PAST DEDICATION
BAVA METZIA 30(2 Sivan) - This Daf has been dedicated in memory of Harry Bernard Zuckerman, Baruch Hersh ben Yitzchak (and Miryam Toba), by his children and sons-in-law.

1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Shotchah le'Tzorchah Aval Lo li'Chevodo'. What do we try to prove from the statement 'Shotchah le'Tzorchah'?

(b)How do we counter this proof?

1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 've'Shotchah le'Tzorchah Aval Lo li'Chevodo', from which we try to prove that le'Tzorchah u'li'Tzorcho' is forbidden.

(b)We counter this proof however by extrapolating from the statement 'Aval Lo li'Chevodo' that le'Tzorchah u'li'Tzorcho' is permited, closing the Mishnah to any inferences.

2)

(a)What does the Beraisa say about spreading the garment on a bed or on a peg?

(b)What do we try to prove from the fact that the Tana forbids the finder to do this (even 'le'Tzorchah') should he have guests?

(c)How do we refute this proof? Why other reason might the Tana have for forbidding it?

(d)This fear might in turn, be attributed to Ayin ha'Ra. What else might we attribute it to?

2)

(a)The Beraisa permits (obligates) spreading the garment on a bed or on a peg 'le'Tzorchah', but not 'le'Tzorcho'.

(b)We try to prove from the fact that the Tana forbids spreading out altogether when he has guests that 'le'Tzorchah ule'Tzorcho' is forbidden (our current She'eilah).

(c)We refute this proof however because the Tana may well forbid it because by doing so, we are afraid that he will indirectly cause the destruction of the garment.

(d)This fear is attributed either to Ayin ha'Ra or to the possibility that one of the guests will steal the garment.

3)

(a)If a calf is taken into the threshing-ground to feed from its mother (one of the cows in a threshing team), the Beraisa declares it Kosher for use as an Eglah Arufah (see Tosfos DH 'Hichnisah'). When does the Tana disqualify it?

(b)On what grounds do we refute the proof from here that le'Tzorcho u'le'Torchah is forbidden (and extend it to a Shomer Aveidah)? Why might Eglah Arufah be worse than a Shomer Aveidah in this respect?

(c)Then how do we explain the Reisha, where the Tana validates a calf that went in solely to feed, even if it subsequently threshed?

3)

(a)If a calf is taken into the threshing-floor to feed from its mother (one of the cows in a threshing team), the Beraisa declares it Kasher for use as an Eglah Arufah (see Tosfos DH 'Hichnisah'). The Tana disqualifies it however if the animal is taken in to both feed and thresh.

(b)We refute the proof from here that le'Tzorcho u'le'Torchah is forbidden (and extend it to a Shomer Aveidah) however, on the grounds that Eglah Arufah might be worse than a Shomer Aveidah in this respect seeing as the Torah writes "Asher Lo Ubad Bah", implying that an animal that is worked with, even though the owner did not so deliberately, is Pasul.

(c)We explain the Reisha, where the Tana validates a calf that went in solely to feed even if it subsequently threshed by citing Rav Papa (whom we already explained earlier in the Perek). Rav Papa learns from the fact that the Torah writes "Ubad" without a 'Vav', that if the owner did not actually work with the calf, it is Pasul only if the owner is pleased with the fact that it worked (as if he had actually worked with it himself [which is not the case here]).

4)

(a)The Beraisa lists the Halachos of whether and how one uses the vessels that one finds. Why may/should one use wooden vessels?

(b)How should the finder use or not use ...

1. ... copper vessels?

2. ... silver ones?

3. ... shovels and spades?

(c)The Tana equates a Pikadon with an Aveidah regarding these Halachos. Who gives the guardian the right to use the article? If it is for the good of the article, let the owner himself come and use it?

4)

(a)The Beraisa lists the Halachos of whether and how one uses the vessels that one finds. One may/should use wooden vessels to prevent them from going moldy.

(b)The finder may use ...

1. ... copper vessels even with hot water, but not directly on the flame, because it wears them out.

2. ... silver ones with cold water but not with hot water (for the same reason).

3. ... shovels and spades in soft earth but not in virgin soil because it makes them blunt.

(c)The Tana equates a Pikadon with an Aveidah regarding these Halachos. If the owner is in town, the guardian will certainly not be permitted to use the article (even for its own good), since the owner can come and do so himself, should he so wish. But he is speaking when the owner is out of town.

5)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk "ve'His'alamta Meihem"?

(b)Which two cases besides a person of high esteem, who finds it undignified to take the article home, does this incorporate?

(c)Now that the Torah does write "ve'His'alamta Meihem", how do we know that one is ever obligated to pick up an Aveidah?

(d)We conclude that we only really need the Pasuk to teach us the concession of 'Zakein ve'Eino Le'fi Kevodo'. Why is the Pasuk not needed for ...

1. ... 'Kohen ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros'?

2. ... 'she'Lo Merubeh mi'Shel Chavero'?

5)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "ve'His'alamta Meihem" that there are times when the finder may turn a blind eye to an Aveidah.

(b)Besides a person of high esteem, who finds it undignified to take the article home, this incorporates a Kohen who sees an Aveidah in a graveyard ('Kohen ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros') and someone whose work loss in returning the article will amount to more than the value of the article ('she'Lo Merubeh mi'Shel Chavero').

(c)Despite the Pasuk "ve'His'alamta Meihem", we know that one is obligated to pick up an Aveidah on account of the Pasuk "Lo Suchal le'His'alem.

(d)We conclude that we only really need the Pasuk to teach us the concession of 'Zakein ve'Eino Le'fi Kevodo'. The Pasuk is not needed for ...

1. ... 'Kohen ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros' because anyway, the Asei of "Hashev Teshivem" cannot override the Asei of "Kedoshim Tih'yu" together with the Lo Sa'aseh of "le'Nefesh Lo Yitamo". And besides, Mamon does not have the power to override Isur.

2. ... 'she'Lo Merubeh mi'Shel Chavero' because Rav Yehudah Amar Rav has already extrapolated from the Pasuk in Re'ei Efes ki Lo Yihyeh b'cha Evyon" that one's own finances take precedence over somebody else's.

30b----------------------------------------30b

6)

(a)What does Rabah say about a Zakein ve'Eino Le'fi Kevodo who strikes the animal that he finds, causing it to move?

(b)What did Rabah say to Abaye when he threw a clod of earth at a lost herd of goats?

(c)Is a Zakein who would find it undignified to return a lost article in town but not in the fields obligated to return one that he finds in the fields (and once he has started returning it, he is obligating to conclude the Mitzvah)?

(d)What criterion does Rava give for a Zakein ve'Eino Le'fi Kevodo to return a lost article, or to load and unload another man's donkey?

6)

(a)Rabah rules that a Zakein ve'Eino L'fi Kevodo who strikes the animal that he finds is obligated to return it (see Rosh Si'man 21).

(b)When Abaye threw a clod of earth at a lost herd of goats Rabah told him that he was now obligated to return them.

(c)We ask whether a Zakein who would find it undignified to return a lost article in town but not in the fields, is Patur from returning one that he finds in the field, seeing as he is unable to finish the Mitzvah he is Patur from starting it, or whether we say that since he is obligated to start returning it, he is obligated to complete it. The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku'.

(d)The criterion Rava gives for the Torah's exemption of a Zakein Zakein ve'Eino Le'fi Kevodo to return a lost article, to load or to unload another man's donkey is whether he would return, load or unload his own animal under similar circumstances.

7)

(a)What did Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi do when he came upon a man who had put down his heavy bundle of wood to rest, when the man asked him to help reload it on his back?

(b)And what did he say when he saw that the man was about to re-acquire the bundle of wood for the second time?

(c)In the Mishnah in Pe'ah, Beis Shamai consider Hefker la'Aniyim to be Hefker. What do Beis Hillel say?

(d)In that case, how could Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi tell the man that he had declared the wood Hefker for everyone but him?

7)

(a)When Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi came upon a man who had put down his heavy bundle of wood to rest, and the man asked him to help reload it on his back he declared the wood Hefker and paid him the half Zuz that it was worth.

(b)And when he saw that the man was about to re-acquire the bundle of wood for the second time, he said that he had declared the wood Hefker for everyone but him.

(c)In the Mishnah in Pe'ah, Beis Shamai consider Hefker la'Aniyim to be Hefker. According to Beis Hillel, Hefker, is only effective if it is Hefker for everybody, for Ashirim and Aniyim alike (just like Shevi'is).

(d)Consequently, when Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi told the man that he had declared the wood Hefker for everyone but him he was only putting him off (discouraging him from re-acquiring it, [to put an end to the vicious circle]). Legally, he could not have stopped him from doing so.

8)

(a)Seeing as Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi was a Zakein ve'Eino Le'fi Kevodo, why did he need to pay the man for the wood? Why was he not Patur completely?

(b)Rav Yosef quoting a Beraisa, learns from the Pasuk in Yisro "ve'Hoda'ta Lahem", 'Zeh Beis Chayeihem'. What does he mean by that?

(c)If "es ha'Derech" refers to Gemilus Chasadim, what does he learn from ...

1. ... "Yeilchu"?

2. ... "Bah"?

(d)And if "ve'es ha'Ma'aseh" refers to Din (the obligation to act according to the law), what does he learn from "Asher Ya'asun"?

8)

(a)In spite of the fact that Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi was a Zakein ve'Eino L'fi Kevodo, he paid the man for the wood, not because he had to, but because he wanted to go 'Lif'nim mi'Shuras ha'Din' (beyond the letter of the law).

(b)Rav Yosef quoting a Beraisa, learns from the Pasuk "ve'Hoda'ta Lahem", 'Zeh Beis Chayeihem', by which he means earning a livelihood (or studying Torah).

(c)"es ha'Derech" refers to Gemilus Chasadim, and ...

1. ... "Yeilchu" to Bikur Cholim (visiting the sick).

2. ... "Bah" to Kevurah (burying the dead).

(d)And "ve'es ha'Ma'aseh" refers to Din (the obligation to act according to the law) and "Asher Ya'asun" to going 'Lif'nim mi'Shuras ha'Din'.

9)

(a)In spite of the fact that we have already learned Gemilus Chasadim from "Yeilchu", why do we need a separate Pasuk for ...

1. ... 'Bikur Cholim' to teach us that even a ben Gil is obligated to perform this Mitzvah. Why might we have thought otherwise?

2. ... the Mitzvah to bury a dead person?

(b)What did Rebbi Yochanan mean when he said that Yerushalayim was destroyed only because they judged Din Torah? What could be wrong with that?

9)

(a)In spite of the fact that we have already learned Gemilus Chasadim from "Yeilchu", we nevertheless need a separate Pasuk for ...

1. ... 'Bikur Cholim' to teach us that even a ben Gil is obligated to perform this Mitzvah. Otherwise, we might have thought that he is Patur because of Mar, who said that someone who visits his ben Gil (a person born under the same Mazel), he takes one sixtieth of his illness (in which case he ought to be Patur).

2. ... the Mitzvah to bury a dead person to include a Zakein ve'Eino L'fi Kekodo, who would otherwise be Patur.

(b)When Rebbi Yochanan said that Yerushalayim was destroyed only because they judged Din Torah, he meant that the people (not the judges) stuck to the letter of the law, and refused to go 'Lif'nim mi'Shuras ha'Din.

10)

(a)What distinction does the Tana of our Mishnah draw between a donkey or a cow grazing by the wayside on the one hand, and a donkey with its saddle etc. lopsided or a cow running in the vineyard, on the other?

(b)And what does he learn from the Pasuk "Hashev Teshivem"?

(c)If the finder stands to lose a Sela (in work loss) by returning the Aveidah, why can he not automatically recoup his total losses from the owner? What then, is he entitled to claim?

(d)How is it nevertheless possible to demand his wages in full?

10)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah rules that a donkey or a cow grazing by the wayside is not an Aveidah, whereas a donkey with its saddle and other accessories lopsided or a cow running in the vineyard, is.

(b)And from the Pasuk "Hashev Teshivem" he learns that if after returning a lost animal, it keeps running away, even as much as four or five times, the finder remains obligated to return it.

(c)If the finder stands to lose a Sela (in work loss) by returning the Aveidah, he cannot automatically recoup his total losses from the owner because the owner can counter that, had he not returned his lost article, he would have had to work harder than he did now. Consequently he can only claim like a 'Po'el Batel' (the compromise figure that a worker would accept for an easier job that he would otherwise have performed.

(d)It is nevertheless possible to demand his wages in full provided that he stipulated as much in front of a Beis-Din consisting of any three Jews.

11)

(a)Our Mishnah begins with the words 'Ei Zu hi Aveidah'. Does this mean that all that we have learned until now is not considered an Aveidah?

(b)Is there a time limit up to which a donkey or a cow grazing by the wayside are not considered an Aveidah?

(c)We query Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's Shiur however. What would the Din be if one found it grazing ...

1. ... at night-time?

2. ... in the middle of the day?

(d)So how does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav speak? In that case, when did the finder spot the animal grazing for three consecutive days?

11)

(a)Our Mishnah begins with the words 'Ei Zu hi Aveidah'. This does not mean that all we have learned until now is not considered an Aveidah but that in this particular context, the following case is considered an Aveidah.

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav gives the time limit up to which a donkey or a cow grazing by the wayside are not considered an Aveidah as three days.

(c)We query Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's Shi'ur however. If one found it grazing ...

1. ... at night-time then even for a short while it ought to be considered an Aveidah.

2. ... in the middle of the day then even after many days there is no reason to consider it lost.

(d)So Rav Yehudah Amar Rav must be speaking when the animal was spotted grazing on three consecutive pre-dawn mornings and at three consecutive night-falls.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF