More Discussions for this daf
1. Returning a lost animal found by the road 2. Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim 3. The Chiyuv of HaShavas Aveida
4. Need for Beis Din to collect full pay 5. Telling One's Son Not to Return a Lost Article
DAF DISCUSSIONS - BAVA METZIA 32

boruch kahan asked:

as you know the sugya on daf lamed beys omud beys and daf lamed gimmel omud alef concerning the inyan of prikah and teiyna discusses at length whether tzaar baaley chaim is midorysa or midrabbon. I understand that the Rambam in Sefer Moreh Nevuchim brings the mekor as min hatorah from the maaseh of Bilom. But this seems a bissel shver as Bilom was a Goy so how can he used be as a mekor for a din dorayso for Yisroelim . You could possibly Fa enfer this by saying that it is Nichlall in one of the Sheva Mitzvos Shel Bney Noach of Ever Min Hachay any HOSOFOS OR HEOROS PLEASE KOL TUV BORUCH KAHAN

boruch kahan, london england

The Kollel replies:

There is another Rishon - namely SEFER CHASIDIM #666 - who also cites Bil'am as the source for Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim. Sefer Chasidim also asks your question - where do we find that the children of No'ach are commanded on Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim? Sefer Chasidim appears to answer as follows. Bereishis 1:28 states that Hash-m commanded Adam ha'Rishon to subjugate the animal kingdom. On the other hand, he was not permitted to eat meat. In contrast, No'ach was permitted to eat meat (see Bereishis 9:3 and Rashi there). Because No'ach gained the latter privilege, it followed that he lost the Mitzvah of subjugating, so this is the source that the children of No'ach are commanded against Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim.

See MEKOR HA'CHESED, a commentary to above Sefer Chasidim #7, who offers a proof from CHULIN 7b for the Din of Sefer Chasidim. Rebbe said there that he could not remove the hooves of his dangerous mules because this would involve Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim. But why could he not ask a Nochri to do this for him - in BAVA METZIA 90a a possibility is mentioned that one is permitted to ask a Nochri to do prohibitions other than Shabbos? Therefore one must say that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is forbidden also for a Nochri and therefore Rebbe could not ask anyone to remove the hooves.

(See also DERECH SICHAH p.445 (a Sefer published in Bnei Brak a couple of years ago) that Reb Chayim Kaniyevsky Sh'lita asked his uncle, the CHAZON ISH zt'l, what the source for Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is from the Torah and Chazon Ish also cited Bil'am. See also RASHI SHABBOS 128b DH TZA'AR and ME'IRI BAVA METZIA 32b cited by Derech Sichah. Me'iri writes that the source for Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is Devarim 25:4, "Do not muzzle the ox while threashing.")

ZAI GEZUNT

D. Bloom

boruch kahan asked:

as you know the sugya on daf lamed beys omud beys and daf lamed gimmel omud alef concerning the inyan of prikah and teiyna discusses at length whether tzaar baaley chaim is midorysa or midrabbon. I understand that the Rambam in Sefer Moreh Nevuchim brings the mekor as min hatorah from the maaseh of Bilom. But this seems a bissel shver as Bilom was a Goy so how can he used be as a mekor for a din dorayso for Yisroelim . You could possibly Fa enfer this by saying that it is Nichlall in one of the Sheva Mitzvos Shel Bney Noach of Ever Min Hachay any HOSOFOS OR HEOROS PLEASE KOL TUV BORUCH KAHAN

boruch kahan, london england

The Kollel replies:

There is another Rishon- namely SEFER CHASIDIM #666- who also cites Bilam as the source for Tsa'ar Ba'alei Chayim. Sefer Chasidim also asks your question- where do we find that the children of Noach are commanded on T.B.C.? S.C. appears to answer as follows. Bereishis 1:28 states that Hashem commanded Odom HaRishon to subjugate the animal kingdom. On the other hand he was not permitted to eat meat. In contrast Noach was permitted to eat meat (see Bereishis 9:3 and Rashi there). Because Noach gained the latter privilege it followed that he lost the Mitzva of subjugating, so this is the source that the children of Noach are commanded against t.b.c.

See MEKOR HA-CHESED, a commentary to above S.C. #7, who offers a proof from CHULLIN 7b for the Din of S.C. Rebbe said there that he could not remove the hooves of his dangerous mules because this would involve t.b.c. But why could he not ask a Nochri to do this for him- in BAVA METZIA 90a a possibility is mentioned that one is permitted to ask a Nochri to do prohibitions other than Shabbos? Therefore one must say that t.b.c. is forbidden also for a Nochri and therefore Rebbe could not ask anyone to remove the hooves.

(See also DERECH SICHA p.445 (a Sefer published in Bnei Brak a couple of years ago) that Reb Chayim Kanyevsky Sh'lita asked his uncle, the CHAZON ISH Zt'l, what the source for t.b.c. is from the Torah and C.I. also cited Bilam. See also RASHI SHABBOS 128b DH TSA'AR and MEIRI BAVA METZIA 32b cited by Derech Sicha. Meiri writes that the source for t.b.c. is Dvorim 25:4 "Do not muzzle the ox while threashing" )

I have a suggestion how Rambam can learn the prohibition for cruelty to animals from Bilom even though he was a goy. This is based on what the Rishonim explain that it is not necessary for the Torah to command Mitzvos which are logical and obvious, and the children of Noach are also obligated on these even though they were never warned about them.

See the Introduction of RABEINU NISSIM GAON printed at the beginning of Maseches Berachos,who writes "Everyone is obligated in all Mitzvos which depend on logic and the understanding of the heart. This applies from the day that Hashem created Adam in the world, and is binding upon him and his seed after him for all generations"

The same idea is stated in a different way by TOSFOS BABA BASRA 16b DH BO. The Gemara says there that on the day that Esav sold his Bechorah to Yaakov he also committed the transgression of Biya with a "Na'arah Meuroso".Tosfos asks that SANHEDRIN 57b states that Bnei Noach are not commanded on the latter as long as she had not yet had Biya with her husband. Tosfos answers that even though they are not commanded on this,nevertheless it is an ugly thing to do. It is clear from the Gemara there that this is considered an Aveirah for Esav, so this proves that there are prohibitions for Bnei Noach even though they were not commanded on them, but merely because it is logical that these are bad actions.

(See DERECH SICHA p.158)

In the same way, the prohibition on being cruel to animals is obvious because it is illogical that it should be permitted to be cruel for no reason to Hashem's creations. Therefore Bilom would be punished for this even though Bnei Noach received no command on it.The fact that his donkey rebuked him for this is not actually the source for the command but merely illustrates to us that this

ss

conduct was not expected from Bilom.

(See Derech Sicha pages 48,250,450 who answers several other questions on the basis of above Tosfos)

KESIVA U-CHASIMA TOVA

D.Bloom