ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 32
(a) Our Mishnah rules that someone who finds an animal in ...
1. ... a stable - is not obligated to return it.
(b) The Tana learns from the Pasuk "Azov Ta'azov *Imo*" - that if the owner
indicates that since it is not his Mitzvah, he will leave it to the person
whose Mitzvah it is to fulfill it, the latter is Patur.
2. ... the street - is.
(c) This will not apply - in a case where the owner is old or sick, and does
not help because he is unable to.
(d) We have already discussed the Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Rebbi
Shimon regarding P'rikah and Te'inah. Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - exempts one
from helping to reload an animal that has been overloaded.
(a) Rava explains that the stable in our Mishnah is not ...
1. ... completely unguarded - because, if it were, why would the Tana exempt
him from returning it (i.e. or at least from locking the door)?
(b) Rebbi Yitzchak confines 'Matz'ah be'Refes Eino Chayav' to a stable that
is inside the T'chum (Shabbos). We extrapolate from there - that if he were
to find it in the Reshus ha'Rabim, he would be obligated to return it even
inside the T'chum (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).
2. ... firmly locked - because if it was, we would need the Mishnah to teach
us that he is Patur.
(c) In the second Lashon, he confines the Seifa 'bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Chayav
Bah' to where he finds it outside the T'chum, from which we extrapolate that
if he were to find it in a stable, he would be Patur even outside the
(a) Our Mishnah forbids a Kohen to obey his father if he orders him to enter
a Beis ha'Kevaros to return an Aveidah, or even a Yisrael if his father
orders him not to return an Aveidah that he comes across. The Tana of the
Beraisa learns this from the Pasuk in Kedoshim - "Ish Imo ve'Aviv Tiyra'u,
ve'es Shabsosai Tishmoru, Ani Hashem", obligating the parents to honor
Hashem no less than the children (implying that He does not forego His Kavod
when it clashes with that of one's parents).
(b) Despite the fact that both Tum'as Kohen and not returning an Aveidah
involve an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh, it is not obvious that we apply the
principle 'Ein Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh va'Asei' - because elsewhere, the
Torah compares the Kavod of one's parents to that of Hashem Himself (by
using the expression "Kabeid es ... " by both).
(c) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah states 'Mitzvah min ha'Torah li'F'rok Aval
Lo Li't'on'. This cannot be taken literally in light of the Pasuk "Hakem
Takim". So the Tana must mean - 'Mitzvah min ha'Torah Li'f'rok be'Chinam
Aval Lo li'T'on be'Chinam Ela bi'S'char'.
(a) We have already explained why P'rikah is more obvious than Te'inah (and
we will shortly elaborate further). The Tana Kama interprets ...
1. ... "Rovetz Tachas Masa'o" to mean - that the animal is laden and needs
to be unloaded.
(b) Had the Torah only written "Hakem Takim", we would have thought - that
P'rikah, like Te'inah, may be done for remuneration (see Maharsha).
2. ... "Noflin ba'Derech" - that it has fallen in the street and so has its
baggage, so that both now need to be loaded.
(c) This is not so obvious according to Rebbi Shimon, since he interprets
"Noflin ba'Derech" to mean - that the animal fell with its load still on its
back. Consequently, both Pesukim refer to P'rikah.
(a) Rava tries to extrapolate that Tza'ar Ba'alei is d'Oraysa from ...
1. ... the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, who learns that P'rikah is 'better'
than Te'inah that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is d'Oraysa - because otherwise,
what would be the advantage of Perikah over Te'inah?
(b) We refute the 'Kal va'Chomer' however, by applying it to something else.
In fact, the 'Kal va'Chomer' is (not because of Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim,
but) - because of Chesaron Kis involved (the financial loss that one
automatically sustains in the case of P'rikah due to the depreciation of the
animal), which does not apply by Te'inah.
2. ... Rebbi Shimon, even though he does not differentiate between them -
since even Rebbi Shimon agrees that if the Pesukim were clear, he too,
would give Perikah over Te'inah.
(c) We refute this Pircha however, concluding that the 'Kal va'Chomer cannot
be because of Chesaron Kis - because Te'inah too, involves Chesaron Kis, in
two ways: firstly, in work-losses (since the owner is unable to go to work
until his animal has been loaded; and secondly, because the situation
(d) We try to prove further from the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in our
Mishnah ('Im Hayah Alav Yeser al Masa'o ... ') and the Rabbanan that Tza'ar
Ba'alei Chayim must be d'Oraysa. We ...
1. ... attempt to prove it from there - from the fact that, in spite of the
Pasuk "Tachas Masa'o" (which precludes an overloaded animal from the
obligation), the Rabbanan obligate one to help unload it, clearly, we
presume, because of Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim.
2. ... refute the proof however, on the grounds - that the Rabbanan's reason
is (not because of Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim at all, but) because they disagree
with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's D'rashah of "Tachas Masa'o". According to them
"Tachas Masa'o" implies any burden.
(a) We then try to prove from the Seifa of our Mishnah, which precludes an
animal whose owner refuses to help unload his animal from the Mitzvah -
that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim must be de'Rabbanan. Otherwise, why would he not
be obligated to help, come what may?
(b) And we refute this proof, too - by interpreting Patur to mean that he is
exempt from unloading free of charge, but Chayav to unload for remuneration.
(a) The Beraisa which obligates helping unload the animal of a Nochri also
implies that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is d'Oraysa. We refute this proof too
however - by establishing the reason because of 'Eivah' (Darkei Shalom,
which is de'Rabbanan).
(b) We even prove from the Seifa, which exempts helping the same animal if
it is laden with wine, that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim cannot be d'Oraysa.
Neither does 'Eivah' apply there - because one can always explain that his
refusal to help is based on the prohibition of benefiting from forbidden
wine (and not on personal bias).
(c) To refute this proof that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is only de'Rabbanan - we
amend the Beraisa to a case of Te'inah, rather than P'rikah.
(a) The Beraisa cites "ve'Chadalta" in a case where the animal belongs to a
Nochri and the load to a Jew, absolving one from the obligation of helping
him. To repudiate the proof that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is de'Rabbanan - we
establish this Beraisa too, by Te'inah.
(b) Nevertheless, the Tana continues "Behemas Yisrael, u'Mas'uy
Oved-Kochavim, "Azov Ta'azov" ' - because the Seifa speaks when the driver
is a Jew, whom one is obligated to help.
(c) One is not Chayav in the Reisha for the same reason - because the Reisha
speaks when the driver is a Nochri.
(d) The basis for such a distinction is the fact - that it is natural for
the owner to accompany his own animal.
(a) We totally reject the current interpretation of the Beraisa
(establishing it by Te'inah) on the grounds that both Pesukim quoted by the
Tana ("ve'Chadalta" and "Azov Ta'azov") are written in connection with
P'rikah and not Te'inah.
(b) After reinstating the Beraisa by P'rikah - we re-learn it by
establishing the author as Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in our Mishnah, who exempts
one from helping to unload an overloaded animal, indicating that he holds
Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is not d'Oraysa.
(c) The Beraisa rules that someone who loves loading but detests unloading
and who now comes across one person whose animal needs to be loaded, and
another whose animal needs to be unloaded - should rather help to load.
(d) This is not a proof that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is not d'Oraysa - because
even if it is, the Mitzvah of overcoming one's Yetzer-ha'Ra takes
(a) The Pasuk which discusses P'rikah specifically refers to the donkey
belonging to someone whom one hates. According to our initial understanding
of a second Beraisa, when the Tana says 'Sonei Yisrael, ve'Lo Sonei
Oved-Kochavim' he means - that if one comes across the donkey of a Nochri
whom one hates, he is Patur from helping him unload his animal.
(b) We attempt to prove from here - that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is not
(c) To refute this proof, we establish the case of 'Sonei' in the Beraisa -
by the hater referred to in the previous Beraisa, one who hates to load,
who, the Tana is now saying, should not give precedence to loading the
animal if the owner is a Nochri, but should rather unload the animal of the