דף ל' עמוד א', from the top of the עמוד. The גמרא quotes the משנה. It said in the משנה, if you find an object, you must take care of it and make sure that it doesn't get ruined. And it says if you find a כסות, if you find a garment, שוטחה לצרכה, you should stretch it out for its own benefit, אבל לא לכבודו וכולי, and not for the person's honor. A person should not use the אבידה for his benefit, he should only stretch it out for the benefit of the garment. Because if you will not stretch it out, it could get ruined after a while, and therefore, you have to stretch it out. The גמרא asks the שאלה: איבעיא להו, they asked an איבעיא, the תלמידים of the ישיבה asked a question: לצרכו ולצרכה מאי, what would be the דין if he wants to do something with it which will be for the benefit of the object, but at the same time, it'll also be for his own benefit? Can he do it or not? And תוספות explains that the whole שאלה is only concerning stretching out clothes, but otherwise there would be no שאלה. Because we see from the גמרא before that you are allowed to use it for yourself and for the object. Because, for instance, we said before that a ספר, you should every twelve months roll it, or you should read in it. While you're reading in it, you yourself have benefit, too, but at the same time you're doing it for the benefit of the object. So we see clearly in the גמרא that if you do it for the benefit of the object and for your own benefit, you're allowed. So why did the גמרא, all of a sudden, have a question here if you're allowed to use it when it'll be for the benefit of the object and yourself? Therefore, תוספות says the גמרא's שאלה is only in a case where we are afraid that maybe by using it for your benefit, too, you might use it too much and then you might spoil the object. In the case of the ספר, we're not afraid that you will do that. Because since the חכמים made a time when you have to read in it, whether it's once in thirty days or once in twelve months, and also we made a דין that you should not learn in it something you never learned before, because then there is more chance that you might ruin it. Also the דין is, as we said before, you're not allowed to learn in it and review. So since there are so many restrictions concerning learning in a ספר, we are not afraid you'll learn in it too much and you will ruin it. And the same when we said that כלי נחשת, if you find copper כלים, so the גמרא says later on that you should use it even for חמין, even for warm, and if you find כלי כסף, silver כלים, you could use it for cold, and that means, as תוספות proves, even if you're going to have benefit yourself from it, nevertheless you're allowed. So תוספות says there, too, because you cannot spoil it by using it yourself. But in the case where we are afraid that if you will use it for your own benefit, too, you might use it too much and it might get spoiled, for instance, in the case of the clothes, if you will stretch it, so you might stretch it too long because you have benefit, too, and then you might ruin it, so the שאלה is, do we make a גזירה, and we say you're not allowed to use it for your own benefit, you only should do it for the benefit of the כלי, or we don't make such a גזירה? And that is the גמרא's שאלה. The גמרא answers: תא שמע, come here, I will answer your question. We learn in the משנה: שוטחה לצרכה, that you should stretch it out for its benefit, for the benefit of the garment. So we could be מדייק here: לצרכה אין, for the benefit of it, of the garment, you are allowed, הא לצרכו ולצרכה לא, but for his benefit and its benefit, you are not allowed. It's משמע in the משנה only for the benefit of the object, but not also for your benefit. So the גמרא says: No, you can't prove it from there, because אימא סיפא, look further in the משנה. It says there: אבל לא לכבודו, but you shouldn't stretch it out for your own honor, for the benefit of the person. So here we could be מדייק just the opposite: לכבודו הוא דלא, for his honor he is not allowed, הא לצרכו ולצרכה שפיר דמי, but if he's going to do it for both, for its use, for its benefit, and for his benefit, you are allowed. Since only if it is for his כבוד itself, only for his כבוד you're not allowed, is משמע, but if for both, you are allowed. So from the רישא it's משמע that you're not allowed to use it for both, and from the סיפא it's משמע you are allowed. אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה. So we see that from the משנה here, we can't be משמע anything, we can't be מדייק in any way, so we can't prove the דין from the משנה at all. Then the גמרא says: תא שמע, come here, I'll prove it from a different place. We learned: לא ישטחנו, you should not stretch it, לא על גבי מטה, not on a bed, ולא על גבי מגוד, and not on a frame, a special frame made for stretching clothes. So you should not do it לצרכו, for his benefit, אבל ישטחנו על גבי על גבי מטה, but you should stretch it on a bed, ועל גבי מגד, on a frame, לצורכה, for its benefit, for the benefit of the object, so that the object shouldn't get ruined. נזדמנו לו אורחין, if he happened to have guests, then the דין is לא ישטחנו לא על גבי מטה, do not stretch it, not on a bed, ולא על גבי מגד, not on a frame, בין לצורכו בין לצורכה, whether it is for his benefit or even for her benefit, for its benefit, not even for the benefit of the object. Since you have guests there, don't even stretch it then for the benefit of the object. And at this

point the גמרא feels that the reason is, because since you have guests there, so you're using it for your own benefit too. You're showing off to the guests that you have this garment. So we feel that the reason why you shouldn't stretch it out, even for the benefit of the object when you have guests, because then it's לצורכו ולצורכה, because then you also have benefit. So according to that, we see that if you're going to do it for the benefit of the object and your own benefit, you're not allowed. As we see that if you have guests, you're not allowed to stretch it out even for the benefit of the object. And the גמרא says no, שאני התם, there it's different, דמיכליא כליא לה. The reason you're not allowed to stretch it out is not because it is also for your benefit, because this might ruin it. Why might it ruin it? אי משום עינא, or because of an עין הרע, of an evil eye, since there are guests there, who knows, maybe they might have an עין הרע on it and that will ruin it. אי משום גנבי, or we saw because of גנבים, robbers, since there are strangers there, we don't know, they'll see it, they might want it and steal it. That is the reason why you shouldn't stretch it out when the guests are there. But we have no ראיה that if it is for the benefit of the object and the benefit of the person, you're also not allowed. Then the גמרא says תא שמע, come hear, I'll answer your question from a different place. We

learned הכניסה לרבקה. And as רש"י says, this refers to the דין of עגלה ערופה, and תוספות says that this refers to the דין of פרה אדומה. עגלה ערופה is the case if you would find a person dead in a place that you don't know who killed him, and he is someplace in the woods, so there is a whole process you have to go through. And the end is that you have to bring the זקנים from the closest city, and they have to bring an עגלה, they have to bring a calf, and that calf's head has to be chopped off, and there are certain things they have to say, etc. And the פסוק says in שופטים, קפיטל כ"א, פסוק ג', that this עגלה has to be an עגלת בקר אשר לא עובד בה, a calf that wasn't worked with, אשר לא משכה בעול, that didn't pull a yoke. So from here we know that it has to be a calf that wasn't worked with. That's an עגלה ערופה. Concerning פרה אדומה, that is a דין in פרשת חקת, that you have to take a red cow, and there's a whole thing that you have to do with it, and after you burn it the ashes are mixed with water and used to sprinkle on a person who became a טמא מת. And there we also find the דין that it's not allowed to be a cow that was ever worked with. So here we learn הכניסה לרבקה, if you put it into the team, they used to have a team of three or four cows, and that's how they used to thresh. So if you took this עגלה ערופה or this פרה אדומה, and you put it into the team, but the purpose of doing that was not in order for it to work, to thresh, but the reason you did it because you wanted this עגלה, this calf, or this cow, you wanted it to nurse from its mother, but ודשה, accidentally it did thresh, it did some work, still כשרה, it is still כשר, you still could use this calf for an עגלה ערופה or this red cow for a פרה אדומה. But if you put it in בשביל שתינק ותדוש, you had in mind לכתחילה, that let her nurse and also at the same time let her thresh also, so then פסולה, it is פסול. So from here the

גמרא proves, והא הכא דלצורכו ולצורכה הוא, here, in the second case, when you put it in for it to nurse and for it to thresh, so it is like you would do it for its purpose and for the person's purpose. Because putting it in to nurse is for the purpose of the calf or the cow, which is allowed, but at the same time you also had in mind it should work for you. So here we have a combination of both, וקתני, and we learned פסולה, that it's פסול. So here we see that wherever there's a דין that you're not allowed to use it for your benefit, so you're also not allowed to use it for the benefit of the thing together with your benefit. And תוספות makes the question even stronger. תוספות says that the סיפא of this תוספתא that we brought here, that if you took it in just to nurse it's כשר, and if you took it in to nurse and to thresh it's פסול, the סיפא there it says clearly that if you worked with it לצורכו, for the person's benefit, it's פסול. If you did it לצורכה, you did something with it for the benefit of the calf itself or of the cow itself, it's כשר. So we see clearly in the ברייתא that if you did it for your צורך, for yourself, it's פסול, and in this part of the ברייתא it said, that if you did it for both purposes, it is also פסול. So from here we see clearly that whenever you're not allowed to use it לצרכו, for the purpose of the person, if you do it at the same time, the purpose of the person and for the purpose of the thing, it is considered as if you did it for your purpose and it's פסול. So the same thing should be here concerning the אבידה, when we say that you're not allowed to use it for your purpose, so you're also not allowed to use it for your purpose together with the purpose of the object. And the גמרא says, no, it's not a ראיה. שאני התם, concerning the דין of an עגלה ערופה or פרה אדומה, it's different. דאמר קרא, because here the פסוק says clearly אשר לא עובד בה, that no work should be done with it מכל מקום, in any way. So here there's a special דין, the תורה says clearly that no work in what way whatsoever is allowed to be done with this עגלה ערופה. And therefore, even if it was done also for the purpose of the עגלה, but as long as work was done with it, it is פסול. So from here we have no ראיה that in all cases where you're not allowed to use it for your purpose, you're not allowed to use it at the same time for your purpose and the purpose of the object, because here there is a special פסוק that no work should be done with it whatsoever. But the גמרא asks: אי הכי, if you're going to tell me that no work whatsoever is allowed to be done with the עגלה ערופה, אפילו רישא נמי, in the רישא the דין should also be it should be פסול. Why is the דין that if you took it in to nurse, only to nurse, but it did thresh, it is כשר because you didn't intend it to thresh? But who cares? Since you just said that the פסוק says as long as some work was done with it it is פסול, so in the רישא, since it did thresh, whether you wanted it or not, לפועל, it did do work, so it should be פסול. But the גמרא says, no, לא דמיא אלא להא דתנן, the case of the רישא where you took it in just to nurse, and it threshed by itself, is similar to another case where we do find it's כשר. דתנן, because we learned in the משנה: שכן עליה עוף, this is concerning a פרה אדומה, that since the דין is you're not allowed to have a yoke on the פרה אדומה, if an עוף rested on the פרה, כשרה, the פרה is still כשרה. And the reason for that is because the person is not happy with it, he has no benefit from the fact that a bird rested on the back of the פרה, and therefore it's כשרה. עלה עליה זכר, but if a male went on this פרה, פסולה, it's פסול, because the person is happy. Because through this male, the פרה will give birth to a calf, so he will gain, so he is happy that the זכר went on the פרה, and therefore it is פסול because this because it is considered like a yoke. But the question is, why is it כשר if the עוף went on it? So we said because the person is not happy with it. Now who says there is a difference whether the person is happy or not? But the גמרא says, מאי טעמא, what is the reason? כדרב פפא, like רב פפא said. דאמר רב פפא, רב פפא said, the תורה says אשר לא עובד בה. It should be a calf that was not worked with. Now the way it's written is ע-ב-ד, which means עבד, he did not work with it, but the way it's read is עובד, it was not worked with. So he explains: אי כתיב עובד וקרינן עובד, if the תורה would say עובד and we would read it עובד, which means it was not worked with, הוה אמינא, I would think, אפילו ממילא, even if it was worked with by itself, you didn't work with it, it did work by itself, it should also be פסול. ואי כתיב עבד וקרינן עבד, if the תורה would write עבד as it does, and we would read it עבד, which would mean that he did not work with it, הוה אמינא, I would think, עד דעבד בה איהו, that the only time it's פסול if he actually worked with it, but if it worked by itself, then it wouldn't be פסול. השתא דכתיב עבד וקרינן עובד, now the תורה writes עבד, but we read it עובד, so both are true. בעינן עובד דומיא דעבד. We need עובד, was worked by itself, similar to as if he worked with it. In other words, when is it פסול? Only if we have the combination of both, that even if it worked by itself, but it worked by itself in such a way which is as if the person worked with it. מה עבד דניחא ליה, just like if he would work himself, he would be happy with it, אף עובד דניחא ליה, also if it was worked with, it worked by itself, also the only time it's פסול is if he is happy with it. So from this פסוק we see that the only time the עגלה ערופה, and the same thing applies to פרה אדומה, is פסול if even if it worked by itself, but as long as the person is happy with the work. Therefore, if שכן עליה עוף, if a bird rested on the back of the פרה אדומה or the עגלה ערופה, since the person is not happy with it, so even though there was a yoke on it, there was some work done with it, but that work doesn't make it פסול. But the same is in the ברייתא that we brought before, that if he took this עגלה ערופה or this פרה אדומה, put it into the team in order for it to nurse, and it did some work, since in that case, he is not happy with the work it did, that's why the דין is that it's כשר. But in the second case where he לכתחילה intended to put it in so it should nurse and do work, so here he is happy with the work, in that case it is פסול. But when here we do not see what would be the דין normally in other circumstances, in other cases, when you combine צרכו and צרכה, whether it's פסול or not, because here we have a special פסוק that tells us אשר לא עובד בה, that if work was done with it and he is happy with it, even if at the same time it was for the benefit of the עגלה ערופה or the פרה אדומה, still it is פסול. So we have a special פסוק. But in a case where we do not have that special פסוק, we don't know what will be the דין if you use it לצרכו for his benefit, together with לצרכה with the benefit of the object. Then the גמרא continues, we

learned in the משנה, כלי כסף וכלי נחושת משתמש בהם וכולי, if you find silver כלים or you find copper כלים, so the דין is in the משנה that you should use it לצרכן for their benefit, but not long enough that it should get ruined. And then the משנה said further, if you find כלי זהב וכלי זכוכית, gold vessels or glass vessels, לא יגע בהן עד שיבא אליהו, do not touch it till אליהו הנביא comes, you should not use it at all. And the גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, המוצא כלי עץ, if you find wooden vessels, משתמש בהן, you should use it, בשביל שלא ירקבו, so they shouldn't rot. כלי נחושת, if you find copper vessels, משתמש בהן בחמין, you should use it with hot water, אבל לא על ידי האור, but you cannot use it through fire, מפני שמשחיקן, because that ruins them completely. כלי כסף, if you find silver כלים, משתמש בהן בצונן, you can only use it for cold, אבל לא בחמין, but not for hot, מפני שמשחירן, because it makes it black. מגריפות וכרכומות, if you find an axes or shovels, משתמש בהן ברך, you only use it for soft things, אבל לא בקשה, but not for hard things, מפני שמפחיתן, because you will ruin it. כלי זהב וכלי זכוכית, if you find golden vessels or glass vessels, לא יגע בהן עד שיבא אליהו, do not touch it till אליהו comes, in other words, till the person comes to claim it, or if he doesn't come, then it's forever, you should not touch it. And the ברייתא continues, כדרך שאמרו באבידה, the same as we said, if you find an אבידה, a lost object, כך אמרו בפקדון, the same דין applies to a פקדון. If someone gave you something to watch for him, so then you must do the same thing. You must make sure it doesn't get ruined, so therefore, from time to time you must use it, and the same usage as we said concerning an אבידה. But then the גמרא asks, פקדון מאי עבידתיה גביה, we're talking about a פקדון, if someone gave him something to watch, why should he be obligated to do these things, to use it in order for it not to get ruined? Let the owner of the object come from time to time and use it and do with it what he wants, in order to make sure it doesn't get ruined. Why should the one that's holding the פקדון be obligated to do it for him? The גמרא answers, אמר רב אדא בר חמא אמר רב ששת, רב אדא בר חמא said in the name of רב ששת, בפקדון שהלכו בעליהם למדינת הים, but what we mean here is a פקדון that the owner went away to a faraway country and the owner is not here to do it, so then the one that's watching it for him, he has the obligation to do it for the owner. Then the גמרא continues, we said in the משנה, מצא שק או קופה, if you find a sack or a pile, וכל דבר שאין דרכו ליטול, or anything that it is not the דרך of the person who found it to take, it is beyond his כבוד to take it, הרי זה לא יטול, then he doesn't have to take it. And the גמרא asks, מנא הני מילי, how do we know that? How do we know that if it's not your כבוד to take it, you are not obligated to fulfill the מצוה of השבת אבידה? תנו רבנן, because the רבנן learned, והתעלמת, the פסוק says, והתעלמת, you should hide yourself. This is the פסוק concerning השבת אבידה. It's a פסוק in פרשת כי תצא, קפיטל כ"ב, פסוק א'. And the פסוק starts off by saying, לא תראה את שור אחיך או את שיו נדחים והתעלמת מהם, השב תשיבם לאחיך. Do not see a lost article of your brother and you should hide yourself from it, but you should return it. So really the פשט, פשט in the פסוק is that you should not hide yourself from it. You should not close your eyes and make yourself as if you don't see it, but you should return it. But nevertheless, the way the תורה expresses itself, the תורה uses the term והתעלמת מהם, that you should hide yourself from them. It is as if the תורה is saying that if you see a lost article of your brother, you could close your eyes from it. So what does that mean? So the גמרא דרש'נס that פעמים שאתה מתעלם ופעמים שאי אתה מתעלם, that at times you are allowed to hide yourself from it, and at times you are not allowed to hide yourself from it. הא כיצד? How is it? What is the פשט that there are times that you are allowed to hide yourself from it and you don't have to return it? כגון שהיה כהן והיא בבית הקברות, if he was a כהן and the object was on a graveyard, in a cemetery, and the דין is that a כהן is not allowed to become טמא, so he's not allowed to go on to the

cemetery. או שהיה זקן ואינה לפי כבודו, or he was a תלמיד חכם and it's not in his כבוד that he should carry that object, או שהיתה מלאכתו שלו מרובה משל חבירו, or if his work was more than his friend's. The time he would have to waste to pick up that object would be more than the whole object is worth. So he would have a greater loss than the gain of his friend. In all these cases, how do we know that you don't have to fulfill the מצוה of השבת אבידה, of returning the object? לכך נאמר והתעלמת מהם. Therefore the תורה says you should hide yourself from them, that there are cases, these cases, that you are allowed to hide yourself and not return the object. The גמרא asks, ולמאי איצטריך קרא? For which of these three cases do we need this special פסוק? אילימא, if you're going to tell me, לכהן והיא בבית הקברות, if it is concerning the דין that if he was a כהן and the object was in the cemetery, and the פסוק tells us that the כהן does not have to go into the cemetery to pick up the object and return it, פשיטא, that is simple. Without this פסוק we would know this דין, because האי עשה והאי לא תעשה ועשה. Because the מצוה of השבת אבידה is only an עשה, it's a positive מצוה. The פסוק says השב תשיבם. But the איסור of a כהן becoming טמא is a לא תעשה and an עשה. It is a negative מצוה and a positive מצוה. The

negative מצוה is of not becoming טמא, and the עשה, the positive מצוה is the מצוה of קדושים יהיו. The פסוק says that they should be holy, and this includes the דין of them not becoming טמא. So this is a positive מצוה. And the כלל is that ולא אתי עשה ודחי את לא תעשה ועשה. A עשה, a positive מצוה, cannot push away a לא תעשה and an עשה. Like this the כלל is, the rule is, that whenever we have a contradiction between an עשה and a לא תעשה, a positive מצוה and a negative מצוה, so we say עשה דוחה לא תעשה, the positive מצוה pushes away the negative מצוה. For instance, if a person has a garment that if he will put in ציצית into this garment it'll be שעטנז, but if he will not put ציצית into this garment, then he will not fulfill the מצוה of ציצית. So the question is, what should he do? Should he put in ציצית and fulfill the עשה of ציצית, and at the same time he will transgress the עבירה of wearing שעטנז, or do we say he should not put in the ציצית, he should keep the מצוה of not wearing שעטנז and not keep the מצוה of wearing ציצית? So we say עשה דוחה לא תעשה, the positive מצוה pushes away the negative מצוה, so the דין is he should put in ציצית, because ציצית is an עשה, and he should go against the לא תעשה of wearing שעטנז. But this rule of עשה דוחה לא תעשה is only if it's an עשה against a לא תעשה. But if it's an עשה against a לא תעשה and an עשה, then we do not say that you fulfill the עשה, but you'd rather fulfill the לא תעשה and the עשה on the other end, and go against this עשה. And really, that's what's here. The מצוה of השבת אבידה is an עשה. The איסור of a כהן becoming טמא is a לא תעשה and an עשה. So even if we would not have this special פסוק that tells us that at certain times you are not obligated to fulfill the מצוה of השבת אבידה, we would still know that if he is a כהן and the אבידה is in the cemetery he is not allowed to pick it up, because he is not allowed to do the עשה of השבת אבידה and transgress the לא תעשה and the עשה of becoming טמא. So we

cannot say that the פסוק goes for that. ועוד, another reason why we can't say the פסוק comes for that, because without the פסוק we would know it anyway, because לא דחינן איסורא מקמי ממונא. We do not push away an איסור because of ממון, because of a monetary thing. This דין of השבת אבידה is a monetary דין, a דין for the sake of money, to save that person's money. The איסור of a כהן becoming טמא is not a דין ממון, it has nothing to do with money, it is an איסור. And the rule is that we do not push away an איסור for the sake of ממון, for the sake of money. So even if not for this פסוק, we still would know that the כהן is not allowed to go into the בית הקברות to pick up the אבידה. אלא, so for what will you tell me does this פסוק come? לשלו מרובה משל חבירו? To tell us if his loss, his time that he will spend to pick up the אבידה, will be a greater loss for him than the whole the אבידה is worth, so then the דין is that you do not have to pick up the אבידה, if it comes for that, we don't need a פסוק for that either, because מדרב יהודה אמר רב נפקא, we could learn that out from what רב יהודה said in the name of רב, אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, because רב יהודה said in the name of רב: the פסוק says אפס כי לא יהיה בך אביון, that there will be no poor person amongst you. So from here we learn out that a person should not do anything that will bring him to become poor. So we learn out from here שלך קודם לשל כל אדם, that to save your own money comes before saving someone else's money. So from here we know that if by you saving his object you will have a greater loss than him, so then you do not have to pick up his object. So we know it from this פסוק, so we don't need that פסוק והתעלמת to tell us this דין. אלא, so for which דין does it come? לזקן ואינה לפי כבודו, that if he is a תלמיד חכם and it's not his כבוד to carry this object in the street, so the פסוק tells us that in a case like that והתעלמת, he's allowed to hide himself, which and he is not obligated to fulfill the מצוה of השבת אבידה. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר רבא, רבא said: הכישה, if this זקן already hit this object, this animal for instance, in order to return it to its owner, חייב בה, already he's חייב. Since he started doing something to bring it back to its owner, so then already he is obligated to take it all the way and bring it back to its owner. And the גמרא tells a story, אביי הוה יתיב קמיה דרבה, אביי was sitting in front of רבה. חזרא להנך עיזי דקיימא, he saw these goats that were there. שקל קלא ושדא בהו, he picked something up and he threw it at them. אמר ליה, so רבה said to him: איחייבת בהו, now you are מחוייב. Since you did something to start bringing it, so now you are already obligated to bring it all the way to its owner. קום אהדרינהו, get up and return it to its owner. Then the גמרא asks a question: איבעיא להו, there was a question asked in the ישיבה: דרכו להחזיר בשדה ואין דרכו להחזיר בעיר מאי? If he is a person, and this is an object that it would be his דרך, that if it would be in the field he would be able to return it, it wouldn't be beyond his כבוד, but in the city it is beyond his כבוד. Since in the field there're not too many people, so he's not really embarrassed, but in the city where there are more people he is embarrassed. So in the city he would not return it, but in the field he would return it. So what would be the דין if he found it in the field? מי אמרינן, do we say השבה מעלייתא בעינן, we need a complete return, וכיון דלאו דרכיה להחזיר בעיר לא ליחייב, since it's not his דרך to return this object in the city, he is not obligated, so even if he finds it in the field. So on the place where he found it it is his דרך to return it, but still we say you do not have to take it because you'll have to eventually get to the city with it, and in the city it is not your דרך, so therefore you are not obligated to take it even in the field. או דילמא, or maybe בשדה מיהא איסורא דחייב ליה, in the field you are obligated because that there it is your דרך. So in the field you must take it, and as soon as you take it in the field, וכיון דאיחייב ליה בשדה, since you are מחוייב in the field, איחייב ליה חוב ליה בעיר? So you are already חייב in the city too. As we said before, as soon as you start, you must finish already. So here too, since in the field you must take it, so you started already, so you already must return it all the way even in the city. So what is the דין? So the גמרא says: תיקו, this remains an unanswered question.

אמר רבא, רבא said the דין: כל שבשלו מחזיר, בשל חבירו נמי מחזיר. Anything that if it would be his own, and he would have found it himself, he would have taken it back, so if he finds the same type of object that belongs to somebody else, he must return it too. וכל שבשלו פורק וטוען, בשל חבירו נמי פורק וטוען. There is a דין that if you see your friend that he is trying to load his donkey and he can't manage to do it, עזב תעזב עמו, you must help him load it. Or if you see he cannot unload, you must help him unload. And there too we find a דין that if he is a זקן ואינה לפי כבודו, he is a תלמיד חכם and it's not his כבוד to load or unload a donkey, he is not obligated to load or to unload. So he says the דין that if it would be your own you would load and unload, so you also have to do it if it's somebody else's. You are obligated with the מצוה of עזב תעזב עמו. And the גמרא tells a story: רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי הוה קאזיל באורחא, he was going in the street. פגע ביה ההוא גברא, he met this man, הוה דרי פיסכא דאופא, he was carrying a load of wood. אותבינהו, he put even an עבירה of stealing. So therefore he was מפקיר it, so it doesn't belong to anybody, and he saved himself the trouble of helping the man put it on his back. So what did he do? הדר זכה בה, so that same man, since it was הפקר, he was זוכה, he acquired it, he made a קנין on it, and now it became his again. And now he wanted again to put it on his back, and again he wanted רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי to help him. הדר יהיב ליה פלגא דזוזא ואפקריה, he gave him again a half a זוז and he was מפקיר it. He bought it back again, so now again he didn't have the obligation of helping him put it on his shoulder because it's not his, and he was מפקיר it. חזייה דהוה קא בעי למהדר למיזכא ביה, so רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי saw that he wanted to take it again, he wanted to be זוכה in it again. אמר ליה, so he said to him, לכולי עלמא אפקרתיה, I was מפקיר it for everybody, ולך לא אפקרתיה, and for you, I wasn't מפקיר it. I didn't have in mind that it should be הפקר for you too, and therefore you cannot take it. The גמרא asks,

מי הוי הפקר כי האי גוונא? Is it הפקר in such a way? If you're מפקיר it for some people and for some people not, is it הפקר? והתנן, didn't we learn in a משנה, בית שמאי אומרים, בית שמאי say, הפקר לעניים הפקר, that if you are מפקיר something, you give up ownership over something, but you say it's only הפקר for poor people, it still is הפקר. So a poor person is able to be זוכה, to take it, but a rich man, not. ובית הלל אומרים, and בית הלל say, אינו הפקר, it's not הפקר, עד שיהא הפקר לעניים ולעשירים, it should be הפקר for poor people and for rich people, כשמיטה, just like שמיטה. The year of שמיטה, the seventh year, the דין is that all the fruit, all the things that grow in the field are הפקר, and there it's הפקר for everybody. So whenever you make something הפקר it has to be similar to שמיטה, it has to be הפקר for everybody. So here too, how did רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי say that it's הפקר only for everybody but not for this person? Don't we פסקן like בית הלל that הפקר is only if it's הפקר for everybody? אלא the גמרא answers, רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי לכולי עלמא אפקרתיה, באמת he was מפקיר it for everybody, ובמילי בעלמא הוא דאוקמיה, he just said these words because he hoped that that man wouldn't know the דין, so that man would think that it's הפקר for others, not for him, and he wouldn't take it. But really, רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי had in mind to be מפקיר it for everybody. And then the גמרא asks, why did רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי have to go through this whole trouble in order to save himself from helping him to put it on his shoulder? He wasn't obligated to do it to begin with, because והא רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי זקן ואינה לפי כבודו הוה. רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי was a תלמיד חכם, and it wasn't his כבוד to do it, and we said before that if you are a תלמיד חכם and it's not the כבוד for you to do it, then you don't have to do it. So he wasn't obligated to do it to begin with. And the גמרא answers, רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי לפנים משורת הדין הוא דעבד. רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי did it beyond the obligation of the דין. Really על פי דין he didn't have to, he wanted to do more than the דין, and therefore he bought it from him so he shouldn't have to, even after לפנים משורת הדין, put it on his back. דתני רב יוסף, because רב יוסף learned, there's a פסוק in פרשת יתרו that says והודעת להם, this is קפיטל י"ח, פסוק כ'. It starts off with the words והזהרת אתהם את החקים ואת התורות, you should warn them the laws and the תורות, והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה, and you should notify them the way they should go in, ואת המעשה אשר יעשון, and the acts that they should do. So concerning the דינים of the תורה, that is the first part of the פסוק, where it says you should warn them the חוקים and the תורות, that means you should teach them the דינים. So what does the פסוק mean when it continues והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה ואת המעשה אשר יעשון, you should notify them the way they should go in and the acts that they should do? So רב יוסף learned, והודעת להם, when it says you should notify them, זה בית חייהם, that is their livelihood, that you should teach them, as רש"י says, a trade so they should be able to make a livelihood. את הדרך, it says the way, זו גמילות חסדים, teach them גמילות חסדים, kindness. Then the פסוק continues, ילכו בה, they should go in it, so he says, the word ילכו, they should go, זו ביקור חולים, that is visiting the sick, going to visit the sick. בה, when it says in it, זו קבורה, that you should help bury somebody who doesn't have anybody to bury him. Then ואת המעשה, that you should do the act, זה הדין, that refers to the דין. אשר יעשון, זו לפנים משורת הדין, that they should do, that is more than the requirements of the דין. So here we see that the תורה says a person should do more than the דין requires of him. So that is the reason why רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי bought off that pile of wood from that person, even though he wasn't obligated to help him load anyway, because he wants to do לפנים משורת הדין. Then the גמרא continues, אמר מר, we just learned ילכו זה ביקור חולים, that the word ילכו means that you should visit the sick. So the גמרא asks, היינו גמילות חסדים, isn't this גמילות חסדים? Since the previous words את הדרך we said meant גמילות חסדים, so why isn't ביקור חולים, visiting the sick, included in גמילות חסדים? So why do we need a special word to teach us that you have to have ביקור חולים? The גמרא says לא נצרכה, does not have to tell us

אלא לבן גילו, that even a בן גילו you must visit. A בן גילו is somebody who was born at the same time as the first person, at the same hour, under the same star, and nevertheless you should visit him, because I would think that him you should not visit. דאמר מר, because we learned, בן גילו, if you go to visit your בן גילו, נוטל אחד מששים בחליו, you take away one sixtieth of his sickness. So I would think you shouldn't visit him because then you take part of his sickness. So the דין is אפילו הכי מבעיא ליה למיזל לגביה, still you should go to him. That's what the פסוק teaches us, that you should be מבקר חולים even if it will cause you harm. Then we said בה זו קבורה. The word בה teaches us that you have to help bury a person. So the גמרא asks, היינו גמילות חסדים, isn't this included in גמילות חסדים? And the גמרא says לא נצרכה אלא לזקן ואינה לפי כבודו, that if he's a תלמיד חכם and it's not his כבוד that he should involve himself in burying somebody, nevertheless the תורה tells us that you should, that the דין of זקן ואינה לפי כבודו does not apply concerning the דין of קבורה. Then the פסוק said אשר יעשון זו לפנים משורת הדין, you should do, that means that you should do more than the requirement of the דין.

דאמר רבי יוחנן, because רבי יוחנן said, לא חרבה ירושלים אלא על שדנו בה דין תורה, ירושלים did not become destroyed only because they פסק'נד there according to the דין of the תורה. So the גמרא asks, what's wrong with that? אלא דיני דמגיזתא לדיינו, how should they פסק'ן there? Not according to the תורה, but according to the those people who force others to do by force? אלא אימא, so the גמרא says say what does it mean? שהעמידו דיניהם על דין תורה, they put all their דינים on the דין of the תורה, ולא עבדו לפנים משורת הדין, they did not do more than the דין requires. And that is enough that because of that ירושלים was destroyed. So we see here how important it is for a person to do לפנים משורת הדין. Concerning what we learned before, the דין by עגלה ערופה and by פרה אדומה, that you're not allowed to do any work with it because the פסוק says אשר לא עובד בה. And the word is written עבד, and we read עובד. And we say the פשט is that even if the work was done by itself, but as long as it was דומיא דעבד, as if you did the work with it, in other words you were happy, so then the דין is that it's פסול. So concerning that, תוספות asks a קשיא, that this פסוק is written by עגלה ערופה, not by פרה אדומה. So how do we know that the same דין applies by פרה אדומה? And תוספות answers that since we see there are similar דינים by the דין of עגלה ערופה and פרה אדומה concerning the פסול of עול, that you're not allowed to have a yoke on it, you're not allowed to have any work done with it, so then from since we see the דינים are equal, so we understand that all the דינים are equal. And therefore, also concerning this דין, that if the work was done by itself, but it was similar to as if it was done through you, it is פסול, so we learn out the דין by פרה אדומה from the דין of עגלה ערופה. Then תוספות asks another קשיא. We

said that if עלה עליה זכר, it's פסול, that if a זכר, a male, went on the פרה אדומה, it is פסול. Why? Because the person who saw it is happy, because through this he's going to gain a calf. The פרה אדומה will become pregnant and he will gain a calf, so it's ניחא ליה, he's happy. Since he is happy, we say that that is פסול. So תוספות asks that לכאורה, the person should not be happy, because if he will be happy, then the דין is that the פרה אדומה will become פסול. So let's see what is the gain and what is the loss. Why should he be happy? Because he will gain the calf, but at the same time he will lose the whole פרה אדומה. Now, a פרה אדומה is worth a lot of money. The calf that he will get is only worth a little bit amount of money. So why should he be happy because of the gain that he will get through the calf, when through that he will lose the whole פרה, which is a much greater loss? So therefore, בפשטות we should assume the person is not happy. So since the person is not happy, then the דין should be that the פרה should not become פסול. And תוספות answers that we could go ahead and say now that we're going to say that he is not happy, since he is not happy, then the פרה is כשר. Now, since the פרה is כשר, automatically there is no loss in the פרה. If there There is no loss in the פרה, so he is already happy that a זכר went on, because he will gain the calf and not lose the פרה. So automatically he does become happy. And the moment we say he is happy, automatically the פרה אדומה is פסול. And that's why the דין is that the פרה אדומה is פסול.

Another question that תוספות asks is, what is the difference between עלה עליה זכר and הכניסה לרבקה ודשה? We said that if a זכר went on it, since he is happy because he will gain, therefore the פרה אדומה is פסול. On the other hand, if he put that עגלה ערופה or פרה אדומה in the רבקה, in the team, and he intended for it to nurse, but it did thresh, we say it is כשר because that's not what he intended. But why don't we say that בדיעבד, since it did thresh, he is happy, he gained on the deal? So since he gained, it's ניחא ליה. So therefore, the פרה should be פסול. Just like by עלה עליה זכר, we say since he is happy that it happened, it is פסול, so too, he is happy that the פרה threshed, and the דין should be it should be פסול. תוספות answers that there is a difference. By the case of עלה עליה זכר, since there is a gain, a real gain, because the פרה will become pregnant and he will have a calf, so then it's ניחא ליה. By the case of the threshing, he gains very little, because even if not for this פרה, the threshing would have been done through the other ones that are in that team. So there's a very little gain, so here we do not consider it as if the person is happy, and therefore the

דין is that it's כשר. Concerning the story the גמרא brought with רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי, when he met this person, and he asked him to help him load the load of wood on his back, so he bought it from him and he was מפקיר it, and we said that the reason he was מפקיר it because he didn't want that if somebody would find it should be עובר על איסור גזל, so תוספות asks a קשיא, we know a דין that הפקר is only הפקר if it was done in front of three people. The reason for that is so that one of the three should be able to be זוכה if he wants, and the other two should be witnesses. But here, there were no other people there, so how could he have been מפקיר it in front of this one person? And תוספות answers that maybe here there were three people, or תוספות says מדאורייתא you don't have to have three, and therefore even if you don't have three, it's also הפקר. And תוספות adds that if it's in a case where we know for sure, אנן סהדי, we are like witnesses, we know for sure that he really had in mind to be מפקיר it, then it's הפקר even if it was not done in front of three. When the גמרא said that לא חרבה ירושלים אלא על שהעמידו דיניהם על דין תורה ולא עבדו לפנים משורת הדין, that the reason ירושלים was destroyed was because they did everything על פי דין and they didn't do לפנים משורת הדין, so

תוספות asks a קשיא, the גמרא says in יומא that the reason why the בית המקדש was destroyed was because of שנאת חנם, because the people hated each other for no reason. So here it says the reason because of not doing לפנים משורת הדין, and there the גמרא gives the reason because of שנאת חנם, and תוספות answers that both of them were גורם, they were both reasons for the חורבן בית המקדש. Concerning this ענין that because they did not do לפנים משורת הדין, that is the reason why the בית המקדש was destroyed, so it says in many ספרים that לכאורה, why is that such a terrible thing? The דין is that you have to do לפנים משורת הדין, but why is that a terrible thing that this is a reason for the חורבן בית המקדש, for the destruction of the בית המקדש? And the answer that they give is that doing לפנים משורת הדין shows that a person really has חביבות המצוה, loves the מצוה, and wants to do really what השם wants. To give a משל, if you have an עבד, you have a servant or a slave, and he does everything that he is supposed to, that still doesn't prove that he really likes his master and he wants to help and do everything for his master, because maybe the reason he does it is because he is afraid that if he will not do what his master wants him to do, he will be punished, or for other reasons, but it doesn't mean that he really loves his master. The only way you know that he loves his master is when he comes to a point when he is not asked to do something, but he understands that his master would be happy if it would be done, and if he wouldn't do it he wouldn't be punished, nothing will happen, and still he goes ahead and does it because he knows that this will satisfy his master, that really shows that he loves his master. And the same with the אידן and השם. When we do the מצות just the way we're supposed to, that doesn't prove that we really love השם, that we really love the מצות. Since we are מאמינים בני מאמינים, we believe in השם, we believe that השם commanded us to do it, and we believe that השם will punish us if חס ושלום we will not do it, so because we are afraid of the punishment, that's why we do the מצות. But that doesn't prove that we really love השם and we want to do everything to satisfy השם. When do we show that we really love השם is if we do more than we are required. to do. That shows that we don't do the מצוות because we are afraid of punishment, but we do them because we know that this is the רצון השם, this is the will of השם, and we want to satisfy השם. And

that's why, in the time of the חורבן בית המקדש, when the אידן did not do לפנים משורת הדין, that showed that the אידן did not really care about השם, they did not love השם, they just did it out of fear that they might be punished. So, since השם saw that they do not have the love to Him, so He said that therefore I will not show My love to you, and therefore He allowed the בית המקדש to be destroyed. Because the בית המקדש shows that השם loves us, that בית המקדש shows that השם dwells amongst the אידן and is close to us, but when the אידן showed to השם that they are not close to Him, so then השם said, I will show you that I am not close to you, and that's why this was the reason for the בית המקדש to be destroyed. This is similar to what the גמרא says in נדרים, that the reason why ירושלים was destroyed was because לא ברכו בתורה תחילה, they didn't make ברכת התורה, they didn't say the ברכות before they learned. And as the תלמידי רבינו יונה explain, that it doesn't mean physically they didn't make the ברכת התורה, it means that they didn't feel the חשיבות התורה, they didn't feel the importance of the תורה. And as the ספרים explain, based on the ב״ח, that what it means is that when they learned תורה, they didn't feel the קדושת התורה. When they learned תורה, they didn't feel that the reason they're learning תורה is because these words of the תורה are חכמתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא, this is the wisdom of השם, and when you learn תורה, you get close to השם. When they learned תורה, they had in mind that they have to learn תורה because they are obligated, plus the תורה is a very interesting חכמה, a very interesting subject, and therefore they learned תורה. But the קדושה of תורה, the חביבות to the קדושה of תורה, the importance of the קדושה of תורה, they did not feel. And that's the reason why the בית המקדש was destroyed. So these two reasons go together. When it says here that they did not do לפנים משורת הדין, and when the גמרא says there that the reason ירושלים was destroyed was because they did not feel the חשיבות, the קדושה of תורה, really go together. They really mean the same thing. Here too, when they did the מצוות and they did not do לפנים משורת הדין, that shows that they didn't have the real feeling of חביבות, of love to השם. And so too when they learned תורה without the proper approach, without the proper feeling that the תורה is קדושה, that the תורה is the wisdom of השם, it also shows that they didn't have the proper love to השם. So these two reasons go together, that when they showed השם that they don't have the proper love to Him, so השם said, then I will let the בית המקדש be destroyed, because then I will not show you My love to you, because השם works מידה כנגד מידה, and since they did not show their love to Him, He did not show His love to them.

Concerning what רבא said in the גמרא before, כל שבשלו מחזיר בשל חבירו נמי מחזיר, that anything that if it would be your own you would return it, you would take it, so too if it is your friend's you must take it. So the מהרש״ל asks a קשיא: according to this כלל, what difference is there between a זקן ואינה לפי כבודו and other people? In other words, why did the גמרא say before that if he's a זקן ואינה לפי כבודו, then he doesn't have to return it? The same דין applies to everybody! There is a כלל: we have to look, if it would be his own he would bring it back, then he has to return it to his friend too. If it would be his own he wouldn't bring it back, then he doesn't have to return his friend's either. So what does it have to do with the זקן ואינה לפי כבודו? Especially that there is a מחלוקת whether this דין of זקן is only a זקן בחכמת התורה, only if he's a תלמיד חכם, that's when the דין is that he doesn't have to return it, or any person who is a person of כבוד and he wouldn't do it for himself, he doesn't have to do it for someone else. So according to the opinion that it doesn't mean דווקא a תלמיד חכם, it means anybody who it's not his כבוד to take that object in the street, he is not obligated to bring it back, that's what זקן ואינה לפי כבודו means, so what is the meaning in this whole term of זקן ואינה לפי כבודו? It all should depend on this rule whether he would take his own object or not. And the מהרש״ל answers that what it means is that סתם by a person we assume that his חזקה is that he would take it back, and therefore normally, unless we know for sure that he wouldn't take his own, we assume he would take his own and therefore he is obligated to take his friend's too. By a זקן, by a כבודיקע person, then we say that מן הסתם he wouldn't take it, and therefore we say that normally as זקן, it is not לפי כבודו, and he doesn't have to bring it back. Others answer that the reason the ברייתא picked the לשון of זקן ואינה לפי כבודו to tell us that the only time you are פטור from השבת אבידה if you wouldn't have taken your own is only if the reason you wouldn't take your own is because of כבוד. But what would be if the reason he wouldn't take it if it would be his own is because he has a lot of money and he doesn't mind to lose the money. In a case like that we don't say this כלל that since you wouldn't take your own you don't take your friend's, and the דין would be that you would have to take your friend's, you would have to fulfill the מצוה of השבת אבידה.

Concerning the קשיא the גמרא asked on רבי ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי when he said to the man that I was מפקיר it for everybody but not for you. So the גמרא asked, how can that be הפקר when we learn in the משנה, בית שמאי holds if you're מפקיר it just לעניים it's still הפקר, בית הלל says it's not הפקר unless it's הפקר for עניים and for עשירים כשמיטה, so it comes out that you have to be מפקיר it for everybody, so how did the הפקר of רבי ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי help? And the גמרא answered that he really was מפקיר it for everybody, he just said that he was מפקיר it just for others, not for him. So the ר"ש in פאה, פרק ו משנה א, brings a ירושלמי. In ירושלמי in פאה פרק ו הלכה א, there's a מחלוקת between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש what the reason of בית הלל is that you have to be מפקיר it לעניים and לעשירים. רבי יוחנן says that even according to בית הלל, you don't have to be מפקיר it for the whole world. Because he doesn't hold that they learn it out from שמיטה, that it has to be הפקר for everybody, they learn it out from the word אותם. So from here we know that it has to be הפקר not only for עניים, but also for עשירים, but we don't learn out the דין that it has to be הפקר for everybody. And therefore, according to רבי יוחנן, according to בית הלל, if he is מפקיר it just for יידן and not for גוים, he's מפקיר it just for people from this city and not people from another city, even according to בית הלל is הפקר, as long as it's לעניים and לעשירים, but it doesn't have to include everybody in the world. ריש לקיש holds that בית הלל learns it out from שמיטה. Just like שמיטה is הפקר for everybody, so too הפקר has to be for everybody. So according to that, since we have רבי יוחנן who holds that even according to בית הלל it doesn't have to be הפקר for everybody, so what kind of קשיא did the גמרא here ask on רבי ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי, and how was he able to be מפקיר it for everybody except this one person, since according to בית הלל it has to be הפקר לעניים and לעשירים? Maybe רבי ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי holds like רבי יוחנן, that you could be מפקיר it for some people and not for others, as long as it's for עניים and for עשירים? And he answers, that really what the גמרא meant here was not a קשיא on רבי ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי, but really it's a קשיא on ריש לקיש. That לכאורה from here we see that רבי ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי holds like רבי יוחנן, so how would ריש לקיש explain the story of רבי ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי? That's what the גמרא meant to ask. And that's what the גמרא answered, that we could answer even according to ריש לקיש, that רבי ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי does fit according to ריש לקיש, because really he was מפקיר it for everybody, he just said that he was מפקיר it for others, not for him. On the other hand, others want to use this גמרא as a ראיה that the הלכה is like ריש לקיש. Since the גמרא asks a קשיא on רבי ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי in a לשון סתם, and the גמרא asks, how could he do it, since we learn in the משנה that בית הלל says it has to be הפקר לעניים ולעשירים, and the גמרא doesn't mention ריש לקיש's name, is a ראיה that the גמרא accepts the הלכה like ריש לקיש. Because if the הלכה would not be like ריש לקיש, the הלכה would be like רבי יוחנן, and the קשיא of the גמרא is only that how will ריש לקיש himself explain the story of רבי ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי who was a תנא, so then the גמרא should have said: ולריש לקיש מי הוה הפקר כי האי גוונא? According to ריש לקיש, is it הפקר in such a way? And since the גמרא didn't mention ריש לקיש at all, the גמרא asked with a פשטות that how could רבי ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי do it when בית הלל says it has to be לעניים ולעשירים, and this only fits according to ריש לקיש, is משמע that the הלכה is like ריש לקיש. Even though there is a כלל that only in three places the הלכה is like ריש לקיש against רבי יוחנן, so we must say that this כלל is only concerning the מחלוקת that we have in בבלי, but not concerning the מחלוקת between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש in ירושלמי. And it could be that in such a מחלוקת the הלכה could be like ריש לקיש. This is the opinion of the נודע ביהודה in מהדורא קמא אבן העזר סימן נט. Concerning what the גמרא said before that from the word בו we learn out קבורה, and the גמרא asked, and isn't this גמילות חסדים? And the גמרא answered that it comes for זקן ואינו לפי כבודו, that even if he's a זקן and it's not his כבוד to involve himself in burial, nevertheless he has to involve himself in burial. So some ask a קשיא, why do we need a פסוק to tell us that a זקן ואינו לפי כבודו still has to be מתעסק in קבורה, why should we think that he is פטור? It is a מצוה to bury a person on the day that he passes away. So since it's a מצוה, we know for sure that even if he is a זקן he must fulfill the מצוה. And as we see that when it comes to the דין of השבת אבידה, if not for the special פסוק of והתעלמת, we would think that even a זקן ואינו לפי כבודו is obligated to fulfill the מצוה of השבת אבידה, because it's a מצוה. So why should we think that by the case of קבורה where we do not have this special פסוק that tells us that he's פטור, why should we need a פסוק to tell us that he's חייב? As long as we don't have a פסוק that he is פטור, we assume for sure that he is חייב since it is a מצוה. And we can't say that we learn it out from השבת אבידה, that after we have the פסוק by השבת אבידה that if he is a זקן ואינו לפי כבודו he is not מחוייב השבת אבידה, so from there we would learn out and say the same applies also to קבורה, that if he's a זקן ואינו לפי כבודו he would be פטור, and that is the reason why we need the פסוק בו to tell us that he's חייב, we can't say that. Because לכתחילה we wouldn't be able to learn it out from השבת אבידה, because we have a rule that איסורא מממונא לא ילפינן. A איסור from ממון we can't learn out. There, it is ממון. The דין of השבת אבידה is ממון. So by ממון we say that זקן ואינו לפי כבודו is פטור. But we can't learn out איסור, which is the דין of קבורה, which is a מצוה connected to the ענינים of איסור, there we can't learn out from השבת אבידה. So since we can't learn out from השבת אבידה, we have no reason to say that a זקן ואינו לפי כבודו would be פטור. Now since we have no reason to say that he would be פטור, why does do we need a פסוק to tell us that he's חייב? And the answer that this whole דין that we are מחייב a זקן ואינו לפי כבודו in קבורה does not refer to a מת מצוה. Because for a מת מצוה we don't need a פסוק. The פסוק only goes in the case where he is not a מת מצוה, where there are others that are able to be מתעסק to involve themselves in burying him. So here we would think that since he is a זקן ואינו לפי כבודו, so he should let others do it and he shouldn't do it himself. His doing is only the category of גמילות חסדים, not more than that. So here we would think that since he is a זקן ואינו לפי כבודו, the מצוה will be fulfilled anyway because others will do it, so here we would think that he is פטור. That's why we need the פסוק בו to tell us that nevertheless, he should get involved in the burial of that person, and fulfill this מצוה of גמילות חסדים.