Bava Metzia 31b (לא:) — the Talmud in English

But these two,

unloading and loading,

where its owner is with it,

as it is written in the verse: “You shall surely raise it up with him,” indicating that he is obligated specifically when its owner is with him,

I might say

that he

is not

obligated, and if the owners are unable to do this themselves, they should hire workers to unload and load it!

Therefore,

it is necessary

to write both matters.

It is written concerning one who killed another: “Or if he struck him with enmity with his hand, and he died,

the one who struck him shall surely be put to death;

he is a murderer, etc.” And this is how we expound the repetition of the expression “shall surely be put to death”:

I have only

that

he must be killed

by

the type of

death written with regard to him,

namely, by the sword.

From where is it derived that if you cannot kill him by the death written with regard to him,

for example, if the one who struck him was fleeing on a ship,

you are permitted to kill him by any death by which you are able to kill him,

and you would be permitted to shoot an arrow at him to kill him?

The verse states: “He shall surely be put to death”—

in any event.

It is written concerning an idolatrous city:

“You shall surely strike

the inhabitants of that city with the sword.” And this is how we expound the repetition of the expression:

I have only

that

they must be killed

by the striking written with regard to them,

by the sword.

From where is it derived that if you cannot kill them by the striking written with regard to them, you are permitted to strike them with any striking by which you are able?

The verse states: “You shall surely strike”—

in any event.

It is written concerning collateral: “When you make a loan to your fellow, whatever the loan may be, etc.,

you shall surely return

his collateral to him when the sun sets, etc.” That is, one who takes a garment from another as collateral for a loan he gave him must return it to him in the evening, so that he can sleep in it.

And this is how we expound the repetition of the expression:

I have only

that he is obligated to return it

when he took it as collateral with the authorization of the beit din.

For the verse speaks of such a case, as it is written before the passage “you shall surely return”: “You shall stand outside, and the man, etc., shall bring the collateral outside to you”; and we say below: “The verse is speaking of an agent of the beit din.” That is, the lender brought the borrower to court because he had not repaid his loan, and the beit din sent its agent to seize the borrower’s movable property.

But if

he took it as collateral without the authorization of the beit din,

but rather the lender entered the borrower’s house himself to take collateral—

from where

is it derived that he must return it in the evening?

The verse states: “You shall surely return”—

in any event.

Similarly, concerning collateral it is written in the book of Devarim: “If

you surely take

your fellow’s garment as collateral, you shall return it to him by sunset,” and we expound it as follows:

I have only that this applies when he took it as collateral with authorization. When he took it without authorization, from where

is it derived? The verse states: “You shall surely take”—

in any event.

And we raise an objection:

And these two verses

[and these two passages],

“you shall surely return” and “you shall surely take as collateral”—

why do I need them?

After all, both passages speak of the same matter!

The Gemara explains:

One

one of these passages, namely, “you shall surely return his collateral when the sun sets,” speaks

of

the matter of a

garment

that may be taken as collateral only during the

day,

i.e., a garment that is used only at night, which must be returned to its owner at evening.

And one

the passage “you shall surely take as collateral” comes

to

teach about a

garment

that may be taken as collateral only at

night,

since it is used only during the day, so the lender must return it during the day. And this is what is written: “By sunset you shall return it to him”—until sunset it shall be in the borrower’s possession, and when the sun sets you may take it.

And from the repetition stated concerning charity: “If there will be among you a poor person, etc., do not harden your heart, etc.,

you shall surely open

your hand to him, etc.,” we expound as follows:

I have only

that you are commanded to give charity

only

to the poor of your city,

in which you live.

To the poor of another city—

from where

is it derived? The verse states: “You shall surely open,” in any event.

And from what is stated concerning lending to a poor person on the eve of the Sabbatical year, when the lender is concerned that the Sabbatical year might annul the debt and he will lose his money: “Beware lest, etc., the seventh year, the year of release, approaches, and your eye be evil toward your needy brother, etc.,

you shall surely give him,”

we expound as follows:

I have only—

that

one who is able to give must give

a substantial gift.

But if you are unable to give a substantial gift, but only

a small gift

, from where

is it derived that even then you must give him?

The verse states: “You shall surely give”—

in any event.

It is stated concerning the granting of gifts to a Hebrew slave after he completes his years of service: “When you send him away free from you, do not send him away empty-handed;

you shall surely grant

him gifts from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress, from that with which the Lord your God has blessed you, shall you give him.” And from the repetition of the expression we expound as follows:

I have only

that one must grant gifts to the slave

only

when

the household prospered because of him

[because of the slave]; in that case,

they grant

him gifts, as the verse says: “From that with which the Lord your God has blessed you, shall you give him.”

But if

the household did not prosper because of him, from where

is it derived that one must grant him gifts?

The verse states: “You shall surely grant”—

in any event.

And we challenge this:

And according to

the view of

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who said

that this is indeed the law, that specifically when

the household prospered because of him—

they grant him gifts,

but if

the household did not prosper because of him—

they do not grant

him anything—if so, the word

“you shall grant”

that the Torah wrote—

why do I need it?

And we say: Indeed, according to his view, we do not expound a teaching from this repetition; rather,

the Torah spoke in the language of people,

who commonly repeat a word in order to emphasize the matter.

It is stated concerning the mitzva of lending to a poor person: “If there will be among you a poor person, etc.,

you shall surely lend him

whatever he lacks, etc.” And we expound the repetition “you shall surely lend him” as follows:

I have only

that one must lend to him

only when he does not have

enough for his livelihood,

and he does not wish to support himself

from charity.

The Merciful One said: “You shall surely lend him”—

“you shall surely lend him”

by way of a loan.

But if he

has

enough of his own for his livelihood,

and he does not wish

to support himself from his own resources, but rather from charity,

from where

is it derived that you must lend to him and collect the debt from him after his death?

The verse states: “You shall lend him”—

in any event.

And according to Rabbi Shimon, who said:

if he

has enough, and does not wish to support himself—

we do not attend to him,

and one need not give him anything—if so,

“you shall lend him”—

why do I need it?

The Torah spoke in the language of people.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he was idle from a sela-worth of work, he may not say to him, “Give me a sela,” but rather he gives him the wages of a laborer.

It was taught: He gives him

the owner of the lost item

the wages of an idle laborer.

Like a laborer who wishes to relax from his work and sit idle.

And we raise an objection:

What

does it mean that we learned that he gives him

like an idle laborer?

Why should he give him only the wages of an idle laborer? After all, the finder was not idle from work; rather, he exerted himself in returning the lost item!

Abaye said:

The intention is not that he gives him the wages of a laborer who is entirely idle from work; rather, the owner of the lost item gives him

the wages of an idle laborer from that very work from which he became idle.

That is, the owner of the lost item calculates and deducts from the finder, from the amount he lost by becoming idle from the work in which he was engaged, the amount that a person would deduct from his wages in order to become idle from this work and engage in the easier work of returning a lost item.

Everything depends on the difficulty of the work—and the amount of its wages. For there is work whose exertion is slight but whose wages are high, and the opposite is also true: work whose exertion is great but whose wages are low.

We learned in our Mishna:

If there is a beit din there—

he stipulates before them.

Isur and Rav Safra engaged in a partnership

[they conducted a joint business venture].

Rav Safra went and divided the merchandise without Isur’s knowledge before two people

[Rav Safra went and divided the merchandise, without Isur’s knowledge, in the presence of two people].

Afterward,

Rav Safra came

Rav Safra

before Rabba bar Rav Huna.

He said to him: Go and bring the three before whom you divided it

[go and bring the three people before whom you divided it],

Alternatively,