Bava Metzia 30b (ל:) — the Talmud in English

As Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

It is written:

“For there will be no

pauper among you.”

The straightforward meaning of the verse concerns the remission of debts in the Sabbatical year, when the Torah forbids a lender to demand his debt once the end of the Sabbatical year has arrived. And the verse assures us that although lenders will relinquish the debts owed to them, they will not become impoverished as a result. 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 significance of the word “among you” in the verse? It would have sufficed to write: “For there will be no pauper”! Rather, we expound the verse as teaching us: There will be no pauper among you, meaning, you yourself. You must not bring yourself to poverty. Therefore,

your own comes before that of every other person,

and you are not commanded to save another person’s property if you will suffer a loss as a result.

If so, certainly if the finder will suffer a loss by returning the lost item, he is not obligated to return it!

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that the verse is needed only

for the

matter of a

elder—

for whom it is not in keeping with his dignity

to return a lost item—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, but nevertheless

he struck it,

striking it once in order to make it return

he is obligated to return it

to its owners, since he began the process of returning it .

Abaye was sitting before Rabba. He saw those goats

standing

[Abaye saw goats that were standing], and it was evident that they had become separated from their owners.

He picked up a stone—

and threw it at them

[he picked up a stone and threw it at them], so that they would begin walking toward their owners.

He said to him:

Rabba said to him: Had you not begun returning them, you would have been exempt on the grounds that you are an elder for whom this is not in keeping with his dignity. But now that you have begun,

you have become obligated with regard to them; get up and return them

[you have become obligated to return them; go and return them].

They raised a dilemma:

If

his usual practice

of the finder

is to return items in the field,

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

but his usual practice is not to return items in the city,

because he is embarrassed before his neighbors that he has found a lost item in the field,

what is

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

The sides of the dilemma are:

Do we say

that

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

he is not obligated

even to begin returning it in the field?

Or perhaps: It is specifically in the field that he has become obligated

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

And since he has become obligated with regard to it in the field,

and moved it from its place,

has he become obligated

even

in the city?

And we conclude:

Teyku .

Rava said: Any case

in which

the lost item was

his,

he would have

returned

it to his home, and he would not have been embarrassed to do so—

with regard to his fellow’s item as well,

if his lost item were found in such circumstances—he

returns it .

And whenever

the case involved

a

donkey

of his,

which was lying beneath its load, he would

unload

the load from it

and load

the burden onto it;

with regard to his fellow’s donkey as well,

if his donkey had fallen beneath its load in a similar manner—he

unloads and loads

along with it, as the Torah commanded: “You shall surely unload with him,” and “You shall surely load.”

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was traveling along the road

[he was walking along the road].

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

[he encountered a certain man who was carrying a load of wood].

He put it down—

and stood resting

[the man put it down and stood to rest].

After that man finished resting,

he said to him

to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei:

Load it for me

[load the wood onto me]! Rabbi Yishmael did not wish to load it for him, since this was not in keeping with his dignity, but 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 Yishmael gave that man

half a zuz,

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

and declared it ownerless

[Rabbi Yishmael declared the wood ownerless], so that if people took it, they would not violate the prohibition “You shall not steal.”

He returned,

that man returned—and

acquired it,

the wood, from the ownerless property, and again asked Rabbi Yishmael to load the wood.

He returned and gave him,

Rabbi Yishmael again gave him

half a zuz—

and declared it ownerless.

He saw

Rabbi Yishmael saw that man,

who was about to return and acquire it,

as he was about to return and acquire the wood.

He said to him: For everyone—

I declared it ownerless, but for you—

I did not declare it ownerless!

Therefore, you cannot acquire it.

And we object:

Can ownerlessness take effect in such a manner?

But we learned: Beit Shammai say: Ownerlessness

that a person declared only

for the poor—

is

ownerless,

and it is exempt from tithes.

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

also

for the poor and

also

for the wealthy,

like the produce of the fields during the

Sabbatical year,

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

And it is proven from here that an ownerless property that is not declared ownerless to everyone is not considered ownerless!

Rather,

the Gemara explains that indeed

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei,

declared them ownerless to everyone.

And it was merely with words that he removed him from them

[he merely used words to make that person withdraw, so that he would not return to acquire the logs].

The Gemara further questions this incident:

But Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei,

was elderly and it was beneath his dignity,

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

The Gemara explains: What

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei,

did was an act beyond the letter of the law.

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

As Rav Yosef taught:

This is what Jethro said to Moses: “And you shall make known to them the way in which they shall go and the deed that they shall do.” And this verse is expounded as follows:

“And you shall make known to them”—

this is their means of livelihood.

To teach them a trade by which they can support themselves [and this is derived from the word “to them,” which implies something pertaining to their bodies and to themselves].

“The way”—

this is acts of kindness.

“They shall go”—

this is visiting the sick

[and it is expounded in this manner from the wording “they shall go,” because the sick person’s practice is to lie down, while the visitor goes to visit him].

“In it”—

this is burial

[and it is expounded from the wording “in it,” meaning within it, inside the way, in the earth].

“And the deed”—

this is judgment.

And what the Torah added by writing

“that they shall do” -

this is acting beyond the letter of the law.

The Master said: “They shall go”—

this is visiting the sick.

And one may wonder: Is visiting the sick not

included in acts of kindness,

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

We answer:

It was necessary

only with regard to one of his own age

of the sick person [one who was born at the same time and under the same astrological sign], who is also obligated to visit him, even though at times this visit may cause him harm.

As the Master said: One who is of the same age takes one-sixtieth of the illness

of the sick person.

Even so, he is required to go and visit him.

The Gemara further questions what Rav Yosef taught:

“In it” -

this is burial;

but

is that not included in acts of kindness!

We answer:

It was necessary

only with regard to an elderly person for whom it is beneath his dignity,

who is nevertheless obligated to engage in burial.

“That they shall do”—

this is acting beyond the letter of the law.

As Rabbi Yohanan said: Jerusalem was destroyed

only because they judged in it according to Torah law.

His words are seemingly astonishing. By what other laws should they have judged,

if not by the laws of the authorities

[laws of the governors, who judge through suffering and coercion]?

Should they have judged according to those?!

Rather, say

this: Jerusalem was destroyed only because

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

Mishna:

What is considered a lost object?

How can one distinguish whether this is a lost object or something deliberately left in place?

If a person

finds

a

donkey or a cow grazing on the road—

this is not a lost object,

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

But if he finds a

donkey

whose gear is overturned

[whose saddle is upside down, so that it is not resting on its back], or if he finds a

cow

that

is running among the vineyards,

thereby causing itself damage—it

is certainly a lost object,

as it is evident that the animals fled from or became lost to their owners.

If he returned

the lost object

and it fled,

and he again

returned it,

and it fled—even

if this happened

four or five times—

he is obligated to return it, as it is stated: “You shall surely return them,”

which implies that he must return it even many times.

If

the finder

lost

the opportunity to earn

a

profit of

a sela

because he occupied himself with returning the lost object, which he could have earned had he engaged in his own work instead of returning the lost object,

he may not say to him

the owner of the lost object:

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

the owner of the lost object

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 object can say to him: Had you been engaged in your own work, you would have had to exert yourself greatly! Now, in accordance with the effort you expended, take your compensation!

But if it is preferable for the finder to engage in his own work, because he earns more that way, and he does not wish to neglect his work and earn less, then

if there are

three people there who are fit to serve as

a court, he stipulates before the court

and says: “See, I earn such and such an amount, and I am unwilling to neglect my work in order to receive a small wage. I will return the lost object if you say that I may take full compensation.” He may then in fact take full compensation.

And

if there is no court there—

before whom can he stipulate?

Since he has no one before whom to stipulate,

his own takes precedence,

and he should engage in his work. For if he occupies himself with returning the lost object, he will suffer a loss, and the principle is that one’s own takes precedence over that of anyone else.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks: What does our Mishna mean by asking, “What is considered a lost object?”

Is it to say that all these cases that we have stated,

everything we discussed earlier in the preceding Mishnayot—

were they not lost objects?

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it means: What is the general definition of a lost object,

what is an ordinary lost object, which is clearly located there without the owners’ knowledge,

with regard to which he is obligated

to return it?

If he finds a donkey or a cow grazing on the road, this is not a lost object, and he is not obligated with regard to it.

If a donkey’s gear is overturned, or a cow is running among the vineyards, this is certainly a lost object—

and he is obligated with regard to it.

The Gemara asks:

Is it always so?

If one finds a donkey or a cow grazing, is this not considered a lost object? Is it customary not to bring them back into the city?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

If they are grazing

for up to three days—

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

The Gemara inquires:

What are the circumstances?

If

they are grazing

at night

[at night]—

even

if they have been grazing for only

one hour,

[one hour]

also

he is obligated to return them, since it is not customary for owners to leave their animals 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 he should not

be obligated to return them, since it is customary to leave them in the field during the day and bring them back at night!

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary

to state this, as our Mishna is speaking of a case in which the finder

saw it

at

dawn

[before sunrise] and

at nightfall

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

For three days we say: It happened by chance that it came to be there—

and it went out

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

But if he saw it in this manner for

more

than three days—

it is certainly a lost object,

since it is not customary to leave animals grazing during the hours of darkness, lest they be injured or stolen.