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

Daf Yomi

April 1, 2024 | 讻状讘 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Bava Metzia 33

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in loving memory of his beloved bride and best friend of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi, on the occasion of her first yahrzeit. “You will be in my heart forever.”聽

There are two more attempts to prove that tza’ar ba’alei chayim is a rabbinic law, but they are rejected. Within what distance from the animal is one obligated to help load/unload? What is the order of precedence in dealing with people’s lost items between oneself, one’s father, and one’s rabbi? What is the definition of ‘one’s rabbi’? Is it better to learn Torah, Mishna, or Gemara? What are the dangers of learning Mishna without learning Gemara? What are the dangers of learning Gemara without learning Mishna? If one is watching another’s item (an animal or vessels) and is not getting paid (shomer chinam), and the item is stolen, the shomer can take an oath and is exempt. If they find the thief and retrieve the item, the thief pays the double payment to the original owner. But if the shomer decides to pay for the stolen item, the thief will pay the double payment to the shomer. Why was it necessary to mention both an animal and vessels?

专讘抓 讜诇讗 专讘爪谉 专讘抓 讜诇讗 注讜诪讚 转讞转 诪砖讗讜 讜诇讗 诪驻讜专拽 转讞转 诪砖讗讜 诪砖讗讜讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讛 诇讬 专讜讘抓 讜诪讛 诇讬 专讘爪谉 讜诪讛 诇讬 注讜诪讚


It is written: 鈥淚f you see the donkey鈥ollapsed under its burden鈥 (Exodus 23:5). The baraita infers that this obligation to unload a burden applies with regard to an animal that is 鈥渃ollapsed,鈥 but not with one that is a habitual collapser; 鈥渃ollapsed,鈥 but not standing; 鈥渦nder its burden,鈥 but not when it is unloaded; and 鈥渦nder its burden,鈥 meaning a burden that is not excessive, that the animal can bear. The Gemara reasons: And if you say that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is by Torah law, what is it to me if the animal is collapsed; and what is it to me if the animal is a habitual collapser; and what is it to me if the animal is standing? One should be obligated to unload its burden in any case, if the animal is suffering.


讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is by rabbinic law, and the ordinance does not apply in these circumstances.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 转讞转 诪砖讗讜 诪砖讗讜讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘讜 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara supports its answer: So too, it is reasonable to explain the baraita in this manner, as it is taught in the baraita cited above: 鈥淯nder its burden鈥 indicates a burden that the animal can bear. About whom did you hear that he holds that line of reasoning? It is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.


讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 转讞转 诪砖讗讜 讜诇讗 诪驻讜专拽 诪讗讬 诇讗 诪驻讜专拽 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗 诪驻讜专拽 讻诇诇 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讛拽诐 转拽讬诐 注诪讜 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 诪驻讜专拽 讘讞谞诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讻专 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讜讘讟注讬谞讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉


The Gemara asks: And can you establish the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the latter clause of the baraita: 鈥淯nder its burden,鈥 but not when it is unloaded? What is the meaning of: Not when it is unloaded? If we say that it means that when it is unloaded there is no obligation at all, isn鈥檛 it written in that case: 鈥淵ou shall lift them with him鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:4), teaching that there is a mitzva to load an animal? Rather, it is obvious that the meaning is that when it is unloaded, one is not obligated to load it for free; rather, he may do so for remuneration. About whom did you hear that he holds that line of reasoning? It is the Rabbis. Apparently, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The Gemara answers: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and in the matter of loading he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 转专讗讛 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讞讜拽 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 转驻讙注 讗讬 讻讬 转驻讙注 讬讻讜诇 驻讙讬注讛 诪诪砖 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 转专讗讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 专讗讬讬讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 驻讙讬注讛 砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讞讚 诪砖讘注 讜诪讞爪讛 讘诪讬诇 讜讝讛 讛讜讗 专讬住


The Sages taught in a baraita: It is written: 鈥淚f you see the donkey of him that hates you collapsed under its burden鈥ou shall release it with him鈥 (Exodus 23:5). I might have thought one is obligated even if he sees the animal from a distance; therefore the previous verse states: 鈥淚f you encounter your enemy鈥檚 ox or his donkey going astray, you shall return it to him鈥 (Exodus 23:4). If the Torah had written only: 鈥淚f you encounter,鈥 I might have thought that one is obligated to unload the burden only if there was an actual encounter; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚f you see.鈥 And what is seeing in which there is an element of encounter? The Sages calculated it as one of seven and a half portions, i.e., two-fifteenths, of a mil, and that is the measure of a ris.


转谞讗 讜诪讚讚讛 注诪讜 注讚 驻专住讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讜谞讜讟诇 砖讻专


It is taught in a baraita: After loading the burden onto the animal, one walks with it up to one parasang [parsa] to ensure that the burden will not fall again. Rabba bar bar 岣na says: And he takes remuneration for accompanying the animal, as that is not included in the mitzva.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讘讚转讜 讜讗讘讚转 讗讘讬讜 讗讘讚转讜 拽讜讚诪转 讗讘讚转讜 讜讗讘讚转 专讘讜 砖诇讜 拽讜讚诐


MISHNA: If one finds his lost item and his father鈥檚 lost item, tending to his own lost item takes precedence. Similarly, if one finds his lost item and his teacher鈥檚 lost item, tending to his own lost item takes precedence.


讗讘讚转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讘讚转 专讘讜 砖诇 专讘讜 拽讜讚诪转 砖讗讘讬讜 讛讘讬讗讜 诇注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讜专讘讜 砖诇诪讚讜 讞讻诪讛 诪讘讬讗讜 诇讞讬讬 讛注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讜讗诐 讗讘讬讜 讞讻诐 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 拽讜讚诪转


If one finds his father鈥檚 lost item and his teacher鈥檚 lost item, tending to his teacher鈥檚 lost item takes precedence, as his father brought him into this world, and his teacher, who taught him the wisdom of Torah, brings him to life in the World-to-Come. And if his father is a Torah scholar, then his father鈥檚 lost item takes precedence.


讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讜专讘讜 谞讜砖讗讬谉 诪砖讗讜讬 诪谞讬讞 讗转 砖诇 专讘讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪谞讬讞 讗转 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讜专讘讜 讘讘讬转 讛砖讘讬 驻讜讚讛 讗转 专讘讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 驻讜讚讛 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诐 讗讘讬讜 讞讻诐 驻讜讚讛 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 驻讜讚讛 讗转 专讘讜


If his father and his teacher were each carrying a burden and he wants to assist them in putting down their burdens, he first places his teacher鈥檚 burden down and thereafter places his father鈥檚 burden down. If his father and his teacher were in captivity, he first redeems his teacher and thereafter redeems his father. And if his father is a Torah scholar, he first redeems his father and thereafter redeems his teacher.


讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗驻住 讻讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讱 讗讘讬讜谉 砖诇讱 拽讜讚诐 诇砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐


GEMARA: With regard to precedence in the return of lost items, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that the verse states: 鈥淥nly so that there shall be no needy among you鈥 (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 property takes precedence over the property of any other person.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛诪拽讬讬诐 讘注爪诪讜 讻讱 住讜祝 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讻讱


And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Although that is the halakha, anyone who fastidiously fulfills this principle with regard to his property at the expense of others鈥 property ultimately comes to experience that fate. He will become impoverished, and others will prioritize their interests at his expense.


讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讜专讘讜 谞讜砖讗讬谉 诪砖讗讜讬 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讘讜 砖讗诪专讜 专讘讜 砖诇诪讚讜 讞讻诪讛 讜诇讗 专讘讜 砖诇诪讚讜 诪拽专讗 讜诪砖谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖专讜讘 讞讻诪转讜 讛讬诪谞讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讛讗讬专 注讬谞讬讜 讗诇讗 讘诪砖谞讛 讗讞转 讝讛 讛讜讗 专讘讜


搂 The mishna teaches: If his father and his teacher were each carrying a burden, he first places his teacher鈥檚 burden down and thereafter places his father鈥檚 burden down. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:30): His teacher, with regard to whom the tanna鈥檌m stated in the mishna that his burden takes precedence, is his teacher who taught him wisdom, i.e., the profound analysis of the Torah that constitutes the Talmud, and not his teacher who taught him Bible or Mishna; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The reference is to any teacher from whom one learned most of his knowledge, be it Bible, Mishna, or Talmud. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if he enlightened him in the understanding of only one mishna, that is his teacher.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 专讘 住讞讜专讛 讚讗住讘专谉 讝讜讛诪讗 诇讬住讟专讜谉 砖诪讜讗诇 拽专注 诪讗谞讬讛 注诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗住讘专讬讛 讗讞讚 讬讜专讚 诇讗诪转 讛砖讞讬 讜讗讞讚 驻讜转讞 讻讬讜谉


Rava said: For example, Rav Se岣ra is my teacher with regard to these matters, as he explained to me the meaning of the term in a mishna (Kelim 13:2) zuhama listeron, a utensil with a spoon on one end and a fork on the other. Shmuel rent his garment in mourning over the passing of one of the Sages who explained to him the meaning of a mishna (Tamid 3:6) that describes the two keys that opened the compartment through which the priest would enter the Sanctuary each morning: One is the key with which the priest would open the inside lock. He would insert his arm up to his armpit through a small opening in the door and reach down and open the lock that was at the bottom of the door on the inside, and he would go through that door into a compartment. And the other one is the key with which the priest opened the lock on the inner door of the compartment, through which he entered the Sanctuary, and he opened that lock directly.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 注讜诪讚讬谉 讝讛 诪驻谞讬 讝讛 讜拽讜专注讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诇注谞讬谉 讗讘讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜 诪讜讘讛拽


Ulla says: The Torah scholars who are in Babylonia rise in deference before one another and rend their garments in mourning over one another鈥檚 passing. In contrast to Eretz Yisrael, where the preeminent Torah scholars and teachers served at the heads of the Torah academies, in Babylonia most scholars studied Torah with peers and there was no preeminent teacher. But with regard to returning a lost item in a case where both one鈥檚 father and one鈥檚 teacher lost an item, he returns the lost item only to his preeminent teacher before returning that of his father, and not to his peer or to one who taught him the meaning of one mishna or one term.


拽讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 转诇诪讬讚 讜爪专讬讱 诇讜 专讘讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞住讚讗 讞住讚讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻谞讗 诇讱 讗转 爪专讬讻转 诇讬 注讚 讗专讘注讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讗讬拽驻讚讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讜诇讗 注讬讬诇讬 诇讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 讬转讬讘 专讘 讞讬住讚讗 讗专讘注讬谉 转注谞讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诇砖 讚注转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗专讘注讬谉 转注谞讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞砖讚讬讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗


Rav 岣sda raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: If there is a student, and his teacher needs him because he serves as his peer and study partner, what is the halakha with regard to precedence in a case where he finds a lost item belonging to his father and one belonging to his teacher? As Rav 岣sda was Rav Huna鈥檚 disciple-colleague, Rav Huna assumed that Rav 岣sda was referring to himself and said to him: 岣sda, 岣sda, I do not need you. On the contrary, you need me until you complete forty years of study before me. They grew angry with each other over the perceived insult and the harsh reaction, and each did not enter to visit the other. Rav 岣sda was contrite and observed forty fasts due to the fact that Rav Huna was offended, although it had not been his intention to offend him. Rav Huna observed forty fasts due to the fact that he had erroneously suspected that Rav 岣sda was referring to the relationship between them.


讗讬转诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


It was stated that Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that returning the teacher鈥檚 lost item takes precedence only in the case of his preeminent teacher. Rav A岣 bar Rav Huna says that Rav Sheshet says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that returning the teacher鈥檚 lost item takes precedence even if the teacher enlightened him with regard to only one mishna.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 专讘讜 砖诇诪讚讜 讞讻诪讛 诪讗讬 讞讻诪讛 专讜讘 讞讻诪转讜


The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan say that? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The halakha is always in accordance with the opinion cited in an unattributed mishna; and we learned an unattributed opinion in the mishna that returning the teacher鈥檚 lost item takes precedence in the case of: His teacher, who taught him the wisdom of Torah. The ruling of the unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of wisdom in this context? It means the majority of his wisdom.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛注讜住拽讬谉 讘诪拽专讗 诪讚讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讚讛 讘诪砖谞讛 诪讚讛 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 注诇讬讛 砖讻专 讘转诇诪讜讚 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪讚讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜 讜诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讬 专抓 诇诪砖谞讛 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛转诇诪讜讚


The Sages taught in a baraita: For those who engage in the study of Bible, it is a virtue but not a complete virtue. For those who engage in the study of Mishna, it is a virtue and they receive reward for its study. For those who engage in the study of Talmud, you have no virtue greater than that. And always pursue study of the Mishna more than study of the Talmud.


讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讘转诇诪讜讚 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪讚讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜 讜讛讚专 讗诪专转 讜诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讬 专抓 诇诪砖谞讛 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛转诇诪讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, as the baraita is self-contradictory. You said: For those who engage in the study of Talmud, you have no virtue greater than that. And then you said: And always pursue study of the Mishna more than study of the Talmud. Rabbi Yo岣nan says:


讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 谞砖谞讬转 诪砖谞讛 讝讜 砖讘拽讜 讻讜诇讗 注诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讗讝诇讜 讘转专 转诇诪讜讚讗 讛讚专 讚专砖 诇讛讜 讜诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讬 专抓 诇诪砖谞讛 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛转诇诪讜讚


It was during the era of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the beginning of this baraita extolling the study of Talmud was taught. The result was that everyone abandoned study of the Mishna and pursued the study of the Talmud. It was then that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught them: And always pursue study of the Mishna more than study of the Talmud, as without a firm basis in the fundamental halakhot of the Mishna, talmudic discourse is futile.


诪讗讬 讚专讜砖 讻讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讛讙讚 诇注诪讬 驻砖注诐 讜诇讘讬转 讬注拽讘 讞讟讗转诐


The Gemara asks: On the basis of what homiletic interpretation did the tanna state that there is no virtue greater than the study of Talmud? It is just as Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, interpreted homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淐ry aloud, spare not, lift up your voice like a horn, and declare to My people their transgression and to the house of Jacob their sins鈥 (Isaiah 58:1)?


讛讙讚 诇注诪讬 驻砖注诐 讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖砖讙讙讜转 谞注砖讜转 诇讛诐 讻讝讚讜谞讜转 讜诇讘讬转 讬注拽讘 讞讟讗转诐 讗诇讜 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 砖讝讚讜谞讜转 谞注砖讜转 诇讛诐 讻砖讙讙讜转 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜讬 讝讛讬专 讘转诇诪讜讚 砖砖讙讙转 转诇诪讜讚 注讜诇讛 讝讚讜谉


In the phrase 鈥渄eclare to My people their transgression,鈥 these people are the Torah scholars, whose unwitting transgressions become for them tantamount to intentional transgressions. Due to their erudition, they are held to a higher standard. 鈥淎nd to the house of Jacob their sins,鈥 these are the ignoramuses, whose intentional transgressions become for them tantamount to unwitting transgressions. Due to their lack of erudition, they are held to a lower standard. And that is the basis of that which we learned in a mishna (Avot 4:13), that Rabbi Yehuda says: Be careful in the study of the Talmud, as a transgression based on an unwitting misinterpretation of the Talmud is considered an intentional transgression.


讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 砖诪注讜 讚讘专 讛壮 讛讞专讚讬诐 讗诇 讚讘专讜 讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 [讗诪专讜] 讗讞讬讻诐 讗诇讜 讘注诇讬 诪拽专讗 砖谞讗讬讻诐 讗诇讜 讘注诇讬 诪砖谞讛 诪谞讚讬讻诐 讗诇讜 注诪讬 讛讗专抓


Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, interpreted a verse homiletically. What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淗ear the word of the Lord, you who tremble at His word: Your brothers that hate you, that ostracize you for My name鈥檚 sake, have said: Let the Lord be glorified, that we may gaze upon your joy, but they shall be ashamed鈥 (Isaiah 66:5)? 鈥淗ear the word of the Lord, you who tremble at His word,鈥 these are Torah scholars; 鈥測our brothers鈥ave said,鈥 these are masters of the Bible, who are aware of their shortcomings and treat the Torah scholars with deference; 鈥渢hat hate you,鈥 these are masters of Mishna, who consider themselves the equals of Torah scholars and resent the fact that the Torah scholars do not treat them as equals; 鈥渢hat ostracize you,鈥 these are ignoramuses, who distance themselves with their actions from the Torah scholars.


砖诪讗 转讗诪专 驻住拽 住讘专诐 讜讘讟诇 住讬讻讜讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞专讗讛 讘砖诪讞转讻诐 砖诪讗 转讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇 讬讘讜砖讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛诐 讬讘砖讜 谞讻专讬诐 讬讘讜砖讜 讜讬砖专讗诇 讬砖诪讞讜


Lest you say, with regard to those groups who are not Torah scholars, that their hope has ceased and their chances are eliminated, the verse states: 鈥淭hat we may gaze upon your joy.鈥 All of the Jewish people, including the groups listed above, will gaze upon the joy of the Torah scholars. Lest you say that the Jewish people will be ashamed, the verse states: 鈥淏ut they shall be ashamed,鈥 meaning that gentiles will be ashamed, but the Jewish people will be joyous.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗诇讜 诪爪讬讗讜转



诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 讜谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚讜 砖讬诇诐 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇讬砖讘注 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞砖讘注 讜讬讜爪讗


MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits an animal or vessels with another, who is acting as an unpaid bailee, and they were stolen or they were lost, and the bailee paid the owner the value of the deposit, and did not wish to take an oath that he did not misappropriate the item and that he was not negligent in safeguarding it, that will effect who keeps the deposit if it is found or returned. The bailee may also choose to take the oath, as the Sages said: An unpaid bailee takes an oath, and he is thereby released from the liability to pay the owner.


谞诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诇诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诇诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜


If the thief is later found, the thief pays the double payment. If the deposited item was a sheep or an ox and the thief slaughtered or sold it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. To whom does the thief pay? He gives the payment to the one who had the deposit in his possession when it was stolen, i.e., the bailee. When the bailee paid the owner for the stolen item, the owner granted the rights to the item to the bailee. Therefore, the bailee is entitled to any payment the thief presents for the item, be it compensation for the item鈥檚 value or a fine.


谞砖讘注 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇砖诇诐 谞诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诇诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诇讘注诇 讛驻拽讚讜谉


In the case of a bailee who took an oath and did not wish to pay, if the thief is then found and required to pay the double payment, or if he slaughtered or sold the animal and is required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, to whom does the thief pay? He gives the payment to the owner of the deposit, not the bailee.


讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讬 讻诇讬诐


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna need to teach the case of one who deposits an animal, and why does the mishna need to teach the case of one who deposits vessels? The mishna could have sufficed with a general halakha about one who deposits any item.


爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 讚诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚谞驻讬砖 讟讬专讞讛 诇注讬讜诇讛 讜诇讗驻讜拽讛 讗讘诇 讻诇讬诐 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讟讬专讞讬讬讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗


The Gemara explains: Both are necessary, as, if the mishna taught only the case of one who deposits an animal, I would say: It is only with regard to an animal that the owner agrees to transfer rights to the double payment to the bailee when the bailee pays for the stolen item. This is due to the fact that the exertion required to tend to the animal, to bring the animal in and to take it out, is great. Consequently, when it becomes clear that the bailee was not responsible for the theft of the animal but nevertheless compensated the owner, the owner waives his rights to any compensation the thief will pay. But in the case of vessels, where the exertion that is required to tend to the vessels is not great, say that the owner does not transfer to the bailee rights to the double payment.


讜讗讬 转谞讗 讻诇讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讻驻诇讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讘讛诪讛 讚讻讬 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And had the mishna taught only the case of one who deposits vessels, I would say: It is only with regard to vessels that the owner transfers rights to the double payment to the bailee when the bailee pays for the lost item. This is due to the fact that double payment, in their case, is not substantial, as that is the maximum payment that he could receive. But in the case of an animal, where if the thief slaughtered or sold it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment, which is substantial, I would say that the owner does not transfer the rights to the double payment to the bailee. Therefore, both cases are necessary.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讻讙讜谉 驻讬专讜转 讚拽诇 讚注讘讬讚讬 讚讗转讜


Rami bar 岣ma objects to the fundamental reasoning. How can the owner of the deposit transfer rights to the double payment to the bailee? But isn鈥檛 there a principle that one cannot transfer to another ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world? Since the thief was not yet liable to pay the double payment when the bailee paid the owner for the item, there was no way to transfer rights to that payment to another person. And even according to Rabbi Meir, who says that a person can transfer to another ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, that statement applies to items such as the fruits of a date palm, which are likely to come into being, as they grow on a regular basis.


讗讘诇 讛讻讗


But here, where the transfer of rights to the payment is part of the initial agreement between the owner and the bailee, taking effect when the item is deposited,


  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Metzia 29 – 35 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

If one finds holy scrolls, one needs to unroll them and read from them every 30 days to maintain them...
On Second Thought (2)

Animal Cruelty – On Second Thought

On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer Sources Bava Metzia 33-34 Listen here: Watch here: https://youtu.be/cPHJmPBvE1k...
talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 33: Your Father, Your Teacher

A mishnah asks whose lost item is more important for one to return - your father or your teacher. The...

Bava Metzia 33

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 33

专讘抓 讜诇讗 专讘爪谉 专讘抓 讜诇讗 注讜诪讚 转讞转 诪砖讗讜 讜诇讗 诪驻讜专拽 转讞转 诪砖讗讜 诪砖讗讜讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讛 诇讬 专讜讘抓 讜诪讛 诇讬 专讘爪谉 讜诪讛 诇讬 注讜诪讚


It is written: 鈥淚f you see the donkey鈥ollapsed under its burden鈥 (Exodus 23:5). The baraita infers that this obligation to unload a burden applies with regard to an animal that is 鈥渃ollapsed,鈥 but not with one that is a habitual collapser; 鈥渃ollapsed,鈥 but not standing; 鈥渦nder its burden,鈥 but not when it is unloaded; and 鈥渦nder its burden,鈥 meaning a burden that is not excessive, that the animal can bear. The Gemara reasons: And if you say that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is by Torah law, what is it to me if the animal is collapsed; and what is it to me if the animal is a habitual collapser; and what is it to me if the animal is standing? One should be obligated to unload its burden in any case, if the animal is suffering.


讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is by rabbinic law, and the ordinance does not apply in these circumstances.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 转讞转 诪砖讗讜 诪砖讗讜讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘讜 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara supports its answer: So too, it is reasonable to explain the baraita in this manner, as it is taught in the baraita cited above: 鈥淯nder its burden鈥 indicates a burden that the animal can bear. About whom did you hear that he holds that line of reasoning? It is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.


讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 转讞转 诪砖讗讜 讜诇讗 诪驻讜专拽 诪讗讬 诇讗 诪驻讜专拽 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗 诪驻讜专拽 讻诇诇 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讛拽诐 转拽讬诐 注诪讜 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 诪驻讜专拽 讘讞谞诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讻专 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讜讘讟注讬谞讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉


The Gemara asks: And can you establish the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the latter clause of the baraita: 鈥淯nder its burden,鈥 but not when it is unloaded? What is the meaning of: Not when it is unloaded? If we say that it means that when it is unloaded there is no obligation at all, isn鈥檛 it written in that case: 鈥淵ou shall lift them with him鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:4), teaching that there is a mitzva to load an animal? Rather, it is obvious that the meaning is that when it is unloaded, one is not obligated to load it for free; rather, he may do so for remuneration. About whom did you hear that he holds that line of reasoning? It is the Rabbis. Apparently, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The Gemara answers: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and in the matter of loading he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 转专讗讛 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讞讜拽 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 转驻讙注 讗讬 讻讬 转驻讙注 讬讻讜诇 驻讙讬注讛 诪诪砖 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 转专讗讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 专讗讬讬讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 驻讙讬注讛 砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讞讚 诪砖讘注 讜诪讞爪讛 讘诪讬诇 讜讝讛 讛讜讗 专讬住


The Sages taught in a baraita: It is written: 鈥淚f you see the donkey of him that hates you collapsed under its burden鈥ou shall release it with him鈥 (Exodus 23:5). I might have thought one is obligated even if he sees the animal from a distance; therefore the previous verse states: 鈥淚f you encounter your enemy鈥檚 ox or his donkey going astray, you shall return it to him鈥 (Exodus 23:4). If the Torah had written only: 鈥淚f you encounter,鈥 I might have thought that one is obligated to unload the burden only if there was an actual encounter; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚f you see.鈥 And what is seeing in which there is an element of encounter? The Sages calculated it as one of seven and a half portions, i.e., two-fifteenths, of a mil, and that is the measure of a ris.


转谞讗 讜诪讚讚讛 注诪讜 注讚 驻专住讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讜谞讜讟诇 砖讻专


It is taught in a baraita: After loading the burden onto the animal, one walks with it up to one parasang [parsa] to ensure that the burden will not fall again. Rabba bar bar 岣na says: And he takes remuneration for accompanying the animal, as that is not included in the mitzva.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讘讚转讜 讜讗讘讚转 讗讘讬讜 讗讘讚转讜 拽讜讚诪转 讗讘讚转讜 讜讗讘讚转 专讘讜 砖诇讜 拽讜讚诐


MISHNA: If one finds his lost item and his father鈥檚 lost item, tending to his own lost item takes precedence. Similarly, if one finds his lost item and his teacher鈥檚 lost item, tending to his own lost item takes precedence.


讗讘讚转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讘讚转 专讘讜 砖诇 专讘讜 拽讜讚诪转 砖讗讘讬讜 讛讘讬讗讜 诇注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讜专讘讜 砖诇诪讚讜 讞讻诪讛 诪讘讬讗讜 诇讞讬讬 讛注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讜讗诐 讗讘讬讜 讞讻诐 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 拽讜讚诪转


If one finds his father鈥檚 lost item and his teacher鈥檚 lost item, tending to his teacher鈥檚 lost item takes precedence, as his father brought him into this world, and his teacher, who taught him the wisdom of Torah, brings him to life in the World-to-Come. And if his father is a Torah scholar, then his father鈥檚 lost item takes precedence.


讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讜专讘讜 谞讜砖讗讬谉 诪砖讗讜讬 诪谞讬讞 讗转 砖诇 专讘讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪谞讬讞 讗转 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讜专讘讜 讘讘讬转 讛砖讘讬 驻讜讚讛 讗转 专讘讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 驻讜讚讛 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诐 讗讘讬讜 讞讻诐 驻讜讚讛 讗转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 驻讜讚讛 讗转 专讘讜


If his father and his teacher were each carrying a burden and he wants to assist them in putting down their burdens, he first places his teacher鈥檚 burden down and thereafter places his father鈥檚 burden down. If his father and his teacher were in captivity, he first redeems his teacher and thereafter redeems his father. And if his father is a Torah scholar, he first redeems his father and thereafter redeems his teacher.


讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗驻住 讻讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讱 讗讘讬讜谉 砖诇讱 拽讜讚诐 诇砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐


GEMARA: With regard to precedence in the return of lost items, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that the verse states: 鈥淥nly so that there shall be no needy among you鈥 (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 property takes precedence over the property of any other person.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛诪拽讬讬诐 讘注爪诪讜 讻讱 住讜祝 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讻讱


And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Although that is the halakha, anyone who fastidiously fulfills this principle with regard to his property at the expense of others鈥 property ultimately comes to experience that fate. He will become impoverished, and others will prioritize their interests at his expense.


讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 讜专讘讜 谞讜砖讗讬谉 诪砖讗讜讬 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讘讜 砖讗诪专讜 专讘讜 砖诇诪讚讜 讞讻诪讛 讜诇讗 专讘讜 砖诇诪讚讜 诪拽专讗 讜诪砖谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖专讜讘 讞讻诪转讜 讛讬诪谞讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讛讗讬专 注讬谞讬讜 讗诇讗 讘诪砖谞讛 讗讞转 讝讛 讛讜讗 专讘讜


搂 The mishna teaches: If his father and his teacher were each carrying a burden, he first places his teacher鈥檚 burden down and thereafter places his father鈥檚 burden down. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:30): His teacher, with regard to whom the tanna鈥檌m stated in the mishna that his burden takes precedence, is his teacher who taught him wisdom, i.e., the profound analysis of the Torah that constitutes the Talmud, and not his teacher who taught him Bible or Mishna; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The reference is to any teacher from whom one learned most of his knowledge, be it Bible, Mishna, or Talmud. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if he enlightened him in the understanding of only one mishna, that is his teacher.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 专讘 住讞讜专讛 讚讗住讘专谉 讝讜讛诪讗 诇讬住讟专讜谉 砖诪讜讗诇 拽专注 诪讗谞讬讛 注诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗住讘专讬讛 讗讞讚 讬讜专讚 诇讗诪转 讛砖讞讬 讜讗讞讚 驻讜转讞 讻讬讜谉


Rava said: For example, Rav Se岣ra is my teacher with regard to these matters, as he explained to me the meaning of the term in a mishna (Kelim 13:2) zuhama listeron, a utensil with a spoon on one end and a fork on the other. Shmuel rent his garment in mourning over the passing of one of the Sages who explained to him the meaning of a mishna (Tamid 3:6) that describes the two keys that opened the compartment through which the priest would enter the Sanctuary each morning: One is the key with which the priest would open the inside lock. He would insert his arm up to his armpit through a small opening in the door and reach down and open the lock that was at the bottom of the door on the inside, and he would go through that door into a compartment. And the other one is the key with which the priest opened the lock on the inner door of the compartment, through which he entered the Sanctuary, and he opened that lock directly.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 注讜诪讚讬谉 讝讛 诪驻谞讬 讝讛 讜拽讜专注讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诇注谞讬谉 讗讘讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜 诪讜讘讛拽


Ulla says: The Torah scholars who are in Babylonia rise in deference before one another and rend their garments in mourning over one another鈥檚 passing. In contrast to Eretz Yisrael, where the preeminent Torah scholars and teachers served at the heads of the Torah academies, in Babylonia most scholars studied Torah with peers and there was no preeminent teacher. But with regard to returning a lost item in a case where both one鈥檚 father and one鈥檚 teacher lost an item, he returns the lost item only to his preeminent teacher before returning that of his father, and not to his peer or to one who taught him the meaning of one mishna or one term.


拽讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 转诇诪讬讚 讜爪专讬讱 诇讜 专讘讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞住讚讗 讞住讚讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻谞讗 诇讱 讗转 爪专讬讻转 诇讬 注讚 讗专讘注讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讗讬拽驻讚讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讜诇讗 注讬讬诇讬 诇讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 讬转讬讘 专讘 讞讬住讚讗 讗专讘注讬谉 转注谞讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诇砖 讚注转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗专讘注讬谉 转注谞讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞砖讚讬讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗


Rav 岣sda raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: If there is a student, and his teacher needs him because he serves as his peer and study partner, what is the halakha with regard to precedence in a case where he finds a lost item belonging to his father and one belonging to his teacher? As Rav 岣sda was Rav Huna鈥檚 disciple-colleague, Rav Huna assumed that Rav 岣sda was referring to himself and said to him: 岣sda, 岣sda, I do not need you. On the contrary, you need me until you complete forty years of study before me. They grew angry with each other over the perceived insult and the harsh reaction, and each did not enter to visit the other. Rav 岣sda was contrite and observed forty fasts due to the fact that Rav Huna was offended, although it had not been his intention to offend him. Rav Huna observed forty fasts due to the fact that he had erroneously suspected that Rav 岣sda was referring to the relationship between them.


讗讬转诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


It was stated that Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that returning the teacher鈥檚 lost item takes precedence only in the case of his preeminent teacher. Rav A岣 bar Rav Huna says that Rav Sheshet says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that returning the teacher鈥檚 lost item takes precedence even if the teacher enlightened him with regard to only one mishna.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 专讘讜 砖诇诪讚讜 讞讻诪讛 诪讗讬 讞讻诪讛 专讜讘 讞讻诪转讜


The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan say that? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The halakha is always in accordance with the opinion cited in an unattributed mishna; and we learned an unattributed opinion in the mishna that returning the teacher鈥檚 lost item takes precedence in the case of: His teacher, who taught him the wisdom of Torah. The ruling of the unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of wisdom in this context? It means the majority of his wisdom.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛注讜住拽讬谉 讘诪拽专讗 诪讚讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讚讛 讘诪砖谞讛 诪讚讛 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 注诇讬讛 砖讻专 讘转诇诪讜讚 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪讚讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜 讜诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讬 专抓 诇诪砖谞讛 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛转诇诪讜讚


The Sages taught in a baraita: For those who engage in the study of Bible, it is a virtue but not a complete virtue. For those who engage in the study of Mishna, it is a virtue and they receive reward for its study. For those who engage in the study of Talmud, you have no virtue greater than that. And always pursue study of the Mishna more than study of the Talmud.


讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讘转诇诪讜讚 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪讚讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜 讜讛讚专 讗诪专转 讜诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讬 专抓 诇诪砖谞讛 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛转诇诪讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉


The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, as the baraita is self-contradictory. You said: For those who engage in the study of Talmud, you have no virtue greater than that. And then you said: And always pursue study of the Mishna more than study of the Talmud. Rabbi Yo岣nan says:


讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 谞砖谞讬转 诪砖谞讛 讝讜 砖讘拽讜 讻讜诇讗 注诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讗讝诇讜 讘转专 转诇诪讜讚讗 讛讚专 讚专砖 诇讛讜 讜诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讬 专抓 诇诪砖谞讛 讬讜转专 诪谉 讛转诇诪讜讚


It was during the era of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the beginning of this baraita extolling the study of Talmud was taught. The result was that everyone abandoned study of the Mishna and pursued the study of the Talmud. It was then that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught them: And always pursue study of the Mishna more than study of the Talmud, as without a firm basis in the fundamental halakhot of the Mishna, talmudic discourse is futile.


诪讗讬 讚专讜砖 讻讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讛讙讚 诇注诪讬 驻砖注诐 讜诇讘讬转 讬注拽讘 讞讟讗转诐


The Gemara asks: On the basis of what homiletic interpretation did the tanna state that there is no virtue greater than the study of Talmud? It is just as Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, interpreted homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淐ry aloud, spare not, lift up your voice like a horn, and declare to My people their transgression and to the house of Jacob their sins鈥 (Isaiah 58:1)?


讛讙讚 诇注诪讬 驻砖注诐 讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖砖讙讙讜转 谞注砖讜转 诇讛诐 讻讝讚讜谞讜转 讜诇讘讬转 讬注拽讘 讞讟讗转诐 讗诇讜 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 砖讝讚讜谞讜转 谞注砖讜转 诇讛诐 讻砖讙讙讜转 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜讬 讝讛讬专 讘转诇诪讜讚 砖砖讙讙转 转诇诪讜讚 注讜诇讛 讝讚讜谉


In the phrase 鈥渄eclare to My people their transgression,鈥 these people are the Torah scholars, whose unwitting transgressions become for them tantamount to intentional transgressions. Due to their erudition, they are held to a higher standard. 鈥淎nd to the house of Jacob their sins,鈥 these are the ignoramuses, whose intentional transgressions become for them tantamount to unwitting transgressions. Due to their lack of erudition, they are held to a lower standard. And that is the basis of that which we learned in a mishna (Avot 4:13), that Rabbi Yehuda says: Be careful in the study of the Talmud, as a transgression based on an unwitting misinterpretation of the Talmud is considered an intentional transgression.


讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 砖诪注讜 讚讘专 讛壮 讛讞专讚讬诐 讗诇 讚讘专讜 讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 [讗诪专讜] 讗讞讬讻诐 讗诇讜 讘注诇讬 诪拽专讗 砖谞讗讬讻诐 讗诇讜 讘注诇讬 诪砖谞讛 诪谞讚讬讻诐 讗诇讜 注诪讬 讛讗专抓


Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, interpreted a verse homiletically. What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淗ear the word of the Lord, you who tremble at His word: Your brothers that hate you, that ostracize you for My name鈥檚 sake, have said: Let the Lord be glorified, that we may gaze upon your joy, but they shall be ashamed鈥 (Isaiah 66:5)? 鈥淗ear the word of the Lord, you who tremble at His word,鈥 these are Torah scholars; 鈥測our brothers鈥ave said,鈥 these are masters of the Bible, who are aware of their shortcomings and treat the Torah scholars with deference; 鈥渢hat hate you,鈥 these are masters of Mishna, who consider themselves the equals of Torah scholars and resent the fact that the Torah scholars do not treat them as equals; 鈥渢hat ostracize you,鈥 these are ignoramuses, who distance themselves with their actions from the Torah scholars.


砖诪讗 转讗诪专 驻住拽 住讘专诐 讜讘讟诇 住讬讻讜讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞专讗讛 讘砖诪讞转讻诐 砖诪讗 转讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇 讬讘讜砖讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛诐 讬讘砖讜 谞讻专讬诐 讬讘讜砖讜 讜讬砖专讗诇 讬砖诪讞讜


Lest you say, with regard to those groups who are not Torah scholars, that their hope has ceased and their chances are eliminated, the verse states: 鈥淭hat we may gaze upon your joy.鈥 All of the Jewish people, including the groups listed above, will gaze upon the joy of the Torah scholars. Lest you say that the Jewish people will be ashamed, the verse states: 鈥淏ut they shall be ashamed,鈥 meaning that gentiles will be ashamed, but the Jewish people will be joyous.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗诇讜 诪爪讬讗讜转



诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 讜谞讙谞讘讜 讗讜 砖讗讘讚讜 砖讬诇诐 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇讬砖讘注 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 谞砖讘注 讜讬讜爪讗


MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits an animal or vessels with another, who is acting as an unpaid bailee, and they were stolen or they were lost, and the bailee paid the owner the value of the deposit, and did not wish to take an oath that he did not misappropriate the item and that he was not negligent in safeguarding it, that will effect who keeps the deposit if it is found or returned. The bailee may also choose to take the oath, as the Sages said: An unpaid bailee takes an oath, and he is thereby released from the liability to pay the owner.


谞诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诇诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诇诪讬 砖讛驻拽讚讜谉 讗爪诇讜


If the thief is later found, the thief pays the double payment. If the deposited item was a sheep or an ox and the thief slaughtered or sold it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. To whom does the thief pay? He gives the payment to the one who had the deposit in his possession when it was stolen, i.e., the bailee. When the bailee paid the owner for the stolen item, the owner granted the rights to the item to the bailee. Therefore, the bailee is entitled to any payment the thief presents for the item, be it compensation for the item鈥檚 value or a fine.


谞砖讘注 讜诇讗 专爪讛 诇砖诇诐 谞诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 诇诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诇讘注诇 讛驻拽讚讜谉


In the case of a bailee who took an oath and did not wish to pay, if the thief is then found and required to pay the double payment, or if he slaughtered or sold the animal and is required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, to whom does the thief pay? He gives the payment to the owner of the deposit, not the bailee.


讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪转谞讬 讻诇讬诐


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna need to teach the case of one who deposits an animal, and why does the mishna need to teach the case of one who deposits vessels? The mishna could have sufficed with a general halakha about one who deposits any item.


爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 讚诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚谞驻讬砖 讟讬专讞讛 诇注讬讜诇讛 讜诇讗驻讜拽讛 讗讘诇 讻诇讬诐 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讟讬专讞讬讬讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗


The Gemara explains: Both are necessary, as, if the mishna taught only the case of one who deposits an animal, I would say: It is only with regard to an animal that the owner agrees to transfer rights to the double payment to the bailee when the bailee pays for the stolen item. This is due to the fact that the exertion required to tend to the animal, to bring the animal in and to take it out, is great. Consequently, when it becomes clear that the bailee was not responsible for the theft of the animal but nevertheless compensated the owner, the owner waives his rights to any compensation the thief will pay. But in the case of vessels, where the exertion that is required to tend to the vessels is not great, say that the owner does not transfer to the bailee rights to the double payment.


讜讗讬 转谞讗 讻诇讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讚拽诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讻驻诇讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讘讛诪讛 讚讻讬 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻驻讬诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And had the mishna taught only the case of one who deposits vessels, I would say: It is only with regard to vessels that the owner transfers rights to the double payment to the bailee when the bailee pays for the lost item. This is due to the fact that double payment, in their case, is not substantial, as that is the maximum payment that he could receive. But in the case of an animal, where if the thief slaughtered or sold it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment, which is substantial, I would say that the owner does not transfer the rights to the double payment to the bailee. Therefore, both cases are necessary.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讻讙讜谉 驻讬专讜转 讚拽诇 讚注讘讬讚讬 讚讗转讜


Rami bar 岣ma objects to the fundamental reasoning. How can the owner of the deposit transfer rights to the double payment to the bailee? But isn鈥檛 there a principle that one cannot transfer to another ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world? Since the thief was not yet liable to pay the double payment when the bailee paid the owner for the item, there was no way to transfer rights to that payment to another person. And even according to Rabbi Meir, who says that a person can transfer to another ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, that statement applies to items such as the fruits of a date palm, which are likely to come into being, as they grow on a regular basis.


讗讘诇 讛讻讗


But here, where the transfer of rights to the payment is part of the initial agreement between the owner and the bailee, taking effect when the item is deposited,


Scroll To Top