Bava Metzia

there shall be no poor among you:  [this teaches,] thine takes precedence over all others!  — Hence [it is needed] in respect of an old man for whom it is undignified [to return the lost article]. Rabbah said: If he [the old man] smote it [the lost animal], he is [henceforth] under an obligation in respect thereof.  Abaye was sitting before Rabbah when he saw some [lost] goats standing. whereupon he took a clod and threw it at them. Said he [Rabbah] to him, 'You have thereby become bound in respect of them. Arise and return them.' The scholars propounded: What if it is dignified for one to return [a lost animal] in the field, but not in town? Do we say, a complete return is required, and since it is undignified for him to return it in town, he has no obligation at all; or perhaps, in the field at least he is bound to return it, and since he incurs the obligation in the field, he is likewise obligated in town?  The question stands. Raba said: Where one would lead back his own, he must lead back his neighbour's too. And where one would unload and load his own, he must do so for his neighbour's. R. Ishmael son of R. Jose was walking on a road when he met a man carrying a load of faggots. The latter put them down, rested, and then said to him, 'Help me to take them up.' 'What is it worth?' he enquired. 'Half a zuz,' was the answer. So he gave him the half zuz and declared it hefker.  Thereupon he [the carrier] re-acquired it.  He gave him another half zuz and again declared it hefker. Seeing that he was again about to re-acquire it, he said to him, 'I have declared it hefker for all but you.' But is it then hefker in that case? Have we not learnt: Beth Shammai maintain, hefker for the poor [only] is valid hefker; whilst Beth Hillel rule, It is valid only if declared hefker for the poor and the rich, as the year of release.  — But R. Ishmael son of R. Jose did in fact render it hefker for all; and he stopped the other [from taking possession again] by mere words. Yet was not R. Ishmael son of R. Jose an elder for whom it was undignified [to help one to take up a load]?  — He acted beyond the requirements of the law. For R. Joseph learnt: And thou shalt shew them  — this refers to their house of life;  the way — that means the practice of loving deeds;  they must walk — to sick visiting; therein — to burial;  and the work — to strict law; that they shall do — to [acts] beyond the requirements of the law. The Master said: 'they must walk — this refers to sick visiting.' But that is the practice of loving deeds! — That is necessary only in respect of one's affinity.  For a Master said: A man's affinity takes away a sixtieth of his illness: yet even so, he must visit him 'Therein to burial.' But that [too] is identical with the practice of loving deeds? — That is necessary only in respect of an old man for whom it is undignified.  'That they shall do — this means [acts] beyond the requirements of the law.' For R. Johanan said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because they gave judgments therein in accordance with Biblical law. Were they then to have judged in accordance with untrained arbitrators?  — But say thus: because they based their judgments [strictly] upon Biblical law, and did not go beyond the requirements of the law. MISHNAH. WHAT IS LOST PROPERTY? IF ONE FINDS AN ASS OR A COW FEEDING BY THE WAY, THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED A LOST PROPERTY; [BUT IF HE FINDS] AN ASS WITH ITS TRAPPINGS OVERTURNED, OR A COW RUNNING AMONG THE VINEYARDS, THEY ARE CONSIDERED LOST. IF HE RETURNED IT AND IT RAN AWAY, RETURNED IT AND IT RAN AWAY, EVEN FOUR OR FIVE TIMES, HE IS STILL BOUND TO RESTORE IT, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT SURELY RESTORE THEM.  IF HIS LOST TIME IS WORTH S SELA', HE MUST NOT DEMAND, GIVE ME A SELA',' BUT IS PAID AS A LABOURER. IF A BETH DIN IS PRESENT, HE MAY STIPULATE IN THEIR PRESENCE;  BUT IF THERE IS NO BETH DIN BEFORE WHOM TO STIPULATE, HIS OWN TAKES PRECEDENCE. GEMARA. And all these that were mentioned already — are they then not lost property?  — Said Rab Judah: It means this: What is the general principle of lost property for which one is responsible?  IF ONE FINDS AN ASS OR A COW FEEDING BY THE WAY, THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED LOST PROPERTY, and he bears no responsibility toward it: [BUT IF HE FINDS] AN ASS WITH ITS TRAPPINGS OVERTURNED, OR A COW RUNNING AMONG THE VINEYARDS, THEY ARE CONSIDERED LOST, and he is bound [to return it]. And for ever?  — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: Up to three days.  How so? If [he sees it] at night, even a single hour [shews that it is lost]; if by day, even if it is there longer, it is still [not proof it is lost]! — This arises only if it was seen either before daybreak or at twilight; now, for three days we assume that it is mere chance that it went forth [at these unusual hours]; but if more, it is certainly lost. It has been taught likewise: If one finds a garment or a spade

there shall be no poor among you:  [this teaches,] thine takes precedence over all others!  — Hence [it is needed] in respect of an old man for whom it is undignified [to return the lost article]. Rabbah said: If he [the old man] smote it [the lost animal], he is [henceforth] under an obligation in respect thereof.  Abaye was sitting before Rabbah when he saw some [lost] goats standing. whereupon he took a clod and threw it at them. Said he [Rabbah] to him, 'You have thereby become bound in respect of them. Arise and return them.' The scholars propounded: What if it is dignified for one to return [a lost animal] in the field, but not in town? Do we say, a complete return is required, and since it is undignified for him to return it in town, he has no obligation at all; or perhaps, in the field at least he is bound to return it, and since he incurs the obligation in the field, he is likewise obligated in town?  The question stands. Raba said: Where one would lead back his own, he must lead back his neighbour's too. And where one would unload and load his own, he must do so for his neighbour's. R. Ishmael son of R. Jose was walking on a road when he met a man carrying a load of faggots. The latter put them down, rested, and then said to him, 'Help me to take them up.' 'What is it worth?' he enquired. 'Half a zuz,' was the answer. So he gave him the half zuz and declared it hefker.  Thereupon he [the carrier] re-acquired it.  He gave him another half zuz and again declared it hefker. Seeing that he was again about to re-acquire it, he said to him, 'I have declared it hefker for all but you.' But is it then hefker in that case? Have we not learnt: Beth Shammai maintain, hefker for the poor [only] is valid hefker; whilst Beth Hillel rule, It is valid only if declared hefker for the poor and the rich, as the year of release.  — But R. Ishmael son of R. Jose did in fact render it hefker for all; and he stopped the other [from taking possession again] by mere words. Yet was not R. Ishmael son of R. Jose an elder for whom it was undignified [to help one to take up a load]?  — He acted beyond the requirements of the law. For R. Joseph learnt: And thou shalt shew them  — this refers to their house of life;  the way — that means the practice of loving deeds;  they must walk — to sick visiting; therein — to burial;  and the work — to strict law; that they shall do — to [acts] beyond the requirements of the law. The Master said: 'they must walk — this refers to sick visiting.' But that is the practice of loving deeds! — That is necessary only in respect of one's affinity.  For a Master said: A man's affinity takes away a sixtieth of his illness: yet even so, he must visit him 'Therein to burial.' But that [too] is identical with the practice of loving deeds? — That is necessary only in respect of an old man for whom it is undignified.  'That they shall do — this means [acts] beyond the requirements of the law.' For R. Johanan said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because they gave judgments therein in accordance with Biblical law. Were they then to have judged in accordance with untrained arbitrators?  — But say thus: because they based their judgments [strictly] upon Biblical law, and did not go beyond the requirements of the law. MISHNAH. WHAT IS LOST PROPERTY? IF ONE FINDS AN ASS OR A COW FEEDING BY THE WAY, THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED A LOST PROPERTY; [BUT IF HE FINDS] AN ASS WITH ITS TRAPPINGS OVERTURNED, OR A COW RUNNING AMONG THE VINEYARDS, THEY ARE CONSIDERED LOST. IF HE RETURNED IT AND IT RAN AWAY, RETURNED IT AND IT RAN AWAY, EVEN FOUR OR FIVE TIMES, HE IS STILL BOUND TO RESTORE IT, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT SURELY RESTORE THEM.  IF HIS LOST TIME IS WORTH S SELA', HE MUST NOT DEMAND, GIVE ME A SELA',' BUT IS PAID AS A LABOURER. IF A BETH DIN IS PRESENT, HE MAY STIPULATE IN THEIR PRESENCE;  BUT IF THERE IS NO BETH DIN BEFORE WHOM TO STIPULATE, HIS OWN TAKES PRECEDENCE. GEMARA. And all these that were mentioned already — are they then not lost property?  — Said Rab Judah: It means this: What is the general principle of lost property for which one is responsible?  IF ONE FINDS AN ASS OR A COW FEEDING BY THE WAY, THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED LOST PROPERTY, and he bears no responsibility toward it: [BUT IF HE FINDS] AN ASS WITH ITS TRAPPINGS OVERTURNED, OR A COW RUNNING AMONG THE VINEYARDS, THEY ARE CONSIDERED LOST, and he is bound [to return it]. And for ever?  — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: Up to three days.  How so? If [he sees it] at night, even a single hour [shews that it is lost]; if by day, even if it is there longer, it is still [not proof it is lost]! — This arises only if it was seen either before daybreak or at twilight; now, for three days we assume that it is mere chance that it went forth [at these unusual hours]; but if more, it is certainly lost. It has been taught likewise: If one finds a garment or a spade