Bava Metzia 30b — the Talmud in English

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

it is written:

“For there will be no ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

pauper among you.”

The plain meaning of the verse speaks about the remission of debts in the seventh year, for the Torah prohibited the lender from demanding his debt if the end of the Sabbatical year had arrived. And the verse promises us that although the lenders will relinquish the debts owed to them, they will not become paupers on account of this. Rather, on the contrary: “For the Lord will surely bless you in the land that the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance to possess.”

But if so, what is the meaning of what the verse said, “among you”? It would have been sufficient to write, “For there will be no pauper”! Rather, we expound that the verse teaches us as follows: There will not be a pauper among you, yourself: do not bring yourself to poverty. Therefore,

your own [needs] take precedence over those of every other person,

and you are not commanded to save another’s property if you will suffer a loss through this.

If so, certainly, if the finder will suffer a loss by returning the lost object, there is no obligation of returning it upon him!

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that the verse is needed only

for

the matter of a

elder—

and it is not in keeping with his dignity

to return a lost object, to teach us that he is not obligated to return it .

Rabba said:

If he was an elder for whom it was not in keeping with his dignity to return an animal, and nevertheless he

struck it—

he struck it one blow in order to return it—

he is obligated concerning it,

to return it to its owners, since he began its return .

Abaye was sitting before Rabba. He saw those goats

that were standing

—Abaye saw goats that were standing, and it was recognizable concerning them that they had been lost by their owner.

He took a clod—

and threw it at them

—he took a stone and threw it at them, so that they would begin walking toward their owner.

He said to him:

Rabba said to him: Had you not begun returning them, you would have been exempt on account of being an elder for whom it is not in keeping with his dignity. But now that you have begun,

you have become obligated concerning them; arise and return them

—you have become obligated to return them; go and return them.

They raised a dilemma before them:

If

his manner

of the finder

is to return in the field,

a place where people do not see him there so much, and he is not embarrassed,

but his manner is not to return in the city,

because he is embarrassed before his neighbors, and now he found a lost object in the field,

what is [the law]?

Is he obligated to return it to the city, or not?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say

that

we require a proper return, and since it is not his manner to return in the city—

he is not obligated

even to begin its return in the field?

Or perhaps: It is at least in the field that he became obligated

to begin returning it, for this is in keeping with his dignity.

And since he became obligated concerning it in the field,

and moved it from its place,

he became obligated concerning it

also

in the city?

And we conclude:

teyku .

Rava said: In every case

that

the lost object was

his,

he would have been

returning

it to his house, and he would not have been embarrassed by this—

with regard to his fellow’s, too,

if his lost object were found in such a manner—

he returns it .

And whenever

the matter were

a

donkey

his own,

which was crouching under its burden, he would

unload

from it

and load

a burden upon it,

with regard to his fellow’s, too,

if his donkey fell under its burden in a similar manner—

he unloads and loads

with it, as the Torah commanded: “You shall surely leave it with him,” “You shall surely raise it.”

Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yosei was walking along the road

—he was walking on the road.

A certain man encountered him; he was carrying a bundle of wood

—one man encountered him, who was carrying a load of wood.

He put them down—

and was resting

—that man put them down and stood to rest.

After that man finished his rest,

he said to him

to Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yosei:

Load them for me

—load the wood upon me! Rabbi Ishmael did not wish to load it for him, because this was not in keeping with his dignity; yet, on the other hand, he did not wish to send him away empty-handed. Therefore,

he said to him

to that man:

How much are

these pieces of wood worth?

He said to him: Half a zuz,

half a zuz.

He gave him

Rabbi Ishmael gave that man

half a zuz,

and purchased the wood from him, so that that man would not suffer a loss because he had not loaded it for him,

and he declared it ownerless —

Rabbi Ishmael declared the wood ownerless, so that if people took it, they would not stumble into violating the prohibition, “You shall not rob.”

He then returned,

that man returned—and

acquired them,

the wood, from the ownerlessness, and they again asked him to load the wood.

He again gave him,

Rabbi Ishmael again gave him

half a zuz—

and declared it ownerless.

He saw him,

Rabbi Ishmael saw that man,

who was about to return to acquire them,

that he was about to return and acquire the wood.

He said to him: For everyone—

I declared them ownerless, but for you—

I did not declare them ownerless!

And therefore you cannot acquire them.

And we object:

Can ownerlessness exist in such a manner?

But we learned: Beit Shammai say: Ownerlessness

that a person declared ownerless only

for the poor—

it is

ownerlessness,

and it is exempt from tithes.

And Beit Hillel say: It is not ownerlessness until it is ownerlessness

also

for the poor and

also

for the wealthy,

like the produce of the fields in the year of

the Sabbatical year,

which is permitted both to the poor and to the wealthy!

And it is proven from here that ownerless property that is not ownerless to the whole world is not ownerless!

Rather,

the Gemara answers that indeed

Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei —

declared them ownerless to everyone.

And it was merely with words that he stationed him there

[with mere words he stationed him there and drove that person away], so that he would not return to acquire the wood.

And furthermore, we raise an objection concerning this deed:

But Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei —

was elderly and it was not fitting to his honor,

and he was not obligated at all to load it for him; why, then, did he need to trouble himself with the matter!?

And the Gemara explains: what

Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei did

he did beyond the letter of the law.

And the Gemara brings proof that one should act beyond the letter of the law.

For Rav Yosef taught:

Thus Jethro said to Moses: “And you shall make known to them the way in which they shall walk and the deed that they shall do.” And thus they expound the verse:

“And you shall make known to them” —

this is their livelihood.

To teach them a craft by which they can support themselves [and they derive this from the word “to them,” which implies something relating to their bodies and to themselves].

“The way” —

this is acts of kindness.

“They shall walk” —

this is visiting the sick

[and they expound it this way from the expression “they shall walk,” because the way of a sick person is to lie down, while the visitor goes to visit him].

“In it” —

this is burial

[and they expound it this way from the expression “in it,” meaning within it, inside the way, in the earth].

“And the deed” —

this is judgment.

And what the Torah added to write:

“That they shall do” \-

this is acting beyond the letter of the law.

The Master said: “They shall walk” —

this is visiting the sick.

And it is difficult: is visiting the sick

not acts of kindness,

which was already derived from what is written, “the way”!

And we answer:

It is necessary only —

for one of the same age

as the sick person [who were born at the same time and under the same constellation], who too is obligated to visit him, even though at times this visit may cause him harm.

For the Master said: One of the same age takes one-sixtieth of his illness

of the sick person.

And even so, he needs to go and visit him.

There is another difficulty concerning what Rav Yosef taught:

“In it” \-

this is burial,

after all,

is this not acts of kindness!

And we answer:

It is necessary only —

for an elderly person for whom it is not fitting to his honor,

who too is obligated in burial.

“That they shall do” —

this is acting beyond the letter of the law.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: Jerusalem was destroyed —

only because they judged in it according to Torah law.

And apparently his words are perplexing: according to what laws should they judge,

but the laws of the guards

[the laws of the gozai, who judge through suffering and force]

should they judge?!

Rather, say

this as follows: Jerusalem was destroyed only because

they based their judgments on Torah law and did not act beyond the letter of the law.

Mishna:

What is a lost item?

How is it possible to distinguish whether this is a lost item or a deliberate placement?

If

a person finds

a

donkey or cow grazing on the road —

this is not a lost item,

and he is not obligated to return them, since their owners left them there deliberately.

But if he finds a

donkey —

with its equipment overturned

[whose saddle is overturned, so that it is not lying on its back], or if he finds a

cow

that

was running among the vineyards,

thereby being damaged —

this is a lost item,

for it is evident that they fled from or were lost by their owners.

He returned

the finder [the lost item] —

and it fled,

and again he

returned it —

and it fled, even

if this happened

four or five times —

he is obligated to return it. As it is stated: “Returning, you shall return them,”

which implies that he must return them even many times.

If

the finder

lost

by engaging in returning the lost item

from

the profit of a

sela,

which he could have earned had he engaged in his work and not returned the lost item,

he shall not say to him

the owner of the lost item:

“Give me a sela!” Rather, he gives him

the owner of the lost item

his wages as a laborer

[the Gemara will explain what is meant by paying him his wages as a laborer]. The reason is that the owner of the lost item says to him: had you been engaged in your work, you would have had to toil greatly! And now, according to the effort you expended—take!

And if it is preferable for the finder to toil at his work, because he thereby earns, and he does not wish to cease from his work and earn less, then

if there are

three people there who are fit to be

a court, he stipulates before a court,

and says: “See, I earn such and such, and I do not wish to cease work in order to receive a small wage. I will return the lost item if you say that I may take full wages.” And then he may indeed take full wages.

And

if there is no court there —

before whom shall he stipulate?

Since he has no one before whom to stipulate —

his own comes first,

and he should engage in his work. For if he engages in returning the lost item, he will lose, and the rule is that one’s own comes before everyone else’s.

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty: what does our Mishna ask, “What is a lost item,”

are all these that we stated

everything that we discussed until now in the earlier Mishnayot —

not lost items?

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it means: What is a lost item in general,

what is an ordinary lost item, concerning which it is evident that it is there without the owners’ knowledge,

with which he is obligated

to return it?

If he finds a donkey and a cow grazing on the road, this is not a lost item, and he is not obligated in it.

A donkey with its equipment overturned, a cow running among the vineyards—this is a lost item —

and he is obligated in it.

And we raise a difficulty:

Forever?

If he finds a donkey and a cow grazing, is this not a lost item? Is it the practice not to bring them back into the city?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

If they are grazing

for up to three days —

he is not obligated to return them. But if they are grazing longer than this, he is obligated to return them.

And we consider this:

What are the circumstances?

If

the case is that they are grazing

at night

[at night] —

even

if they are grazing for only

one hour

[one hour]

also

he is obligated to return them, for it is not the way of the owners to leave their animal grazing at night even for one hour!

And

if

he found them grazing in the field only

by day,

and not at night —

even much

[more] than three days

also not

would he be obligated to return them, for this is the ordinary practice: to leave them in the field during the day and bring them back at night!

And the Gemara explains:

It is necessary,

our Mishna speaks of a case in which

he would see it

the finder

before dawn

[before sunrise], and

after dark

[or after the day had grown dark], but he did not see it during the other hours of the night.

For three days we say: it happened to happen to it —

and it went out

[an incident occurred, and it went outside during these hours], and it went out with the knowledge of its owner.

But if he saw it this way

more

than three days —

it is certainly a lost item,

since it is not the practice to leave them grazing during the hours of darkness, lest they be harmed or stolen.