[bm33a. We begin at the last two words on bm32b. And we are still trying to determine whether the obligation to relieve an animal's suffering in biblical or rabbinic.]

Come learn [from a b'raita which analyses the phrase "lying down under its burden" (Ex 23:5) as the source text for the obligation to help a suffering animal]: [One must help an animal that is "lying down," [rovetz] but not one that habitually lies down [ravtzan]. "Lying down," but not standing [i.e., one is not obligated to help an animal that is still standing]. "Under it's burden" but not [an animal that has been] unloaded [i.e., the obligation is to unload, but not to load]. "Under its burden" -- a burden under which it can stand.

If you are going to assert that the obligation to relieve a suffering animal is biblical, what difference does it make whether the animal is lying down or habitually lies down, or whether it is standing? [In other words, the very fact that the b'raita distinguishes among detailed cases indicates that the obligation cannot be a general biblical one, but must be a rabbinic enactment.]

[The gemara replies:] Who is the author of the b'raita? R. Yosei HaG'lili, who said that [the obligation to relieve suffering of animals] is rabbinic. [Thus, this b'raita, which represents a previously-known minority opinion, cannot be used as evidence.]

[There is additional evidence to support the attribution to the b'raita to R. Yosi:] This is indeed logical, for the b'raita taught that "Under its burden" implies a burden it can stand under, and who takes that position? -- R. Yosei [see the last lines of our mishna on 32a]!

[The gemara questions this attribution:] Can you really attribute this (b'raita) to R. Yosei HaG'lili? The last part of the b'raita says: "Under its burden" but not an animal that is already unloaded. What does "not already unloaded" mean? If it means that you do not have to help load an animal at all, the Torah says [Deut 22:4] "You shall surely lift it with him" [i.e., one must help loading an animal]. Instead, this implies that one need not help for free, but one can demand payment. And who agrees with this position? The Rabbis! [The Rabbis disagree with R. Yosei in our mishna, so how can we attribute the b'raita, which is consistent with their opinion, to R. Yosi?]

[The gemara answers:] Really, it [the b'raita] is R. Yosei HaG'lili's. But with regard to loading, he agrees with the Rabbis.

[The gemara here concludes its discussion of whether the obligation is biblical or rabbinic ... without any clear and unequivocal resolution. Generally, later halakhic authorities follow the position that the obligation is biblical, in view of an explicit statement to that effect in another connection (Shabbat 128b).]

[Next, the gemara will address the question of _when_ the obligation begins:]

The Rabbis taught [in a b'raita:] "When you see ... [Ex 23:5]: You might have thought that the obligation begins even from a distance. The verse [Ex 23:4] teaches "When you meet" [implying that the obligation begins when you come upon the animal, not when you see it from a distance].

If [the Torah] had written "When you meet," I would have thought actually meeting [not coming close or approaching] -- the verse says "When you see." What is "seeing" that implies "meeting?" The rabbis estimated this as 7.5 parts of a mil [2000 cubits, about 2/3 of a Roman mile] and this is a _ris_ [266 cubits, about 150 meters]. A tanna taught: [After you reload an animal], you must walk [with the animal] for a parsah [a parasang, about 5 kilometers, to make sure that the load does not shift or fall off]. Rabba bar bar Chana said: And he may take payment [for walking with the animal].

If his father and his teacher are both carring loads [and need help in putting them down], he puts down his teacher's first, and then puts down his father's. If his teacher and his father are both held captive, he redeems his teacher first, and then redeems his father. But if his father is a scholar, he redeems has father first, and then redeems his teacher.

Gemara: [The gemara begins with an analysis of the issue of the precedence of returning a lost item to one's teacher or one's father.]

How do we know this? Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The verse [Deut 15:4] says "Among _you_ there will be no poor person" -- "Your" [financial concerns] come before everyone else's.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Anyone who lives that way [i.e., who adopts that policy towards the poor], will end up reaching that [poverty]. [In other words, one may legally adopt the policy of not helping others if there is a chance that offering such assistance will come at one's own expense. But a person who adopts such a policy will eventually become poor,and be forced to subsist on the kindness of others.]

[Our mishna:] If his father and teacher were carrying packages ... [The mishna goes on to say that, in redeeming captives, one's teacher takes priority over one's father.]

The rabbis learned [in a b'raita]: The teacher mentioned is one who taught him wisdom [Rashi: understanding the reasons behind mishnaic rulings, what we would call gemara], but not the teacher who taught him TaNaKH and mishna [Rashi: mishnaic rulings, but without rationales or deeper understanding]. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehuda says: Whoever taught him most of his wisdom. R. Yosei said: Even if he clarified only one mishna [he is considered a teacher].

Rava said [in connection to R. Yosei's definition]: Like Rav S'chora, who explained [to Rava the term] zohama listron [a term used in Keilim 13:2 to refer to a spoon or ladle used to skim froth off the top of a pot of soup].

Shmuel tore his garment [as a sign of mourning on hearing of the death] of the rabbi who explained "One down to the armpit and one opens quickly." [Tamid 3:6 describes the locked doors of the Temple. One door had the key-hole belolw it on the inside; to open the door, one had to stick one's arm through a hole in the wall as far as the armpit and insert the key through the other side of the door. This would provide access to a second door, whose key operated normally. Thus, the system could be described as "one down to the armpit and one opens directly".}

Ulla said: Babylonian scholars stand before one another and tear garments [in mourning] for one another [i.e., they learned cooperatively, and each treated the other with the respect normally given to one's teacher]. But in the case of retrieving lost items, they did not give one another priority over their fathers except in the case of one's primary teacher [i.e., they accorded one another respect due to teachers under most circumstances, but still gave fathers priority over teacher/peers].

Rav Hisda asked [his teacher] Rav Huna: What is the law regarding a student whom the teacher needs [Rashi: the student has learned from others, and the teacher often relies on the student to relay what other rabbis have taught -- in such a case, does one return the father's item or the student's item?] [Rav Huna answered:] Hisda, Hisda, I don't need you. You need me until [you have studied with me] forty years! [Rabbenu Hananel explains: "A student cannot absorb the full extent of his teachers learning until he has been with him for 40 years". In support, he draws a midrashic analogy from the Bible: Deut. 29:4 - And I have led you forty years in the wilderness, ..." Deut. 29:3 - "But the Lord hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, until this day"].

They were angry at one another and did not visit one another. Rav Hisda fasted forty fasts because he upset Rav Huna. Rav Huna fasted forty fasts because he suspected Rav Hisda [unjustly, by assuming that Rav Hisda was referring to himself as the "needed student"].

Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakha is like R. Yehuda [the "most wisdom" criterion]. Rav Acha bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Sheshet: the halakha is like R. Yosei [i.e., the "single mishna" criterion].

Did R. Yohanan really say that? Didn't R. Yohanan say {Shabbat 46a] that the halakha follows the unattributed mishna, and we learned [in our own mishna] that [the criterion is] "the teacher who taught him wisdom" [i.e., the position that the b'raita ascribes to R. Meir]?

What does [our mishna mean by] "wisdom"? Most of his wisdom. [In other words, our mishna, which is unattributed, is indeed consistent with R. Yehuda, and R. Yohanan's statement that the halakha is like R. Yehuda is consistent with R. Yohanan's principle that the halakha is in accordance with the unattributed mishna.]

[We end four lines from the bottom of 33a.]