Bava Metzia 33a — the Talmud in English

ta shma

from that which was taught in a beraita:

It is written in the Torah: “When you see your enemy’s donkey

lying.”

And it follows that specifically when it happens to be lying now beneath its burden, then one is obligated to assist it,

but not

when the donkey is

“one that lies,”

accustomed always to lie beneath its burden, in which case one is not obligated to unload it.

And likewise they expound from the word

“lying,”

specifically when it is lying one must assist in unloading,

but not

when it is

standing.

And from what is said

“beneath its burden,”

they expound: specifically a donkey loaded with a burden, which fell beneath its burden, and it is still beneath the burden, as the meaning of the verse indicates—that one must unload it.

But not

a donkey

unloaded

of its burden, which fell from it, and it is already no longer upon it [the Gemara below will explain this law].

And they further expound from what is said

“beneath its burden”:

specifically if there is upon it

a burden that it can bear—

one must assist it to unload. For this is the meaning of “its burden”—a burden appropriate for it.

And if you say that the suffering of living creatures is from the Torah, what difference is it to me whether it is lying, and what difference is it to me whether it is one that lies, and what difference is it to me whether it is standing?

Ultimately, there is suffering of living creatures here!

And the Gemara rejects this:

Whose view is this?—

It is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s, who says that the suffering of living creatures is rabbinic.

This too is reasonably apparent,

that this beraita follows the method of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

For it teaches: “Beneath its burden”—

a burden that it can bear.

Who do you find who holds this view?—

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

who said so in our Mishna.

Infer from it

that this beraita follows the method of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili! And we raise an objection:

And can you establish it

this beraita

according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? But it teaches in its latter clause: “Beneath its burden”—

but not unloaded.

What

is the meaning of what we taught, “

but not unloaded”?

If you say

that the meaning of

“but not unloaded”

is that if the donkey is unloaded of its burden, and it is necessary to load it upon it, one need not assist

at all—for it is written, “You shall surely raise it with him,”

which teaches that one must fulfill the mitzva of loading, to assist him in raising the donkey!

Rather, it is obvious

that this is the intention of the beraita: but

not unloaded

for free,

for one need not load for free,

but

only

for payment.

Who do you find who holds this view,

that unloading is for free and loading is for payment?—

The Rabbis

in our Mishna above!

And we answer:

In truth,

the beraita follows the method of

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and regarding

the matter of

loading

he holds

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

like the Rabbis,

that he is obligated to load specifically for payment, and not like Rabbi Shimon, who disagreed with them.

The Sages taught:

It is written:

“When you see

your enemy’s donkey lying beneath its burden.”

One might have thought

that one is obligated to go to unload it

even if

he sees the donkey

from a distance?

The verse states

from what is said later in the passage, concerning the returning of a lost object:

“When you encounter

your enemy’s ox straying, and so on,” for the expression “when you encounter” indicates that specifically if he encountered it on his way he is obligated, but not when he sees it from a distance.

If it says, “when you encounter,” one might have thought

specifically

an actual encounter,

that he sees it actually before him.

The verse states: “When you see,”

which indicates that even if he sees it at some distance.

And what is the seeing

that is

, which contains

also

an encounter?

The Sages estimated

that this is the measure of

one-seventh and one-half of a mil [that is, the measure obtained when a mil is divided by seven and a half],

—that is, the distance obtained by dividing a mil into seven and a half parts—

and this is

the measure called

“a ris.”

A tanna taught: And

after he loaded the donkey with him, he also

leads it with him until

the measure of

a parsa,

in order to ensure that the donkey will not return and fall.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: And he takes

the

payment

for this.

Mishna:

If there were before him

his lost object and

also

his father’s lost object—

the returning of

his lost object

to himself

takes precedence

over his father’s.

And likewise, if there were before him

his lost object and his teacher’s lost object—

his own takes precedence

over his teacher’s.

If there were before him

his father’s lost object and his teacher’s lost object,

the lost object

of his teacher takes precedence

for the mitzva of returning.

And the reason is because

his father—

brought him into this world. And

if

his teacher who taught him wisdom—

brings him to the life of the World to Come,

and this is preferable.

And if

his

father was a sage —

his father’s takes precedence,

for his father too brings him to the life of the World to Come.

And likewise, if

his father and his teacher were carrying burdens,

and he needed to assist them in unloading, he unloads and

leaves

first

the

burden

of his teacher, and afterward

he unloads and

leaves his father’s.

And likewise, if

his father and his teacher were in captivity, he redeems

first

his teacher, and afterward redeems his father.

And if

his

father was a sage, he redeems

first

his father, and afterward redeems his teacher.

Gemara:

And the Gemara asks:

From where are these matters

that his own takes precedence over his father’s and his teacher’s?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The verse states, “But there shall be no needy among you.”

And they expound from this verse that a person must take care that he himself not be impoverished, and the verse teaches that

your own takes precedence over everyone else’s.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Although we said that one’s own takes precedence over everyone else’s, nevertheless,

whoever applies this to himself,

and is always exacting in taking care not to give to others when there is concern that he will thereby become poor [except in a case where there is a demonstrable loss], and does not conduct himself beyond the letter of the law—

in the end he comes to this,

that he becomes dependent upon others.

We learned in our Mishna:

“If his father and his teacher were carrying a burden, and so on.”

The Sages taught: The teacher, of whom they said

in our Mishna that he is preferable to his father, means

his teacher who taught him wisdom,

which is understanding the reasons for the Mishna, to understand how the Mishnayot will not contradict one another, and to know the reasons for prohibition and permission, and obligation and exemption.

And this “wisdom” is called “Gemara.”

But not a teacher who taught him

only

Scripture and Mishna [the Mishnayot as they are taught, without their reasons], for this study is not called “wisdom,”

the words of Rabbi Meir.

This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The intention of the Mishna is not to say that “wisdom” is the study of the Gemara, and that “his teacher who taught him wisdom” is his teacher for the study of the Gemara.

Rather, the intention is the student’s wisdom, that is, his knowledge of Torah, and “his teacher who taught him wisdom” means

every

teacher

from whom most of his wisdom

of the student

came,

whether this is Gemara, whether it is Mishna, or whether it concerns Scripture.

Rabbi Yosei says: Even if he illuminated his eyes only regarding one Mishna,

which he had been unable to understand its reason, and he explained its reason to him—

this is his teacher.

Rava said: Such as Rav Seḥora, who explained to us [that is, explained to us] the words of the Mishna in tractate Tohorot concerning the purity of vessels,

the statement of the Mishna in tractate Tohorot concerning the ritual purity of vessels,

“zuhama lisetron,”

and I did not know what vessel it was, and Rav Seḥora explained to us that the intention is a large spoon with which they remove the filth of the pot and the cauldron to the sides; and because he explained this to us, we are obligated in his honor.

Shmuel tore his garment [he tore his garment with a tear that cannot be mended, according to the law of tearing for a student over his teacher ]

—he made a tear in his garment that could not be repaired, as is required when a student tears his garment for his teacher—

over that scholar who explained to him,

who explained to him the words of the Mishna in tractate Tamid concerning the priests entering in the morning to open the doors of the Sanctuary: “Whoever was chosen for the removal of the ashes from the inner altar, and so on, and two keys were in his hand,”

“one descended to the armpit, and one opened readily.”

And this is the explanation of the Mishna:

Before the Sanctuary of the Temple there was a hall built, and through it they entered the Sanctuary.

The width of the hall was narrow, ten cubits, and its length was forty cubits.

The Sanctuary was perpendicular to it. One of these keys opened the northern small door, which was beside the entrance of the Sanctuary, as we learned there: Two small side doors belonged to the great gate leading to the Sanctuary, one on each side. One small door was to the north of the entrance of the Sanctuary, and the second was to the south of the entrance. Through the small door in the south, no person ever entered, as is explained there in the Mishna. And in the small door in the north a door was fixed, and the lock of that entrance was fixed deep within the doorpost of the small door. The one who came to open it in the morning stood outside, inside the hall, and inserted his hand through a hole in the wall up to his armpit in order to reach the lock—and opened it. And this is what we learned: “descended to the armpit.”

And after he entered through this entrance and came to a chamber that extended across eleven cubits of the hall and a little of the Sanctuary, he opened with the second key another door that led from the chamber to the Sanctuary, and entered the Sanctuary to open its doors. And this door he opened “readily,” that is, quickly , without exertion, like an ordinary entrance [and not like the first entrance, which he had to open by inserting his hand deep into the small door].

Ulla said: Torah scholars in Babylonia stand before one another, and tear for one another,

as is the law of a student before his teacher, because they always sat together in the beit-midrash, asking and answering, and all learned from one another.

And concerning

returning the

lost object

of his teacher,

in a place

where there is also the lost object of

his father, they do not return [return] the teacher’s lost object before his father’s lost object—

the teacher’s lost property before the father’s lost property—

but

only

to an established teacher,

from whom most of his wisdom came.

They asked him

a question:

Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Huna,

his teacher:

A student whose teacher needs him,

for that teacher learns from the student traditions that he heard from other Torah scholars—

what ,

what is his law concerning returning a lost object when it is in the presence of his father’s?

Rav Huna thought that Rav Hisda was referring to him, for he needed Rav Hisda, his student, and therefore took offense at him and

said to him: “Hisda, Hisda,”

I

do not need you!

But

you need me!

Until forty years they were angry with each other

, and they did not enter to each other

they took offense at each other, and did not enter to each other].

In the end, when they were reconciled,

Rav Hisda sat for forty fasts

because Rav Huna’s mind was distressed

because of him.

And

Rav Huna sat

also

for forty fasts—

because he suspected Rav Hisda

with a false suspicion, that he was slighting his honor.

It was stated: Rav Isaac bar Joseph said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah,

who said that “his teacher” means his teacher from whom he received most of his wisdom, whether in Gemara, whether in Mishna, or whether in Scripture.

And we raise a difficulty:

But did Rabbi Yohanan say this,

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah?

But Rabbi Yohanan said: “The halakha follows an unattributed Mishna.” And we learned,

we learned in our Mishna here, which is an unattributed Mishna, that “his teacher” means

“his teacher who taught him wisdom.”

And apparently, this is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who said that “his teacher” means specifically one who taught him Gemara, which is the reasoning behind the rationales of the Mishnayot!

And we answer:

What

is the meaning of “his teacher who taught him

wisdom”

which we learned in our Mishna? It does not mean the wisdom of the Gemara, which is called “wisdom”; rather, it means his teacher from whom

most of his wisdom

the student’s wisdom is from him, and it is in accordance with Rabbi Judah, who said that his teacher is one from whom most of the student’s wisdom is derived, whether he learned Gemara from him, whether Mishna, or whether Scripture.

The Sages taught: Those occupied

only

with Scripture—

it is a measure

that is partially good,

but it is not a measure

that is entirely good. Because the study of the Mishna and the Talmud is better, since they are learned by heart—and they are forgotten; therefore it is necessary to occupy oneself with them constantly.

In the time of the Mishna and the Gemara, the Gemara and the Mishna were not in writing, and they were not given to be written. Rather, because minds became diminished, later generations began to write them.

Those occupied

with the Mishna,

and are not occupied with the Gemara,

it is a measure

that is good,

and they receive reward for it.

But those occupied

with the Talmud—

there is no greater measure than this.

And always run to the

study of the

Mishna—

more than to the Talmud.

And we raise a difficulty:

This itself is difficult!

At first

you said

that those occupied

with the Talmud—

there is no greater measure than this, and then you said: “And always run to the Mishna”—

more than to the Talmud!

But the Talmud is greater!