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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 30



(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Shotchah le'Tzorchah Aval Lo li'Chevodo'. We try to prove from the statement 'Shotchah le'Tzorchah' - that le'Tzorchah u'li'Tzorcho' is forbidden.

(b) We counter this proof - by proving the opposite from the statement 'Aval Lo li'Chevodo', closing the Mishnah to any inferences.

(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 the finder to do this (even 'le'Tzorchah') should he have 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 might in turn, be attributed to Ayin ha'Ra, or else, it might be attributed to - the possibility that one of the guests will steal the garment.

(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 disqualifie it however - if the animal was 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 above). 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).

(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 was in town, the guardian would certainly not be permitted to use the article (even for the good of the article). The Tana however, is speaking when the owner is out of town.
(a) We learn from the 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 and someone whose work loss in returning the article will amount to more than the value of the article.

(c) Despite the Pasuk "ve'His'alamta Meihem", we know that one is obligated to pick up an Aveidah - because 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" could not 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 Becha evyon" that one's own finances take precedence over somebody else's.



(a) Rabah rules that a Zakein ve'Eino Le'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) Whether or not, a Zakein who would find it undignified to return a lost article in town but not in the fields, is obligated to return one that he finds in the fields (and once he has started returning it, he is obligating to conclude the Mitzvah) - is the subject of a She'eilah which ends with '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.

(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) 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 stop him from doing so.

(a) In spite of the fact that Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi was a Zakein ve'Eino Le'fi Kevodo, he paid the man for the wood, not because he had to, but because he wanted to go 'Li'fnim 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 'Li'fnim mi'Shuras ha'Din'.
(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.
2. ... the Mitzvah to bury a dead person - to include a Zakein ve'Eino Le'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 'Li'fnim mi'Shuras ha'Din.
(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 etc. 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 runs 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 - in the event that he stipulated as much, in front of a Beis-Din consisting of any three Jews.

(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 Shiur however. If one found it grazing ...

1. ... at night-time - then even for a short while it would 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 on three consecutive nightfalls.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,