Today's Daf Yomi
October 25, 2016 | 讻状讙 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讝
-
This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!
Bava Metzia 29
What is a person’s level of responsibility toward the lost item once it is in his possession? 聽He needs to feed an animal, air out parchment, etc. 聽But if the animal is not producing enough to pay for its food, the owner should sell the animal. 聽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 if something were to happen to it. 聽What level of responsibility they are arguing about is a subject of debate in the gemara? 聽Are they arguing about if the item gets lost or do they all agree that he is responsible for that and they argue over a case of ones聽accidental damage (like a 聽borrower because if he can use this money, it is viewed as a loan and one who takes out a loan assumes responsibility for accidental damage). 聽Details regarding taking care of lost items are discussed – what is one’s obligation and what is not allowed? 聽How often?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
讗诇讗 讻砖谞砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 驻讟讜专
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.
诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗转诪专 砖讜诪专 讗讘讬讚讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专
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.
讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 讚砖讜讗诇 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 住讘专 砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讜讗诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讗 砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讜讗诇 注诇讬讬讛讜
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.
讗讬 讛讻讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讜讬 讻讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讜诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛
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.
讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 讚砖讜讗诇 诪讗讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讻讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇讗讜 砖讜讗诇 讛讜讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬
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?
诪砖讜诐 诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉
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.
讜诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬砖转诪砖 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讚诪讬 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉
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.
讜讛讗 讗讘讚讜 拽转谞讬
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鈥檛 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鈥檚 control.
讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 谞讙谞讘讜 讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讗讘讚讜 砖讟讘注讛 住驻讬谞转讜 讘讬诐
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鈥檚 ship sank at sea.
讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘讬讚 专讞讘讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讚讬转诪讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇讗砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉
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 Ra岣va. Ra岣va 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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗讜 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讚诪讬 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讟专讞 讘讛 讗讘诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讬讚讛 讚诇讗 讟专讞 讘讛讜 诇讗 讜讛谞讬 讻诪注讜转 讗讘讬讚讛 讚诪讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讗 砖讘拽讜 诇讬 讚讗砖专讬 诇讱
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Wasn鈥檛 it stated concerning this halakha that Rabbi 岣lbo 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 Ra岣va鈥檚 possession is similar to a case of lost coins. Rav Yosef accepted Abaye鈥檚 objection and said to Ra岣va: Go; as they did not allow me to permit the use of the dinars for you.
诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 住驻专讬诐 拽讜专讗 讘讛谉 讗讞讚 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诇拽专讜转 讙讜诇诇谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬诇诪讜讚 讘讛谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 讗讞专 注诪讜
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.
诪爪讗 讻住讜转 诪谞注专讛 讗讞讚 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜砖讜讟讞讛 诇爪专讻讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讻讘讜讚讜
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.
讻诇讬 讻住祝 讜讻诇讬 谞讞讜砖转 诪砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇爪专讻谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇砖讞拽谉 讻诇讬 讝讛讘 讜讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讛谉 注讚 砖讬讘讜讗 讗诇讬讛讜
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.
诪爪讗 砖拽 讗讜 拽讜驻讛 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讬讟讜诇 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讟讜诇
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.
讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讜爪讗 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘砖讜拽 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 诇讗诇转专
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.
诪转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 诪爪讗 住驻专讬诐 拽讜专讗 讘讛谉 讗讞讚 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诇拽专讜转 讙讜诇诇谉 讙讜诇诇谉 讗讬谉 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讬 讘专 讞讘讜 诪砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬 住驻专讬诐 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬
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 岣vu, where they are produced in large quantities, but scrolls are not available, as Torah scrolls are not easily obtained.
转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜讗诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬砖讗讬诇谞讜 诇讗讞专 驻讜转讞讜 讜拽讜专讗 讘讜 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬诇诪讜讚 讘讜 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 讗讞专 注诪讜
搂 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.
讜讻谉 讛诪驻拽讬讚 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讙讜诇诇讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 驻讜转讞讜 讜拽讜专讗 讘讜 讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇讜 驻转讞讜 讗住讜专 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讬砖谉 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖
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鈥檃kov says: In the case of both this new Torah scroll, and the case of that old Torah scroll, one rolls it every twelve months.
讗诪专 诪专 讛砖讜讗诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬砖讗讬诇谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讗讬谉 讛砖讜讗诇 专砖讗讬 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讜讻专 专砖讗讬 诇讛砖讻讬专
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.
住驻专 转讜专讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讚转讬注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 讘诪诪讜谞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
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.
驻讜转讞讜 讜拽讜专讗 讘讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讜讗诇讗 诇诪讗讬 砖讬讬诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬诇诪讜讚 讘讜 讘转讞诇讛
The baraita continues: He may open it and read it. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.
讜讻谉 讛诪驻拽讬讚 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讙讜诇诇讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 驻讜转讞讜 讜拽讜专讗 讘讜 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讙讘讬讛 讜转讜 讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇讜 驻转讞讜 讗住讜专 讛讗 讗诪专转 驻讜转讞讜 讜拽讜专讗 讘讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜诇诇讜 驻讜转讞讜 讜拽讜专讗 讘讜 诪讜转专 讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇讜 驻转讞讜 讗住讜专
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鈥檛 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.
住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讬砖谉 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐
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鈥檃kov 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鈥檃kov 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鈥檃kov says: Both In the case of this new Torah scroll and the case of that old Torah scroll, one rolls it every thirty days.
讗讘诇 诇讗 讬诇诪讜讚 讘讜 讘转讞诇讛 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 讗讞专 注诪讜 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讬拽专讗 驻专砖讛 讜讬砖谞讛 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 讘讜 驻专砖讛 讜讬转专讙诐 讜诇讗 讬驻转讞 讘讜 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖讛 讚驻讬谉 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗讜 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘讻专讱 讗讞讚 讛讗 砖谞讬诐 拽讜专讬谉
搂 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.
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注谞讬谉 讗讞讚 讻讗谉 讘砖谞讬 注谞讬谞讬诐
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.
诪爪讗 讻住讜转 诪谞注专讛 讗讞讚 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚谞讬注讜专 诪注诇讬 诇讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讙专讚讬 讗讜诪谉 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讬谞注专 讻住讜转讜 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讗诪专讬 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 拽砖讬 诇讛 讗讞讚 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪注诇讬 诇讛
搂 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鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.
讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞讚 讜讛讗 讘转专讬
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 Yo岣nan, who rules that shaking the garment causes damage, is referring to a case where two people shake the garment.
讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬讚讗 讜讛讗 讘讞讜讟专讗
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 Yo岣nan, who rules that shaking the garment causes damage, is referring to a case where one shakes the garment with a stick.
讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讚注诪专讗 讛讗 讘讚讻讬转谞讗
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 Yo岣nan, who rules that shaking the garment causes damage, is referring to a case where one shakes a garment made of linen.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻住讗 讚讞专砖讬谉 讜诇讗 讻住讗 讚驻讜砖专讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讘讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 爪讜讬抓 讗讘诇 讚爪讜讬抓 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 砖讚讗 讘讛 爪讬讘讬讗 讗讘诇 砖讚讗 讘讬讛 爪讬讘讬讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛
The Gemara cites additional statements by Rabbi Yo岣nan providing practical advice. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.
讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 砖讛谞讬讞 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 诪注讜转 讛专讘讛 讜专讜爪讛 诇讗讘讚谉 讬诇讘砖 讘讙讚讬 驻砖转谉 讜讬砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讜讬砖讻讜专 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讗诇 讬砖讘 注诪讛谉 讬诇讘砖 讘讻诇讬 驻砖转谉 讘讻讬转谞讗 专讜诪讬转讗 讜讬砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讘讝讜讙讬转讗 讞讬讜专转讗 讜讬砖讻讜专 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讗诇 讬砖讘 注诪讛谉 转专讙讜诪讗
And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of one whose father be-queathed 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
-
This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Bava Metzia 29
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讗诇讗 讻砖谞砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 驻讟讜专
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.
诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗转诪专 砖讜诪专 讗讘讬讚讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讻砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讻砖讜诪专 砖讻专
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.
讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 讚砖讜讗诇 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 住讘专 砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讜讗诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇讗 砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讜讗诇 注诇讬讬讛讜
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.
讗讬 讛讻讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 讛讜讬 讻讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 砖讜诪专 砖讻专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讜诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛
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.
讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讙谞讬讘讛 讜讗讘讬讚讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗讜谞住讬谉 讚砖讜讗诇 诪讗讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讻讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇讗讜 砖讜讗诇 讛讜讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬
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?
诪砖讜诐 诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉
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.
讜诇驻讬讻讱 讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬砖转诪砖 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讚诪讬 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉
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.
讜讛讗 讗讘讚讜 拽转谞讬
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鈥檛 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鈥檚 control.
讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 谞讙谞讘讜 讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讗讘讚讜 砖讟讘注讛 住驻讬谞转讜 讘讬诐
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鈥檚 ship sank at sea.
讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘讬讚 专讞讘讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讚讬转诪讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇讗砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉
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 Ra岣va. Ra岣va 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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗讜 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讚诪讬 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讟专讞 讘讛 讗讘诇 诪注讜转 讗讘讬讚讛 讚诇讗 讟专讞 讘讛讜 诇讗 讜讛谞讬 讻诪注讜转 讗讘讬讚讛 讚诪讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讗 砖讘拽讜 诇讬 讚讗砖专讬 诇讱
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Wasn鈥檛 it stated concerning this halakha that Rabbi 岣lbo 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 Ra岣va鈥檚 possession is similar to a case of lost coins. Rav Yosef accepted Abaye鈥檚 objection and said to Ra岣va: Go; as they did not allow me to permit the use of the dinars for you.
诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 住驻专讬诐 拽讜专讗 讘讛谉 讗讞讚 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诇拽专讜转 讙讜诇诇谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬诇诪讜讚 讘讛谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 讗讞专 注诪讜
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.
诪爪讗 讻住讜转 诪谞注专讛 讗讞讚 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜砖讜讟讞讛 诇爪专讻讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讻讘讜讚讜
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.
讻诇讬 讻住祝 讜讻诇讬 谞讞讜砖转 诪砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇爪专讻谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇砖讞拽谉 讻诇讬 讝讛讘 讜讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讛谉 注讚 砖讬讘讜讗 讗诇讬讛讜
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.
诪爪讗 砖拽 讗讜 拽讜驻讛 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讬讟讜诇 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讟讜诇
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.
讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讜爪讗 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘砖讜拽 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 诇讗诇转专
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.
诪转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 诪爪讗 住驻专讬诐 拽讜专讗 讘讛谉 讗讞讚 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诇拽专讜转 讙讜诇诇谉 讙讜诇诇谉 讗讬谉 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讬 讘专 讞讘讜 诪砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬 住驻专讬诐 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬
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 岣vu, where they are produced in large quantities, but scrolls are not available, as Torah scrolls are not easily obtained.
转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖讜讗诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬砖讗讬诇谞讜 诇讗讞专 驻讜转讞讜 讜拽讜专讗 讘讜 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬诇诪讜讚 讘讜 讘转讞讬诇讛 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 讗讞专 注诪讜
搂 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.
讜讻谉 讛诪驻拽讬讚 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讙讜诇诇讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 驻讜转讞讜 讜拽讜专讗 讘讜 讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇讜 驻转讞讜 讗住讜专 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讬砖谉 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖
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鈥檃kov says: In the case of both this new Torah scroll, and the case of that old Torah scroll, one rolls it every twelve months.
讗诪专 诪专 讛砖讜讗诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬砖讗讬诇谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讗讬谉 讛砖讜讗诇 专砖讗讬 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讜讻专 专砖讗讬 诇讛砖讻讬专
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.
住驻专 转讜专讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讚转讬注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 讘诪诪讜谞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉
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.
驻讜转讞讜 讜拽讜专讗 讘讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讜讗诇讗 诇诪讗讬 砖讬讬诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬诇诪讜讚 讘讜 讘转讞诇讛
The baraita continues: He may open it and read it. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 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.
讜讻谉 讛诪驻拽讬讚 住驻专 转讜专讛 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讙讜诇诇讜 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 驻讜转讞讜 讜拽讜专讗 讘讜 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讙讘讬讛 讜转讜 讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇讜 驻转讞讜 讗住讜专 讛讗 讗诪专转 驻讜转讞讜 讜拽讜专讗 讘讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜诇诇讜 驻讜转讞讜 讜拽讜专讗 讘讜 诪讜转专 讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇讜 驻转讞讜 讗住讜专
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鈥檛 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.
住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 讘讞讚砖 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讬砖谉 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐
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鈥檃kov 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鈥檃kov 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鈥檃kov says: Both In the case of this new Torah scroll and the case of that old Torah scroll, one rolls it every thirty days.
讗讘诇 诇讗 讬诇诪讜讚 讘讜 讘转讞诇讛 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 讗讞专 注诪讜 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讬拽专讗 驻专砖讛 讜讬砖谞讛 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗 讘讜 驻专砖讛 讜讬转专讙诐 讜诇讗 讬驻转讞 讘讜 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖讛 讚驻讬谉 讜诇讗 讬拽专讗讜 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘讻专讱 讗讞讚 讛讗 砖谞讬诐 拽讜专讬谉
搂 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.
讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注谞讬谉 讗讞讚 讻讗谉 讘砖谞讬 注谞讬谞讬诐
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.
诪爪讗 讻住讜转 诪谞注专讛 讗讞讚 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚谞讬注讜专 诪注诇讬 诇讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讙专讚讬 讗讜诪谉 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讬谞注专 讻住讜转讜 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讗诪专讬 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 拽砖讬 诇讛 讗讞讚 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪注诇讬 诇讛
搂 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鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.
讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞讚 讜讛讗 讘转专讬
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 Yo岣nan, who rules that shaking the garment causes damage, is referring to a case where two people shake the garment.
讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬讚讗 讜讛讗 讘讞讜讟专讗
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 Yo岣nan, who rules that shaking the garment causes damage, is referring to a case where one shakes the garment with a stick.
讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讚注诪专讗 讛讗 讘讚讻讬转谞讗
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 Yo岣nan, who rules that shaking the garment causes damage, is referring to a case where one shakes a garment made of linen.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻住讗 讚讞专砖讬谉 讜诇讗 讻住讗 讚驻讜砖专讬谉 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讞专砖 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讘讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 爪讜讬抓 讗讘诇 讚爪讜讬抓 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 砖讚讗 讘讛 爪讬讘讬讗 讗讘诇 砖讚讗 讘讬讛 爪讬讘讬讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛
The Gemara cites additional statements by Rabbi Yo岣nan providing practical advice. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.
讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 砖讛谞讬讞 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 诪注讜转 讛专讘讛 讜专讜爪讛 诇讗讘讚谉 讬诇讘砖 讘讙讚讬 驻砖转谉 讜讬砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讜讬砖讻讜专 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讗诇 讬砖讘 注诪讛谉 讬诇讘砖 讘讻诇讬 驻砖转谉 讘讻讬转谞讗 专讜诪讬转讗 讜讬砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讘讝讜讙讬转讗 讞讬讜专转讗 讜讬砖讻讜专 驻讜注诇讬诐 讜讗诇 讬砖讘 注诪讛谉 转专讙讜诪讗
And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of one whose father be-queathed 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
