Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) STIPULATION IN FRONT OF BEIS DIN

(a) (Mishnah): If there is a Beis Din there, he stipulates in front of them...
(b) Rav Safra and Isar had a joint business venture; Rav Safra, in front of two people, took half the merchandise without telling Isar.
(c) Rabah bar Rav Huna: Bring two of the three people in front of whom you divided, or 2 witnesses that saw you divide in front of three people.
(d) Question (Rav Safra): How do you know that three are required?
(e) Answer (Rabah bar Rav Huna - Mishnah): If there is a Beis Din there, he stipulates in front of them; if not, he cannot stipulate - he is exempt from returning, because he would lose money.
(f) Question (Rav Safra): To take money from the loser and give it the finder requires Beis Din - but I only took what is mine, I merely clarify that this is my portion - two witnesses suffice!
(g) Support (Mishnah): A widow can sell (from the estate for her food) not in front of Beis Din.
(h) Rejection (Abaye): But Rav Yosef bar Minyomi explained, the Mishnah teaches that she does not need a qualified Beis Did not, but she must sell in front of three people!

(a) (Mishnah): One who finds an animal in a pen - he need not return it; if he finds one in the public domain, he must return it.
(b) If it was in a cemetery, a Kohen should not become Tamei to return it.
(c) If a man told his son (a Kohen) that he should become Tamei, or if he told him not to return a lost object (when this was permitted), the son should not listen.
(d) If Reuven helped Shimon load or unload even four or five times, Reuven must still help - "Azov Ta'azov";

1. If Shimon said, the Mitzvah is upon you, you can unload it yourself, Reuven is exempt - it says "Imo (with him)";
2. If Shimon is too old or sick to help, Reuven must do it himself.

(e) The Torah only commands to unload, not to load; R. Shimon says, even to load.
(f) R. Yosi ha'Galili says, if the animal was overloaded, Reuven is exempt - "Tachas Masa'o (under its burden)" - a burden fit for it.
(g) (Gemara - Rava): The Mishnah speaks of a pen that does not induce animals to flee, nor does it guard them.

1. It does not induce animals to flee - since the Mishnah says he need not return it;
2. It does not guard them - if it did, there would be no need to teach this;

i. Animals found outside, one returns them to a guarded pen - all the more so, one need not return animals found in a guarded pen!

(h) Version #1 (Mishnah): One who finds an animal in a pen - he is exempt.
(i) (R. Yitzchak): This is when it is within the Techum.
(j) Inference: When it is in the public domain, even within the Techum, he must return it.
(k) Version #2 (Mishnah): One who finds an animal in the public domain, he must return it.
(l) (R. Yitzchak): This is when it is outside the Techum.
(m) Inference: When it is in a pen, even outside the Techum, he is exempt.

(a) (Mishnah): If it was in a cemetery, a Kohen should not become Tamei to return it.
(b) (Beraisa) Question: How do we know that if a man told his son to become Tamei, or not to return a lost object, the son should not listen?
(c) Answer: "Ish Imo v'Aviv Tira'u v'Es Shabsosai Tishmoru Ani Hash-m" - you are all obligated to honor Me.
(d) Inference: That is only because of the verse - without it, we would say that he should listen!
(e) Question: But honoring parents is an Ase, neglecting a lost object is forbidden by a Lav and Ase - an Ase does not override a Lav and an Ase!
(f) Answer: Honor of parents is equated to honor of Hash-m - it says "Kaved Es Avicha v'Es Imecha", and "Kaved Es Hash-m" - therefore, one might have thought that he should listen;

1. The verse teaches, he should not.

(a) (Mishnah): The Torah only commands to unload, not to load; R. Shimon says, even to load.
(b) Question: What does it mean 'not to load'?

1. If it means, it is not a Mitzvah to load at all - why is it different than unloading?

i. We learn unloading from "Azov Ta'azov" - likewise loading is learned from "Hakim Takim"!

(c) Answer: Rather, the Torah only commands to unload for free, not to load for free; R. Shimon says, even to load for free..

1. (Beraisa): Unloading is for free, loading is for pay; R. Shimon says, both are for free.
2. Question: What is Chachamim's reason?
3. Answer: If both were for free, the Torah should only have written loading, we could learn unloading from a Kal va'Chomer:

i. Loading does not save the owner from a loss, nor does it save the animal from pain, yet one is obligated - all the more so unloading, which saves the owner from a loss and saves the animal from pain!

4. Rather, we conclude that unloading was written to teach that unloading is for free, loading is for pay.
5. R. Shimon argues - he says, we cannot tell which verse speaks of which - if only one verse was written, we would assume it teaches unloading!
6. Chachamim say, the verses are clear - "Rovetz Tachas Masa'o (crouching under its load)", and "Nofelim ba'Derech" (the animal and its load are on the ground)!
7. R. Shimon says, "Nofelim ba'Derech" connotes that the animal fell and the burden is on it.

5) PAIN TO ANIMALS

(a) (Rava): From both Tana'im we learn that the Torah commands to minimize pain to animals.

1. Even R. Shimon only argues because we cannot tell which verse speaks of which - if we knew, he would make the Kal va'Chomer as Chachamim!
2. Suggestion: The Kal va'Chomer is on account of pain to animals.
3. Question: Perhaps it is on account of monetary loss of the owner.

i. One is obligated to load even though it does not save the owner from a loss - all the more so unloading, which saves the owner from a loss!

4. Rejection: Sometimes loading does save the owner from a loss - the delay minimizes the time he will have to sell his goods at the market, or robbers will take everything he has!

(b) Support (for Rava - Mishnah - R. Yosi ha'Galili): If the animal was overloaded, Reuven is exempt - "Tachas Masa'o (under its burden)" - a burden fit for it.
(c) Inference: Chachamim say that even then, one is obligated to help.

1. Suggestion: This is mid'Oraisa, on account of pain to animals.

(d) Rejection: Perhaps Chachamim simply do not expound "Tachas Masa'o"!
(e) Support (that pain to animals is not (forbidden) mid'Oraisa - Mishnah): If Shimon said, the Mitzvah is upon you, you can unload it yourself, Reuven is exempt - "Imo".

1. If pain to animals was mid'Oraisa, whether or not Shimon helps, Reuven would be obligated!

(f) Rejection: Really, pain to animals is mid'Oraisa;

1. The Mishnah says that Reuven is exempt from unloading for free - he must unload, but he can demand payment.
2. When Shimon helps, Reuven must unload for free; when he does not help, Reuven unloads for pay.

(g) Support (for Rava - Beraisa): One must help with a Nochri's animal like with a Yisrael's.

1. We understand this if pain to animals is mid'Oraisa - but if not, what is the reason?

(h) Rejection: It is on account of resentment.
(i) Support (for rejection - Beraisa): If it was carrying forbidden wine, he is exempt.

1. We understand this if pain to animals is not mid'Oraisa - but if it is, what is the reason?

(j) Rejection: The Beraisa means, he is exempt from loading forbidden wine (but he is commanded to unload it).
(k) Question (against Rava - Beraisa): A Nochri's animal bearing a Yisrael's burden - "v'Chadalta (you refrain)".

1. If pain to animals is mid'Oraisa, he should be obligated!

(l) Answer #1: The Beraisa speaks of loading.

1. Question: But the end of the Beraisa says, a Yisrael's animal bearing a Nochri's burden - ""Azov Ta'azov (you help)".

i. If pain to animals is not mid'Oraisa, he should be exempt!

2. Answer: He is liable on account of pain to the Yisrael.
3. Question: If so, he should also be obligated in the beginning of the Beraisa!
4. Answer: The beginning of the Beraisa speaks of a Nochri donkey-driver, the end speaks of a Yisrael donkey-driver.
5. Question: Why does it assume this is the case?
6. Answer: Normally, a person goes with his animal.

(m) Objection: How can we say that the Beraisa speaks of loading - the verses cited ("v'Chadalta" and "Azov Ta'azov") are written by unloading!
(n) Answer #2: Rather, the Tana is R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that pain to animals is not mid'Oraisa.
(o) Question (against Rava - Beraisa): If Reuven's friend needs help unloading and Reuven's Sonei (one he hates) needs help loading, Reuven helps his Sonei, to overcome his evil inclination.

1. If pain to animals is mid'Oraisa, unloading should take precedence!

(p) Answer: No - even though pain to animals is mid'Oraisa, it is more important to overcome his evil inclination.
(q) Question (Beraisa): When (the Torah) mentions "Sonei", it means a Yisrael, not a Nochri.

1. If pain to animals is mid'Oraisa, it should make no difference!

(r) Answer: The Beraisa does not refer to "Sonei" written in the Torah, rather to 'Sonei' in the Beraisa.