Bava Metzia

to [workers with] oxen, who can cause much loss. AND SPREAD IT OUT FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT, BUT NOT FOR HIS HONOUR. The scholars propounded: What if it is for their mutual benefit?  — Come and hear: HE MAY SPREAD IT FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT; this proves, only for its own benefit, but not for their mutual benefit! — Then consider the second clause: BUT NOT FOR HIS HONOUR; thus, it is forbidden only for his own honour, but permitted for their mutual benefit! Hence no inference can be drawn from this. Come and hear: He may not spread it [a lost article] upon a couch or a frame for his needs, but may do so in its own interests. If he was visited by guests, he may not spread it over a bed or a frame, whether in his interests or in its own!  — There it is different, because he may thereby destroy it,  either through an [evil] eye or through thieves. Come and hear: If he took it [the heifer] into the team  and it [accidentally] did some threshing, it is fit;  [but if it was] in order that it should suck and thresh, it is unfit.  But here it is for their mutual benefit, and yet it is taught that it is unfit! — There it is different, because Scripture wrote, which hath not beets wrought with — under any condition. If so, the same should apply to the first clause too?  This [then] can only be compared to what we learnt: If a bird rested upon it [the red heifer] — it remains fit;  but if it copulated with a male, it becomes unfit.  Why so? — In accordance with R. Papa's dictum. For R. papa said: Had Scripture written 'ubad,  and we read it 'ubad, I would have said [that the law holds good] even if it were of itself;  whilst if it were written 'abad,  and we read it 'abad, I would have said, [it becomes unfit] only if he himself wrought with it. Since, however, it is written 'abad [active], whilst read 'ubad [passive],  we require that 'it was wrought with' shall be similar to 'he wrought with it';  just as 'he wrought [with it]' must mean that he approved of it, so also 'it was wrought with' refers only to what he approved. SILVER AND COPPER VESSELS MAY BE USED, etc. Our Rabbis taught: If one finds wooden utensils he may use them — to prevent them from rotting; copper vessels — he may use them with hot [matter], but not over the fire, because that wears them out; silver vessels, with cold [matter], but not with hot, because that tarnishes them; trowels and spades, on soft [matter], but not on hard, for that injures them; gold and glassware, [however], he may not touch until Elijah comes. Just as they [the Sages] ruled in respect of lost property, so also with reference to a bailment. What business has one with a bailment?  — Said R. Adda b. Hama in R. Shesheth's name: This treats of a bailment the owner of which has gone overseas. IF ONE FINDS A SACK OR A BASKET, OR ANY OBJECT WHICH IT IS NOT DIGNIFIED FOR HIM TO TAKE, HE NEED NOT TAKE IT. How do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: And thou shalt hide thyself:  sometimes thou mayest hide thyself, and sometimes not. E.g., if one was a priest, whilst it [the lost animal] was in a cemetery; or an old man, and it was inconsistent with his dignity [to lead the animal home]; or if his own [work] was more valuable than his neighbour's  — therefore it is said, and thou shalt hide thyself.  In respect of which [of these instances] is the verse required? Shall we say, in respect of a priest when it [the lost animal] is in a cemetery? — but that is obvious: one is a positive, whereas the other is a negative and a positive injunction, and a positive injunction cannot set aside a negative together with a positive injunction?  Moreover, a ritual prohibition cannot be abrogated on account of money!  If, again, [it is required] where 'his own [work] was more valuable than his neighbour's' — that may be inferred from Rab Judah's dictum in Rab's name, for Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Save that