Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 55

the case was where he found the money, and thereafter it was known to belong to orphans not yet of age, which should be returned to them." TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 67 read in them provided he does not begin to study in them for the first time, and also he must not invite another to study with him. The same is the case if one deposits Holy Scrolls at his neighbor's : the bailee must unroll them (for airing) once in twelve months, and in the meantime he may read in them ; he must not, however, open them for the purpose of reading only." Symmachus, however, says: " If they were new ones, he may air them once in a month; and if old, once in twelve months." R. Elazar b. Jacob says: " It makes no difference, once in twelve is sufficient." The master said: " He must not lend them to another." Does this law apply only to Holy Scrolls ? Is it not the same with anything else ? Did not Resh Lakish say (in regard to a Mishna in Tract Gittin) : Here taught Rabbi that a borrower must not lend an article to another, and the same is the case with a hirer ? Lest one say that usually one is pleased that a meritori- ous deed be done with his property, he comes to teach us that he must not do so, even with the Holy Scrolls without permis- sion. To what purpose, then, does the master teach, He opens them, etc. ? Is this not self-evident, as for this purpose they were borrowed ? Because he means to tell that he must not begin his study for the first time, etc., he mentioned also the above.* But how is to understand the latter part ? R. Elazar b. Jacob says: " Once in twelve." Is it not the same as the first Tana said ? Read, R. Elazar b. Jacob said in both cases they must be unrolled once in thirty days. " To study in them,'' etc. There is a contradiction in the following: " One shall not read a paragraph and repeat it or translate it into another language ; he must not open more than three folios of them, and three men must not read in one and the same volume." Is it not to be understood from this that three must not, but two may ? Said Abayi : " This presents no difficulty. In one and the same paragraph even two are not allowed, but in two dif!ferent paragraphs each of them may read separately." " If the article was a garment,'' etc. Is it, then, good for the garment to shake it frequently ? Did not R. Johanan say that whoever has a specialist weaver in his house (who may weave for him new garments), may shake his garments every day; hence we see that frequent shaking spoils the garment ? * The text here discusses the Inilee of Holy Scrolls and finally explains it as we have just translated ; therefore tlio omission. 68 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. Yea. Every day it would spoil it, but once in thirty days is good for it ; and if you wish, it may be said that R. Johanan treats of a woollen garment (which can be torn by shaking), and the Mishna treats of linen ones. R. Johanan said: * " It is better to drink a goblet from the hand of a witch than to drink a goblet of lukewarm water when the goblet is of metal, and was not boiled previously, and it is ordinary water without any spices in it." He also said : "He to whom his father bequeathed too much money, and he desires to lose it, shall dress himself in Roman linen garments (which arc very dear and are spoiled in a short time), and shall use glass utensils of great value, and shall hire others to do the work necessary in his vineyards while he is absent." " Vessels of silver and copper,'' etc. The rabbis taught: "If one finds wooden vessels, he may use them in order that they may not decay. Copper ones he may use for warm liquids, but not put them on the fire, because the vessels may be worn off ; silver ones he may use for cold liquids, but not for warm, for they may lose their brightness; spades or axes he may use for soft materials, but not for hard, for they may be diminished; however, golden ones or glass ones must not be touched until Elijah will come. The same law applies also to deposited arti- cles. If so, to what purpose was it deposited ? Said R. Ada b. Hama in the name of R. Shesheth: " It was deposited for saving only, as, e.g., the owners had departed for the sea- countries." "7/", however, the article found, . . . he may leave it.'* Whence do we deduce it ? From that which the rabbis taught: "It is written [Deut. xxii. i]: 'And withdraw thyself from them,' which means that there are cases in which you may withdraw, and others in which you may not. How so ? If, e.g., he was a priest, and the found article was on a cemetery, or he was a sage, and it is not fit for him to carry the found article, or if his labor at that time should have more value than the value of the found article, he may leave it, as in such cases the verse cited above applies." Let us see in what case the above verse is needed. If to a priest who saw a found article in a cemetery, is then a verse needed ? Is it not self-evident, as there is a negative and positive commandment concerning a priest, who must not defile himself by the dead [Lev. xxi. i], * Because it is stoted here what R. Johnanan said regarding worldly affairs, it mentions here the other things he said in the same matter. (Rashi.) TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 69 and the positive commandment, "Ye shall be holy" [ibid, xix. 2], and to return a lost thing is one positive commandment only; and aside from this it must not be ignored, a bodily pro- hibition for money matter even if it is meritorious, and if the above-cited verse is needed, because his loss of time has more value than the lost article. This is also inferred from the say- ing of R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh, as follows: " It is writ- ten [Deut. XV. 4] : ' There shall be no needy man among thee,' * which signifies that yours has preference over that of another; it must therefore be said that the verse in question is needed for the case of a sage, for whom the found article is unfit for his honor." Rabba said: " If he has seen an animal, and struck it (and it ran away), he must return it." It happened that Abayi was sitting in the presence of Rabba, and goats came near him, and he took a clot of dirt and threw it at them, and they ran away. Said Rabba to him: " If they will be lost you will be responsible ; go and bring them back to the owner." The schoolmen propounded a question : If the man is so respected that in the city it is not nice for him to drive cattle, but in the field he usually does so, what is the law ? If he has seen his neighbor's cattle astray in the field, must he return them to the city only, or, as the Scripture requires that they shall be returned to their proper place, and as it is not fit for