Bava Metzia 33: Unloading a Suffering Animal, Respect for One's Father Verses One's Teacher

Before diving into daf 33, a point about Bava Metzia 32.  Yesterday's daf was read on a Friday, and because I do not blog on Friday evenings, I did not comment on yesterday's learning.  However, as a reminder, Bava Metzia 32 teaches a Mishna about important conditions on returning animals to their owners.  One is obliged to return an animal to its owner if the animal is found in public, but a priest cannot become import to remove an animal from a graveyard.  Further, one is obligated to remove a load from an animal that has collapsed from its burden, even if the owner reloads the animal over and over again.  This is based on Exodus (23:5).  If the owner tells someone that he is obligated to unload the burden, that person is not obligated to do so.  If the owner is incapable of unloading the animal, one is again obliged to do so.  At the end of this Mishna, two rabbis argue over whether the Torah says that is is a mitzvah to load the animal as well.

Today's daf completes yesterday's Gemara regarding the above Mishna.  The rabbis want to understand what is meant by "collapsed" and "under its burden".  Does an animal have to actually fall down under its burden to demonstrate that its load is too heavy?  Aren't we obligated to unload an animal whenever we witness its suffering? The rabbis distinguish between an animal that collapses under its burden and a "habitual collapser", which is an animal that has collapsed several times for "no apparent reason".  This is difficult for modern thinkers.  Of course there is a reason when an animal collapses.  And how can human beings understand how much is too much?  For someone like me, with the luxuries available to me that forego the need for animal labour, it is much easier to simply state that any burden is too much.  I even have trouble with the notion of riding a horse, however, due to the strain that my whim would pun on an animal.

The rabbis begin to consider distance.  Within what radius must a person be to be obligated to remove an animal's burden?  And how far must a person accompany a reloaded animal to ensure that the animal does not fall again?  It should be noted that such an act might be reimbursed.

A new Mishna takes on further questions about the return of loss items.  A person should care for his or her before others.  If one finds his/her own property and his/her father's lost property simultaneously, s/he must tend to his/her own property before that of the father.  Same rules for a person and his teacher.  If one finds his father's lost item and his teacher's lost item simultaneously, he returns his teacher's item first.  This is because his father brought him into this world but his teacher helps him to enter the World-to-Come.  But if his father is a Torah scholar, his father's item takes precedence.  These guidelines apply when one's father and teacher are carrying heavy burdens or when one's father and teacher are both captured and must be redeemed.  One only helps one's father first if his father is a Torah scholar.

The Gemara reminds us that we are not being selfish or cruel by helping ourselves before we help others regarding monetary matters.  We are told in Deuteronomy 15:4 "Only so that there shall be no needy among you".  And yet we know that there are always needy people in our communities.  However, we are instructed to ensure that we are not needy.  It seems that the intention is to encourage all people to work toward financial 'independence'.

The rabbis argue about whether or not the subject matter of one's teacher should impact on one's decision to help his teacher or his father first.  Is Mikra (Bible), Mishna or Gemara most important?  The rabbis argue that perhaps Gemara is most important, though Bible will still bring us rewards in the World-to-Come.  However, the Rabbi Yochanan suggests that Gemara was touted as the best source of learning around the time of Yehuda HaNasi.  Students then had little foundation in the halachot of the Mishna.  Unintentional sins, it is argued, would lead to intentional sins.  

Rabbi Yehuda then interprets Isaiah 66:35: Hear the word of the Lord, you who tremble at His word:  Your brothers that hate you, that ostracize you for My name's sake have said: Let the Lord be glorified, that we may gaze upon your joy, but they will be ashamed."  

• "Hear the word of the Lord, you who tremble at His word" describe the Torah scholars.
• "your brothers... for their name's sake" describe Masters of the Bible who defer to the great Sages.
• "... that hate you" are the Masters of Mishna who are resentful that they are not respected like Talmud scholars.
• "... that ostracize you" describe those who ignore Torah scholars, also described as "ignoramuses". 
• "That we may gaze upon your joy" describes all of the Jewish people who see the joyous Torah scholars.
• "That they will be ashamed" describes the Gentiles who see the joy of the Jewish community.

This interpretation reaches quite far from the text.  The rabbis' attempts to instill respect for their authority are frequent and blunt.  While their efforts were successful - as we continue to study their words right now - it is difficult to read these interpretations without a critical analysis of the text's context.