ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 30
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Shotchah le'Tzorchah Aval Lo li'Chevodo'. We
try to prove from the statement 'Shotchah le'Tzorchah' - that le'Tzorchah
u'li'Tzorcho' is forbidden.
(b) We counter this proof - by proving the opposite from the statement 'Aval
Lo li'Chevodo', closing the Mishnah to any inferences.
(a) The Beraisa permits (obligates) spreading the garment on a bed or on a
peg - 'le'Tzorchah', but not 'le'Tzorcho'.
(b) We try to prove from the fact that the Tana forbids the finder to do
this (even 'le'Tzorchah') should he have guests - that 'le'Tzorchah
ule'Tzorcho' is forbidden (our current She'eilah).
(c) We refute this proof however - because the Tana may well forbid it
because by doing so, we are afraid that he will indirectly cause the
destruction of the garment.
(d) This fear might in turn, be attributed to Ayin ha'Ra, or else, it might
be attributed to - the possibility that one of the guests will steal the
(a) If a calf is taken into the threshing-floor to feed from its mother (one
of the cows in a threshing team), the Beraisa declares it Kasher for use as
an Eglah Arufah (see Tosfos DH 'Hichnisah'). The Tana disqualifie it
however - if the animal was taken in to both feed and thresh.
(b) We refute the proof from here that le'Tzorcho u'le'Torchah is forbidden
(and extend it to a Shomer Aveidah) however, on the grounds that Eglah
Arufah might be worse than a Shomer Aveidah in this respect - seeing as the
Torah writes "Asher Lo *Ubad* Bah", implying that an animal that is worked
with, even though the owner did not so deliberately, is Pasul.
(c) We explain the Reisha, where the Tana validates a calf that went in
solely to feed even if it subsequently threshed - by citing Rav Papa (whom
we already explained above). Rav Papa learns from the fact that the Torah
writes "Ubad" without a 'Vav', that if the owner did not actually work with
the calf, it is Pasul only if the owner is pleased with the fact that it
worked (as if he had actually worked with it himself).
(a) The Beraisa lists the Halachos of whether and how one uses the vessels
that one finds. One may/should use wooden vessels - to prevent them from
(b) The finder may use ...
1. ... copper vessels even with hot water, but not directly on the flame,
because it wears them out.
(c) The Tana equates a Pikadon with an Aveidah regarding these Halachos. If
the owner was in town, the guardian would certainly not be permitted to use
the article (even for the good of the article). The Tana however, is
speaking when the owner is out of town.
2. ... silver ones - with cold water but not with hot water (for the same
3. ... shovels and spades - in soft earth but not in virgin soil because it
makes them blunt.
(a) We learn from the the Pasuk "ve'His'alamta Meihem" - that there are
times when the finder may turn a blind eye to an Aveidah.
(b) Besides a person of high esteem, who finds it undignified to take the
article home, this incorporates - a Kohen who sees an Aveidah in a graveyard
and someone whose work loss in returning the article will amount to more
than the value of the article.
(c) Despite the Pasuk "ve'His'alamta Meihem", we know that one is obligated
to pick up an Aveidah - because of the Pasuk "Lo Suchal le'His'alem.
(d) We conclude that we only really need the Pasuk to teach us the
concession of 'Zakein ve'Eino Le'fi Kevodo'. The Pasuk is not needed for ...
1. ... 'Kohen ve'Hu be'Veis ha'Kevaros' - because anyway, the Asei of
"Hashev Teshivem" could not override the Asei of "Kedoshim Tih'yu" together
with the Lo Sa'aseh of "le'Nefesh Lo Yitamo". And besides, Mamon does not
have the power to override Isur.
2. ... 'she'Lo Merubeh mi'Shel Chavero' - because Rav Yehudah Amar Rav has
already extrapolated from the Pasuk in Re'ei Efes Ki Lo Yihyeh Becha evyon"
that one's own finances take precedence over somebody else's.
(a) Rabah rules that a Zakein ve'Eino Le'fi Kevodo who strikes the animal
that he finds - is obligated to return it (see Rosh Si'man 21).
(b) When Abaye threw a clod of earth at a lost herd of goats - Rabah told
him that he was now obligated to return them.
(c) Whether or not, a Zakein who would find it undignified to return a lost
article in town but not in the fields, is obligated to return one that he
finds in the fields (and once he has started returning it, he is obligating
to conclude the Mitzvah) - is the subject of a She'eilah which ends with
(d) The criterion Rava gives for the Torah's exemption of a Zakein Zakein
ve'Eino Le'fi Kevodo to return a lost article, to load or to unload another
man's donkey is - whether he would return, load or unload his own animal
under similar circumstances.
(a) When Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi came upon a man who had put down his
heavy bundle of wood to rest, and the man asked him to help reload it on his
back - he declared the wood Hefker and paid him the half Zuz that it was
(b) And when he saw that the man was about to re-acquire the bundle of wood
for the second time, he said - that he had declared the wood Hefker for
everyone but him.
(c) In the Mishnah in Pe'ah, Beis Shamai consider Hefker la'Aniyim to be
Hefker. According to Beis Hillel, Hefker, is only effective if it is Hefker
for everybody, for Ashirim and Aniyim alike (just like Shevi'is).
(d) When Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi told the man that he had declared the
wood Hefker for everyone but him - he was only putting him off (discouraging
him from re-acquiring it, [to put an end to the vicious circle]). Legally,
he could not stop him from doing so.
(a) In spite of the fact that Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi was a Zakein
ve'Eino Le'fi Kevodo, he paid the man for the wood, not because he had to,
but because he wanted to go 'Li'fnim mi'Shuras ha'Din' (beyond the letter of
(b) Rav Yosef quoting a Beraisa, learns from the Pasuk "ve'Hoda'ta Lahem",
'Zeh Beis Chayeihem', by which he means earning a livelihood (or studying
(c) "es ha'Derech" refers to Gemilus Chasadim, and ...
1. ... "Yeilchu" - to Bikur Cholim (visiting the sick).
(d) And "ve'es ha'Ma'aseh" refers to Din (the obligation to act according to
the law) and "Asher Ya'asun" - to going 'Li'fnim mi'Shuras ha'Din'.
2. ... "Bah" - to Kevurah (burying the dead).
(a) In spite of the fact that we have already learned Gemilus Chasadim from
"Yeilchu", we nevertheless need a separate Pasuk for ...
1. ... 'Bikur Cholim' to teach us that even a ben Gil is obligated to
perform this Mitzvah. Otherwise, we might have thought that he is Patur -
because of Mar, who said that someone who visits his ben Gil (a person born
under the same Mazel), he takes one sixtieth of his illness.
(b) When Rebbi Yochanan said that Yerushalayim was destroyed only because
they judged Din Torah, he meant - that the people (not the judges) stuck to
the letter of the law, and refused to go 'Li'fnim mi'Shuras ha'Din.
2. ... the Mitzvah to bury a dead person - to include a Zakein ve'Eino Le'fi
Kekodo, who would otherwise be Patur.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules - that a donkey or a cow grazing by the
wayside is not an Aveidah, whereas a donkey with its saddle etc. lopsided or
a cow running in the vineyard, is.
(b) And from the Pasuk "Hashev Teshivem" he learns - that if after returning
a lost animal, it runs away, even as much as four or five times, the finder
remains obligated to return it.
(c) If the finder stands to lose a Sela (in work loss) by returning the
Aveidah, he cannot automatically recoup his total losses from the owner -
because the owner can counter that, had he not returned his lost article, he
would have had to work harder than he did now. Consequently - he can only
claim like a 'Po'el Batel' (the compromise figure that a worker would accept
for an easier job that he would otherwise have performed.
(d) It is nevertheless possible to demand his wages in full - in the event
that he stipulated as much, in front of a Beis-Din consisting of any three
(a) Our Mishnah begins with the words 'Ei Zu hi Aveidah'. This does not mean
that all we have learned until now is not considered an Aveidah - but that
in this particular context, the following case is considered an Aveidah.
(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav gives the time limit up to which a donkey or a cow
grazing by the wayside are not considered an Aveidah - as three days.
(c) We query Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's Shiur however. If one found it grazing
1. ... at night-time - then even for a short while it would be considered an
(d) So Rav Yehudah Amar Rav must be speaking - when the animal was spotted
grazing on three consecutive pre-dawn mornings and on three consecutive
2. ... in the middle of the day - then even after many days there is no
reason to consider it lost.