Gemara Clarity

Bava Metzia 32b

בבא מציעא ל״ב ע״ב

Learn Bava Metzia 32b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Metzia 32b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Is preventing צער בעלי חיים (animal suffering) a Torah law (דאורייתא)?

Overview

This amud asks whether the duty to prevent צער בעלי חיים, animal suffering, comes from the Torah. First the גמרא tries to prove it is דאורייתא from the קל וחומר of loading to unloading, and from רבי יוסי הגלילי's ruling about an overloaded animal. Each proof is pushed back. Then the גמרא tries to prove the opposite from the רישא of the משנה, where the passerby is פטור if the owner sits down. That proof is answered: he may only be exempt from helping for free. A סימן then lists five more sources: בהמת, בהמת, אוהב, שונא, רבצן. Proofs come from a גוי's animal, from יין נסך, from a ברייתא about whose animal and whose load, from choosing between a friend and an enemy, and from limiting 'enemy' to a Jewish enemy. Each one is answered by איבה, by saying the case is about loading, by saying a ברייתא follows only רבי יוסי הגלילי, or by the value of overcoming one's יצר הרע. The amud ends as the גמרא begins the last source, רבצן, which continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

מִדִּבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם נִלְמַד

From the words of both of them we learn

צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

that animal suffering is a Torah law.

וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא קָאָמַר,

For even Rabbi Shimon only said his view

אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְסַיְּימִי קְרָאֵי.

because the verses are not clearly identified.

The steps (28)

  1. ProofFirst proof: both opinions use the קל וחומר based on animal suffering
  2. RejectionRejection: maybe the reason is money loss
  3. ChallengeChallenge: loading can also cause money loss
  4. ProofSecond proof begins: רבי יוסי הגלילי on an overloaded animal
  5. ProofThe inference: the תנא קמא requires helping even an overloaded animal
  6. RejectionMaybe They Only Disagree About Reading 'Under Its Burden'
  7. ProofProof From the First Case: Animal Suffering Is Not a Torah Law
  8. RejectionExempt Only From Helping for Free
  9. StatementMemory Aid for the Coming Proofs
  10. ProofA gentile's animal is treated like a Jew's animal
  11. RejectionThe reason may be avoiding hatred
  12. ProofSupport from the case of idolatrous wine
  13. RejectionThe wine case is about loading, not unloading
  14. ProofA gentile's animal carrying a Jew's load: 'you may hold back'
  15. RejectionThat ruling is about loading
  16. ChallengeThen why must one help with a Jew's animal and a gentile's load?
  17. ResolutionBecause of the Jewish owner's distress
  18. ChallengeThen the first case should also require help
  19. ResolutionWho is driving the donkey
  20. QuestionHow do we know who is driving
  21. ResponseA person usually walks with his own donkey
  22. ChallengeThe verses quoted are about unloading
  23. ResolutionThe ברייתא follows רבי יוסי הגלילי
  24. ProofHelping an enemy load comes before helping a friend unload
  25. RejectionFighting your evil inclination still comes first
  26. ProofProof from the rule that 'enemy' means only a Jewish enemy
  27. RejectionThe 'enemy' refers to the earlier ברייתא, not the פסוק
  28. ProofOpening another proof