(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


POINT BY POINT SUMMARY

Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld


Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 31

BAVA METZIA 31 - Dedicated by Josh Daniel of Efrat, Israel, in memory of his brother, Yitzchok Yisroel [ben Refael Noach Yosef] Daniel, for his Yahrzeit (7 Teves).

1) WHAT IS CONSIDERED LOST? (cont.)

(a) Question: A donkey or cow was grazing on the path - no matter how long, will we say that it is not considered lost?!
(b) Answer (Rav Yehudah): Until three days, it is not considered lost.
(c) Question: What is the case?
1. If it is on the road at night - even one night, this is lost
2. If it is on the road by day - even more than three days, this is not lost!
(d) Answer: The case is, he saw it before dawn or at dusk.
1. For three days, we say that it just occurred that way; after this, we say that it is lost.
2. Support (Beraisa): If one found a garment or axe on a paved road, or a cow running through a vineyard, these are lost;
i. A garment or axe next to the fence, a cow grazing in the vineyard (Gra - in the grass) - this is not lost.
ii. If this persisted for three straight days, it is lost.
3. Reuven saw water coming to flood Shimon's field - he should block it.
(e) (Rava): "L'Chol Aveidas Achicha" - this includes land.
(f) Support (R. Chananyah - Beraisa): Reuven saw water coming to flood Shimon's field - he should block it.
(g) Rejection (Rava): One could say, this is when there are (detached) sheaves in the field.
(h) Question: If so, of course he must save them!
(i) Answer: Really, the sheaves are attached, the owner wants them to remain attached a bit longer. One might have thought, they are considered as land - the Beraisa teaches, this is not so.
(j) (Mishnah): A donkey or cow...
(k) Question: The inferences contradict each other!
1. It says, if they were grazing on the path, this is not considered lost - but if they were running on the path or grazing in a vineyard, they would be considered lost!
2. Then it says, a cow running through vineyards is considered lost - but if they were running on the path or grazing in a vineyard, they would not be considered lost!
(l) Answer #1 (Abaye): Each case teaches about a similar case.
1. It says, if they were grazing on the path, this is not considered lost - the same applies if they were grazing in a vineyard!
2. It says, a cow running through vineyards is considered lost - the same applies to a cow running on the path!
(m) Rejection (Rava): If each case teaches about a similar case - the bigger Chidush should be taught each time!
1. It should say, running on the path is considered lost - all the more so, running in a vineyard!
2. It should say, grazing in a vineyard is not considered lost - all the more so, grazing on the path!
(n) Answer #2 (Rava): Running is lost if it is heading away from the city; heading to the city is not lost;
1. A grazing animal is not considered lost, but it is a loss for the landowner!
2. When it says, grazing on the path is not considered lost - but grazing in a vineyard would be considered lost - it means, it is a loss regarding the vineyard;
3. When it says, a cow running through vineyards is considered lost - but grazing in a vineyard would not be considered lost - that is regarding the animal;
i. Running through a vineyard, it gets wounded, but not when grazing.
4. Question: Grazing in a vineyard should be considered lost on account of the vineyard!
5. Answer: The case is, it is a Kusi's vineyard.
6. Question: It is a potential loss of the animal, perhaps the Kusi will kill it!
7. Answer: It is in a place where they warn before killing the animal.
8. Question: Perhaps he already warned about it!
9. Answer: If so, the owner knowingly gives up his animal, we are not commanded to save it.
2) MITZVOS THAT MUST BE PERFORMED REPEATEDLY
(a) (Mishnah): If he returned it and it got lost again, he returned it and it got lost again...
(b) Question: We should say that "Hashiv" teaches that it must be returned once, "Teshivem" teaches a second time (but no more)!
(c) Answer (Rava): "Hashiv" connotes even 100 times;
1. "Teshivem" teaches, not only to his house, but even to his garden or fallen house (is considered returning).
2. Question: What is the case?
i. If it is guarded there - obviously, it is returned!
ii. If it is not guarded there - why is it considered returned?
3. Answer: Really, it is guarded; the Beraisa teaches that the owner need not know of its return.
i. (R. Elazar): All thieves and watchmen must inform the owners when returning the object - only return of a lost object does not need knowledge of the owner, for the Torah included many ways to return it.
(d) Question: We should say that "Shale'ach" (send (a bird crouching on eggs or hatchlings)) teaches that it must be sent once, "Teshalach" teaches a second time (but no more)!
(e) Answer (Rava): "Shale'ach" connotes even 100 times;
1. "Teshalach" teaches, even if the bird is needed for a Mitzvah (e.g. the Taharah of a Metzora), it must be sent.
(f) Question: We should say that "Hoche'ach" teaches that one must rebuke once, "Tochi'ach" teaches a second time (but no more)!
(g) Answer (Rava): "Hoche'ach" connotes even 100 times;
1. "Tochi'ach" teaches, even a Talmid must rebuke his Rebbi.
3) OTHER DOUBLED LANGUAGES
(a) "Azov Ta'azov Imo" - one might have thought, one must help unload only if the owner helps;
1. "Azov Ta'azov" teaches, even if the owner cannot help.
(b) "Hakem Takim Imo" - one might have thought, one must help load only if the owner helps;
1. "Hekem Takim" teaches, even if the owner cannot help.
(c) Question: Why must the Torah write both the Mitzvah of loading and of unloading?
(d) Answer: We must teach both cases
1. If the Torah only taught unloading - one might have thought, this is on account of pain to the animal and a monetary loss to the owner (the animal gets weaker), but these do not apply to loading;
2. If the Torah only taught loading - one might have thought, that is because he is paid - but there would be no Mitzvah to unload for free.
(e) Question: According to R. Shimon, who says that also loading is for free, how can we answer?
(f) Answer: He says that there is no indication which verse speaks of loading and which of unloading - had the Torah only written one, we would assume there is only a Mitzvah to unload.
(g) Question: Why must the Torah write both these Mitzvos and the Mitzvah of returning a lost object?
(h) Answer: All are needed.
1. If the Torah only taught loading and unloading - one might have thought, that it because there is pain both to the owner and animal - but by a lost object, there is only pain to the owner;
2. If the Torah only taught a lost object - one might have thought, that it because the owner is not there (to save his object) - but by loading and unloading, the owner is there, he could hire people to help him!
31b---------------------------------------31b

(i) (Continuation of Beraisa): "Mos Yamus ha'Makeh" (the murderer will be killed) - perhaps this is only as the Torah said, by the sword;
1. Question: How do we know that if we cannot kill him thusly, we kill him any way we can?
2. Answer: "Mos Yamus' - in any event.
(j) "Hakeh Takeh" (you will destroy the city) - perhaps this is only as the Torah said, by burning;
1. Question: How do we know that if we cannot burn it, we destroy it any way we can?
2. Answer: "Hakeh Takeh" - in any event.
(k) "Hashev Tashiv" (you will return the pledge) - perhaps this is only if the pledge was taken with permission of Beis Din;
1. Question: How do we know this even if it was taken without permission of Beis Din?
2. Answer: "Hashev Tashiv" - in any event.
(l) "Chavol Tachbol..." (If you take a pledge...you will return it) - perhaps this is only if the pledge was taken with permission;
1. Question: How do we know this even if it was taken without permission?
(m) Answer: "Chavol Tachbol" - in any event.
1. Question: Why are both verses needed?
2. Answer: One teaches about a day garment, the other about a night garment.
(n) "Paso'ach Tiftach" (open your hand to give) - perhaps this is only to poor people of your city;
1. Question: How do we know that it applies even to poor people of another city?
2. Answer: "Paso'ach Tiftach" - in any case.
(o) "Nason Titen" - perhaps this is only if you can give a big gift;
1. Question: How do we know that it applies even to a small gift?
2. Answer: "Nason Titen" - in any case.
(p) "Ha'anik Ta'anik" (you will bestow a gift to a Yisrael slave when he goes free) - perhaps this is only if your house was blessed while he worked for you;
1. Question: How do we know that it applies even if it was not blessed?
2. Answer: "Ha'anik Ta'anik" - in any event.
3. Question: According to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, who says that you do not give him if the house was not blessed - why does the Torah say "Ha'anik Ta'anik"?
4. Answer: The Torah speaks as people do.
(q) "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu (you will lend him)" - perhaps this is only if he has no money and does not want a gift;
1. Question: How do we know that it applies if he has money, but does not want to use it?
2. Answer: "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu" - in any event.
3. Question: According to R. Shimon, who says that if he has money and does not want to use it, we do not lend him - why does it say "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu"?
4. Answer: The Torah speaks as people do.
4) HOW MUCH IS THE FINDER COMPENSATED?
(a) (Mishnah): If Reuven lost one Sela of earnings, he may not demand compensation of one Sela - rather, he is paid as a worker.
(b) (Beraisa): He is paid as an idle worker (the amount a worker would want to receive to rest from his labor).
(c) Question: But he did not rest - he returned a lost object!
(d) Answer (Abaye): He is paid as a worker would want to receive to engage in light labor (such as returning a lost object) instead of his job.
Next daf

Index


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il