There is a difference between phylacteries and scrolls. Phylacteries are available at the house of bar Ḥavu, where they are produced in large quantities, but scrolls are not available, as Torah scrolls are not easily obtained.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׁוֹאֵל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶנּוּ לְאַחֵר, פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקוֹרֵא בּוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִלְמוֹד בּוֹ בַּתְּחִילָּה, וְלֹא יִקְרָא אַחֵר עִמּוֹ.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who borrows a Torah scroll from another, that person may not lend it to another, i.e., a third person. He may open it and read it, provided that he does not study passages in it for the first time, lest the scroll be exposed for a lengthy period of time and sustain damage. And another person shall not read the scroll with him, lest the scroll tear.
וְכֵן הַמַּפְקִיד סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ, גּוֹלְלוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקוֹרֵא בּוֹ, אִם בִּשְׁבִילוֹ פְּתָחוֹ – אָסוּר. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: בְּחָדָשׁ – שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, בְּיָשָׁן – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ.
And likewise, in the case of one who deposits a Torah scroll with another, the bailee rolls it every twelve months, and he may open it and read it. If it is for himself that he opened it, it is prohibited. Sumakhos says: In the case of a new Torah scroll, one rolls it every thirty days because the ink is not yet dry and must be more frequently ventilated. By contrast, in the case of an old Torah scroll, one rolls it every twelve months. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In the case of both this new Torah scroll, and the case of that old Torah scroll, one rolls it every twelve months.
אָמַר מָר: הַשּׁוֹאֵל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶנּוּ לְאַחֵר. מַאי אִרְיָא סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה? אֲפִילּוּ כֹּל מִילֵּי נָמֵי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כָּאן שָׁנָה רַבִּי – אֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל, וְאֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר!
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: In the case of one who borrows a Torah scroll from another, that person may not lend it to another, i.e., a third person. The Gemara asks: Why did the tanna teach this halakha specifically with regard to a Torah scroll? This is the halakha with regard to any item as well, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Here in a mishna (Gittin 29a), Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught: A borrower is not allowed to lend the item that he borrowed to someone else, and a renter is not allowed to rent out the item that he rented to someone else.
סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נִיחָא לֵיהּ לְאִינִישׁ דְּתִיעֲבִיד מִצְוָה בְּמָמוֹנֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to mention the halakha specifically with regard to a Torah scroll, lest you say that a person is amenable to having a mitzva performed with his property and would consequently not mind if his Torah scroll was lent to another. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that the borrower may not lend even a Torah scroll.
פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקוֹרֵא בּוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! וְאֶלָּא לְמַאי שַׁיְילֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ? סֵיפָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִלְמוֹד בּוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה.
The baraita continues: He may open it and read it. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? And rather, for what purpose did he borrow the Torah scroll from him, if not to read it? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the last clause: Provided that he does not study passages in it for the first time.
וְכֵן הַמַּפְקִיד סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ – גּוֹלְלוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקוֹרֵא בּוֹ. מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ? וְתוּ, אִם בִּשְׁבִילוֹ פְּתָחוֹ – אָסוּר, הָא אָמְרַתְּ: פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקוֹרֵא בּוֹ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹלְלוֹ פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקוֹרֵא בּוֹ – מוּתָּר, אִם בִּשְׁבִילוֹ פְּתָחוֹ – אָסוּר.
The baraita continues: And likewise, in the case of one who deposits a Torah scroll with another, the bailee rolls it every twelve months, and he may open it and read it. The Gemara asks: What is the bailee doing with it? As a paid bailee, he has no right to read it. And furthermore, whereas the tanna teaches: If it is for himself that he opened it, it is prohibited, didn’t you say in the previous passage: He may open it and read it? The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna is saying: If, when he is rolling the Torah scroll to ventilate it, he opens it and reads it, it is permitted. If it is for himself that he opened it, it is prohibited.
סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: בְּחָדָשׁ – שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, בְּיָשָׁן – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
The baraita continues: Sumakhos says: In the case of a new Torah scroll, one rolls it every thirty days because the ink is not yet dry and must be more frequently ventilated. By contrast, in the case of an old Torah scroll, one rolls it every twelve months. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In both the case of this new Torah scroll and the case of that old Torah scroll, one rolls it every twelve months. The Gemara asks: What is the dispute here; it appears that the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov is identical to the statement of the first tanna, who stated without qualification that one rolls a Torah scroll every twelve months. The Gemara answers: Rather say that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Both in the case of this new Torah scroll and the case of that old Torah scroll, one rolls it every thirty days.
אֲבָל לֹא יִלְמוֹד בּוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא יִקְרָא אַחֵר עִמּוֹ. וּרְמִינְהוּ: לֹא יִקְרָא פָּרָשָׁה וְיִשְׁנֶה, וְלֹא יִקְרָא בּוֹ פָּרָשָׁה וִיתַרְגֵּם, וְלֹא יִפְתַּח בּוֹ יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה דַּפִּין, וְלֹא יִקְרְאוּ בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם בְּכֶרֶךְ אֶחָד – הָא שְׁנַיִם קוֹרִין!
§ The Gemara resumes its analysis of the mishna, which teaches with regard to borrowed scrolls: But he shall not study passages in them for the first time and another person shall not read the scroll with him. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta 2:31): If one borrows a scroll, he shall not read a passage and review it, and he shall not read a passage in it and translate the passage, and he shall not open it more than three columns at a time, and three people shall not read in it together from one volume. The Gemara infers: But two people may read it together, contrary to the ruling in the mishna.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּעִנְיָן אֶחָד, כָּאן בִּשְׁנֵי עִנְיָנִים.
Abaye said: It is not difficult. Here, where it is inferred from the baraita that two may read one scroll together, it is referring to a case where they are reading one matter and each is aware of the progress of the other. There, in the mishna, where the ruling is that two may not read one scroll together, it is referring to a case where they are reading two different matters, as each is oblivious to the progress of the other and may pull the scroll closer to improve his vantage point.
מָצָא כְּסוּת מְנַעֲרָהּ אֶחָד לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם. לְמֵימְרָא דְּנִיעוּר מְעַלֵּי לַהּ? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גַּרְדִּי אוּמָּן בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, יְנַעֵר כְּסוּתוֹ בְּכׇל יוֹם! אָמְרִי: בְּכׇל יוֹם – קָשֵׁי לַהּ, אֶחָד לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם – מְעַלֵּי לַהּ.
§ The mishna teaches: If one found a garment, he shakes it once in thirty days. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that shaking a garment is beneficial for it? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Only one who has access to a skilled weaver [gardi] in his house may shake his garment every day, as the weaver can replace the damaged garments with new ones. The Sages say: Shaking a garment every day is harmful to it, but shaking it once in thirty days is beneficial for it.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּחַד, וְהָא בִּתְרֵי.
If you wish, say instead: It is not difficult. In this mishna, where the ruling is that shaking a garment is beneficial, the reference is to a case where one person shakes the garment. And that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who rules that shaking the garment causes damage, is referring to a case where two people shake the garment.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בִּידָא, וְהָא בְּחוּטְרָא.
If you wish, say instead: It is not difficult. In this mishna, where the ruling is that shaking a garment is beneficial, the reference is to a case where one shakes the garment by hand. And that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who rules that shaking the garment causes damage, is referring to a case where one shakes the garment with a stick.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בִּדְעַמְרָא, הָא בִּדְכִיתָּנָא.
If you wish, say instead: It is not difficult. In this mishna, where the ruling is that shaking a garment is beneficial, the reference is to a case where one shakes a garment made of wool. And that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who rules that shaking the garment causes damage, is referring to a case where one shakes a garment made of linen.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּסָא דְחָרָשִׁין וְלָא כָּסָא דְפוֹשְׁרִין. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת. אֲבָל בִּכְלֵי חֶרֶשׂ – לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וּבִכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא צְוִיץ, אֲבָל דִּצְוִיץ – לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא שְׁדָא בַּהּ צִיבַיָּא, אֲבָל שְׁדָא בֵּיהּ צִיבַיָּא – לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
The Gemara cites additional statements by Rabbi Yoḥanan providing practical advice. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is preferable to drink from a cup of witches and not to drink from a cup of lukewarm water, which is extremely unhealthy. Rabbi Yoḥanan qualifies his statement: We said this only with regard to lukewarm water in metal vessels, but in earthenware vessels we have no problem with it. And even in metal vessels, we said this only in a case where the water had not been boiled, but if the water had been boiled we have no problem with it. And we said that lukewarm water is unhealthy only in a case where one did not cast flavorings into the water, but if he cast flavorings into the water we have no problem with it.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לוֹ אָבִיו מָעוֹת הַרְבֵּה וְרוֹצָה לְאַבְּדָן, יִלְבַּשׁ בִּגְדֵי פִשְׁתָּן, וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית, וְיִשְׂכּוֹר פּוֹעֲלִים וְאַל יֵשֵׁב עִמָּהֶן. יִלְבַּשׁ בִּכְלֵי פִשְׁתָּן – בְּכִיתָּנָא רוֹמִיתָא. וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית – בְּזוּגִּיתָא חִיוָּרְתָּא. וְיִשְׂכּוֹר פּוֹעֲלִים וְאַל יֵשֵׁב עִמָּהֶן – תַּרְגּוּמַאּ
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of one whose father bequeathed him a great deal of money and he seeks to lose it, he should wear linen garments, and should use glass vessels, and should hire laborers and not sit with them to supervise. The Gemara elaborates: He should wear linen garments; this is stated with regard to Roman linen, which becomes tattered quickly. He should use glass vessels; this is stated with regard to expensive white glass. And he should hire laborers and not sit with them; the explanation is
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Bava Metzia 29 – 35 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
How to Clean your House for Pesach & What to do with Lost Objects?- Gefet
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Los Angeles, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
Bava Metzia 29
אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן. אֲבָל לֹא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, אִם אָבְדוּ – פָּטוּר.
only in a case where the finder used the money. But in a case where the finder did not use the money, everyone agrees that if the money is lost, the finder is exempt from paying restitution for its loss.
לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף? דְּאִתְּמַר: שׁוֹמֵר אֲבֵידָה, רַבָּה אָמַר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: כְּשׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this shall be a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Yosef, as it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to the legal status of a bailee charged with safeguarding a lost item. Rabba said: His legal status is like that of an unpaid bailee, who is liable to compensate the owner of the deposited item only in cases of negligence. Rav Yosef said: His legal status is like that of a paid bailee, who is liable to compensate the owner of the deposited item even in cases of theft or loss. When the mishna teaches that if the finder did not use the money everyone agrees that he is exempt from paying restitution for its loss, it apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Yosef.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב יוֹסֵף: בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּחַיָּיב, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּאוּנְסִין דְּשׁוֹאֵל, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן סָבַר: שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ שׁוֹאֵל עֲלַיְיהוּ. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: לָא שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ, הִלְכָּךְ לָא הָוֵי שׁוֹאֵל עֲלַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef could have said to you: In cases of theft or loss, everyone agrees that a bailee charged with safeguarding a lost item is liable to pay restitution for it. When they disagree is in a case of damage caused by circumstances beyond his control, for which it is the obligation of a borrower to pay compensation. The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Tarfon holds: The Sages permitted him to use the money, and he is therefore a borrower with regard to it, and is liable to compensate the owner even in the event of circumstances beyond his control. And Rabbi Akiva holds: The Sages did not permit him to use the money, and he is therefore not a borrower with regard to it.
אִי הָכִי, ״לְפִיכָךְ״ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, לְמָה לִי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה הוּא דִּפְלִיגִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָבְדוּ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן״. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר הָוֵי כִּדְרַב יוֹסֵף, וּבִגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה מְחַיֵּיב, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״לְפִיכָךְ״. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר לָא הָוֵי וְלָא מְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה.
The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need the statement that Rabbi Akiva said: He may not use the money; therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it? Granted, if you say that it is in cases of theft or loss that they disagree, I understand that is the reason that the tanna teaches in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money; therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it. The Gemara explains: Since it enters your mind to say that the legal status of the finder is like that of a paid bailee, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, and that in cases of theft and loss the finder is liable to pay restitution, Rabbi Akiva teaches us: Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution. Now that you said that he may not use the money, he is not a paid bailee and is not liable to pay restitution in cases of theft and loss.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּגְנֵיבָה וַאֲבֵידָה דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּחַיָּיב, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּאוּנְסִין דְּשׁוֹאֵל, מַאי ״לְפִיכָךְ״ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? הָכִי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמִתְנֵא: ״רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן״, וַאֲנָא יָדַעְנָא דְּכֵיוָן דְּלֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן – לָאו שׁוֹאֵל הָוֵי וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, ״לְפִיכָךְ״ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְמָה לִי?
But if you say that in cases of theft or loss, everyone agrees that a bailee charged with safeguarding a lost item is liable to pay restitution for it, and when they disagree it is in cases of damage caused by circumstances beyond his control for which it is the obligation of a borrower to pay compensation, what is the meaning of the statement of Rabbi Akiva: Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it? Rather, this is what the mishna should have taught: Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money; and I would know that since he may not use the money, he is not considered a borrower, and consequently bears no financial responsibility. Why do I need the statement that Rabbi Akiva said: Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it?
מִשּׁוּם ״לְפִיכָךְ״ דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.
The Gemara answers: The explanation appended to the statement of Rabbi Akiva is indeed extraneous. It was added in order to create a parallel between the formulation of the statement of Rabbi Akiva and the formulation of the statement of Rabbi Tarfon. The phrase: Therefore, if the money is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it, was appended to the statement of Rabbi Akiva due to the explanation: Therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for it, stated by Rabbi Tarfon.
וּלְפִיכָךְ דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן לְמָה לִי? הָכִי קָאָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ כְּמַאן דְּאִישְׁתַּמַּשׁ בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ דָּמֵי וְחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן.
The Gemara asks: And why do I need the statement that Rabbi Tarfon said: Therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for it? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: Since the Sages permitted him to use the money, his legal status is like that of one who actually used it and therefore, he is liable to pay restitution for it.
וְהָא ״אָבְדוּ״ קָתָנֵי!
The Gemara asks: How can Rav Yosef explain that the dispute in the mishna is with regard to damage caused by circumstances beyond his control? But doesn’t the mishna teach: Therefore, if the money is lost? The disagreement between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva is with regard to a case of damage due to loss, and not with regard to a case of damage caused by circumstances beyond one’s control.
כִּדְרַבָּה. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: ״נִגְנְבוּ״ בְּלִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין, ״אָבְדוּ״ שֶׁטָּבְעָה סְפִינָתוֹ בַּיָּם.
The Gemara answers that the statement in the mishna: Therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for it, can be explained in accordance with the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says concerning another mishna (58a): When the tanna says that they were stolen, the reference is to a case where the item was stolen by armed bandits; when he says that they were lost, the reference is to a case where the agent’s ship sank at sea.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן. בְּיַד רַחֲבָה (הֲוָה לֵיהּ) [הֲווֹ] הָנְהוּ זוּזֵי דְיַתְמֵי, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.
Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who said that it is permitted for the finder to use the money. The Gemara relates: There were these dinars that belonged to orphans that were in the possession of Raḥava. Raḥava came before Rav Yosef and said to him: What is the halakha; is it permitted for me to use these dinars? Rav Yosef said to him: This is what Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלָאו אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּדְמֵי אֲבֵידָה הוֹאִיל וְטָרַח בַּהּ, אֲבָל מָעוֹת אֲבֵידָה דְּלָא טָרַח בְּהוּ – לָא. וְהָנֵי כְּמָעוֹת אֲבֵידָה דָּמוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל לָא שְׁבַקוּ לִי דְּאֶשְׁרֵי לָךְ.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Wasn’t it stated concerning this halakha that Rabbi Ḥelbo says that Rav Huna says: The Sages taught this halakha, that it is permitted to use the money, only in a case of money received from the sale of a lost item that one found and that is no longer financially viable for one to tend to it. This is permitted, since he exerted himself and tended to it. But in the case of lost coins, where he did not exert himself in order to tend to them, it is not permitted for him to use them. And the case of these dinars in Raḥava’s possession is similar to a case of lost coins. Rav Yosef accepted Abaye’s objection and said to Raḥava: Go; as they did not allow me to permit the use of the dinars for you.
מַתְנִי׳: מָצָא סְפָרִים – קוֹרֵא בָּהֶן אֶחָד לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת – גּוֹלְלָן. אֲבָל לֹא יִלְמוֹד בָּהֶן בַּתְּחִילָּה, וְלֹא יִקְרָא אַחֵר עִמּוֹ.
MISHNA: If one found scrolls, he reads them once in thirty days in order to ventilate them and prevent mold. And if he does not know how to read, he rolls and unrolls them in order to ventilate them. But he shall not study passages in them for the first time, as he would leave the scroll exposed to the air for a lengthy period, thereby causing damage. And another person shall not read the scroll with him, as each might pull it closer to improve his vantage point, which could cause the scroll to tear.
מָצָא כְּסוּת – מְנַעֲרָהּ אֶחָד לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם וְשׁוֹטְחָהּ לְצׇרְכָּהּ, אֲבָל לֹא לִכְבוֹדוֹ.
If one found a garment, he shakes it once in thirty days, and he spreads it out for its sake, to ventilate it, but he may not use it as a decoration for his own prestige.
כְּלֵי כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי נְחוֹשֶׁת – מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְצׇרְכָּן, אֲבָל לֹא לְשַׁחֲקָן. כְּלֵי זָהָב וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית – לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ.
If one found silver vessels or copper vessels, he may use them for their own sake to prevent tarnish and rust, but he may not use them to the extent that he will erode them. If he finds gold vessels or glass vessels, which are not ruined by neglect, he may not touch them until Elijah will come and identify the owner.
מָצָא שַׂק אוֹ קוּפָּה וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לִיטּוֹל – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִטּוֹל.
If a person found a sack or a basket or any other item that it is not his typical manner to take and carry because it is beneath his dignity, he shall not take it, as one need not demean himself in order to return a lost item.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמּוֹצֵא תְּפִילִּין בַּשּׁוּק – שָׁם דְּמֵיהֶן וּמַנִּיחָן לְאַלְתַּר.
GEMARA: Shmuel says: One who finds phylacteries in the marketplace and is in need of phylacteries assesses their value and immediately places the money aside for the owner.
מֵתִיב רָבִינָא: מָצָא סְפָרִים – קוֹרֵא בָּהֶן אֶחָד לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְאִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת – גּוֹלְלָן. גּוֹלְלָן – אִין, שָׁם דְּמֵיהֶן וּמַנִּיחָן – לָא, אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תְּפִילִּין בֵּי בַּר חָבוּ מִשְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי, סְפָרִים לָא שְׁכִיחִי.
Ravina raises an objection from the mishna: If one found scrolls, he reads them once in thirty days; and if he does not know how to read, he rolls and unrolls them. Ravina infers: To roll and unroll them, yes, he may do so, but assess their value and place the money aside, no, he may not. Abaye said: There is a difference between phylacteries and scrolls. Phylacteries are available at the house of bar Ḥavu, where they are produced in large quantities, but scrolls are not available, as Torah scrolls are not easily obtained.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׁוֹאֵל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶנּוּ לְאַחֵר, פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקוֹרֵא בּוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִלְמוֹד בּוֹ בַּתְּחִילָּה, וְלֹא יִקְרָא אַחֵר עִמּוֹ.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who borrows a Torah scroll from another, that person may not lend it to another, i.e., a third person. He may open it and read it, provided that he does not study passages in it for the first time, lest the scroll be exposed for a lengthy period of time and sustain damage. And another person shall not read the scroll with him, lest the scroll tear.
וְכֵן הַמַּפְקִיד סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ, גּוֹלְלוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקוֹרֵא בּוֹ, אִם בִּשְׁבִילוֹ פְּתָחוֹ – אָסוּר. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: בְּחָדָשׁ – שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, בְּיָשָׁן – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ.
And likewise, in the case of one who deposits a Torah scroll with another, the bailee rolls it every twelve months, and he may open it and read it. If it is for himself that he opened it, it is prohibited. Sumakhos says: In the case of a new Torah scroll, one rolls it every thirty days because the ink is not yet dry and must be more frequently ventilated. By contrast, in the case of an old Torah scroll, one rolls it every twelve months. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In the case of both this new Torah scroll, and the case of that old Torah scroll, one rolls it every twelve months.
אָמַר מָר: הַשּׁוֹאֵל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַשְׁאִילֶנּוּ לְאַחֵר. מַאי אִרְיָא סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה? אֲפִילּוּ כֹּל מִילֵּי נָמֵי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כָּאן שָׁנָה רַבִּי – אֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל, וְאֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר!
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: In the case of one who borrows a Torah scroll from another, that person may not lend it to another, i.e., a third person. The Gemara asks: Why did the tanna teach this halakha specifically with regard to a Torah scroll? This is the halakha with regard to any item as well, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Here in a mishna (Gittin 29a), Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught: A borrower is not allowed to lend the item that he borrowed to someone else, and a renter is not allowed to rent out the item that he rented to someone else.
סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נִיחָא לֵיהּ לְאִינִישׁ דְּתִיעֲבִיד מִצְוָה בְּמָמוֹנֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to mention the halakha specifically with regard to a Torah scroll, lest you say that a person is amenable to having a mitzva performed with his property and would consequently not mind if his Torah scroll was lent to another. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that the borrower may not lend even a Torah scroll.
פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקוֹרֵא בּוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! וְאֶלָּא לְמַאי שַׁיְילֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ? סֵיפָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִלְמוֹד בּוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה.
The baraita continues: He may open it and read it. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? And rather, for what purpose did he borrow the Torah scroll from him, if not to read it? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the last clause: Provided that he does not study passages in it for the first time.
וְכֵן הַמַּפְקִיד סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ – גּוֹלְלוֹ כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקוֹרֵא בּוֹ. מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ? וְתוּ, אִם בִּשְׁבִילוֹ פְּתָחוֹ – אָסוּר, הָא אָמְרַתְּ: פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקוֹרֵא בּוֹ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹלְלוֹ פּוֹתְחוֹ וְקוֹרֵא בּוֹ – מוּתָּר, אִם בִּשְׁבִילוֹ פְּתָחוֹ – אָסוּר.
The baraita continues: And likewise, in the case of one who deposits a Torah scroll with another, the bailee rolls it every twelve months, and he may open it and read it. The Gemara asks: What is the bailee doing with it? As a paid bailee, he has no right to read it. And furthermore, whereas the tanna teaches: If it is for himself that he opened it, it is prohibited, didn’t you say in the previous passage: He may open it and read it? The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna is saying: If, when he is rolling the Torah scroll to ventilate it, he opens it and reads it, it is permitted. If it is for himself that he opened it, it is prohibited.
סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: בְּחָדָשׁ – שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, בְּיָשָׁן – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
The baraita continues: Sumakhos says: In the case of a new Torah scroll, one rolls it every thirty days because the ink is not yet dry and must be more frequently ventilated. By contrast, in the case of an old Torah scroll, one rolls it every twelve months. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In both the case of this new Torah scroll and the case of that old Torah scroll, one rolls it every twelve months. The Gemara asks: What is the dispute here; it appears that the statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov is identical to the statement of the first tanna, who stated without qualification that one rolls a Torah scroll every twelve months. The Gemara answers: Rather say that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Both in the case of this new Torah scroll and the case of that old Torah scroll, one rolls it every thirty days.
אֲבָל לֹא יִלְמוֹד בּוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא יִקְרָא אַחֵר עִמּוֹ. וּרְמִינְהוּ: לֹא יִקְרָא פָּרָשָׁה וְיִשְׁנֶה, וְלֹא יִקְרָא בּוֹ פָּרָשָׁה וִיתַרְגֵּם, וְלֹא יִפְתַּח בּוֹ יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה דַּפִּין, וְלֹא יִקְרְאוּ בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם בְּכֶרֶךְ אֶחָד – הָא שְׁנַיִם קוֹרִין!
§ The Gemara resumes its analysis of the mishna, which teaches with regard to borrowed scrolls: But he shall not study passages in them for the first time and another person shall not read the scroll with him. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta 2:31): If one borrows a scroll, he shall not read a passage and review it, and he shall not read a passage in it and translate the passage, and he shall not open it more than three columns at a time, and three people shall not read in it together from one volume. The Gemara infers: But two people may read it together, contrary to the ruling in the mishna.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּעִנְיָן אֶחָד, כָּאן בִּשְׁנֵי עִנְיָנִים.
Abaye said: It is not difficult. Here, where it is inferred from the baraita that two may read one scroll together, it is referring to a case where they are reading one matter and each is aware of the progress of the other. There, in the mishna, where the ruling is that two may not read one scroll together, it is referring to a case where they are reading two different matters, as each is oblivious to the progress of the other and may pull the scroll closer to improve his vantage point.
מָצָא כְּסוּת מְנַעֲרָהּ אֶחָד לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם. לְמֵימְרָא דְּנִיעוּר מְעַלֵּי לַהּ? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גַּרְדִּי אוּמָּן בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, יְנַעֵר כְּסוּתוֹ בְּכׇל יוֹם! אָמְרִי: בְּכׇל יוֹם – קָשֵׁי לַהּ, אֶחָד לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם – מְעַלֵּי לַהּ.
§ The mishna teaches: If one found a garment, he shakes it once in thirty days. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that shaking a garment is beneficial for it? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Only one who has access to a skilled weaver [gardi] in his house may shake his garment every day, as the weaver can replace the damaged garments with new ones. The Sages say: Shaking a garment every day is harmful to it, but shaking it once in thirty days is beneficial for it.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּחַד, וְהָא בִּתְרֵי.
If you wish, say instead: It is not difficult. In this mishna, where the ruling is that shaking a garment is beneficial, the reference is to a case where one person shakes the garment. And that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who rules that shaking the garment causes damage, is referring to a case where two people shake the garment.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בִּידָא, וְהָא בְּחוּטְרָא.
If you wish, say instead: It is not difficult. In this mishna, where the ruling is that shaking a garment is beneficial, the reference is to a case where one shakes the garment by hand. And that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who rules that shaking the garment causes damage, is referring to a case where one shakes the garment with a stick.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בִּדְעַמְרָא, הָא בִּדְכִיתָּנָא.
If you wish, say instead: It is not difficult. In this mishna, where the ruling is that shaking a garment is beneficial, the reference is to a case where one shakes a garment made of wool. And that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who rules that shaking the garment causes damage, is referring to a case where one shakes a garment made of linen.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּסָא דְחָרָשִׁין וְלָא כָּסָא דְפוֹשְׁרִין. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת. אֲבָל בִּכְלֵי חֶרֶשׂ – לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וּבִכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא צְוִיץ, אֲבָל דִּצְוִיץ – לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא שְׁדָא בַּהּ צִיבַיָּא, אֲבָל שְׁדָא בֵּיהּ צִיבַיָּא – לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
The Gemara cites additional statements by Rabbi Yoḥanan providing practical advice. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is preferable to drink from a cup of witches and not to drink from a cup of lukewarm water, which is extremely unhealthy. Rabbi Yoḥanan qualifies his statement: We said this only with regard to lukewarm water in metal vessels, but in earthenware vessels we have no problem with it. And even in metal vessels, we said this only in a case where the water had not been boiled, but if the water had been boiled we have no problem with it. And we said that lukewarm water is unhealthy only in a case where one did not cast flavorings into the water, but if he cast flavorings into the water we have no problem with it.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לוֹ אָבִיו מָעוֹת הַרְבֵּה וְרוֹצָה לְאַבְּדָן, יִלְבַּשׁ בִּגְדֵי פִשְׁתָּן, וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית, וְיִשְׂכּוֹר פּוֹעֲלִים וְאַל יֵשֵׁב עִמָּהֶן. יִלְבַּשׁ בִּכְלֵי פִשְׁתָּן – בְּכִיתָּנָא רוֹמִיתָא. וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית – בְּזוּגִּיתָא חִיוָּרְתָּא. וְיִשְׂכּוֹר פּוֹעֲלִים וְאַל יֵשֵׁב עִמָּהֶן – תַּרְגּוּמַאּ
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of one whose father bequeathed him a great deal of money and he seeks to lose it, he should wear linen garments, and should use glass vessels, and should hire laborers and not sit with them to supervise. The Gemara elaborates: He should wear linen garments; this is stated with regard to Roman linen, which becomes tattered quickly. He should use glass vessels; this is stated with regard to expensive white glass. And he should hire laborers and not sit with them; the explanation is
