## Bava Metzia Daf 31b

###### Bava Metzia 31b:1
[Bava Metzia 31b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:1)

אֲבָל הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי דְּאִיתֵאּ לְמָרַהּ בַּהֲדַהּ, אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but** in the case of **these two** mitzvot of unloading and loading, **where its owner is with it,** I might **say no,** there is no need to assist him. Therefore, it was **necessary** for the Torah to write both.


###### Bava Metzia 31b:2
[Bava Metzia 31b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:2)

״מוֹת יוּמַת הַמַּכֶּה״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּמִיתָה הַכְּתוּבָה בּוֹ. מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲמִיתוֹ בְּמִיתָה הַכְּתוּבָה בּוֹ שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לַהֲמִיתוֹ בְּכׇל מִיתָה שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲמִיתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מוֹת יוּמַת״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites additional derivations from compound verb forms. “Or in enmity struck him with his hand, that he died; **he that struck him shall be put to death [*mot yumat*]”** (Numbers 35:21). **I have** derived **only** that the murderer is executed **with** the form of **death written with regard to him,** i.e., decapitation. **From where** is it derived **that if you are unable to execute him with** the form of **death written with regard to him, it is permitted for you to execute him with any death** with **which you are able to execute him? The verse states: “*Mot yumat*,”** to teach that you must execute him **in any case.**


###### Bava Metzia 31b:3
[Bava Metzia 31b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:3)

״הַכֵּה תַכֶּה״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּהַכָּאָה הַכְּתוּבָה בָּהֶן, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲמִיתָן בְּהַכָּאָה הַכְּתוּבָה בָּהֶן שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְהַכּוֹתָן בְּכׇל הַכָּאָה שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַכֵּה תַכֶּה״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to an idolatrous city, it is written: **“You shall strike [*hakeh takeh*]** the inhabitants of that city by sword, destroying it utterly” (Deuteronomy 13:16). **I have** derived **only** that the residents of the idolatrous city are executed **with** the form of **death written with regard to them,** i.e., decapitation. **From where** is it derived **that if you are unable to execute them with** the form of **death written with regard to them, it is permitted for you to execute them with any death** with **which you are able to execute them? The verse states: “*Hakeh takeh*,”** to teach that you must execute him **in any case.**


###### Bava Metzia 31b:4
[Bava Metzia 31b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:4)

״הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת בֵּית דִּין. מִשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת בֵּית דִּין, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to an item that a poor person needs, e.g., a blanket, that a lender took as collateral when lending him money, it is written: **“You shall restore [*hashev tashiv*]** to him the pledge when the sun goes down, that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; and it shall be righteousness for you before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 24:13). **I have** derived **only** the obligation to return his garment each night in a case where the lender **took collateral with the sanction of the court. From where** do I derive the obligation to return his garment each night even in a case where the lender **took collateral without the sanction of the court? The verse states: “*Hashev tashiv*,”** to teach that he must return it **in any case.**


###### Bava Metzia 31b:5
[Bava Metzia 31b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:5)

״חָבֹל תַּחְבֹּל״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת. מִשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״חָבֹל תַּחְבֹּל״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara brings another derivation from a compound verb written with regard to returning collateral: “If you **take as collateral [*ḥavol taḥbol*]** your neighbor’s garment, you shall restore it to him until the sun sets” (Exodus 22:25). **I have** derived **only** the obligation to return his garment before sunset in a case where the lender **took collateral with the sanction of the court. From where** do I derive the obligation to return his garment each night even in a case where the lender **took collateral without the sanction of the court? The verse states: “*Ḥavol taḥbol*,”** to teach that he must return it **in any case.**


###### Bava Metzia 31b:6
[Bava Metzia 31b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:6)

וְהָנֵי תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי לְמָה לִי? חַד לִכְסוּת יוֹם, וְחַד לִכְסוּת לַיְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **these two verses, why do I** need both of them to teach the same *halakha*, that one must return to the debtor any garment that he needs? The Gemara answers: **One** is referring **to a garment** worn during the **day, and one** is referring **to a garment** worn during the **night** (see 114b).


###### Bava Metzia 31b:7
[Bava Metzia 31b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:7)

״פָּתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לַעֲנִיֵּי עִירֶךָ. לַעֲנִיֵּי עִיר אַחֶרֶת, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״פָּתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the mitzva of giving charity and granting loans, it is written: “For the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command you, saying: **You shall open [*patoaḥ tiftaḥ*]** your hand to your poor and needy brother in your land” (Deuteronomy 15:11). **I have** derived **only** the obligation to give charity **to the poor** residents **of your city. From where** is the obligation to give charity **to the poor** residents **of another city** derived? **The verse states: “*Patoaḥ tiftaḥ*,”** to teach that you must give charity to the poor **in any case.**


###### Bava Metzia 31b:8
[Bava Metzia 31b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:8)

״נָתֹן תִּתֵּן״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַתָּנָה מְרוּבָּה. מַתָּנָה מוּעֶטֶת, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נָתֹן תִּתֵּן״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the mitzva of giving charity it is written: “Beware…and your eye is stingy against your needy brother…**You shall give [*naton titten*]** him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give unto him” (Deuteronomy 15:9–10). **I have** derived **only** the obligation to give **a large gift. From where** is the obligation to give even **a small gift** derived? **The verse states: “*Naton titten*,”** to teach that one must give gifts **in any case,** whether a large gift or a small one.


###### Bava Metzia 31b:9
[Bava Metzia 31b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:9)

״הַעֲנֵיק תַּעֲנִיק״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְבָּרֵךְ הַבַּיִת בִּגְלָלוֹ מַעֲנִיקִין. לֹא נִתְבָּרֵךְ הַבַּיִת בִּגְלָלוֹ, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַעֲנֵיק תַּעֲנִיק״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the release of a Hebrew slave it is written: **“You shall furnish [*ha’aneik ta’anik*]** him liberally from your flock, and from your threshing floor, and from your winepress; of that which the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give unto him” (Deuteronomy 15:14). Based on the conclusion of the verse, **I have** derived **only** that **when the house is blessed because of him, one furnishes** the slave with gifts. **From where** have I derived the obligation to furnish him with gifts even when **the house is not blessed because of him? The verse states: “*Ha’aneik ta’anik*,”** to teach that one must furnish him with gifts **in any case.**


###### Bava Metzia 31b:10
[Bava Metzia 31b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:10)

וּלְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, דְּאָמַר: נִתְבָּרֵךְ הַבַּיִת בִּגְלָלוֹ – מַעֲנִיקִין לוֹ, לֹא נִתְבָּרֵךְ הַבַּיִת בִּגְלָלוֹ – אֵין מַעֲנִיקִין, ״תַּעֲנִיק״ לְמָה לִי? דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who says:** If **the house is blessed because of him, one furnishes him** with gifts, and if **the house is not blessed because of him,** one need **not furnish** him with gifts, **why do I** need a compound verb, “*ha’aneik **ta’anik*****”?** The Gemara answers: **The Torah speaks in the language of people.** The compound verb is a common conversational style, and the Torah employs the same style. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds there is nothing extraordinary about it and therefore, nothing may be derived from it.


###### Bava Metzia 31b:11
[Bava Metzia 31b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:11)

״הַעֲבֵט תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס, אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: תֵּן לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ הַלְוָאָה. יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the mitzva of lending money to the poor it is written: “But you shall open your hand to him, and **you shall lend [*ha’avet ta’avitennu*]** him sufficient for his need that he is lacking” (Deuteronomy 15:8). **I have** derived **only** that in a case **where one does not have** resources **and does not want to be supported** with charity, **the Merciful One states: Provide** for **him by means of a loan.** In a case where **he has** resources **and he does not want to support himself** with his resources, **from where** is the obligation to lend him money derived? **The verse states: “*Ta’avitennu*,”** to teach that you must grant him a loan **in any case.**


###### Bava Metzia 31b:12
[Bava Metzia 31b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:12)

וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ, ״תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ״ לְמָה לִי? דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says** that in a case where **he has** resources **and does not want to support himself** with his resources **one is not obligated to attend to his** needs, **why do I** need a doubled verb: “*Ha’avet **ta’avitennu*****”?** The Gemara answers: **The Torah speaks in the language of people** and nothing may be derived from it.


###### Bava Metzia 31b:13
[Bava Metzia 31b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:13)

הָיָה בָּטֵל מִן הַסֶּלַע, לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ ״תֵּן לִי סֶלַע״, אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל (בָּטֵל). תְּנַן: נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If in the course of tending to and returning the lost item, the finder **was idle from** labor that would have earned him **a *sela*, he shall not say to** the owner of the item: **Give me a *sela*** to compensate me for my lost income. **Rather,** the owner **gives him his wage as** if he were **a laborer.** The Gemara cites that **we learned** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 4:11): The owner **gives him his wage as** if he were **an idle laborer.**


###### Bava Metzia 31b:14
[Bava Metzia 31b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:14)

מַאי כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ מְלָאכָה, דִּבְטַל מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of: **As** if he were **an idle laborer?** In fact, he is not idle, but engaged in return of a lost item. **Abaye said:** It means that he is paid **as a laborer** who is **idle from that** typical **labor** of his **from which he is** kept **idle.** In other words, he must receive the amount of money a person would be willing to accept to refrain from his current occupation and engage in returning a lost item. This calculation accounts for both the degree of difficulty of his steady employment and the amount of his remuneration.


###### Bava Metzia 31b:15
[Bava Metzia 31b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31b:15)

אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם בֵּית דִּין – מַתְנֶה בִּפְנֵיהֶם. אִיסּוּר וְרַב סָפְרָא עֲבֻיד עִיסְקָא בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי. אֲזַל רַב סָפְרָא פְּלַג לֵיהּ בְּלָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּאִיסּוּר בְּאַפֵּי בֵּי תְרֵי. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי תְּלָתָא דִּפְלַגְתְּ קַמַּיְיהוּ, אִי נָמֵי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **If there are** three men **there** who can convene as **a court,** he **may stipulate before** the court that he will undertake to return the item provided that he receives full compensation for lost income. The Gemara relates: **Issur and Rav Safra formed a joint venture with each other. Rav Safra went and dissolved** their partnership **without Issur’s knowledge in the presence of two** witnesses. Rav Safra **came before Rabba bar Rav Huna** in order to ratify the dissolution of the partnership. Rabba bar Rav Huna **said to him: Go** and **bring me** the court of **three before whom you dissolved** your partnership. **Alternatively,** you may bring