Bava Metzia - Daf 31
- אבידת קרקע
Rava said that when the passuk says: "לכל אבידת אחיך" – for any lost item of your brother, it teaches: לרבות אבידת קרקע – to include loss of land in the commandment; one must save his friend’s land from damage. Rav Chananya told Rava that a Baraisa supports his ruling: ראה מים ששוטפין ובאין – if one saw water which was flowing and approaching his friend’s field, הרי זה גודר בפניהם – he should erect a barrier before them. Rava responded that this does not prove his position, because it may refer to protecting bundles of grain in the field from damage. Although this would seem obvious, the case can be grain left attached to the ground to fully dry out, and one could think they are considered like the ground, and one is not obligated to protect them. Thus, the Baraisa does not prove that land is subject to השבת אבידה.
- When a running or grazing animal is considered an אבידה
The Mishnah on the previous Daf taught that if one finds animals grazing near the road, they are not considered lost items, because it is likely they were left this way. This implies that if they were running by the road, or grazing in a vineyard, they are considered lost, since these situations are less safe. This is contradicted by the next case, which states that a cow running in a vineyard is considered lost, implying that without one of these hazardous elements, it is not considered lost!? Rava answers for the implied contradiction of an animal running on the road: הא דאפה לגבי דברא – this case is where it is headed towards the field, away from the owner, and so is considered lost; הא דאפה לגבי מתא – the [other case] is where it is headed towards the city (its owner’s location), and is therefore not considered lost. He resolves the contradiction regarding grazing (in a vineyard) by explaining that the implication that it is not lost pertains to אבידת גופה – the loss of the animal itself, whereas the implication that it is a case of loss pertains to אבידת קרקע – the loss of the land, i.e., the animal’s damage to the vineyard. In the former case, he is not required to protect the land, because it belongs to a Gentile.
- Darshening repetitive phrase in the Torah, and opinions that דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם
The Mishnah taught that one must return someone’s animal even if it escaped numerous times, because the passuk says "השב תשיבם" – return, you shall return them. Rava was asked that perhaps the two terms should only require returning it twice, and he explained that the first term itself connotes returning even one hundred times. The second term teaches that it may be returned without the owner’s knowledge. The Gemara proceeds to explain the novelties taught by numerous repetitive phrases in the Torah, including שילוח הקן, loading and unloading packages on an animal, capital punishments, and returning collateral daily. The Gemara explains that the repetitive phrase (העניק תעניק) written by the obligation to give gifts to an עבד עברי going free teaches to give them even if the household was not blessed through him. According to Rebbe Elazar ben Azaryah, who holds he does not receive gifts in this case, the Gemara explains: דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם – the Torah simply spoke in the language of men to stress through repetition and is not teaching any novelty. The same answer is given for Rebbe Shimon regarding the repetitive phrase for lending (העבט תעביטנו). Tosafos says that they agree that generally, repetitive phrases teach a novelty, and these cases are exceptions.
