Bava Metzia - Daf 32
- Not listening to one’s father to transgress an aveirah
The next Mishnah states that a Kohen may not become tamei to retrieve a lost item in a cemetery and return it. אם אמר לו אביו היטמא – If his father said to him, “Become tamei to retrieve the item,” או שאמר לו אל תחזיר – or he told him, “Do not return a lost item,” לא ישמע לו – he should not listen to him. A Baraisa derives this from the passuk: איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמרו אני ה' – [every] man, you shall revere your father and mother, and observe my Shabbos, I am Hashem, which teaches: כולכם חייבין בכבודי – all of you, including your parents, are obligated in My honor. Honoring one’s father does not allow him to transgress an aveirah. The Gemara wonders why this requires a passuk, since honoring one’s father is a מצות עשה, and the obligation to return a lost item is a מצות עשה and לא תעשה (namely, השב תשיבם and לא תוכל להתעלם), and an עשה cannot push aside an עשה and לא תעשה!? It explains that since הוקש כיבוד אב ואם לכבודו של מקום – honoring one’s father and mother is compared to honoring Hashem, one could think he should listen to them even in violation of a commandment.
- פריקה בחנם טעינה בשכר
The Mishnah taught that there is a mitzvah to help unload packages from an animal lying under its burden, but not to help load onto an animal where its packages fell off. The Gemara clarifies: מצוה מן התורה לפרוק בחנם – it is a commandment in the Torah to help unload an animal for free, ולא לטעון בחנם – but it is not a commandment to help load for free, אלא בשכר – but he is obligated to help reload for payment. Rebbe Shimon says one is required to help load for free as well. The Rabbonon argue that if טעינה must also be done for free, the obligation of פריקה did not need to be written at all, because it can be derived from טעינה with a kal vachomer: Failing to load the animal would not cause suffering to the animal, nor a monetary loss, yet the bystander is required to help load. Unloading, then, which involves the burdened animal’s suffering, as well as possible monetary loss (if the animal is injured), certainly would be obligated!? It must be that the Torah wrote it to teach that although one can charge for טעינה, but פריקה must be done for free. Rebbe Shimon responds that a single passuk would not suffice, because it may refer to פריקה.
- צער בעלי חיים
Rava said: מדברי שניהם – From the words of both [the Rabbonon and Rebbe Shimon], נלמד צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא – it can be derived that suffering of living creatures is a Biblical issue. The Rabbonon derived from a kal vachomer that if helping load is an obligation, then certainly פריקה is, and Rebbe Shimon agreed fundamentally to the kal vachomer (but argued that the pesukim are unclear). Presumably, the reason why פריקה is a more obvious obligation is because of the צער בעלי חיים of the animal suffering under its burden, proving it is a Biblical concern. The Gemara attempts to deflect the proof, saying that perhaps the reason פריקה is more compelling is משום דאיכא חסרון כיס – because there is potential monetary loss if the animal is not unloaded, because it may be injured. This is rejected, because failing to load an animal can also involve monetary loss, e.g., if he cannot go to the marketplace to sell his merchandise, or his merchandise may be stolen. The Gemara concedes that Rebbe Yose HaGlili holds that צער בעלי חיים is not a Biblical issue.
