Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 26, 2016 | ื›ืดื“ ื‘ืชืฉืจื™ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 30

According to the mishna one can stretch out a cloth for its own sake (if it needs airing out) but not for the finder’s use. ย What if he does it for both at the same time? ย The gemara brings various sources to try to answer the question but each is rejected. ย Various types of utensils are listed and it is explain what must be done with them to care for them and what is not allowed? ย There are certain cases where one is exempt from returning a lost item and these are discussed. ย A case is brought in which a rabbi acted beyond the letter of the law. ย The gemara then derives it from a verse and stresses the importance of going beyond the letter of the law.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื‘ืชื•ืจื™ ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ืคืกื™ื“ื™ื™ื”ื•

that this applies to laborers who work with oxen, whose potential for causing damage is great if they are not supervised, as they will trample the crops.

ืฉื•ื˜ื—ื” ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื• ื•ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ืžืื™

ยง The mishna teaches that one who found a lost garment spreads it for its sake to ventilate it, but may not use it as a decoration for his own prestige. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one spreads it both for his sake and for its sake, what is the halakha?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืฉื•ื˜ื—ื” ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ืื™ืŸ ื”ื ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื• ื•ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ืœื ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ื”ื ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ื•ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื• ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™ ืืœื ืžื”ื ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the mishna: He spreads it for its sake. The Gemara infers: For its sake, yes, he spreads it, but both for his sake and for its sake, he may not do so. The Gemara rejects the proof: Say the latter clause of the mishna: But not for his own prestige. The Gemara infers: It is for his prestige alone that he may not spread it, but for its sake and for his sake, one may well do so. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna, as there are conflicting inferences from the first clause and the latter clause.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœื ื™ืฉื˜ื—ื ื” ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื˜ื” ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื’ื•ื“ ืœืฆืจื›ื• ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉื˜ื—ื ื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื˜ื” ื•ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื’ื•ื“ ืœืฆืจื›ื” ื ื–ื“ืžื ื• ืœื• ืื•ืจื—ื™ื ืœื ื™ืฉื˜ื—ื ื” ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื˜ื” ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื’ื•ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one finds a lost garment, he may not spread it on a bed or on a hanger for his sake, but he may spread it on a bed or on a hanger for its sake. If guests happened to visit, he may not spread it, neither on a bed nor on a hanger and neither for his sake nor for its sake. Apparently, it is prohibited to spread it for both his sake, to enhance his prestige before his guests, and for its sake.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืžืงืœื ืงืœื™ ืœื” ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืขื™ื ื ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื ื‘ื™

The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, as spreading it before his guests is tantamount to burning it, either due to the evil eye that will result, or due to thieves, as once the guests are aware of the valuable item in his possession they may be tempted to steal it.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื›ื ื™ืกื” ืœืจื‘ืงื” ื•ื“ืฉื” ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ืฉืชื™ื ืง ื•ืชื“ื•ืฉ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ื ื“ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื• ื•ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one introduced a calf into a yoke [lirvaka] so that it would suckle, and it threshed with the cows, it is fit for use in the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken, because the owner did not intend for it to perform labor. But if the owner introduces it so that it will suckle and it will thresh, it is unfit for use in that ritual because his intent is for the calf to perform labor, and the intentional performance of labor disqualifies it. And here, isnโ€™t the placement of the calf in the yoke for both his sake, threshing, and for its sake, suckling, and the baraita teaches that the calf is unfit? Apparently, it is prohibited for one who found a lost garment to spread it for both his sake and for its sake.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืฉืจ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ ื‘ื” ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

The Gemara rejects this proof by citing a verse written with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken. It is different there, as the verse states: โ€œThe Elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd that has not been worked with and that has not pulled a yokeโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:3), indicating that the heifer is rendered unfit in any case of labor performed. Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn with regard to spreading the garment.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ืฉื ื ืžื™

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the calf is rendered unfit by any labor that it performed, then it should be unfit even in the first clause, where the owner did not intend for the calf to perform labor.

ื”ื ืœื ื“ืžื™ื ืืœื ืœื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืขื•ืฃ ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ืขืœื” ืขืœื™ื” ื–ื›ืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื

The Gemara answers. This is comparable only to this other case, as we learned in a mishna (Para 2:4): If a bird rested upon a red heifer, it remains fit for use in the purification ritual, as supporting the bird on its back is considered neither labor nor comparable to pulling a yoke. If a male animal mounted it for mating, it is unfit for use in the purification ritual. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the difference between the two cases?

ื›ื“ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื•ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืžื™ืœื ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขื‘ื“ ื•ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืขื“ ื“ืขื‘ื“ ื‘ื” ืื™ื”ื•

The difference is in accordance with the statement of Rav Pappa, as Rav Pappa says with regard to the verse written concerning the heifer whose neck is broken: โ€œAnd the Elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd that has not been worked with and that has not pulled a yokeโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:3). If the word were written with an additional letter vav, which would mean the passive: Has been worked with [ubbad], and we also vocalized the word in the passive voice, ubbad, I would say that even if the heifer performed labor by itself, it is disqualified for use in the ritual. If the word were written without an additional letter vav, which would mean the active: He used it for labor [avad], and we also vocalized the word in the active voice, avad, I would say that indicates that the heifer was fit for use in the ritual until its owner intentionally used it for labor.

ื”ืฉืชื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขื‘ื“ ื•ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืžื” ืขื‘ื“ ื“ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ืืฃ ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื“ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื”

Now that the word is written without an additional letter vav as avad and we vocalize the word with an additional letter vav, as ubbad, in order to render the heifer unfit we require the situation described by the word ubbad be similar to the situation described by the word avad. Just as the word avad indicates that the owner is amenable to the performance of that labor, so too, the word ubbad means that the owner is amenable to the performance of that labor. Since the owner is amenable to the heifer mating, the heifer is rendered unfit. So too, in the first clause of the baraita: If one introduced a calf into a yoke so that it may suckle, and it threshed with the cows, it is fit for use in the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken, because the owner is not amenable to its performing labor.

ื›ืœื™ ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื›ืœื™ ื ื—ื•ืฉืช ืžืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืžื•ืฆื ื›ืœื™ ืขืฅ ืžืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ืฉืœื ื™ืจืงื‘ื• ื›ืœื™ ื ื—ื•ืฉืช ืžืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื‘ื—ืžื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ืื•ืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžืฉื—ื™ืงืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื›ืกืฃ ืžืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฆื•ื ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ื—ืžื™ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžืฉื—ื™ืจืŸ ืžื’ืจื™ืคื•ืช ื•ืงืจื“ื•ืžื•ืช ืžืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื‘ืจืš ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืงืฉื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžืคื—ื™ืชืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ื›ืœื™ ื–ื›ื•ื›ื™ืช ืœื ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ื”ื•

ยง The mishna teaches: If one found silver vessels or copper vessels, he may use them for their own sake; and the same halakha applies to other vessels. The Sages taught in a baraita: One who finds wooden vessels uses them, so that they will not deteriorate due to lack of use. If one found copper vessels he uses them with hot water, but not directly on the fire, due to the fact that it erodes them. If one found silver vessels he uses them with cold water, but not with hot water, because it tarnishes them. If one found rakes or axes, he may use them with soft substances but not with hard substances because using them with those substances damages them. If one found gold vessels or glass vessels, which do not deteriorate due to lack of use, he may not touch them until Elijah will come and identify the owner.

ื›ื“ืจืš ืฉืืžืจื• ื‘ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื›ืš ืืžืจื• ื‘ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืชื™ื” ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื‘ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ืœื›ื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืœืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื

The baraita continues: In the manner that the Sages said with regard to a lost item, so they said with regard to a deposit. The Gemara asks: What is the bailee doing with a deposit; i.e., the owner should tend to his own item, why is the bailee using it at all? The Gemara answers: Rav Adda bar แธคama said that Rav Sheshet said: It is referring to a deposit whose owner went to a country overseas. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the bailee to tend to the deposit until his return.

ืžืฆื ืฉืง ืื• ืงื•ืคื” [ื•ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ] ืฉืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืœื ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืชืขืœืžืช ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืืชื” ืžืชืขืœื ื•ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ืžืชืขืœื

ยง The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to the return of a lost item: โ€œYou shall not see your brotherโ€™s ox or his sheep wandering and disregard them; you shall return them to your brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:1). The tanna explains that the phrase โ€œand disregard themโ€ means that there are occasions in which you may disregard lost items and there are occasions in which you may not disregard them.

ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื™ื” ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจื•ืช ืื• ืฉื”ื™ื” ื–ืงืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื” ืœืคื™ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ืื• ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืžืœืื›ื” ืฉืœื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœื›ืš ื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืชืขืœืžืช ืžื”ื

How so; under what circumstances may one disregard a lost item? One may do so in a case where he was a priest and the lost item is in the graveyard (Leviticus 21:1โ€“4), or where he was an elderly person and it is not in keeping with his dignity to tend to the item, or where the value of his labor was greater than the value of the lost item of the other person, i.e., if the finder was to return the item, reimbursing him for his lost wages would cost more than the value of the item; therefore, it is stated: โ€œAnd disregard them.โ€

ืœืžืื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจื•ืช ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื”ืื™ ืขืฉื” ื•ื”ืื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื•ืขืฉื” ื•ืœื ืืชื™ ืขืฉื” ื•ื“ื—ื™ ืืช ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื•ืขืฉื” ื•ืชื• ืœื ื“ื—ื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืžืงืžื™ ืžืžื•ื ื

The Gemara asks: For what case was a verse necessary to derive that one may disregard a lost item? If we say that the verse is necessary for the case of a priest and the lost item in the graveyard, it is obvious that he need not return the item, as this obligation to return the lost item is a positive mitzva: โ€œYou shall return them to your brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:1), and that entry of a priest into a graveyard is prohibited by both a prohibition: โ€œTo the dead among his people he shall not defile himselfโ€ (Leviticus 21:1), and a positive mitzva: โ€œYou shall be holyโ€ (Leviticus 19:2); and there is a principle that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition and a positive mitzva. And furthermore, we do not override a ritual prohibition in the face of monetary matters.

ืืœื ืœืฉืœื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ืคืงื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืคืก ื›ื™

The Gemara suggests: Rather, say that the verse is necessary to derive the exemption from returning the lost item in the case where the value of his labor was greater than the value of the lost item of the other. The Gemara rejects that possibility: That halakha is derived not from the phrase: โ€œAnd disregard them,โ€ but from that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is written: โ€œOnly so that

ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืš ืื‘ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืœืš ืงื•ื“ื ืœืฉืœ ื›ืœ ืื“ื

there shall be no needy among youโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:4). This verse can be understood as a command, indicating that it is incumbent upon each individual to ensure that he will not become needy. Therefore, your assets take precedence over the assets of any other person.

ืืœื ืœื–ืงืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืœืคื™ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื•

The Gemara concludes: Rather, the verse is necessary to derive the exemption from returning the lost item in the case where he was an elderly person and it is not in keeping with his dignity to tend to the item.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื”ื›ื™ืฉื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื•ื” ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื” ื—ื–ื ืœื”ื ืš ืขื™ื–ื™ ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื• ืฉืงืœ ืงืœื ื•ืฉื“ื ื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืงื•ื ืื”ื“ืจื™ื ื”ื•

Rabba says: If there was a lost animal and the elderly person began the process of returning it, e.g., if he struck it even once to guide it in a certain direction, he is obligated to tend to it and return it. The Gemara relates: Abaye was sitting before Rabba and saw these goats standing nearby. He picked up a clod of dirt and threw it at them, causing them to move. Rabba said to him: You have thereby obligated yourself to return them. Arise and return them to their owner.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื”ืฉื‘ื” ืžืขืœื™ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœืื• ื“ืจื›ื™ื” ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืœื ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืžื™ื”ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืชื™ืงื•

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case of a person for whom it is his typical manner to return an item of that type in the field, where there are fewer onlookers, but it is not his typical manner to return an item of that type in the city, what is the halakha? Do we say that for one to be obligated to return a lost item we need an unequivocal obligation to return it that applies in all cases, and since it is not his typical manner to return an item of that sort in the city, let him not be obligated to return such an item at all? Or perhaps, he is obligated in any event to return the item in the field, and once he is obligated to return it in the field, he is also obligated in the city. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ืฉืœื• ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื‘ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ืžื™ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ืฉืœื• ืคื•ืจืง ื•ื˜ื•ืขืŸ ื‘ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ืžื™ ืคื•ืจืง ื•ื˜ื•ืขืŸ

Rava says: In any case where he would recover his own item and would consider it to be in keeping with his dignity, he is also obligated to return anotherโ€™s item. And any case where he unloads and loads his own animalโ€™s burden, he is also obligated to unload and load the burden of anotherโ€™s animal.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื•ื” ืงืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืื•ืจื—ื ืคื’ืข ื‘ื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื”ื•ื” ื“ืจื™ ืคืชื›ื ื“ืื•ืคื™ ืื•ืชื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืงื ืžื™ืชืคื— ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ืœื™ ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืžื” ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื’ื ื“ื–ื•ื–ื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื’ื ื“ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ืืคืงืจื”

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was walking on the road. A certain man encountered him, and that man was carrying a burden that consisted of sticks of wood. He set down the wood and was resting. The man said to him: Lift them for me and place them upon me. Since it was not in keeping with the dignity of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, to lift the wood, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: How much are they worth? The man said to him: A half-dinar. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, gave him a half-dinar, took possession of the wood, and declared the wood ownerless.

ื”ื“ืจ ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื”ื• ื”ื“ืจ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื’ื ื“ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ืืคืงืจื” ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ื”ื“ืจ ืœืžื–ื›ื™ื” ื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืืคืงืจื ื”ื• ื•ืœืš ืœื ืืคืงืจื ื”ื•

The man then reacquired the wood and again requested that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, lift the wood for him. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, again gave him a half-dinar, again took possession of the wood, and again declared the wood ownerless. He then saw that the man desired to reacquire the sticks of wood. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: I declared the sticks of wood ownerless with regard to everyone else, but I did not declare them ownerless with regard to you.

ื•ืžื™ ื”ื•ื™ ื”ืคืงืจ ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื”ืคืงืจ ืœืขื ื™ื™ื ื”ืคืงืจ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื”ืคืงืจ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื”ืคืงืจ ืœืขื ื™ื™ื ื•ืœืขืฉื™ืจื™ื ื›ืฉืžื™ื˜ื”

The Gemara asks: But is property rendered ownerless in a case like this? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Peโ€™a 6:1) that Beit Shammai say: Property declared ownerless for the poor is thereby rendered ownerless. And Beit Hillel say: It is not ownerless, until the property will be ownerless for the poor and for the rich, like produce during the Sabbatical Year, which is available for all. As the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, how could Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, declare the wood ownerless selectively, excluding the prior owner of the wood?

ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืืคืงืจื™ื ื”ื• ื•ื‘ืžืœืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื•ืงืžื™ื”

Rather, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, actually declared the wood ownerless to everyone without exception, and it was with a mere statement that he prevented him from reacquiring the wood, i.e., he told the man not to reacquire the wood even though there was no legal impediment to that reacquisition.

ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื–ืงืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืœืคื™ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ื”ื•ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“

The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, an elderly person and it was not in keeping with his dignity to tend to the item? Why did he purchase the wood and render it ownerless in order to absolve himself of the obligation to lift the burden if he had no obligation to do so in the first place? The Gemara answers: In the case of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, he conducted himself beyond the letter of the law, and he could have simply refused the request for help.

ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื•ื”ื•ื“ืขืช ืœื”ื ื–ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื—ื™ื™ื”ื ืืช ื”ื“ืจืš ื–ื• ื’ืžื™ืœื•ืช ื—ืกื“ื™ื ืืฉืจ ื™ืœื›ื• ื–ื” ื‘ื™ืงื•ืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ื ื‘ื” ื–ื• ืงื‘ื•ืจื” ื•ืืช ื”ืžืขืฉื” ื–ื” ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื•ืŸ ื–ื• ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ

The Gemara cites a source for going beyond the letter of the law in the performance of mitzvot. As Rav Yosef taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œAnd you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and shall show them the path wherein they shall walk and the action that they must performโ€ (Exodus 18:20). The baraita parses the various directives in the verse. โ€œAnd you shall teach them,โ€ that is referring to the structure of their livelihood, i.e., teach the Jewish people trades so that they may earn a living; โ€œthe path,โ€ that is referring to acts of kindness; โ€œthey shall walk,โ€ that is referring to visiting the ill; โ€œwherein,โ€ that is referring to burial; โ€œand the action,โ€ that is referring to acting in accordance with the letter of the law; โ€œthat they must perform,โ€ that is referring to acting beyond the letter of the law.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ืœื›ื• ื–ื” ื‘ื™ืงื•ืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื’ืžื™ืœื•ืช ื—ืกื“ื™ื ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื” ืืœื ืœื‘ืŸ ื’ื™ืœื• ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื‘ืŸ ื’ื™ืœื• ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืื—ื“ ืžืฉืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ืœื™ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ื–ืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: With regard to the phrase โ€œthey shall walk,โ€ that is referring to visiting the ill. The Gemara asks: That is a detail of acts of kindness; why does the baraita list it separately? The Gemara answers: The reference to visiting the ill is necessary only for the contemporary of the ill person, as the Master said: When one who is a contemporary of an ill person visits him, he takes one-sixtieth of his illness. Since visiting an ill contemporary involves contracting a bit of his illness, a special derivation is necessary to teach that even so, he is required to go and visit him.

ื‘ื” ื–ื• ืงื‘ื•ืจื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื’ืžื™ืœื•ืช ื—ืกื“ื™ื ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื” ืืœื ืœื–ืงืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืœืคื™ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื•

It was taught in the baraita: With regard to the phrase โ€œwherein,โ€ that is referring to burial. The Gemara asks: That is a detail of acts of kindness; why does the baraita list it separately? The Gemara answers: The reference to burial is necessary only to teach the halakha of an elderly person, and it is in a circumstance where it is not in keeping with his dignity to bury the dead. Therefore, a special derivation is necessary to teach that even so, he is required to participate in the burial.

ืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื•ืŸ ื–ื• ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ื—ืจื‘ื” ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืืœื ืขืœ ืฉื“ื ื• ื‘ื” ื“ื™ืŸ ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ื“ื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื’ื™ื–ืชื ืœื“ื™ื™ื ื• ืืœื ืื™ืžื ืฉื”ืขืžื™ื“ื• ื“ื™ื ื™ื”ื ืขืœ ื“ื™ืŸ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื• ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ

It was taught in the baraita: โ€œThat they must performโ€; that is referring to acting beyond the letter of the law, as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Jerusalem was destroyed only for the fact that they adjudicated cases on the basis of Torah law in the city. The Gemara asks: Rather, what else should they have done? Should they rather have adjudicated cases on the basis of arbitrary decisions [demagizeta]? Rather, say: That they established their rulings on the basis of Torah law and did not go beyond the letter of the law.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ืžืฆื ื—ืžื•ืจ ืื• ืคืจื” ืจื•ืขื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจืš ืื™ืŸ ื–ื• ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื›ืœื™ื• ื”ืคื•ื›ื™ืŸ ืคืจื” ืจืฆื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืจืžื™ื ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื” ื•ื‘ืจื—ื” ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื” ื•ื‘ืจื—ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžื™ืฉื” ืคืขืžื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ืฉื‘ ืชืฉื™ื‘ื

MISHNA: Which is the item that is considered lost property? If one found a donkey or a cow grazing on the path, that is not lost property, as presumably the owners are nearby and are aware of the animalsโ€™ whereabouts. If one found a donkey with its accoutrements overturned, or a cow that ran through the vineyards, that is lost property. In a case where one returned the lost animal and it fled, and he again returned it and it fled, even if this scenario repeats itself four or five times, he is obligated to return it each time, as it is stated: โ€œYou shall not see your brotherโ€™s ox or his sheep wandering and disregard them; you shall return them to your brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:1).

ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื˜ืœ ืžืกืœืข ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ืœื• ืชืŸ ืœื™ ืกืœืข ืืœื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ืฉื›ืจื• ื›ืคื•ืขืœ ืื ื™ืฉ ืฉื ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืžืชื ื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืžื™ ื™ืชื ื” ืฉืœื• ืงื•ื“ื

If in the course of tending to and returning the lost item, the finder was idle from labor that would have earned him a sela, he shall not say to the owner of the item: Give me a sela to compensate me for my lost income. Rather, the owner gives him his wage as if he were a laborer, a payment that is considerably smaller. If there are three men there who can convene as a court, he may stipulate before the court that he will undertake to return the item provided that he receives full compensation for lost income. If there is no court there before whom can he stipulate his condition, his financial interests take precedence and he need not return the lost item.

ื’ืžืณ ืื˜ื• ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœืื• ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื”ื•ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื›ืœืœ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ืžืฆื ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ืคืจื” ืจื•ืขื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจืš ืื™ืŸ ื–ื• ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื›ืœื™ื• ื”ืคื•ื›ื™ื ืคืจื” ื•ืจืฆื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืจืžื™ื ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื•ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื”

GEMARA: With regard to the question in the mishna: Which is the item that is considered lost property, the Gemara asks: Is that to say that all those other cases that we stated in this chapter are not lost property? Rav Yehuda said that this is what the tanna is saying: What is the principle employed in defining a lost item that one is obligated to return? The mishna cites examples to illustrate the principle: If one found a donkey or a cow grazing on the path, that is not lost property, and he is not obligated to return it. But if one found a donkey with its accoutrements overturned, or a cow that was running through the vineyards, that is lost property, and he is obligated to return it.

ื•ืœืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขื“ ืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื‘ืœื™ืœื•ืชื ืืคื™ืœื• ื—ื“ื ืฉืขืชื ื ืžื™ ืื™ ื‘ื™ืžืžื ืืคื™ืœื• ื˜ื•ื‘ื ื ืžื™ ืœื

With regard to the ruling in the mishna that a donkey and cow grazing on the path are not considered lost property, the Gemara asks: And is that the case even if they graze there untended forever? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Until three days pass they are not lost. Thereafter, they are considered lost. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the animal is found grazing at night, even if it is untended for even one hour it can be presumed to be lost, as an owner never grazes his animals untended at night. If the animal is found grazing during the day, even if it is untended for more than three days, it is also not presumed to be lost.

ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ื—ื–ื™ ืœื” ื‘ืงื“ืžืชื ื•ื‘ื—ืฉื›ืชื ืชืœืชื ื™ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืชืจืžื•ื™ื™ ืืชืจืžื™ ืœื” ื•ื ืคืงื ื˜ืคื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื”ื™ื

The Gemara answers: No, the measure of three days is necessary only in a case where one saw the animal grazing in the early hours in the morning and in the dark of nightfall. For the first three days, we say: It happened that the animal went out a bit earlier or a bit later than usual, but nevertheless, it was with the ownerโ€™s knowledge. Once this is observed for more than three days, it is certainly a lost item.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืฆื ื˜ืœื™ืช ื•ืงืจื“ื•ื

This is also taught in a baraita: If one found a cloak or an ax

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 30

ื‘ืชื•ืจื™ ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ืคืกื™ื“ื™ื™ื”ื•

that this applies to laborers who work with oxen, whose potential for causing damage is great if they are not supervised, as they will trample the crops.

ืฉื•ื˜ื—ื” ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื• ื•ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ืžืื™

ยง The mishna teaches that one who found a lost garment spreads it for its sake to ventilate it, but may not use it as a decoration for his own prestige. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one spreads it both for his sake and for its sake, what is the halakha?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืฉื•ื˜ื—ื” ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ืื™ืŸ ื”ื ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื• ื•ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ืœื ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ื”ื ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ื•ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื• ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™ ืืœื ืžื”ื ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the mishna: He spreads it for its sake. The Gemara infers: For its sake, yes, he spreads it, but both for his sake and for its sake, he may not do so. The Gemara rejects the proof: Say the latter clause of the mishna: But not for his own prestige. The Gemara infers: It is for his prestige alone that he may not spread it, but for its sake and for his sake, one may well do so. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna, as there are conflicting inferences from the first clause and the latter clause.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœื ื™ืฉื˜ื—ื ื” ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื˜ื” ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื’ื•ื“ ืœืฆืจื›ื• ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉื˜ื—ื ื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื˜ื” ื•ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื’ื•ื“ ืœืฆืจื›ื” ื ื–ื“ืžื ื• ืœื• ืื•ืจื—ื™ื ืœื ื™ืฉื˜ื—ื ื” ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื˜ื” ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื’ื•ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one finds a lost garment, he may not spread it on a bed or on a hanger for his sake, but he may spread it on a bed or on a hanger for its sake. If guests happened to visit, he may not spread it, neither on a bed nor on a hanger and neither for his sake nor for its sake. Apparently, it is prohibited to spread it for both his sake, to enhance his prestige before his guests, and for its sake.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืžืงืœื ืงืœื™ ืœื” ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืขื™ื ื ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื ื‘ื™

The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, as spreading it before his guests is tantamount to burning it, either due to the evil eye that will result, or due to thieves, as once the guests are aware of the valuable item in his possession they may be tempted to steal it.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื›ื ื™ืกื” ืœืจื‘ืงื” ื•ื“ืฉื” ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ืฉืชื™ื ืง ื•ืชื“ื•ืฉ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ื ื“ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื• ื•ืœืฆื•ืจื›ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one introduced a calf into a yoke [lirvaka] so that it would suckle, and it threshed with the cows, it is fit for use in the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken, because the owner did not intend for it to perform labor. But if the owner introduces it so that it will suckle and it will thresh, it is unfit for use in that ritual because his intent is for the calf to perform labor, and the intentional performance of labor disqualifies it. And here, isnโ€™t the placement of the calf in the yoke for both his sake, threshing, and for its sake, suckling, and the baraita teaches that the calf is unfit? Apparently, it is prohibited for one who found a lost garment to spread it for both his sake and for its sake.

ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืฉืจ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ ื‘ื” ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

The Gemara rejects this proof by citing a verse written with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken. It is different there, as the verse states: โ€œThe Elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd that has not been worked with and that has not pulled a yokeโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:3), indicating that the heifer is rendered unfit in any case of labor performed. Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn with regard to spreading the garment.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื™ืฉื ื ืžื™

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the calf is rendered unfit by any labor that it performed, then it should be unfit even in the first clause, where the owner did not intend for the calf to perform labor.

ื”ื ืœื ื“ืžื™ื ืืœื ืœื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืขื•ืฃ ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ืขืœื” ืขืœื™ื” ื–ื›ืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื

The Gemara answers. This is comparable only to this other case, as we learned in a mishna (Para 2:4): If a bird rested upon a red heifer, it remains fit for use in the purification ritual, as supporting the bird on its back is considered neither labor nor comparable to pulling a yoke. If a male animal mounted it for mating, it is unfit for use in the purification ritual. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the difference between the two cases?

ื›ื“ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื•ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืžื™ืœื ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขื‘ื“ ื•ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืขื“ ื“ืขื‘ื“ ื‘ื” ืื™ื”ื•

The difference is in accordance with the statement of Rav Pappa, as Rav Pappa says with regard to the verse written concerning the heifer whose neck is broken: โ€œAnd the Elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd that has not been worked with and that has not pulled a yokeโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:3). If the word were written with an additional letter vav, which would mean the passive: Has been worked with [ubbad], and we also vocalized the word in the passive voice, ubbad, I would say that even if the heifer performed labor by itself, it is disqualified for use in the ritual. If the word were written without an additional letter vav, which would mean the active: He used it for labor [avad], and we also vocalized the word in the active voice, avad, I would say that indicates that the heifer was fit for use in the ritual until its owner intentionally used it for labor.

ื”ืฉืชื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขื‘ื“ ื•ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืžื” ืขื‘ื“ ื“ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ืืฃ ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื“ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื”

Now that the word is written without an additional letter vav as avad and we vocalize the word with an additional letter vav, as ubbad, in order to render the heifer unfit we require the situation described by the word ubbad be similar to the situation described by the word avad. Just as the word avad indicates that the owner is amenable to the performance of that labor, so too, the word ubbad means that the owner is amenable to the performance of that labor. Since the owner is amenable to the heifer mating, the heifer is rendered unfit. So too, in the first clause of the baraita: If one introduced a calf into a yoke so that it may suckle, and it threshed with the cows, it is fit for use in the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken, because the owner is not amenable to its performing labor.

ื›ืœื™ ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื›ืœื™ ื ื—ื•ืฉืช ืžืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืžื•ืฆื ื›ืœื™ ืขืฅ ืžืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ืฉืœื ื™ืจืงื‘ื• ื›ืœื™ ื ื—ื•ืฉืช ืžืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื‘ื—ืžื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ืื•ืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžืฉื—ื™ืงืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื›ืกืฃ ืžืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฆื•ื ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ื—ืžื™ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžืฉื—ื™ืจืŸ ืžื’ืจื™ืคื•ืช ื•ืงืจื“ื•ืžื•ืช ืžืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื‘ืจืš ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืงืฉื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžืคื—ื™ืชืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ื›ืœื™ ื–ื›ื•ื›ื™ืช ืœื ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ื”ื•

ยง The mishna teaches: If one found silver vessels or copper vessels, he may use them for their own sake; and the same halakha applies to other vessels. The Sages taught in a baraita: One who finds wooden vessels uses them, so that they will not deteriorate due to lack of use. If one found copper vessels he uses them with hot water, but not directly on the fire, due to the fact that it erodes them. If one found silver vessels he uses them with cold water, but not with hot water, because it tarnishes them. If one found rakes or axes, he may use them with soft substances but not with hard substances because using them with those substances damages them. If one found gold vessels or glass vessels, which do not deteriorate due to lack of use, he may not touch them until Elijah will come and identify the owner.

ื›ื“ืจืš ืฉืืžืจื• ื‘ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื›ืš ืืžืจื• ื‘ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ืชื™ื” ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื‘ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ืœื›ื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืœืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื

The baraita continues: In the manner that the Sages said with regard to a lost item, so they said with regard to a deposit. The Gemara asks: What is the bailee doing with a deposit; i.e., the owner should tend to his own item, why is the bailee using it at all? The Gemara answers: Rav Adda bar แธคama said that Rav Sheshet said: It is referring to a deposit whose owner went to a country overseas. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the bailee to tend to the deposit until his return.

ืžืฆื ืฉืง ืื• ืงื•ืคื” [ื•ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ] ืฉืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืœื ื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืชืขืœืžืช ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืืชื” ืžืชืขืœื ื•ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ืžืชืขืœื

ยง The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to the return of a lost item: โ€œYou shall not see your brotherโ€™s ox or his sheep wandering and disregard them; you shall return them to your brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:1). The tanna explains that the phrase โ€œand disregard themโ€ means that there are occasions in which you may disregard lost items and there are occasions in which you may not disregard them.

ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื™ื” ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจื•ืช ืื• ืฉื”ื™ื” ื–ืงืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื” ืœืคื™ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ืื• ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืžืœืื›ื” ืฉืœื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœื›ืš ื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืชืขืœืžืช ืžื”ื

How so; under what circumstances may one disregard a lost item? One may do so in a case where he was a priest and the lost item is in the graveyard (Leviticus 21:1โ€“4), or where he was an elderly person and it is not in keeping with his dignity to tend to the item, or where the value of his labor was greater than the value of the lost item of the other person, i.e., if the finder was to return the item, reimbursing him for his lost wages would cost more than the value of the item; therefore, it is stated: โ€œAnd disregard them.โ€

ืœืžืื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืงื‘ืจื•ืช ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื”ืื™ ืขืฉื” ื•ื”ืื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื•ืขืฉื” ื•ืœื ืืชื™ ืขืฉื” ื•ื“ื—ื™ ืืช ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื•ืขืฉื” ื•ืชื• ืœื ื“ื—ื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืžืงืžื™ ืžืžื•ื ื

The Gemara asks: For what case was a verse necessary to derive that one may disregard a lost item? If we say that the verse is necessary for the case of a priest and the lost item in the graveyard, it is obvious that he need not return the item, as this obligation to return the lost item is a positive mitzva: โ€œYou shall return them to your brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:1), and that entry of a priest into a graveyard is prohibited by both a prohibition: โ€œTo the dead among his people he shall not defile himselfโ€ (Leviticus 21:1), and a positive mitzva: โ€œYou shall be holyโ€ (Leviticus 19:2); and there is a principle that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition and a positive mitzva. And furthermore, we do not override a ritual prohibition in the face of monetary matters.

ืืœื ืœืฉืœื• ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ืคืงื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืคืก ื›ื™

The Gemara suggests: Rather, say that the verse is necessary to derive the exemption from returning the lost item in the case where the value of his labor was greater than the value of the lost item of the other. The Gemara rejects that possibility: That halakha is derived not from the phrase: โ€œAnd disregard them,โ€ but from that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is written: โ€œOnly so that

ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืš ืื‘ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืœืš ืงื•ื“ื ืœืฉืœ ื›ืœ ืื“ื

there shall be no needy among youโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:4). This verse can be understood as a command, indicating that it is incumbent upon each individual to ensure that he will not become needy. Therefore, your assets take precedence over the assets of any other person.

ืืœื ืœื–ืงืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืœืคื™ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื•

The Gemara concludes: Rather, the verse is necessary to derive the exemption from returning the lost item in the case where he was an elderly person and it is not in keeping with his dignity to tend to the item.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื”ื›ื™ืฉื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื•ื” ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื” ื—ื–ื ืœื”ื ืš ืขื™ื–ื™ ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื• ืฉืงืœ ืงืœื ื•ืฉื“ื ื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืงื•ื ืื”ื“ืจื™ื ื”ื•

Rabba says: If there was a lost animal and the elderly person began the process of returning it, e.g., if he struck it even once to guide it in a certain direction, he is obligated to tend to it and return it. The Gemara relates: Abaye was sitting before Rabba and saw these goats standing nearby. He picked up a clod of dirt and threw it at them, causing them to move. Rabba said to him: You have thereby obligated yourself to return them. Arise and return them to their owner.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ื• ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื”ืฉื‘ื” ืžืขืœื™ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœืื• ื“ืจื›ื™ื” ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืœื ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืžื™ื”ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืชื™ืงื•

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case of a person for whom it is his typical manner to return an item of that type in the field, where there are fewer onlookers, but it is not his typical manner to return an item of that type in the city, what is the halakha? Do we say that for one to be obligated to return a lost item we need an unequivocal obligation to return it that applies in all cases, and since it is not his typical manner to return an item of that sort in the city, let him not be obligated to return such an item at all? Or perhaps, he is obligated in any event to return the item in the field, and once he is obligated to return it in the field, he is also obligated in the city. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ืฉืœื• ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื‘ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ืžื™ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ืฉืœื• ืคื•ืจืง ื•ื˜ื•ืขืŸ ื‘ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ืžื™ ืคื•ืจืง ื•ื˜ื•ืขืŸ

Rava says: In any case where he would recover his own item and would consider it to be in keeping with his dignity, he is also obligated to return anotherโ€™s item. And any case where he unloads and loads his own animalโ€™s burden, he is also obligated to unload and load the burden of anotherโ€™s animal.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื•ื” ืงืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืื•ืจื—ื ืคื’ืข ื‘ื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื”ื•ื” ื“ืจื™ ืคืชื›ื ื“ืื•ืคื™ ืื•ืชื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืงื ืžื™ืชืคื— ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ืœื™ ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืžื” ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื’ื ื“ื–ื•ื–ื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื’ื ื“ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ืืคืงืจื”

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was walking on the road. A certain man encountered him, and that man was carrying a burden that consisted of sticks of wood. He set down the wood and was resting. The man said to him: Lift them for me and place them upon me. Since it was not in keeping with the dignity of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, to lift the wood, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: How much are they worth? The man said to him: A half-dinar. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, gave him a half-dinar, took possession of the wood, and declared the wood ownerless.

ื”ื“ืจ ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื”ื• ื”ื“ืจ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื’ื ื“ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ืืคืงืจื” ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ื”ื“ืจ ืœืžื–ื›ื™ื” ื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืืคืงืจื ื”ื• ื•ืœืš ืœื ืืคืงืจื ื”ื•

The man then reacquired the wood and again requested that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, lift the wood for him. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, again gave him a half-dinar, again took possession of the wood, and again declared the wood ownerless. He then saw that the man desired to reacquire the sticks of wood. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: I declared the sticks of wood ownerless with regard to everyone else, but I did not declare them ownerless with regard to you.

ื•ืžื™ ื”ื•ื™ ื”ืคืงืจ ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื”ืคืงืจ ืœืขื ื™ื™ื ื”ืคืงืจ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื”ืคืงืจ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื”ืคืงืจ ืœืขื ื™ื™ื ื•ืœืขืฉื™ืจื™ื ื›ืฉืžื™ื˜ื”

The Gemara asks: But is property rendered ownerless in a case like this? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Peโ€™a 6:1) that Beit Shammai say: Property declared ownerless for the poor is thereby rendered ownerless. And Beit Hillel say: It is not ownerless, until the property will be ownerless for the poor and for the rich, like produce during the Sabbatical Year, which is available for all. As the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, how could Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, declare the wood ownerless selectively, excluding the prior owner of the wood?

ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืืคืงืจื™ื ื”ื• ื•ื‘ืžืœืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื•ืงืžื™ื”

Rather, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, actually declared the wood ownerless to everyone without exception, and it was with a mere statement that he prevented him from reacquiring the wood, i.e., he told the man not to reacquire the wood even though there was no legal impediment to that reacquisition.

ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื–ืงืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืœืคื™ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ื”ื•ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“

The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, an elderly person and it was not in keeping with his dignity to tend to the item? Why did he purchase the wood and render it ownerless in order to absolve himself of the obligation to lift the burden if he had no obligation to do so in the first place? The Gemara answers: In the case of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, he conducted himself beyond the letter of the law, and he could have simply refused the request for help.

ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื•ื”ื•ื“ืขืช ืœื”ื ื–ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื—ื™ื™ื”ื ืืช ื”ื“ืจืš ื–ื• ื’ืžื™ืœื•ืช ื—ืกื“ื™ื ืืฉืจ ื™ืœื›ื• ื–ื” ื‘ื™ืงื•ืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ื ื‘ื” ื–ื• ืงื‘ื•ืจื” ื•ืืช ื”ืžืขืฉื” ื–ื” ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื•ืŸ ื–ื• ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ

The Gemara cites a source for going beyond the letter of the law in the performance of mitzvot. As Rav Yosef taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œAnd you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and shall show them the path wherein they shall walk and the action that they must performโ€ (Exodus 18:20). The baraita parses the various directives in the verse. โ€œAnd you shall teach them,โ€ that is referring to the structure of their livelihood, i.e., teach the Jewish people trades so that they may earn a living; โ€œthe path,โ€ that is referring to acts of kindness; โ€œthey shall walk,โ€ that is referring to visiting the ill; โ€œwherein,โ€ that is referring to burial; โ€œand the action,โ€ that is referring to acting in accordance with the letter of the law; โ€œthat they must perform,โ€ that is referring to acting beyond the letter of the law.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ืœื›ื• ื–ื” ื‘ื™ืงื•ืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื’ืžื™ืœื•ืช ื—ืกื“ื™ื ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื” ืืœื ืœื‘ืŸ ื’ื™ืœื• ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื‘ืŸ ื’ื™ืœื• ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืื—ื“ ืžืฉืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ืœื™ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ื–ืœ ืœื’ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: With regard to the phrase โ€œthey shall walk,โ€ that is referring to visiting the ill. The Gemara asks: That is a detail of acts of kindness; why does the baraita list it separately? The Gemara answers: The reference to visiting the ill is necessary only for the contemporary of the ill person, as the Master said: When one who is a contemporary of an ill person visits him, he takes one-sixtieth of his illness. Since visiting an ill contemporary involves contracting a bit of his illness, a special derivation is necessary to teach that even so, he is required to go and visit him.

ื‘ื” ื–ื• ืงื‘ื•ืจื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื’ืžื™ืœื•ืช ื—ืกื“ื™ื ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื” ืืœื ืœื–ืงืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืœืคื™ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื•

It was taught in the baraita: With regard to the phrase โ€œwherein,โ€ that is referring to burial. The Gemara asks: That is a detail of acts of kindness; why does the baraita list it separately? The Gemara answers: The reference to burial is necessary only to teach the halakha of an elderly person, and it is in a circumstance where it is not in keeping with his dignity to bury the dead. Therefore, a special derivation is necessary to teach that even so, he is required to participate in the burial.

ืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื•ืŸ ื–ื• ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ื—ืจื‘ื” ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืืœื ืขืœ ืฉื“ื ื• ื‘ื” ื“ื™ืŸ ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ื“ื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื’ื™ื–ืชื ืœื“ื™ื™ื ื• ืืœื ืื™ืžื ืฉื”ืขืžื™ื“ื• ื“ื™ื ื™ื”ื ืขืœ ื“ื™ืŸ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื• ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ

It was taught in the baraita: โ€œThat they must performโ€; that is referring to acting beyond the letter of the law, as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Jerusalem was destroyed only for the fact that they adjudicated cases on the basis of Torah law in the city. The Gemara asks: Rather, what else should they have done? Should they rather have adjudicated cases on the basis of arbitrary decisions [demagizeta]? Rather, say: That they established their rulings on the basis of Torah law and did not go beyond the letter of the law.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ืžืฆื ื—ืžื•ืจ ืื• ืคืจื” ืจื•ืขื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจืš ืื™ืŸ ื–ื• ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื›ืœื™ื• ื”ืคื•ื›ื™ืŸ ืคืจื” ืจืฆื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืจืžื™ื ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื” ื•ื‘ืจื—ื” ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื” ื•ื‘ืจื—ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžื™ืฉื” ืคืขืžื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ืฉื‘ ืชืฉื™ื‘ื

MISHNA: Which is the item that is considered lost property? If one found a donkey or a cow grazing on the path, that is not lost property, as presumably the owners are nearby and are aware of the animalsโ€™ whereabouts. If one found a donkey with its accoutrements overturned, or a cow that ran through the vineyards, that is lost property. In a case where one returned the lost animal and it fled, and he again returned it and it fled, even if this scenario repeats itself four or five times, he is obligated to return it each time, as it is stated: โ€œYou shall not see your brotherโ€™s ox or his sheep wandering and disregard them; you shall return them to your brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:1).

ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื˜ืœ ืžืกืœืข ืœื ื™ืืžืจ ืœื• ืชืŸ ืœื™ ืกืœืข ืืœื ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ืฉื›ืจื• ื›ืคื•ืขืœ ืื ื™ืฉ ืฉื ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืžืชื ื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืžื™ ื™ืชื ื” ืฉืœื• ืงื•ื“ื

If in the course of tending to and returning the lost item, the finder was idle from labor that would have earned him a sela, he shall not say to the owner of the item: Give me a sela to compensate me for my lost income. Rather, the owner gives him his wage as if he were a laborer, a payment that is considerably smaller. If there are three men there who can convene as a court, he may stipulate before the court that he will undertake to return the item provided that he receives full compensation for lost income. If there is no court there before whom can he stipulate his condition, his financial interests take precedence and he need not return the lost item.

ื’ืžืณ ืื˜ื• ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœืื• ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื”ื•ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื›ืœืœ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ืžืฆื ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ืคืจื” ืจื•ืขื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจืš ืื™ืŸ ื–ื• ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื” ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ื›ืœื™ื• ื”ืคื•ื›ื™ื ืคืจื” ื•ืจืฆื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืจืžื™ื ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื•ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื”

GEMARA: With regard to the question in the mishna: Which is the item that is considered lost property, the Gemara asks: Is that to say that all those other cases that we stated in this chapter are not lost property? Rav Yehuda said that this is what the tanna is saying: What is the principle employed in defining a lost item that one is obligated to return? The mishna cites examples to illustrate the principle: If one found a donkey or a cow grazing on the path, that is not lost property, and he is not obligated to return it. But if one found a donkey with its accoutrements overturned, or a cow that was running through the vineyards, that is lost property, and he is obligated to return it.

ื•ืœืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืขื“ ืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื‘ืœื™ืœื•ืชื ืืคื™ืœื• ื—ื“ื ืฉืขืชื ื ืžื™ ืื™ ื‘ื™ืžืžื ืืคื™ืœื• ื˜ื•ื‘ื ื ืžื™ ืœื

With regard to the ruling in the mishna that a donkey and cow grazing on the path are not considered lost property, the Gemara asks: And is that the case even if they graze there untended forever? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Until three days pass they are not lost. Thereafter, they are considered lost. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the animal is found grazing at night, even if it is untended for even one hour it can be presumed to be lost, as an owner never grazes his animals untended at night. If the animal is found grazing during the day, even if it is untended for more than three days, it is also not presumed to be lost.

ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ื—ื–ื™ ืœื” ื‘ืงื“ืžืชื ื•ื‘ื—ืฉื›ืชื ืชืœืชื ื™ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืชืจืžื•ื™ื™ ืืชืจืžื™ ืœื” ื•ื ืคืงื ื˜ืคื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ืื‘ื™ื“ื” ื”ื™ื

The Gemara answers: No, the measure of three days is necessary only in a case where one saw the animal grazing in the early hours in the morning and in the dark of nightfall. For the first three days, we say: It happened that the animal went out a bit earlier or a bit later than usual, but nevertheless, it was with the ownerโ€™s knowledge. Once this is observed for more than three days, it is certainly a lost item.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืฆื ื˜ืœื™ืช ื•ืงืจื“ื•ื

This is also taught in a baraita: If one found a cloak or an ax

Scroll To Top