Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 57

is not necessary, and this is in accordance with R. Elazar, who said, in everything between man and man, the knowledge of the owner is needed, except concerning the return of a lost thing, in which the knowledge of the owner is not needed {i.e., he may put the found article on the owner's property, where it may be saved without notifying him that he has done so), and this is deduced from the superfluous word in the Scripture mentioned above. The same is the case with the word [ibid., ibid. 7] which also reads Shalach Tiishalach (literally, " sending, thou shalt send"). " I would say Shalach once, Tiishalach twice," (said the above scholar to Rabha, and he answered:) " Shalach means even hundred times, and Teishalach signifies that even if the mother was needed for a meritorious purpose {e.g., to cleanse a leper [Lev. xiv. 4]), it must be, nevertheless, sent away." The same scholar said again to him : "It is written [Lev. X. 17]: Hakyach Toucheach (literally, 'rebuke, thou shalt rebuke ' ) ; say the first word means one, and the second two." And Rabha answered: " The first word means even hun- dred times, and the second means that not only the master must rebuke his pupil (when seeing him acting wrong), but even the pupil must do so to his master. The same is the case with the word [Ex. xxiii. 5] Ozob Tahsob (literally, ' help, thou shalt help '), which means you must give your assistance, even not in the presence of the owner; and the same means the word [Deut. xxii. 4] Hokem Tokim (literally, ' load, thou shalt load '). But why does the Scripture repeat the same concerning unloading [Ex. xxxiii.] and loading [Deut. xxii.] ? It is needed. For if it would say the first case only, one might say that because a living thing is inflicted and damages also he must assist, but in the other case of loading, in which both things do not exist, it is not so; and if it would be mentioned in the last case loading, one might say that he must do so, because he has a right to charge for his loss of time, but in unloading, which must be done gratuitously, he is not obliged, therefore both are writ- ten." [But according to R. Simeon, who holds that even load- * Leeser translates according to the sense, Thou shalt surely return ; the Talmud, however, is particular as to the words which we have translated literally in our text. TRACT BAEA MET2IA (MIDDLE GATE). 73 ing must be done without any compensation, what can be said ? He may say that the Scripture does not indicate which verse is to be explained for loading and which for unloading. But could not the trouble about a lost article be deduced from the above- cited verses ? Why is it mentioned separately ? It is necessary because one might say that in both cases above there is an infliction on a living being and an infliction on the owner also (therefore the Scripture prescribes support), but concerning a lost article, in which there is an infliction on the owner only and not on the lost thing, the Scripture would not prescribe support, and the former cases also cannot be deduced from the latter one, because in this case the owner is not present (and therefore support is necessary), which is not so with the former cases, hence all of them were necessary.] The same is with the repetition of [Numb. xxxv. 17] Moth F(?<?w^/ (literally, " dead, he shall die "), which means that if it is impossible to kill him by the prescribed death, he may be killed in any manner; the same is with [Deut. xiii. 16] Hahkie Thahki (literally, " smite, thou shalt smite "), which means if you cannot smite it as prescribed, you must do so in any manner; the same is with [ibid. xxiv. 13] Hohsheb Tohshib (literally, " return, thou shalt return "), which means that even when the pledge was taken without permission of the court, it must nevertheless be returned ; so also [Ex. xxii. 23] Choboiil Tahchboul (literally, " pledge, thou shalt pledge"), which means the same as above [if so, to what purpose is it repeated ? one for a day dress and the other for a night dress] ; so it is also [Deut. xv. 8] Pathoach Tiptahch (literally, " open, thou shalt open"), which means that not only to the poor of your city you are obligated, but also to those of other cities; and also [ibid., ibid. 10] Nauthon Teetin (literally, " giving, thou shalt give"), which means both great and small gifts. The same is [ibid., ibid. 14] Hahn^k Theahnek (literally, " donate, thou shalt donate"), which means that you must do so even if thy house was not blessed through him [but according to R. Elazar b. Azaria, who holds that if it was not blessed, he is not obliged to donate, what can be said ? Nothing; but the Scrip- ture usually speaks like a human being]. So also is with [ibid., ibid. 8*] Habit Taabitanov (literally, " lend, thou shalt lend "), which means that not only to him who possesses nothing and * In all repetitions cited the Talmud takes the matter literally, though the translators, especially Leeser, whom we follow in our work, translate differently, according to the sense. Cf. Leeser's Bible. 74 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. refuses donations, but even to him who possesses but does not want to use his property for his livelihood, you must also act the same. [But according to R. Simeon, who denies any obligation upon a person of the latter case, what does the repetition sig- nify ? Nothing; the Scripture speaks as stated above.] When the loss of time was the value of a sala,'' etc. How is this to be understood ? Said Abayi : " The loss of time must be appraised according to his loss in his special trade." " If there were three men," etc. Issur and R. Saphra were partners in business. Subsequently R. Saphra divided in pres- ence of two witnesses. Finally he came before Rabba bar R. Huna, and was told to bring three men, or two of them, before whom he divided the goods, or even two witnesses that he has done so in presence of other three men, and he said to him : "From what source do you take your decision?" And he rejoined: " From our Mishna, which states, ' If there were three men,' etc." Rejoined R. Saphra: " What comparison is this ? The Mishna treats of collecting money from one to give it to another, and therefore a Beth Din of three men was necessary ; but in my case I took that which belongs to me only. Why do not two witnesses suffice ? And my theory may be supported from a Mishna elsewhere, which states that a widow may sell for her support the goods of her late husband, even not in the presence of a Beth Din (but before two witnesses)." Said Abayi to him: " But was it not taught in addition to your Mishna thus, R. Joseph bar Minyumi in the name of R. Na'h- man said: It means, she does not need a court of special judges, but a Beth Din of three common men is nevertheless neces-