Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT IS CONSIDERED LOST? (cont.)

(a) Question: A donkey or cow was grazing on the path - no matter how long, will we say that it is not considered lost?!
(b) Answer (Rav Yehudah): Until three days, it is not considered lost.
(c) Question: What is the case?

1. If it is on the road at night - even one night, this is lost
2. If it is on the road by day - even more than three days, this is not lost!

(d) Answer: The case is, he saw it before dawn or at dusk.

1. For three days, we say that it just occurred that way; after this, we say that it is lost.
2. Support (Beraisa): If one found a garment or axe on a paved road, or a cow running through a vineyard, these are lost;

i. A garment or axe next to the fence, a cow grazing in the vineyard (Gra - in the grass) - this is not lost.
ii. If this persisted for three straight days, it is lost.

3. Reuven saw water coming to flood Shimon's field - he should block it.

(e) (Rava): "L'Chol Aveidas Achicha" - this includes land.
(f) Support (R. Chananyah - Beraisa): Reuven saw water coming to flood Shimon's field - he should block it.
(g) Rejection (Rava): One could say, this is when there are (detached) sheaves in the field.
(h) Question: If so, of course he must save them!
(i) Answer: Really, the sheaves are attached, the owner wants them to remain attached a bit longer. One might have thought, they are considered as land - the Beraisa teaches, this is not so.
(j) (Mishnah): A donkey or cow...
(k) Question: The inferences contradict each other!

1. It says, if they were grazing on the path, this is not considered lost - but if they were running on the path or grazing in a vineyard, they would be considered lost!
2. Then it says, a cow running through vineyards is considered lost - but if they were running on the path or grazing in a vineyard, they would not be considered lost!

(l) Answer #1 (Abaye): Each case teaches about a similar case.

1. It says, if they were grazing on the path, this is not considered lost - the same applies if they were grazing in a vineyard!
2. It says, a cow running through vineyards is considered lost - the same applies to a cow running on the path!

(m) Rejection (Rava): If each case teaches about a similar case - the bigger Chidush should be taught each time!

1. It should say, running on the path is considered lost - all the more so, running in a vineyard!
2. It should say, grazing in a vineyard is not considered lost - all the more so, grazing on the path!

(n) Answer #2 (Rava): Running is lost if it is heading away from the city; heading to the city is not lost;

1. A grazing animal is not considered lost, but it is a loss for the landowner!
2. When it says, grazing on the path is not considered lost - but grazing in a vineyard would be considered lost - it means, it is a loss regarding the vineyard;
3. When it says, a cow running through vineyards is considered lost - but grazing in a vineyard would not be considered lost - that is regarding the animal;

i. Running through a vineyard, it gets wounded, but not when grazing.

4. Question: Grazing in a vineyard should be considered lost on account of the vineyard!
5. Answer: The case is, it is a Kusi's vineyard.
6. Question: It is a potential loss of the animal, perhaps the Kusi will kill it!
7. Answer: It is in a place where they warn before killing the animal.
8. Question: Perhaps he already warned about it!
9. Answer: If so, the owner knowingly gives up his animal, we are not commanded to save it.

(a) (Mishnah): If he returned it and it got lost again, he returned it and it got lost again...
(b) Question: We should say that "Hashiv" teaches that it must be returned once, "Teshivem" teaches a second time (but no more)!
(c) Answer (Rava): "Hashiv" connotes even 100 times;

1. "Teshivem" teaches, not only to his house, but even to his garden or fallen house (is considered returning).
2. Question: What is the case?

i. If it is guarded there - obviously, it is returned!
ii. If it is not guarded there - why is it considered returned?

3. Answer: Really, it is guarded; the Beraisa teaches that the owner need not know of its return.

i. (R. Elazar): All thieves and watchmen must inform the owners when returning the object - only return of a lost object does not need knowledge of the owner, for the Torah included many ways to return it.

(d) Question: We should say that "Shale'ach" (send (a bird crouching on eggs or hatchlings)) teaches that it must be sent once, "Teshalach" teaches a second time (but no more)!
(e) Answer (Rava): "Shale'ach" connotes even 100 times;

1. "Teshalach" teaches, even if the bird is needed for a Mitzvah (e.g. the Taharah of a Metzora), it must be sent.

(f) Question: We should say that "Hoche'ach" teaches that one must rebuke once, "Tochi'ach" teaches a second time (but no more)!
(g) Answer (Rava): "Hoche'ach" connotes even 100 times;

1. "Tochi'ach" teaches, even a Talmid must rebuke his Rebbi.

(a) "Azov Ta'azov Imo" - one might have thought, one must help unload only if the owner helps;

1. "Azov Ta'azov" teaches, even if the owner cannot help.

(b) "Hakem Takim Imo" - one might have thought, one must help load only if the owner helps;

1. "Hekem Takim" teaches, even if the owner cannot help.

(c) Question: Why must the Torah write both the Mitzvah of loading and of unloading?
(d) Answer: We must teach both cases

1. If the Torah only taught unloading - one might have thought, this is on account of pain to the animal and a monetary loss to the owner (the animal gets weaker), but these do not apply to loading;
2. If the Torah only taught loading - one might have thought, that is because he is paid - but there would be no Mitzvah to unload for free.

(e) Question: According to R. Shimon, who says that also loading is for free, how can we answer?
(f) Answer: He says that there is no indication which verse speaks of loading and which of unloading - had the Torah only written one, we would assume there is only a Mitzvah to unload.
(g) Question: Why must the Torah write both these Mitzvos and the Mitzvah of returning a lost object?
(h) Answer: All are needed.

1. If the Torah only taught loading and unloading - one might have thought, that it because there is pain both to the owner and animal - but by a lost object, there is only pain to the owner;
2. If the Torah only taught a lost object - one might have thought, that it because the owner is not there (to save his object) - but by loading and unloading, the owner is there, he could hire people to help him!

(i) (Continuation of Beraisa): "Mos Yamus ha'Makeh" (the murderer will be killed) - perhaps this is only as the Torah said, by the sword;

1. Question: How do we know that if we cannot kill him thusly, we kill him any way we can?
2. Answer: "Mos Yamus' - in any event.

(j) "Hakeh Takeh" (you will destroy the city) - perhaps this is only as the Torah said, by burning;

1. Question: How do we know that if we cannot burn it, we destroy it any way we can?
2. Answer: "Hakeh Takeh" - in any event.

(k) "Hashev Tashiv" (you will return the pledge) - perhaps this is only if the pledge was taken with permission of Beis Din;

1. Question: How do we know this even if it was taken without permission of Beis Din?
2. Answer: "Hashev Tashiv" - in any event.

(l) "Chavol Tachbol..." (If you take a pledge...you will return it) - perhaps this is only if the pledge was taken with permission;

1. Question: How do we know this even if it was taken without permission?

(m) Answer: "Chavol Tachbol" - in any event.

1. Question: Why are both verses needed?
2. Answer: One teaches about a day garment, the other about a night garment.

(n) "Paso'ach Tiftach" (open your hand to give) - perhaps this is only to poor people of your city;

1. Question: How do we know that it applies even to poor people of another city?
2. Answer: "Paso'ach Tiftach" - in any case.

(o) "Nason Titen" - perhaps this is only if you can give a big gift;

1. Question: How do we know that it applies even to a small gift?
2. Answer: "Nason Titen" - in any case.

(p) "Ha'anik Ta'anik" (you will bestow a gift to a Yisrael slave when he goes free) - perhaps this is only if your house was blessed while he worked for you;

1. Question: How do we know that it applies even if it was not blessed?
2. Answer: "Ha'anik Ta'anik" - in any event.
3. Question: According to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, who says that you do not give him if the house was not blessed - why does the Torah say "Ha'anik Ta'anik"?
4. Answer: The Torah speaks as people do.

(q) "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu (you will lend him)" - perhaps this is only if he has no money and does not want a gift;

1. Question: How do we know that it applies if he has money, but does not want to use it?
2. Answer: "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu" - in any event.
3. Question: According to R. Shimon, who says that if he has money and does not want to use it, we do not lend him - why does it say "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu"?
4. Answer: The Torah speaks as people do.

(a) (Mishnah): If Reuven lost one Sela of earnings, he may not demand compensation of one Sela - rather, he is paid as a worker.
(b) (Beraisa): He is paid as an idle worker (the amount a worker would want to receive to rest from his labor).
(c) Question: But he did not rest - he returned a lost object!
(d) Answer (Abaye): He is paid as a worker would want to receive to engage in light labor (such as returning a lost object) instead of his job.