Bava Metzia

two out of the three,  or else two witnesses that you did divide in the presence of three [others].'  'How do you know this?' he asked him.  — He replied. 'Because we learnt. 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.'  'What comparison is there?' he retorted. 'In that case, Seeing that money is being taken from one and given to another, a Beth din is needed;  but here I took my own, and mere proof [is required that I shared fairly]; hence two are sufficient. In proof thereof we learnt: A widow may sell [of her deceased husband's estate] without the presence of Beth din!'  — Said Abaye to him, 'But was it not stated thereon: R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in R. Nahman's name: A widow does not need a Beth din of ordained scholars, but a Beth din of laymen is necessary?' MISHNAH. IF HE FINDS IT [AN ANIMAL] IN A STABLE, HE HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD IT [TO RETURN IT];  IN THE STREET, HE IS OBLIGED [TO RETURN IT]. BUT IF IT IS IN A CEMETERY, HE MUST NOT DEFILE HIMSELF FOR IT.  IF HIS FATHER ORDERS HIM TO DEFILE HIMSELF, OR SAYS TO HIM, 'DO NOT RETURN [IT].' HE MUST NOT OBEY HIM. IF ONE UNLOADS AND LOADS, UNLOADS AND LOADS, EVEN FOUR OR FIVE TIMES, HE IS [STILL] BOUND [TO DO IT AGAIN], BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT SURELY HELP [WITH HIM].  IF HE [THE OWNER OF THE ANIMAL] WENT, SAT DOWN AND SAID [TO THE PASSER-BY], 'SINCE THE OBLIGATION RESTS UPON YOU, IF YOU DESIRE TO UNLOAD, UNLOAD:' HE [THE PASSER-BY] IS EXEMPT, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, 'WITH HIM'; YET IF HE [THE OWNER] WAS OLD OR INFIRM HE IS BOUND [TO DO IT HIMSELF]. THERE IS A BIBLICAL PRECEPT TO UNLOAD, BUT NOT TO LOAD. R. SIMEON SAID: TO LOAD UP TOO. R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAID: IF IT [THE ANIMAL] BORE MORE THAN HIS PROPER BURDEN, HE [THE PASSER-BY] HAS NO OBLIGATION TOWARDS HIM [ITS OWNER], BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN, [IF THOU SEE THE ASS OF HIM THAT HATETH THEE LYING] UNDER ITS BURDEN, WHICH MEANS, A BURDEN UNDER WHICH IT CAN STAND. GEMARA. Raba said: The STABLE referred to is one which neither causes [the animal] to stray nor is it guarded.  It does not cause it to stray: since it is taught: HE HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS IT [TO RETURN IT]; nor is it guarded, since it is necessary to teach HE HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD IT. For should you think that it is guarded: Seeing that if he finds it outside he takes it inside;  if he finds it inside, is it necessary to state [that he is not bound to return it]? But it must follow that it is unguarded. This proves it. IF HE FINDS IT IN A STABLE, HE HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD IT. R. Isaac said: Provided that it is standing within the tehum.  Hence it follows that [if he finds it] in the street, even within the tehum, he is still bound [to return it]. Others refer this to the second clause, IN THE STREET, HE IS OBLIGED [TO RETURN IT]. R. Isaac observed: Providing that it is standing within the tehum: hence it follows that [if he finds it] in a stable, even without the tehum, he is still under no obligation. IF IT IS IN A CEMETERY, HE MUST NOT DEFILE HIMSELF FOR IT. Our Rabbis taught: Whence do we know that if his father said to him, 'Defile yourself', or 'Do not return it', he must disobey him? Because it is written, Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God  — ye are all bound to honour Me. Thus, the reason is that Scripture wrote, ye shall keep my Sabbaths;  otherwise, however, I would have said that he has to obey him.  But why so? One is a positive command, and the other is both a positive and a negative command,  and a positive command cannot supersede [combined] positive and negative commands! — It is necessary. I might think, Since the honour due to parents is equated to that due to the Omnipresent, for it is said, Honour thy father and thy mother;  whilst elsewhere it is said: Honour the Lord with thy substance;  therefore he must obey him. Hence we are informed that he must not obey him. THERE IS A BIBLICAL PRECEPT TO UNLOAD, BUT NOT TO LOAD. What is meant by — 'BUT NOT TO LOAD'? Shall we say, not to load at all: wherein does unloading differ, because it is written, Thou shalt surely help him?  Yet in respect to loading, too, it is said, thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again!  But [it means this:] It is a Biblical obligation to unload without remuneration, but not to load without payment, save only for remuneration. R. Simeon said: To load too without payment. We have [thus] learnt here what our Rabbis taught: Unloading [must be done] without pay; unloading, for pay. R. Simeon said: Both without payment. What is the reason of the Rabbis? — For should you think it is as R. Simeon: let Scripture state loading, and unloading becomes unnecessary; for I would reason: If one is bound to load, though no suffering of dumb animals nor financial loss is involved;  how much more so unloading, seeing that both suffering of dumb animals and financial loss are involved!  Then for what purpose is it written? To teach you that unloading must be performed without payment, but loading only for payment. And what is R. Simeon's reason? — Because the verses are not explicit.  And the Rabbis?  — Why [say,] The verses are not explicit? Here it is written, [If thou see the ass …] lying under his burden;  whilst there it is said, [Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox] fall down by the way, which implies, both they and their burdens are cast on the road.  And R. Simeon?  — 'Fall down by the way' implies they themselves [the animals], their load being still upon them. Raba said: