Bava Metzia

on a road, or a cow running among the vineyards it is lost property. [But if he finds] a garment at the side of a wall, or a spade at the side of a wall, or a cow grazing among the vineyards, it is not considered lost; yet [if he sees it] three consecutive days, it is lost. If one sees water overflowing [its banks] and proceeding [onwards], he must put up a wall  before it. Raba  said: [And so shalt thou do] with all lost things of thy brother's:  this is to include the loss of real estate. R. Hananiah observed to Raba:  It has been taught in support of you: If one sees water overflowing [its banks] and proceeding [onwards], he must put up a wall before it.  As for that, he replied, it does not support [me]: What are the circumstances here? When there are sheaves [on the field].  But if it contains sheaves, why state it?  — It is necessary [to state it only] when it contains sheaves which [still] need the soil. I might think, since they need the soil, they are as the soil itself:  therefore we are informed [otherwise]. IF ONE FINDS AN ASS OR A COW, etc. This is self-contradictory. You say. IF ONE FINDS AN ASS OR A COW FEEDING BY THE WAY, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED LOST PROPERTY: hence, only when feeding by the way are they not [regarded as] lost; but if running on a road, or feeding among the vineyards, they are considered lost! Then consider the second clause: [BUT IF HE FINDS] AN ASS WITH ITS TRAPPINGS OVERTURNED, OR A COW RUNNING AMONG THE VINEYARDS, THEY ARE CONSIDERED LOST; hence, only if running among the vineyards are they lost; but if running on the road, or feeding among the vineyards. they are not lost! — Said Abaye: His companion telleth it concerning him:  he [the Tanna] mentions feeding by the way, that it is not a lost animal, and the same applies to [a cow] feeding among the vineyards. He states that if running among the vineyards, it is lost, and the same holds good if it was running on the road. Raba said to him, if 'his companion telleth it of him,' let the lighter aspects be taught, from which the graver ones would follow a fortiori. [Thus:] Let him [the Tanna] teach that if it was running on the road it is considered lost; how much more so if running among the vineyards! And let him teach that when feeding among the vineyards it is not considered lost; how much more so when feeding by the way! — But. said Raba, the two statements on 'running'  are not contradictory: in the one case its face is towards the field; in the other, towards the town.  The two statements on 'feeding' are likewise not contradictory: the one treats of the loss of itself;  the other of the loss of the soil. [Thus:] when he [the Tanna] teaches that if it is FEEDING BY THE WAY. THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED LOST PROPERTY, implying that if it is feeding among the vineyards there is a loss, the reference is to the loss of the soil.  And when he teaches that if it is running among the vineyards there is a case of loss, implying that if it is feeding among the vineyard there is none, the reference is to the loss of itself;  for when running among the vineyard it becomes lacerated, but not when feeding among the vineyards.  Now, if it is feeding among the vineyards, granted that it does not become lacerated, yet it should be necessary [to expel it] on account of the loss of the soil! — This refers to a heathen's  [vineyard]. Yet should it be necessary [to drive it out] on account of its own loss, lest they [the heathens] kill it? — This refers to a place where a warning is first given,  and only then is it slain. But perhaps a warning has already been given on its account? — If they gave warning, and care was not taken thereof [to prevent it from trespassing], it certainly ranks as a self-inflicted loss. IF HE RETURNED IT AND IT RAN AWAY, RETURNED IT AND IT RAN AWAY, etc. One of the Rabbis said to Raba, Perhaps 'hasheb'  indicates once; 'teshibem'  denotes twice? — He replied. 'hasheb' implies even a hundred times. As for 'teshibem', I know only [that he must return them] to his [the owner's] house; how do I know [that he can return them to] his garden or his ruins? Therefore Scripture writes, 'teshibem', implying, in all circumstances. How so? If they [the garden or ruins] are guarded, is it not obvious? Whilst if not, why [can one return them thither]? — In truth, it means that they are guarded, but we are informed this, viz., that the owner's knowledge is not required.  In accordance with R. Eleazar, who said: All require the owner's knowledge,  excepting in the case of the return of lost property, since Scripture extended the law to many forms of return. [If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young:] But shaleah teshalah [thou shalt surely let go] the dam etc.:  let us say that shaleah means once, teshalah twice?  — He replied, shaleah implies even a hundred times. As for teshalah: I know [this law] only [when the bird is required] for a permissive purpose;  how do I know it when it is required for the fulfilment of a precept?  Therefore Scripture writes,'teshalah', implying under all circumstances. One of the Rabbis said to Raba: [Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart:] hokeah tokiah [thou shalt surely rebuke] thy neighbour.  Perhaps hokeah means once, tokiah twice? — He replied, hokeah implies even a hundred times. As for tokiah: I know only that the master [must rebuke] the disciple: whence do we know that the disciple [must rebuke] his master? From the phrase. 'hokeah tokiah', implying under all circumstances. [If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under its burden and wouldst forbear to help him,] thou shalt surely  help with him.  [From this] I know it only if the owner is with it; whence do I know [the law] if its owner is not with it? From the verse, 'thou shalt surely help with him' — in all circumstances. [Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them:] thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again:  [From this] I know it only if the owner is with it; whence do I know [this law] if the owner is not with it? From the verse, 'thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again'. Now, why must both unloading and loading be stated? — Both are necessary. For had Scripture mentioned unloading [only], I would have thought, that is because it entails suffering of dumb animals and financial loss;  but as for loading, where neither suffering of dumb animals nor financial loss is involved,  I might have thought that one need not [help], Whilst had we been informed in respect of loading, [I would have thought, that is] because it is remunerated;  but unloading, which is unremunerated,  I would have thought one need not [help]. Thus both are required. But on R. Simeon's view that loading too is without remuneration, what can you say? — In R. Simeon's view the verses are not explicit. Why need these two be written and also [the return of] the lost [animal]? — They are all needed. For had Scripture written these two [only]. [I would think it was] because they entail the suffering of both the owner and itself [sc. the animal]; but as for a lost [animal], which causes grief to the owner but not to itself, [the law] would not apply.  And if we were informed this of a lost animal, [I would think it was] because the owner is not with it;