will start on דף כ״ח עמוד ב׳, three lines from the bottom of the עמוד. The גמרא here quotes the משנה. It said in the משנה: דשאינו עושה ואוכל. The משנה, it said that if you find something that works and it earns its own upkeep, then you're supposed to keep it, let it work, and the money you will get from its work you will use to hold it. But if it is something that does not work, so it'll cost you money in order to keep it up, so then when the person will come to collect it, he will have a loss of money, because by the time he comes you will have spent money on keeping it, so then you will deduct it from the amount that he will get back, that means that he will have a loss of money. So therefore the דין is that you should sell it and hold the money, and when he comes, you will return the money to him. So the גמרא says, how do we know that? דתנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, the פסוק says: והשבותו לו, you should return it to him; ראה היאך תשיבנו לו, you should see, you should watch, you should be careful how you return it to him; שלא יאכיל עגל לעגלים, you should not feed a calf to the calves, in other words, you shouldn't have to use one of the calves to feed the other calves, in other words, he will have a loss of money; וסייח לסייחים, you shouldn't feed a foal to other foals, you shouldn't have to use one in order to keep up the others; אווזא לאווזין, you shouldn't have to feed one goose to feed the other geese; ותרנגולת לתרנגולין, and one chicken to other chickens. And therefore, what you do is you sell it right away, so the person who lost it will not have any more loss. Then the

גמרא continues, it said in the משנה: מה יהא בדמים, what do you do with the money when you sell the object that you found and you keep the money? What do you do with it? What is the דין concerning the money? And the משנה said: רבי טרפון אומר: ישתמש וכולי, רבי טרפון said you're allowed to use it, and therefore רבי טרפון said if it was lost, you are responsible for it. רבי עקיבא said you should not use it, you are not allowed to use it, and therefore if it was lost, you are not responsible for it. And the גמרא continues: עד כאן לא פליגי, it seems that the only reason that they argue, רבי טרפון and רבי עקיבא argue, אלא כשנשתמש בהן, only when he used it, and as רש״י and תוספות explain, it doesn't mean when he actually used it, but only because he is able to use it. Since there is a מחלוקת whether he is able to use it or not, that's why there is a מחלוקת whether he is responsible for it or not. רבי טרפון, who says that you are responsible for it, is because you are allowed to use it, and רבי עקיבא, who says that you are not responsible for it, is because you are not allowed to use it. So it comes out that the whole thing is only because of being allowed to use it. אבל לא נשתמש בהן, but if you didn't use it, which means if not for the right to use it, everyone would agree, אם אבדו פטור, that if it would be lost, you would be פטור from paying. So if so, לימא, let us say, תהא תיובתא דרב יוסף, this would be a קשיא on רב יוסף, because from the משנה it seems that there is no other reason to make the person responsible. The only reason that would make the person responsible for the money would be only because we give him a right to use it, but without that right to use it, there is no other reason why he should be responsible for it if it was lost. And this contradicts what רב יוסף said.

איתמר, because we learned: שומר אבידה, a person who watches a lost object, if you find a lost object and you didn't get to return it yet, in the meantime you watch it for the person who lost it, what kind of דין does this person have? רבה אמר, רבה says: כשומר חנם, he has a דין like a שומר חנם; רב יוסף אמר, רב יוסף says: כשומר שכר, he has a דין like a שומר שכר. The דין is that if someone watches an object for somebody else without getting paid, which is a שומר חנם, he is פטור for anything that happens to it. The only thing he is responsible for is for פשיעה. If he was negligent and the object got lost or stolen, then he is responsible to pay, but otherwise, not only is he פטור from אונסין, which means if an accident happened, an unpreventable accident happened, he is also פטור from גניבה ואבידה, if it was stolen or lost, as long as he himself wasn't negligent. A שומר שכר is a person who watches something for somebody else and does get paid, so this person is פטור from אונסין, if an accident happens to it he is פטור, but he is חייב for גניבה ואבידה. If it was stolen or lost under normal circumstances, he is responsible because he gets paid. The question is if somebody finds an object and watches it for the person who lost it, till the person will come and claim it, what kind of דין does he have concerning that object? So רבה says he has a דין like a שומר חינם, because after all, he doesn't get paid for it. He watches it without pay, so he is like a שומר חינם, and he is not responsible if it gets lost or stolen. But רב יוסף says that he has a דין like a שומר שכר, because he says that he does get paid for it. What does he get paid? The

דין is that he is an עוסק במצוה. While he is watching the object, he is involved in a מצוה. There is a מצוה of השבת אבידה, a מצוה of returning a lost object, and since he is watching that lost object till the owner will come to claim it, so he is fulfilling a מצוה. The דין is that עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה, that if someone is involved in doing a מצוה, he is פטור from doing any other מצוה at the same time. So therefore, if while he is involved in watching this object, a poor man would come to him and ask him for bread, so we would say that since he is an עוסק במצוה, since he is involved in a מצוה, he is involved in watching the lost object which is a מצוה, so he is פטור from giving that poor man the bread. So it comes out that through watching this object he saves himself the פרוטה, that coin that he would have to give that poor man if he would not have been watching this object. So it comes out that he does get paid for his watching, so he is a שומר שכר. And therefore, the דין would be that if it got lost or stolen, according to רב יוסף, the שומר אבידה would be חייב to pay, he would be responsible for it. But in our משנה it says that the whole מחלוקת is whether he is responsible for it if it got lost is only based on whether he is allowed to use it or not. רב טרפון says since he's allowed to use it, therefore if it got lost, he is responsible for it. רב עקיבא says that you're not allowed to use it and therefore even if it get lost then you don't have to pay for it, you're not responsible. So it comes out that everything is based on the question whether you're allowed to use it or not. But otherwise they both would agree that you are not responsible for it if you lost it. So this contradicts what רב יוסף says, because רב יוסף says that whether you're allowed to use it or not makes no difference. You are responsible for it if you lost it anyway, for a different reason. You are responsible for it because you have a דין of a שומר שכר because of עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה, because you are עוסק in the מצוה of השבת אבידה, so you gained that פרוטה you would have to give to the עני, to the poor man, and that is why you are considered a שומר שכר and you are חייב באחריות, you are חייב if it got lost. So it's a קשיא on רב יוסף. The

גמרא answers אמר לך רב יוסף, רב יוסף will answer you: בגניבה ואבידה כולי עלמא לא פליגי דחייב. The מחלוקת in the משנה is not concerning גניבה ואבידה. If it got lost or stolen, not through an accident, but it got lost or stolen normally, then both רב טרפון and רב עקיבא would agree that you are חייב. כי פליגי, where is their מחלוקת? באונסין דשאול, whether you are also חייב for an אונס, for an unpreventable accident as a שואל. Because the דין is that if someone borrows an object, then not only is he חייב for גניבה ואבידה, if it got lost or stolen, he's also חייב if an accident happened to it. And that is really the מחלוקת between רב טרפון and רב עקיבא, whether you are also חייב like a שואל for אונסין. רב טרפון סבר, רב טרפון holds, שרו ליה רבנן לאשתמושי בגווה, the רבנן allowed this person who's keeping the object for the person till he claims it is allowed to use it. So since he is allowed to use it, והוה ליה שואל עליה, so he is like a שואל, he is like a borrower. So therefore, just like a borrower is חייב באונסין, he too is חייב באונסין. ורבי עקיבא סבר, but רב עקיבא holds, לא שרו ליה רבנן לאשתמושי בגוויה, the רבנן did not allow this שומר אבידה to use it, and הלכך, therefore, לא הוה שואל עליה, he is not considered a שואל, he's not a borrower because he can't use it. So he is only a שומר שכר according to רב יוסף, and therefore he is not חייב באונסין. But concerning גניבה ואבידה, if it got lost or stolen, so then definitely he is חייב according to both. That's the way רב יוסף will learn, because he holds that he has a דין of a שומר שכר. And the גמרא will later ask the question that how can we say that, when in the משנה it says clearly if it got lost, that's where the מחלוקת is. So how can רב יוסף say that if it got lost or stolen, everyone agrees you are חייב and the argument is only if you are חייב באונסין? So the גמרא will answer that later. But what the גמרא is saying here that according to רב יוסף, he definitely has a דין like a שומר שכר. because of that פרוטה that he saves himself, because he is watching this אבידה. So he's definitely חייב בגניבה ואבידה, and the whole מחלוקת is whether he is חייב like a שואל for אונסין. Then the גמרא asks: אי הכי, if so, that the whole מחלוקת is concerning אונסין, לפיכך דאמר רבי עקיבא למה לי? Why did רבי עקיבא use the term לפיכך? In the משנה, רבי עקיבא said that you should not use it, the person who's watching the אבידה, watching the money, cannot use the money, therefore, he says, if it got lost, you are not responsible to pay for it. Why does he say לפיכך? Why does he have to come with the conclusion, that after he says that you are not allowed to use it, he has to conclude and say therefore, you are not חייב if it got lost? Isn't that obvious? Since the דין is that you're not allowed to use it, so automatically you are not a שואל, you are not a borrower, so we would understand ourselves that since you are not a שואל, you are פטור from אונסין. Only a שואל, a borrower is חייב for אונסין, but if you are not allowed to use it, you are automatically not a borrower, so we would understand ourselves that you are not חייב if an אונס, if an accident happened to it. And the גמרא explains the question better: אי אמרת בשלמא בגניבה ואבידה הוא דפליגי, if you would tell me that the מחלוקת between רבי טרפון and רבי עקיבא is concerning גניבה ואבידה, whether you are חייב if it got stolen or lost, and when רבי עקיבא says that you are not חייב, he means you are not even חייב if it got lost or stolen normally, then we would understand היינו דקתני רבי עקיבא אומר לא ישתמש בהן, לפיכך אם אבדו אינו חייב באחריותן. Therefore, he has to specify and say that since you are not allowed to use it, therefore if it got lost, you are not חייב באחריות. It wouldn't be enough for him to say just that you're not allowed to use it, and we would understand ourselves that therefore you are not responsible if it got lost, we wouldn't know, because it's possible that even if you are not allowed to use it, nevertheless if it got lost, you are still responsible to pay, because סלקא דעתך אמינא, I would think, שומר שכר הוה כדרב יוסף, that he has a דין of a שומר שכר, like רב יוסף says, ובגניבה ואבידה מחייב, that you would be חייב for גניבה ואבידה. So it's possible that even if you're not allowed to use it, nevertheless you should be חייב for גניבה ואבידה. So רבי עקיבא could not just say that you are not allowed to use it and not finish off by using the words that therefore you are not חייב if it got lost, because we wouldn't know, we would think maybe you are still חייב if it got lost. קא משמע לן לפיכך. Therefore he has to finish off and tell us that לפיכך, because you are not allowed to use it, you are not responsible to pay for it, not like רב יוסף. דהא מדאמרת לא ישתמש בהן, since we're saying now that you're not allowed to use it, שומר שכר לא הוה, you are not a שומר שכר, ולא מיחייב בגניבה ואבידה, you are not חייב for גניבה ואבידה. That's why he has to tell us that, and after he says that you're not allowed to use it, he has to tell us: and therefore you are not חייב for גניבה ואבידה, because since you're not allowed to use it, there is no reason you should be חייב, because you are not a שומר שכר. אלא אי אמרת בגניבה ואבידה דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דחייב, that concerning גניבה ואבידה, if it got lost or stolen, everyone agrees that you are חייב, because everyone agrees that you are a שומר שכר. כי פליגי, and where is their מחלוקת? באונסין דשואל, only whether you are חייב באונסין like a שואל, whether you're like a borrower or not. So then the question is, מאי לפיכך דרבי עקיבא? Why does רבי עקיבא have to say לפיכך? Why does רבי עקיבא have to finish off saying that after he says that you are not allowed to use it, so he says therefore, if it got lost, you are not responsible? And since he means אונסין, if it happened through an accident, you are not responsible, certainly you are not responsible. If for גניבה ואבידה you are responsible no matter what, the only thing he's trying to tell us: you're not responsible for an אונס because you're not allowed to use it, so if he would just say that you're not allowed to use it, we know automatically that he is not a שואל, he's not a borrower, so we would understand ourselves that you are פטור from אונסין. הכי מיבעי ליה למיתני: so this is what he should have said: רבי עקיבא אומר לא ישתמש בהן, רבי עקיבא said you cannot use it, ואנא ידענא, and I would know myself, דכיון דלא ישתמש בהן, that since you are not allowed to use it, לאו שואל הוה, you are not a borrower, ואינו חייב באחריותן, and you are not חייב for אחריות, you are not responsible for it. So why does he have to finish that off? And since he does say לפיכך you are not responsible if it got lost, that so to speak proves that the מחלוקת is not concerning אונסין, the מחלוקת is concerning גניבה ואבידה. So the question, because the

question is לפיכך דרבי עקיבא למה לי? Why does רבי עקיבא have to say that לפיכך? And the גמרא answers: משום לפיכך דרבי טרפון. Really, רבי עקיבא would not have to say לפיכך. It would be self-understood that since he is not allowed to use it, automatically he is not a borrower and he is not חייב באונסין. But since in the first part of the משנה, in רבי טרפון's opinion, it says לפיכך, רבי טרפון says that you are allowed to use it and therefore he says you are responsible if it got lost, so since רבי טרפון finishes this off with לפיכך that you are responsible if it got lost, so therefore רבי עקיבא, who argues on רבי טרפון, does the same. He also says that לפיכך if it got lost, you are not responsible. But the גמרא asks: ולפיכך דרבי טרפון למה לי? The question is on רבי טרפון himself. Why does רבי טרפון have to say לפיכך? רבי טרפון says that you are allowed to use it, therefore if you lost it, you are responsible. Why did he have to say that? Why wasn't it enough if he would have said that you are allowed to use it, and automatically we will understand: since you are allowed to use it, you are a שואל, you are a borrower, and therefore you are responsible if an אונס even happened to it. So the question is on רבי טרפון himself. And the גמרא answers: הכי קאמר, this is what he means: כיון דשרו ליה רבנן לאשתמושי בגווייהו, since the רבנן allowed him to use it, כמאן דאשתמש בגווייהו דמי, it's as if he used it, וחייב באחריותן, and you are responsible for it. That is חידוש. רבי טרפון wants to tell us that not only if you used it, then you have a דין of a שואל and then you would be חייב באונסין, but even if you did not use it, but since the דין is that you're allowed to use it, therefore already you are חייב באחריות. That's why he has to say לפיכך. Because if רבי טרפון would just say that you are allowed to use it, we would still not know that you are responsible. We would think that only if you actually used it, you are responsible for it. So that's why he has to tell us that since you're allowed to use it, therefore automatically, whether you used it or you didn't use it, if it got lost, you are responsible. So רבי טרפון had a reason why he had to finish off with his לפיכך. Now, since רבי טרפון finished off with his לפיכך, so רבי עקיבא, too, finished off with a לפיכך, even though he didn't have to. And he also says that the דין is that you are not allowed to use it, and therefore he finishes off, if it got lost, you are not responsible for it. But then the גמרא asks on the general idea: how can you say that the whole מחלוקת in the משנה is concerning אונסין, not concerning regular גניבה ואבידה, because if it got lost normally, everyone would agree that you are חייב because he has a דין of a שומר שכר. How can you say that? והא אבדו קתני, doesn't it say in the משנה if it got lost, and the מחלוקת is whether you are responsible if it got lost? So obviously the מחלוקת is concerning גניבה ואבידה, concerning if it got lost or stolen. How can you say that the מחלוקת is concerning אונסין? And the גמרא answers: כי דרבה, it goes like רבה said. דאמר רבה, רבה said, he explained it concerning a different דין, concerning a דין in פרק הזרוע later on on דף מ"ח, where it uses the לשון: נגנבו או אבדו. There it says if something got stolen or lost, and for the reasons the גמרא says there, רבה explained that it doesn't mean regular, normal loss or regular, normal stealing. What it means is נגנבו בלסטים מזויין, it got stolen through robbers that are armed, which really is an אונס, really is an unpreventable accident. And אבדו, when it says it got lost, that means שטבעה ספינתו בים, that his ship sank in the sea, and that's how it got lost, which is also an אונס. So just like רבה explained it over there, we could say the same thing here. When it says here in the משנה that if it got lost, you are responsible to pay, according to one opinion, and according to the other opinion if it got lost, you are not responsible, this loss means if it sank in the sea, which is really an אונס. And the מחלוקת is whether you are חייב באונסין or not, in other words, whether you have a דין like a שואל or you don't have a דין like a שואל. The גמרא continues: אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל: הלכה כרבי טרפון. הלכה is like רבי טרפון, that the דין is that you are allowed to use it, and therefore the דין is that if it got lost, you are responsible to pay for it. Then the גמרא continues: והאי רבא הוו ליה הנך זוזי דיתמי. רבא had money that belonged to יתומים. He was holding money for orphans who inherited the money from their fathers, so he held onto it. אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף, and he came to רב יוסף, ואמר ליה, he said to him: מהו לאשתמושי בגווייהו? What is the דין? Am I allowed to use the money or not? אמר ליה, he said to him: הכי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, this is what רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל: הלכה כרבי טרפון, that the הלכה is like רבי טרפון. That just like in the משנה, if you find an object, the דין is like רבי טרפון that you are allowed to use it, so, too, he said to him, the money that you are holding for these orphans you are allowed to use. אמר ליה אביי, so אביי said to him, ולאו איתמר עלה, didn't we learn פשט on this that we said הלכה is like רבי טרפון that אמר רב חלבו אמר רב הונא, that רב חלבו said in the name of רב הונא, לא שנו, this was only taught, אלא בדמי אבידה, in the money of the אבידה. If you found an object and you sold the object and you got the money for it, there we have a מחלוקת between רבי טרפון and רבי עקיבא whether you're allowed to use it or not, and the הלכה is like רבי טרפון that you are allowed to use it. And the reason would be, הואיל וטרח בה, since you bothered yourself with it. You found an object. You went through the bother of selling it in order to save the loser some money, because if you would

hold it, it would lose some money, as the משנה said, because you would have to spend money for it. So in order to save that person money, you went through the trouble of selling it. So concerning that money, since you went through this trouble for it, the דין is that you are allowed to use it. אבל מעות אבידה, if you actually found money itself, דלא טרח בהו, that you didn't go through any trouble of turning it into money, לא, there the דין is that you are not allowed to use it. והני, and this money that was was holding for the orphans, כמעות אבידה דמי, they are like money that you found itself. Since you took the money to hold for the orphans, so it has the same דין as if you would find money itself, not as if you would find an object and sell the object and get money for it, because you did not go through any טרחא or any trouble of turning it into money. So, therefore, just like by an אבידה, if you actually find money, we do not פסקן that you're allowed to use it. So, too, here, if you are holding money of these orphans, you shouldn't be able to use it. So, he asked him, "How did you say he was allowed to use it?" אמר ליה, so he said to him, זיל, "Go." לא שבקו לי דאשרי לך. "They do not let me allow it to you." In other words, I wanted to allow you to use it. Now after all these questions, they do not let me allow you to use it, and therefore, you can't use it. And he told him not to use it. Now,

we'll continue with the משנה. משנה says, מצא ספרים, if a person finds ספרים The ספרים the way they used to have them in those days was like the ספר תורה of ours. It used to be made in a גליון. It was written and it was rolled up. So if you find such ספרים, קורא בהן אחד לשלשים יום. You should learn and read in it once in 30 days. The reason for it is because if you don't use it, it could get moldy, it'll get spoiled, and since you are a שומר אבידה, you are watching this אבידה till the person will claim it, so you will have to take care of it, so once in 30 days you should read in it, so through that you will air it out and it won't get moldy. ואם אינו יודע לקרות, if he cannot read, גוללן, at least let him roll it through, so that's the way he will air it out. אבל לא ילמוד בהן בתחילה, but do not learn something in it for the first time, because when you learn something for the first time, you keep it open in the same place for a long time while you're concentrating and thinking about what you're learning, and that could cause damage to the ספר. So, therefore, you should only review something in it, but you should not learn something for the first time. ולא יקרא אחר עמו, and someone else should not learn with him. You should not learn it together with somebody else, because you will be pulling to one side, the other person that will be learning with you will pull it closer to him, and this might tear the ספר. So, therefore, you should not learn together with somebody else.

מצא כסות, if you find a garment, מנערה אחד לשלשים יום, you should shake it out once in 30 days. And the reason for that is because if now you won't do it, then it could get moldy, and you are responsible to see that it gets back to its owner, so therefore, you should shake it out once in 30 days. ושוטחה, and you could stretch it out, לצרכה, for its own purpose, אבל לא לכבודו, but not for your honor. In other words, if you want to use it for your own purpose, you're not allowed. You could lay it out for the purpose of the garment, that it should air out, but if you want to hang it up or lay it out for your own purpose, you are not allowed. If you find כלי כסף וכלי נחשת, objects, vessels, of silver or vessels of copper, משתמש בהן לצרכן, you should use it for their purpose, because otherwise it'll get spoiled, because as the גמרא says later on, what you're supposed to do with it is keep it in the ground, but if you keep it constantly in the ground, it will get ruined. So, therefore, you have to take it out from time to time and use it, but it should be for the purpose of the benefit of the כלים, of the vessels. אבל לא לשחקן, but not using it so much that they should get ruined. If you

find כלי זהב וכלי זכוכית, golden vessels or glass vessels, לא יגע בהן עד שיבא אליהו, do not touch it till אליהו הנביא comes, which means do not touch it as long as you have it till the owner will come and claim it, or if he never comes and claims it, then you never will touch it. And the reason for that is, because gold will not get spoiled by laying in the ground, and glass we are afraid that if you're going to use it, it might break. So therefore the דין is that golden vessels and glass vessels should not be touched at all. Then the משנה continues: מצא שק או קופה, if you find a sack or you find a pile, או כל דבר שאין דרכו ליטול, or anything that it wouldn't be your דרך, the person's דרך, to take, it would be beyond the כבוד of the person to carry that in the street. So the דין is הרי זה לא יטול, you don't have to take it, because as the גמרא will learn out later that if you are a person that it's not your כבוד to take it, so then you are not מחוייב in the מצוה of השבת אבידה, you are not עובר on the עבירה of והתעלמת. Like this there is a דין that you are not allowed to turn away from an אבידה. But if you are a זקן ואינה לפי כבודו, you're a תלמיד חכם for instance, and it's beyond your כבוד to carry this object in the street, then you are not עובר on the עבירה of והתעלמת, and you don't have to take it. The

גמרא says, אמר שמואל, שמואל said, המוצא תפילין בשוק, if you find תפילין in the street, שום דמיהן, you should right away estimate the worth of the money and sell it, ומניחן, and you put the money away. And this should be done לאלתר, right away. You shouldn't wait and then sell it, but right away as soon as you have it, right away you sell it and keep the money, that when the person will come, you give him the money. מתיב רבינא, so רבינא asked a קשיא, we learn in our משנה: מצא ספרים, if you find ספרים, קורא בהן אחד לשלשים יום, you should read in it once in thirty days, ואם אינו יודע לקרות, if you don't know how to read, גוללן, you should roll it. So it comes out that גוללן, אין, you should roll it, that's what you should do, but שום דמיהן ומניחן, לא, to estimate the value and to sell it you shouldn't. So how come by תפילין you said that right away you sell it and you keep the money, and by ספרים it says that you shouldn't do that, you should hold on to it, and איי it might get spoiled, you should do things not to allow it to get spoiled, you should read in it, you should roll it, but not to sell it? אמר אביי, אביי said: תפילין בי בר חבו משכח שכיחי. תפילין is found by בר חבו, you could buy it by בר חבו. בר חבו was a name of a person at the time of the גמרא who would sell תפילין. But ספרים לא שכיחי. ספרים is not found, not so common. In other words, the reason why normally the דין is that you shouldn't sell the objects and hold the money, but you should rather hold the money and do everything possible to see it shouldn't get spoiled, is because when the person will come and claim his object, we are responsible to give him his object back. So if it is something that is very easy for him to get with money, it's very much available, then we say you could sell it and hold the money, and when he will come he will take the money, and with the money he will buy the object that he lost. But if it's an object which is not that available, so then we have to hold the object, because if you're going to sell it and give him the money, he might not be able to buy that same object. So that's what he said: תפילין is available, and he gives an example of a name of a person who sold תפילין. As soon as he will come and take his money, he will be able to go to בר חבו and buy תפילין right away. So therefore the דין is that you sell it and hold the money for him. But ספרים are not so available. So let's say you will sell the ספרים and give him the money, he will want his ספר, he won't be able to get it. So therefore the דין is that you should not sell the ספרים, you should hold the ספרים. איי it might get spoiled, you have to do everything possible to see that it should not get spoiled. Then the גמרא continues:

תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned: השואל ספר תורה מחבירו, if someone borrows a ספר תורה from his friend, הרי זה לא ישאילנו לאחר, he should not lend it to someone else. What should he do with it? פותחו, he should open it, וקורא בו, and he could read in it, ובלבד שלא ילמוד בו בתחלה, as long as he doesn't learn something in it for the first time. As we said before, because when you learn in it for the first time, you concentrate more, you hold it open at the same place for a long time, so you might spoil it. ולא יקרא אחר עמו, and another person should not read together with him, for the same reason, because one will pull to one side and one will pull to the other side, and it might tear. וכן המפקיד ספר תורה אצל חבירו, the same is if one hides, gives another person to hold, to watch a ספר תורה for him, גוללו כל שנים עשר חדש, you have to roll it once every twelve months. פותחו וקורא בו, you could open it and read in it. If you opened it for your own sake it is אסור. You're only allowed to open it and read it for the sake of the ספר, because if you will not open it and read in it, it could get moldy. But if you do it for your own sake sake, that is forbidden.

סומכוס אומר, סומכוס says, בחדש, by a new ספר, שלושים יום, you have to roll it, open it, every 30 days. ובישן שנים עשר חודש, by an old one, it has to be once in 12 months. Because a new one gets spoiled faster, so therefore you have to air it out once in every month. But an old one doesn't spoil that fast, and therefore it's enough if you open it up once in 12 months. רבי אלעזר בן יעקב אומר, רבי אלעזר בן יעקב says, אחד זה ואחד זה שנים עשר חודש, whether it's a new one or an old one, you are able to do it once in 12 months, you don't have to do it every 30 days. And the גמרא will ask later on that doesn't רבי אלעזר בן יעקב say the same thing that the first תנא said? Because the first תנא said that you should roll it once every 12 months, and he didn't make the difference between an old one and a new one. So it seems like רבי אלעזר בן יעקב is saying the same thing, and the גמרא will explain that. Now the גמרא explains this ברייתא: אמר מר, we learned in the ברייתא before, השואל ספר תורה מחבירו, if someone borrows a ספר תורה from his friend, הרי זה לא ישאילנו לאחר, you are not allowed to lend it to somebody else. So the גמרא asks, מאי איריא ספר תורה, why if is do you pick a ספר תורה, as if only by a ספר תורה the דין is that if you borrow the ספר תורה you are not allowed to lend it to somebody else? אפילו כל מילי נמי, the same דין would apply to everything else! דאמר ריש לקיש, because ריש לקיש said, כאן שנה רבי, here רבי learned, אין השואל רשאי להשאיל, that a borrower is not allowed to lend the object that he borrowed, ואין השוכר רשאי להשכיר, and the one that rented something is not allowed to rent out that object to somebody else. This refers to a דין that the גמרא says in מסכת גיטין. There it says that if somebody sends a גט in ארץ ישראל, so that שליח that took the גט is allowed to give the גט to another שליח and he should give over the גט to the wife. But if the משלח, the one that sent the שליח with the גט told him that when you give her the גט, take an object from her for me, so then he is not allowed to send the גט with another שליח. That first שליח must bring the גט himself to the wife and take the object all by himself. Why? Because the one that sent the גט is able to say that אין רצוני שיהא פקדוני ביד אחר, I don't want that my פיקדון, my object should be in anybody else's hand. Since I want you to take the object from her, I made you the שליח that you should hold that פיקדון, that object. I don't want my object to be held in somebody else's hand, and therefore he himself is obligated to take the object from her hand. So therefore he cannot send the גט with a שליח, with another שליח, and that that other שליח take the object from her, because the original owner, the one that sent the גט, the משלח, wants that the object should be only in this person's hand since he made him the שליח. So ריש לקיש said on that משנה that this משנה teaches us, and since the משניות were written by רבי, so he said that רבי taught us in this משנה this דין, that if someone borrows something, he's not allowed to lend it to somebody else. If someone rents something, he's not allowed to rent it to somebody else. Because the reasoning of this משנה, why the שליח himself must go and take the object from the woman and he cannot make another שליח, is because the משלח is able to say I don't want my object to be in someone else's hands. So the same logic applies here too, that if you lend something to somebody, you do not want that that object should be in someone else's hand. So therefore the borrower is not allowed to lend it to anybody else. And the same is if you rent something to somebody, you don't want that that object should be in someone else's hand, and therefore the one that rented it is not able to give it to anybody else, not able to rent it out to anybody else. So here we see that any object is not allowed to be given over to somebody else. So anything a person would borrow, he would not be allowed to lend it to somebody else. So how come here we're saying that if you borrow a ספר תורה, you're not allowed to lend it to anybody else, as if we're saying that only by a ספר תורה this דין applies, but by other objects not? But it's not true, didn't ריש לקיש learn out from that משנה that any object that you borrow you are not allowed to lend out to anybody else? And the גמרא answers, ספר תורה אצטריכא ליה, there he wants to tell us a חידוש that even by a ספר תורה you're allowed. In other words, we would think that a ספר תורה should be different and you should be allowed, that's why he tells us that a ספר תורה has the same thing like anything else, and you're also not allowed. Why would we think that by a ספר תורה you are allowed? Because מהו דתימא, I would think ניחא ליה לאיניש דתתעביד מצוה בממוניה, that a person is happy that a מצוה is done with his money, with his possessions, and therefore he would be happy that this person would lend it to somebody else, so somebody else should also learn תורה. קא משמע לן, that's why he has to tell us, no, that you are not allowed to lend it out to anybody else, unless you get permission from the person who lent it to you. Then we learned later, פותח וקורא בו, that when you borrow a ספר תורה, you are allowed to open it and read in it. The גמרא asks, פשיטא, that's simple, ואלא למאי שייליה מיניה? What else, why else did he borrow it from him? If you borrow something, obviously you want to use it. So if he borrowed a ספר תורה, certainly he's allowed to read in it. What else did he borrow it for? The גמרא says, סיפא איצטריכא ליה, the חידוש he wants to tell us is the סיפא, the other part. This is true that this part he wouldn't have to tell us, but this is only like an introduction to the next few words, that ובלבד שלא ילמד בו בתחלה, that as long as you don't learn in it something that you never learned before, to learn something for the first time. So he wanted to tell us that. That's why he starts off by saying, you're allowed to learn in it, but not something for the first time. וכן, we said before, the same דין applies, המפקיד ספר תורה אצל חבירו, if someone hides a ספר תורה by his friend, he gives his friend to watch a ספר תורה for him, the דין is that גוללו כל שנים עשר חודש, you should roll it once every 12 months, פותח וקורא בו, you are allowed to open it and read in it. So the question is, מאי עבידתיה גביה? What's it doing by him? In other words, what's his business in reading it? Why should he be allowed to read it? If we say that you roll it, you open it up once in 12 months, why should the דין be that you're allowed to read in it, since you didn't borrow it? He gave you to watch it, so you are just a שומר, why should the דין be that you're allowed to read in it? ותו, another question, we said later on, אם בשבילו פתחו אסור. If you opened it for yourself, for your own sake, then you are not allowed. והאמרת פותח וקורא בו, didn't you just say you are allowed to open and read it? It's a contradiction within the ברייתא itself. First you say that you are allowed to open and read it, and then the ברייתא says that if you did it for your own sake, you are not allowed. So the גמרא answers, הכי קאמר, this is what the ברייתא means: אם כשהוא גוללו פותח וקורא בו מותר. We said that you have to roll it once in 12 months, but the ברייתא says, if while you are rolling it, you're opening it and reading in it, then מותר, that's allowed, because you're rolling it for the sake of the ספר תורה, and the meantime, you also happen to look into it and read it, that's okay. But אם בשבילו פתחו, if you opened it for your own sake, אסור, that is forbidden. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the ברייתא, סומכוס אומר, סומכוס says, בחדש שלשים יום, by a new ספר תורה, you have to do it once in 30 days, ובישן, by an old ספר תורה, שנים עשר חודש, you do it once in 12 months. רבי אלעזר בן יעקב אומר, רבי אלעזר בן יעקב says, אחד זה ואחד זה שנים עשר חודש, that a new one or an old one, you could do it once in 12 months. So the גמרא asks, רבי אלעזר בן יעקב היינו תנא קמא, doesn't רבי אלעזר בן יעקב say the same thing as the תנא קמא? Because the תנא קמא said that you should roll it once in 12 months, and didn't make a difference between a new and an old one, obviously in both cases you have to do it once in 12 months, and רבי אלעזר בן יעקב says the same, that whether it's old or new, you do it once in 12 months. So they're saying the same thing, but from the לשון of the ברייתא is משמע that there is a מחלוקת. אלא אימא, so therefore the גמרא says, say that we have to change the words in the ברייתא. What it's really supposed to say is that רבי אלעזר בן יעקב אומר, אחד זה ואחד זה שלשים יום, that whether it's new or old, he holds it has to be done once in 30 days. So there is a three-way מחלוקת in this ברייתא. The תנא קמא holds that whether it's new or it's old, you should do it once in 12 months. סומכוס holds that if it's new, it's once in 30 days, if it's old, then it's once 12 months. And רבי אלעזר בן יעקב says that whether it's new or old, you do it once in 30 days. Then the גמרא continues, we learned in the משנה, אבל לא ילמד בו בתחלה, but do not learn in it for the first time, not to learn something in it you never learned before, ולא יקרא אחר עמו, and you shouldn't have someone else read in it together with you. The גמרא asks, ורמינהו, I will ask you a question. We learned, לא יקרא פרשה וישנה, you should not learn in it a פרשה and you should review it, ולא יקרא בו פרשה ויתרגם, you should not learn in it a פרשה and translate it, ולא יפתח בו יותר מג' דפין, you should not open up more than three columns, ולא יקראו בו שלשה בני אדם בכרך אחד, and you should not have three people learning in the same volume together. All this is because if you do that, it might spoil the ספר. But from here we see that three people should not learn at the same time, הא שנים קורין, but two people can. And in our משנה it said that you should not have one more person learn with you together, which means that even two people cannot learn together. אמר אביי, so אביי said, לא קשיא, there is no קשיא. כאן בענין אחד, כאן בשני ענינים. One place is talking about one ענין, they're both learning the same subject, and one is if they're both learning different subjects. If they're learning the same subject, then they're looking at the same place, one is pulling to himself and the other one is pulling to himself, and it might tear. But if they are learning two different subjects, one is looking into one column and one is looking into another column, so then they don't have to pull to each other, then it won't tear. So then the דין would be that two people are allowed, only three people would not be allowed. But when it says in the

משנה that two people are not allowed, that's if they're learning one ענין. Then the גמרא continues, we learn in the משנה, מצא כסות, if you find a garment, מנערה אחד לשלשים יום, you should shake it out once every 30 days. So the גמרא asks, למימרא, does this tell us דניעור מעלי ליה, that shaking is good for a garment? והאמר רבי יוחנן, didn't רבי יוחנן say, מי שיש לו גרדי בתוך ביתו, if somebody has a skilled weaver in his house, ינער כסותו בכל יום, he should shake out his garment every day. Because if it'll tear, it'll get ruined, you will be able to make a new one because you have a skilled weaver in your house. But otherwise you shouldn't do it because the shaking out will spoil it. So here we see that shaking a garment spoils it, and in our משנה it says that you should shake it out once in 30 days because that'll be for the benefit of the garment. So it's a contradiction. אמרי, so the גמרא says I will tell you, בכל יום קשיא ליה. Shaking it out every day will spoil the garment, is not good for the garment. אחד לשלשים יום מעלי ליה, but once in 30 days is good for the garment. אי בעית אימא, if you want, I can give you a different answer. לא קשיא, there is no קשיא. הא בחד, והא בתרי. One case is by one, and one is by two. If one person shakes it out, then it's good for the garment. If two people shake it out together, then it's no good because each one stretches it to himself, so then it stretches the garment and the garment will get spoiled. אי בעית אימא, if you want, I can give you another answer. לא קשיא, there is no קשיא. הא בידא, הא בחוטרא. One is with the hand and one is with a stick. If you shake it out just with a hand, then it does not spoil the garment. But if you shake it out with a stick, then it might harm the garment. אי בעית אימא, if you want, I'll give you another תירוץ. לא קשיא, is no קשיא. הא דעמרא, הא דכיתנא. One is talking in a garment of wool, and one is talking about a garment made of flax. If it's made of wool, then by stretching it and by shaking it, it could harm it, but if it's made of flax, it will not harm it. That's the way רש״י learns. But the רי״ף and the רמב״ם and other מפרשים, they learn just the opposite: that if it's made of flax, then it's not good to shake it out; if it's made of wool, then it doesn't matter if you shake it out. Then the

גמרא continues, אמר רבי יוחנן, רבי יוחנן said, and as רש״י explains, that since we mentioned some a saying of רבי יוחנן concerning how a person should act, not concerning מצות or הלכות, but how a person can act in ענינים of דרך ארץ, like רש״י says, whether he should stretch out and shake out his garments or not, so the גמרא brings in something else that רבי יוחנן said, also in the ענינים of דרך ארץ. רבי יוחנן said, כסא דחרשין ולא כסא דפושרין. It's better for a person to drink a cup which is full of witchcraft rather than to drink a cup of lukewarm water, because drinking lukewarm water is very unhealthy and therefore a person should not drink it. ולא אמרן, this was not said, אלא בכלי מתכת, only in a metal כלי. אבל בכלי חרס, if it's a כלי made of earthenware, לית לן בה, this doesn't apply, it doesn't cause any harm. ובכלי מתכת נמי, and even when we drink it in a metal כלי, ולא אמרן, this was not said, אלא דלא צייצי, if it wasn't boiled. אבל דצייצי, if it was boiled, לית לן בה, this doesn't apply. ולא אמרן, this was not said, אלא דלא שדא ביה ציביא, he didn't put in any spices in it. אבל שדא ביה ציביא, if he did put spices in it, לית לן בה, there is no problem, this doesn't apply and you're able to drink it. Then the גמרא continues, ואמר רבי יוחנן, רבי יוחנן

said, מי שהניח לו אביו מעות הרבה, if a person, his father left him a lot of money, ורוצה לאבדן, and he wants to lose them... In other words, רבי יוחנן is going to say what you should not do because if you will do it, you will lose it, but he expresses it in such a way by saying that if you want to lose your money, this is the advice he gives you: ילבש בגדי פשתן, you should wear linen clothes, וישתמש בכלי זכוכית, and you should use glass, וישכור פועלים ואל ישב עמהן, and you should hire workers and do not sit with them, do not watch what they're doing. If you do these three things, you will lose a lot of money. And he explains, ילבש כלי בכלי פשתן, when we said that by wearing linen garments you will lose a lot of money, that refers refers בכיתנא דרומיתא, only concerning the linen that came from Rome. That's a special kind of linen which is very expensive and gets spoiled very easily. When we said וישתמש בכלי זכוכית, that you use glass, that means בזוגיתא חיורתא, white glass, that means crystal, because that is very expensive, and it breaks very fast. וישכור פועלים ואל ישב עמהן, when we said you should hire workers and not sit with them, the גמרא explains that, that it means בתורת דנפישא פסידייהו, when you hire workers that work with your oxen plowing the fields, then you have a big loss. And as רש״י explains, because most of the work that they used to do in the fields were made with oxen. They used to plow, even the vineyard they used to plow with oxen, when they used to take off the fruit, they used to do it with oxen. And they used to take the כלי מחרישה, that tool that would plow the field used to be connected to a wagon that used to be pulled by oxen. And they used to take him between the שורות, between the lines of the vines. But if you are not careful, then the oxen could go on top of the vines, and they could step all over the fruit. So if you do not watch what your workers do, then they might not be careful, and it'll go all over the plants, all over the fruit, and you will have a big loss. Or as תוספות says, that it means that if you do not watch your workers when they plow the field with the oxen, then they might not plow it deep enough, because really you have to plow it, it should go down three טפחים. If you do not have it go down that deep, then the crop that will grow will not be that good. So if you do not watch your workers, they will not do it properly, and therefore the fruit that will come up, that will grow, will not be good fruit. You will have a big loss. This is what רבי יוחנן said that by doing these three things, you have a big loss, and therefore you should be careful not to do these three things.

Concerning we learned before, that רב יוסף holds that a שומר אבידה is a שומר שכר, so the reason is as we said before, as the גמרא says in בבא קמא דף נ״ו עמוד ב׳, בההיא הנאה דלא בעיא למיתבה ריפתא לעניא הוה ליה כשומר שכר. That because when an עני will come, and ask you for bread, you will not have to give him because you are involved in the מצוה of watching the אבידה, so therefore you are saving that פרוטה, because of that you are considered a שומר שכר. And תוספות explains that when we say that you do not have to give bread to an עני because you are watching the אבידה, that means only while you are involved, working in the שמירה of the אבידה, for instance, you are stretching it out, you are doing something for the benefit of the אבידה. But just because you're holding the אבידה in your house, at that moment you are not פטור for giving, from giving an עני money, because the דין of עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה doesn't mean that if a person would be wearing תפילין all day, or wear ציצית all day, he is פטור from all the מצוות. It means that while he is involved, he is busy with doing one מצוה, he is not obligated to do the other מצוה. So here, too, just for holding the אבידה in your house, you are not פטור from other מצוות. It is just that while you are involved in doing something for the אבידה, בשעת מעשה, if somebody will come and ask you for a piece of bread, you will be פטור from giving him. But some ask a question, some אחרונים, פני יהושע etc., ask a question according to תוספות, that the reason why he is called an עוסק במצוה and he is פטור from giving the פרוטה to the עני, is because he is involved in stretching it out, or shaking it out as the גמרא says, so let's say if he would have sold the אבידה, and all he would be left was with the money that he got for the אבידה, and for money there is no טרחה, there is no trouble that you have to go through, no involvement in watching the money. You put the money away, and it stays there. So then you should not have a דין of a שומר שכר. So according to that, what does the גמרא here ask a קשיא on רב יוסף from our משנה, our משנה is talking about money, דמי אבידה. Concerning money, even רב יוסף would admit that you are not considered a שומר שכר, because there is no time that you are involved in watching the money. And therefore, concerning money of an אבידה, the only reason the גמרא feels that you are חייב באחריות is only if you are able to use it, then you would be חייב, but otherwise, it would be פטור, and you would not be considered a שומר שכר because concerning money even רב יוסף would be מודה. So how could the גמרא ask a קשיא from our משנה on רב יוסף? And some אחרונים answer that since when you pick up the אבידה, בשעת מעשה you are involved in doing the מצוה, so בשעת מעשה if an עני would come and ask you for a פרוטה, you wouldn't have to give him, so the moment you picked up the אבידה you became a שומר שכר, so constantly you continue with the דין of being a שומר שכר till you give back the money to the owner, and therefore the whole time you are a שומר שכר. And that's why the גמרא asks the קשיא on רב יוסף. According to רב יוסף, that you are considered a שומר שכר because of the involvement in the מצוה, so since you are a שומר שכר in the beginning, you are a שומר שכר the whole time, so even later on you should be חייב. חייב בגניבה ואבידה even after the money is in your possession. Concerning what the גמרא said that אמר שמואל, if someone finds תפילין בשוק, he finds תפילין in the street, you estimate the money ומניחן and you put them on לאלתר right away, and the גמרא brought a ראיה from here that when you find תפילין you don't have to wait, but you could sell it right away and you put away the money. So in this expression that the

גמרא says ומניחן, שם דמיהן ומניחן, you estimate the money and you put them away לאלתר right away, there are two פשטים in the רא"ש. One פשט is that you put the money away, which means that right away you have to estimate it and change it into money, sell it, and put the money away and watch the money as the אבידה. Another פשט in the word ומניחן means ומניחן you put the תפילין on, that first you estimate the money and then the תפילין becomes yours since you saw how much it's worth, so you are now responsible for the money the תפילין is worth. So now the תפילין are yours, ומניחן, and you are allowed to put the תפילין on. But according to this פשט, that the פשט is that you're allowed to put the תפילין on after you estimate the value of the תפילין, so it comes out that if you would not evaluate the value of the תפילין, you would not see how much it's worth and take the responsibility of paying that amount of money, you wouldn't be allowed to put the תפילין on. So לכאורה, this is a קשיא on the דין that the פוסקים write, that a person is allowed to take someone else's טלית שלא מדעתו, without the other person knowing, and he's not considered a שואל שלא מדעת, he's not considered someone who's borrowing without the permission of somebody else, which the דין is that if you borrow something without permission, you're a גזלן. Here you're allowed, and the reason is because ניחא ליה לאיניש דתעביד מצוה בממוניה, a person is happy that a מצוה should be done with his money. So it comes out that even without permission you're allowed to put on someone else's טלית, and the same thing would probably בפשטות apply to תפילין, that you would be allowed to put on someone else's תפילין without permission. And here in the גמרא it comes out that only after שם דמיהן, after you estimate the money and now you took responsibility for the money, then we say ומניחן, according to the פשט that the words ומניחן mean that you put on the תפילין. But the ש"ך in סימן ע"ב סעיף קטן ח' writes that there is a difference: if you want to use someone else's object for a מצוה בדרך עראי, in a temporary way, then we say you're allowed because the other person definitely doesn't mind, because ניחא ליה לאיניש דתעביד מצוה בממוניה, a person is happy if a מצוה is done with his money, with something that belongs to him. But here we're talking about using it בדרך קבע, using it for a long time in a permanent way, so you are not allowed to use it in a permanent way unless first שם דמיהן, first you estimate the value of the money, how much it's worth, and then you're allowed to use it. Others write that when it says here that first you evaluate how much it's worth and then you put it on, doesn't mean that otherwise you wouldn't be able to put it on. It means like this, that if you evaluate how much it's worth, then when you're putting it on, it is the פשט that you are putting on your own תפילין. If you don't evaluate it first, so then you'd be putting on someone else's תפילין. If you evaluate how much it's worth, then you put it on right away and it's your תפילין. So just in case you're a person that would rather do the מצוה with his own money, you want to put on your own תפילין, so then if you are שם דמיהן, then when you put it on it is considered that you put on your own תפילין. But even if you didn't estimate the value, you still are allowed to because of this כלל of ניחא ליה לאיניש דתעביד מצוה בממוניה.

Concerning this כלל, the גמרא here says that that is the reason why we have to tell us that a ספר תורה that you borrow, you're not allowed to lend to somebody else, because we would think maybe a ספר תורה you would be allowed, because a person would want someone else to do a מצוה with his money, קא משמע לן that even a ספר תורה you're not allowed. But the question is why טאקע don't we say this כלל here that a person doesn't mind if a מצוה is done with his money, because we find in a different גמרא that the גמרא does use this כלל. The גמרא in פסחים דף ד' עמוד ב' says that a person rents a house in the חזקה that it was בדוק, that the house was searched for חמץ, and then he finds out that the house was not בדוק, was not searched for חמץ. So we don't say it's a מקח טעות, that the whole deal was by mistake. And even if it's a place where the people used to hire other people to be בודק the חמץ, which means that the person who rented the house has to go through now an extra expense which he didn't expect when he rented the house, nevertheless we say that a person doesn't mind because of this כלל that a person is happy to do מצוות with his money. And therefore, the person is happy that he has to fulfill the מצוה of בדיקת חמץ even if it'll cost him money. So we see that we do say this rule that a person doesn't mind to do a מצוה with his money, so how come here we say that if you you lend a ספר to somebody, that person cannot lend it to somebody else, even though we would think that a person would be happy because he is doing a מצוה his money. So we don't accept this rule. But over there, in the גמרא פסחים, we do accept this rule. So the ריטב״א

answers that there is a difference. Over there, it is the person himself doing a מצוה. The person himself, he will be בודק חמץ, but it'll cost him money. So we say he doesn't mind. The deal of the שכירות, of the renting of the house is not off because of this extra expense, because a person doesn't mind to go through an extra expense to do a מצוה. But over here, the case is that someone else will be doing the מצוה. There we don't always say that a person is happy that a מצוה should be done through somebody else if it'll be costing him money. But the פרי חדש in סימן תל״ז סעיף ג׳, and the מגן אברהם סימן י״ד סעיף קטן ט״ז, they write that there is a difference between הפסד מרובה and הפסד מועט. If it is a big loss, then we don't say a person would want someone else to do a מצוה with his money if it'll cost him a lot of money. But if it's a small loss, if it's a הפסד מועט, then we say a person doesn't mind if it'll cost him money as long as the מצוה is being done. The חתם סופר gives a different answer. The חתם סופר writes, based on what the ריטב״א says, that why is it that by טלית and תפילין we say you are allowed to take it without the other person's permission? Because a person is happy if a מצוה is done with his money. But by ספרים here we don't say it, and he gives the reason because by a ספר, יצא שכרו בהפסדו. Sometimes the loss will be more than the gain. You gain that someone else does a מצוה through your ספר, but on the other hand, that person might ruin the ספר, and when you want to learn in the ספר, you won't have the ספר to learn in. That's why the דין is that a person minds that someone else should use it. But by טלית and תפילין he says, there a person doesn't mind, because it won't get ruined, and therefore he doesn't mind that someone else will use it. Based on this סברא, it comes out that the only time we don't say that a person is happy when someone else does a מצוה with his money is only if he later will lose on the deal and he will not be able to learn תורה. So based on this סברא, we understand the difference between the גמרא in פסחים and here and this גמרא. In the גמרא in פסחים, there is no loss that he will have later on. It's just that it'll cost him money to do a מצוה. So here we say, a person doesn't mind to do a מצוה even if it costs money. But in the case of the ספרים, it's not only that it'll cost him money, he won't have the ספר to learn in. So here we don't say the סברא of ניחא ליה לאיניש למעבד מצוה בממוניה. But the דברי חיים answers a different תירוץ. He says over there in the גמרא פסחים, since the person is happy with the deal itself, he wants to rent the house, so there we say that because of the loss of money that he will have to spend for בדיקת חמץ, it is not strong enough that because of that, he should want the whole deal to go off. Therefore we say that since it's a מצוה, and even though it'll cost him money, but since the whole thing he does want, and it is a מצוה, so he doesn't mind to spend the money for the מצוה, and the loss is not enough that because of that he should מבטל the whole deal. But here, when the whole thing he doesn't gain anything by it, there is nothing here that he wants, so here we say that we don't accept the כלל of ניחא ליה לאיניש למעבד מצוה בממוניה. The שער אפרים gives a different reason. He said that the גמרא here doesn't mean that we do not say this כלל of ניחא ליה לאיניש למעבד מצוה בממוניה. The גמרא is just saying קא משמע לן that even though we do say the rule of ניחא ליה לאיניש למעבד מצוה בממוניה, still you're not allowed to lend out the ספר for a different reason. And that different reason is because a person is able to say אין רצוני שיהא פקדוני ביד אחר. I don't want that my פקדון should be in the hand of somebody else. So the גמרא is not contradicting the rule of a person usually wants that a מצוה should be done with his money. The גמרא means to say that even though we have the rule, nevertheless you are not allowed to lend out the ספר.