Study Bava Metzia folio 32B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
From the statements of both of these tanna’im it can be learned that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is by Torah law. As even R' Shimon says that he disagreed with the opinion of the Rabbis only because the verses are not clearly defined; but had the verses been clearly defined, we w
The Talmud rejects that proof. Perhaps the a fortiori inference is due to the fact that there is the factor of monetary loss in unloading but not in loading, and this is what the Rabbis are saying: If in the case of loading, where if one fails to assist the owner there is no potential monetary loss,
The Talmud asks: But is there no potential monetary loss in loading? Are we not also dealing with a case where in the meanwhile, while the owner waits for assistance, he will be prevented from bringing his merchandise to the marketplace in time to sell it; alternatively, thieves might come and take
The Talmud cites an additional proof: Know that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is by Torah law, as it is taught in the latter clause of the Mishnah: R' Yosei HaGelili says: If there was a burden upon the animal greater than its typical burden, one need not attend to it, as it is sta
The Talmud rejects that proof: Perhaps it is with regard to the meaning of the phrase “under its burden” that they disagree, as R' Yosei HaGelili holds that we interpret the phrase “under its burden” to mean: A burden that the animal can bear. And the Rabbis hold that we do not interpret the phrase