Bava Metzia 31b — 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,” meaning that he is liable specifically when its owner is with it,

let it be said

that

he not

be liable, and if the owners are unable to do this by themselves, let them hire workers to unload and load!

Therefore

it is necessary

to write both matters.

It is written concerning a person who killed his fellow: “Or in enmity he struck him with his hand and he died,

the striker shall surely be put to death;

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

I have only —

but

that he must be killed

by

the type of

death written concerning him,

namely, by the sword.

From where [is it derived] that if you are unable to execute him by the death written concerning him,

for example, if the striker was fleeing on a ship,

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

and you are 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 by the edge of the sword.” And this is how we expound from the repetition of the expression:

I have only —

but

to kill them

by the striking written concerning them,

by the sword.

From where [is it derived] that if you are unable to kill them by the striking written concerning them, you are permitted to strike them with any blow that you are able to [administer]?

The verse states: “You shall surely strike” —

in any event.

It is written concerning a pledge: “When you make a loan to your fellow, a loan of anything, and so on,

you shall surely return

his pledge when the sun comes in, and so on.” That is, one who takes a garment from his fellow as a pledge against a loan that he gave him must return it to him in the evening, so that he can sleep in it.

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

I have only

that he is obligated to return it

when he took it as a pledge with the authorization of the court.

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

But if

he took it as a pledge without the authorization of the court,

but the lender himself entered the borrower’s house to take a pledge —

from where

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

The verse states: “You shall surely return” —

in any event.

And likewise, concerning what is written in the Book of Devarim regarding a pledge: “If

you surely take a pledge

of your fellow’s garment, before the sun comes in you shall return it to him,” we expound as follows:

I have only [learned this] when he took it as a pledge with authorization. When he took it without authorization, from where [is it derived]?

The verse states: “You shall surely take a pledge” —

in any event.

We raise an objection:

And these two verses

[and these two verses],

“you shall surely return” and “you shall surely take a pledge” —

why do I need them?

After all, both verses speak of the same matter!

And the Gemara explains:

One

of these verses, namely, “you shall surely return his pledge when the sun comes in,” speaks

of

the matter of

a garment

that may be taken as a pledge only by

day,

namely, a garment that is used only at night, which must be returned to its owners in the evening.

And one,

the verse “you shall surely take a pledge,” comes

to

teach concerning

a garment

that may be taken as a pledge 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: “Before the sun comes in you shall return it to him”—before the sun comes in, it shall be in the borrower’s possession, and when the sun comes in, you shall take it.

And from the repetition stated concerning charity: “When there will be among you a poor man, and so on, do not harden your heart, and so on,

you shall surely open

your hand to him, and so on,” we expound as follows:

I have only

that you are commanded to give charity

but

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 a loan to a poor person on the eve of the Sabbatical year, when the lender is concerned lest the Sabbatical year cancel it and he lose his money: “Beware for yourself, and so on; the seventh year is approaching, and so on, and your eye will be evil toward your poor brother, and so on,

you shall surely give him,”

we expound as follows:

I have only —

but

that one who is able to give must give

a large gift.

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

a small gift

, from where

is it derived that even then he must give it to 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 completed his years of service: “When you send him free from you, do not send him away empty-handed;

you shall surely grant him

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

I have only

that one must grant gifts to the slave

but

when

the household was blessed on his account

[on account of the slave], then

they grant

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

But if

the household was not blessed on his account, from where

is it derived that one must grant him gifts?

The verse states: “You shall surely grant him” —

in any event.

And we challenge:

And according to

the view of

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, who says

that indeed this is the law, that specifically if

the household was blessed on his account —

they grant him gifts,

but if

the household was not blessed on his account —

they do not grant

him, if so, the word

“you shall grant him”

that the Torah wrote —

why do I need it?

And we say: Indeed, according to his view, they do not expound a teaching from this repetition of the expression, but

the Torah spoke in the language of people,

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

It is stated concerning the mitzva to lend to a poor person: “When there will be among you a poor person, and so on, and

you shall surely lend to him

according to his lack, and so on.” And they expound from the repetition “you shall surely lend to him” as follows:

I have only

that one must lend to him

but when he does not have

enough for his sustenance,

and he does not wish to support himself

from charity.

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

“you shall give him a means by way of a loan.”

by way of a loan.

But

he has

enough from his own resources for his sustenance,

and he does not wish

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

from where

is it derived that you must lend to him, and collect from him after death?

The verse states: “You shall surely lend to him” —

in any event.

And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says:

if

he has, and he does not wish to support himself —

we do not attend to him,

and he need not be given anything, if so,

“you shall lend to him” —

why do I need it?

The Torah spoke in the language of people .

We learned in our Mishna:

If he was idle from [earning] a sela, he may not say to him, “Give me a sela,” but he gives him his wages as a laborer.

A tanna taught: He gives him

the owner of the lost item

his wages as an idle laborer.

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

And we raise an objection:

What

is the meaning of what we learned, that he gives him

as an idle laborer?

Why should he give him only as an idle laborer? After all, the finder was not idle from work, but took pains with returning the lost item!

Abaye said:

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

as an idle laborer from that same work from which he was idle .

That is, the owner of the lost item calculates and deducts from what he pays the finder, on account of what he lost by being idle from the work in which he was engaged, the amount that a person would deduct from his wages in order to be idle from this work and engage in the lighter 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 effort is light and whose wages are high, and the opposite: work whose effort is great and whose wages are low.

We learned in our Mishna:

If there is a court there —

he stipulates before them.

Issur and Rav Safra conducted a partnership business with one another

[they entered into a business partnership].

Rav Safra went and divided it without Issur’s knowledge in the presence of two people

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

Afterward

Rav Safra came

before

Rabba bar Rav Huna.

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

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

Alternatively,