Jewish audio on Chabad.org. מסכת בבא מציעא, דף ל' עמוד א', but we will start on דף ל' עמוד ב' towards the bottom of the עמוד from the beginning of the משנה. And the משנה starts: איזו היא אבידה, what is considered an אבידה, a lost object that you have to return? And as the גמרא will explain, and as תוספות brings out right away, that the משנה's question is: how can we recognize something that it is lost? How can we know that the owner does not know it's there and therefore we are obligated to take it and return it to the owner? And the משנה says, for instance, מצא חמור או פרה רועים בדרך, if you would find a donkey or a cow grazing on the road, אין זו אבידה, that is not considered a lost object, and you do not have to return it because we assume that the owner put it there intentionally. חמור וכליו הפוכים, but if you find a donkey and the vessels, the כלים are turned over, or פרה רצה בין הכרמים, you see a cow running amongst the vines, הרי זו אבידה, that is consider an אבידה. And the reason is because we assume that the owner doesn't know it's there.

החזירה וברחה החזירה וברחה, if you took that אבידה and you returned it to the owner and it ran away again and went back to the same place as before, and you returned it again and it ran away again, so אפילו ארבעה וחמשה פעמים, even if it happens four or five times, חייב להחזירה, you must return it, שנאמר, because the פסוק says, השב תשיבם. The פסוק that deals with the מצוה of השבת אבידה says השב תשיבם, and the גמרא will show later how we learn it out from this פסוק, but the פסוק means that you must return it even if it is more than once or twice, you must return it as many times as it gets lost. Then the משנה continues: היה בטל מסלע, if because he was involved in returning the object he was בטל from a סלע, he lost a סלע of his work, it cost him time of his work, and if he would have worked, he would have made a סלע, and since he gave up his time to find and return this object he lost a סלע, לא יאמר לו, he can't tell him, he can't say to the person who lost his object, תן לי סלע, give me a סלע, return to me this סלע that it cost me to have your object returned to you, so you can't say that, אלא נותן לו שכרו כפועל, he only pays him as a worker, which means he pays him for the job he did, he pays him for his work of finding the מציאה, but he doesn't pay him based on how much he could have worked, what he would have made if he would have done his regular work. And as רש''י says, because he could say to him, if you would have done your regular work, you would have worked harder, and that's why you would have made more money. Now that you worked in finding my מציאה, in picking up my מציאה and returning it to me, you did did something easier. For the easier work that you did, you don't deserve to get paid as much as you would have gotten paid if you would have worked the harder work. So therefore, he only pays him as much as the work of picking up a מציאה is worth. The משנה continues:

אם יש שם בית דין, if there is a בית דין there, מתנה בפני בית דין, he can make a condition in front of the בית דין, which means that if he would rather do his harder work and get paid more than doing the easier work of picking up the אבידה and getting paid less, so what he's able to do is, he could get a בית דין together, he could get three people together and form a בית דין, and make a condition in front of this בית דין and say that I myself would rather do my work and get paid more. I am ready to pick up the מציאה, but on condition that I will get paid as much I would have gotten if I would have stayed with my regular work. And then, if he does that, when he does pick it up and return it to the owner, the owner is obligated to pay him as much as he would have made if he would have done his regular work. ואם אין שם בית דין בפני מי יתנה, if there is no בית דין there, in front of whom to make this condition, שלו קודם, his comes first, which means he doesn't have to give up his time and pick up the מציאה because without the condition he makes in front of בית דין, he will only get paid as much as you pay a person for the light job of picking up a מציאה, so he will lose on the deal because he will lose his payment that he would have gotten for his regular work, so therefore he doesn't have to pick up the מציאה and he stays with his work. And the גמרא explains the משנה: אטו

כל הני דאמרינן לאו אבידה הווה, the משנה started off by asking a question, איזו היא אבידה, what is considered an אבידה? And the משנה answered that if you find a donkey with its כלים turned over over, or you find a cow that's running amongst the vines, that is considered an אבידה. So the גמרא asks, and all the previous things which were mentioned in the previous משניות, they are not considered אבידה? As if only the things mentioned in this משנה, that is considered an אבידה? אמר רב יהודה, so רב יהודה answered, הכי קאמר, this is what the משנה meant to ask: איזו היא כלל אבידה, what is the general rule of an אבידה שהוא חייב בה, that he is חייב to return? In other words, when do we assume that this object was left there without the knowledge of its owner, and therefore it is considered an אבידה that you have to return? And the answer is that if מצא חמור ופרה רועים בדרך, if you find a donkey or a cow grazing on the road, אין זו אבידה, that is not considered an אבידה, ולא מחייב בה, and you are not obligated to take it and return it. But if you find חמור וכליו הפוכים, a donkey and its כלים are turned over, or פרה ורצה בין הכרמים, you find a cow and you see it running amongst the vines, הרי זו אבידה, that is considered an אבידה, then we do assume that it was not put there intentionally by the owner, ומחייב בה, and you are obligated to return it. But then the גמרא asks: ולעולם? And forever? We said that if you see a donkey or a cow grazing in the road, you don't have to return it. Does that mean that if you will see it forever, you will not have to return it? If you see it day after day after day after day that it's grazing in the road, do you still assume it was put there intentionally, and you do not have to return it? אמר רב יהודה, so

רב יהודה said, אמר רב, in the name of רב, עד שלשה ימים, up to three days. Up to three days, then you assume it was put there intentionally. But if you see it there more than three days, then we assume it's an אבידה, and you are obligated to return it. But then the גמרא asks: היכי דמי? When you say that it's up to three days, under which circumstances is it? אי בליליא, if you see it at night, you see it grazing in the road at night, אפילו חדא שעתא נמי, even one hour too! Why do you say only after three days we assume that it's a lost object? Why don't we assume right away? Because it is not normal for a person to let his cow or donkey graze in the road at night. So if you see it at night, we should assume right away that it's an אבידה. אי ביממא, if you see it only during the day, אפילו טובא נמי לא, even if you see it more than three days, we also shouldn't assume that it's an אבידה, and we shouldn't have to return it. And the גמרא answers: לא צריכא, the גמרא have to tell us, דהוה חזי ליה בקדמתא ובחשכתא, that he only saw it in the morning before עלות השחר, very early morning, and only at night after it gets dark. So here we say, תלתא יומי, if it's up to three days that this happens, אמרינן, we say, איתרמויי איתרמי ליה, an accident, it just happened that the cow or the donkey went out at this unusual time, and it is not considered an אבידה. טפי, if it happens more than three times in three days, ודאי אבידה היא, then it's definitely considered an אבידה. It is important to note here that לכאורה this whole גמרא is not understood. First, the גמרא asked a קושיא: Do you have to do it forever? And the גמרא answered: Up to three days. And then the גמרא asked a קושיא back: It doesn't make any sense to say three days, because אי ממה נפשך, if it was at night, then it should be right away. If it was during the day, it should never be. So therefore, when did you say the חשבון of three days? לכאורה, these two questions are a contradiction. In the second question we see that the גמרא feels that if it's during the day, then no matter how long it is, we still don't consider it of being an אבידה. So what was the גמרא's question לכתחילה ולעולם? The גמרא asked לכתחילה that will if this goes on forever, will you still have to consider it not an אבידה? Yes! We see that the גמרא asked a moment later that if it's during the day, even for a long time, it's not considered an אבידה. So if the גמרא feels that way, so then why did the גמרא ask לכתחילה the question of ולעולם? What kind of question is it? Yes, it's speaking in a case of during the day, and if it's during the day only, then how long it happens, we still consider it of not being an אבידה. So in the beginning the גמרא feels that it couldn't be forever, and later the גמרא asks that if it's during the day, it could be forever. But באמת in the beginning of the פרק, תוספות already answered this question. תוספות said that the פשט must be that the גמרא knew that it was a חשבון of three days, and the גמרא's question was just to explain when is this דין of three days. So it wasn't like a question the גמרא asked, ולעולם, a question in itself. This was only like an introduction that it wasn't לעולם, it's three days. And the question was: When is this חשבון of three days? If it's at night, then even less than three days should be considered an אבידה. If it's during the day, then even more than three days should not be considered an אבידה. Then the גמרא continues,

תניא נמי הכי, we טאקע learn in a ברייתא similarly to what we just said, that we learn in a ברייתא: מצא טלית, if you find a garment, וקרדום, or a shovel, באסרטיא, in a road, a paved road, ופרה רצה בין הכרמים, or you find a cow running amongst the vines, הרי זו אבידה, that is considered an אבידה. טלית בצד גדר, if you find a garment on the side of a fence, קרדום בצד גדר, or you find the shovel on the side of the fence, ופרה רועה בין הכרמים, or you find the cow that is grazing amongst the vines, אין זו אבידה, that's not considered an אבידה. We assume that the owner put it down intentionally. But if this happens ג' ימים זה אחר זה, three days one after another, הרי זו אבידה, this is considered an אבידה. So here we see clearly that there is a חשבון of three days. And the ברייתא continues: ראה מים ששוטפין ובאין, if you see water coming to overflow someone else's property, הרי זה גודר בפניהם, you are obligated to make a fence in front of it, to do anything possible to stop the water from overflowing into someone else's property. In other words, there is not only a דין that you must return a lost object of your friend, but the דין is also that you must try to avoid any loss that can be done to your friend. And therefore, if you see water that's going to overflow something of your friend, and it'll cause damage, you are obligated to do what you can to stop it and not to allow it to cause the damage. Then the גמרא continues:

אמר רבא, רבא made a statement, לכל אבידת אחיך, the פסוק says that so you should do to any lost object of your friend, and it says לכל, to all lost object, לרבות אבידת קרקע, it also comes to include if there is a loss in the real estate, that if you see that there is going to be a loss in the קרקע of your friend, you are also obligated to make sure that it doesn't happen, to save him from this loss. אמר ליה רב חנניה לרבא, so רב חנניה said to רבא, תניא דמסייע לך, we learn in a ברייתא which is a ראיה to you, a proof to your דין. It said in the ברייתא, we just quoted it, ראה מים ששוטפין ובאין, if he saw water coming overflowing, הרי זה גודר בפניהם, he should make a fence in front of them, he should try to stop the water from coming. So here we see clearly that even though this will cause damage to the real estate, the property of your friend, the קרקע, nevertheless, the ברייתא says that you must do anything in your power to stop the water from coming and causing damage to his קרקע. אמר ליה, so he said to him, אי משום הא לא תסייע, if this is going to be a proof, this is not really a proof, because הכא במאי עסקינן, from here here we could say that this ברייתא is speaking in the case דאיכא עומרין, that there are bundles of wheat on this field, and the reason you have to stop the water from coming is not in order to save his field, his קרקע, but it is in order to save his bundles of wheat, and that is not קרקע, that is מטלטלין, and that is the reason you are supposed to save it. So we have no ראיה that the ברייתא means to tell us that if it's going to cause damage to the קרקע, you are also obligated to avoid that. But then he asks him: אי דאיכא עומרין, if the case is that there are bundles of wheat in the field, מאי למימרא? Why do you have to tell us? Certainly you are obligated to save it, because this is a regular אבידה! So what is the חידוש of the ברייתא? So he says: לא, צריכא, it has to, it doesn't have to tell us, that this is a case דאיכא עומרין דצריכא לארעא, these are bundles of wheat that still need the soil, still need the land, still need the field for their benefit. So מהו דתימא, I would think, כיון דצריכא לארעא, since they still need the field, כגופא דארעא דמיין, they are like the field itself. And the field itself, according to this סברא now, you do not have to save. So we would think that the bundles that still need the field are also considered part of the field, of the קרקע, and you also don't have to save them, קא משמע לן, that's why the ברייתא has to tell us that nevertheless, you must save the bundles. So from the ברייתא we only know that you have to save the bundles, but we do not know from the ברייתא that you also have to save someone else's קרקע. So we have no ראיה to רבא's דין, but nevertheless, רבא himself said that דין, that you do have to save someone else's קרקע. Then the גמרא continues: it said in the משנה, מצא חמור ופרה וכולי, if you find someone's donkey or cow that's grazing on the road, that is not considered an אבידה, but if you find someone's donkey and its כלים are turned over, you find someone's cow that is running amongst the vines, that is considered an אבידה. So the גמרא asks: הא גופא קשיא, the the משנה in itself is a contradiction in itself, because אמרת, first you say מצא חמור ופרה רועים בדרך אין זו אבידה, and if you find the donkey or the cow grazing in the road, that's not considered an אבידה, so from here it seems that רועים בדרך הוא דלא הוי אבידה, Only if it grazes in the road, it is not considered an אבידה. הא רצה בדרך, but if it's running in the road, or רועה בין הכרמים, or it grazing amongst the vines, הוי אבידה, it is אבידה. Only if it has these two conditions: it is grazing, and it's grazing in the road. But if it would have only one of the two conditions, it would be running in the road, not grazing, or it would be grazing, but not in the road, but amongst the vines, that would be considered an אבידה. והא מסיפא, but say the סיפא, the סיפא is משמע just the opposite. It says what is considered an אבידה, חמור וכליו הפוכין. If you find a donkey and its כלים are turned over, או פרה רצה בין הכרמים, or a cow that's running amongst the vines, הרי זו אבידה, that is considered an אבידה. So here we could be מדייק, רצה בין הכרמים הוא דהוי אבידה. If it's running amongst the vines, then it's considered an אבידה. It has these two things: סיי it's running, and סיי it's amongst the vines. הא רצה בדרך, but if it would have one of the two conditions, it would be running, but on the road, or רועה בין הכרמים, it's grazing amongst the vines, אין זו אבידה, it wouldn't be an אבידה. So it's a סתירה to the way it's משמע from the רישא of the משנה. אמר אביי, so אביי said, יגיד עליו רעו, he uses a לשון of a פסוק in איוב, which means that his friend will tell on him. In other words, the משנה only mentions one example, and really this example teaches us that the same דין would apply in a similar example. תנא רועה בדרך דלא הוי אבידה, he mentions in the משנה that if it grazes in the way, it's not considered an אבידה, but really הוא הדין לרועה בין הכרמים. The same would apply, the same דין would be if it grazes amongst the vines. תנא רצה בין הכרמים דהוי אבידה, he mentions that if it runs amongst the vines, it is an אבידה, והוא הדין לרצה בדרך, and it means that the same דין would apply if it's running on the road. So it picks one, meaning anything which is similar to it. אמר ליה רבא, so רבא said to him, אי יגיד עליו רעו, if his friend will tell on him, which means the משנה just tells us one, and this should also tell us the similar case, ליתני קילתא, let him write the easier case, וכל שכן חמירתא, and we would know ourselves certainly in the more stricter case. Why does he write the stricter case? Maybe only then it's considered אבידה. We wouldn't know the easier case. It should have said the easier, and we would have known definitely the stricter. And he explains, ליתני רצה בדרך, the משנה should have written just the דין that if it is running on the road, דהוי אבידה, that it's considered an אבידה, וכל שכן רצה בין הכרמים, and we would know certainly if it was running amongst the vines. If it's running in the road, it's an אבידה, as אביי said before, so certainly if it would be running amongst the vines. וליתני רועה בין הכרמים, and let it say if it was grazing amongst the vines, דלא הוי אבידה, it's not an אבידה, וכל שכן רועה בדרך, and then I would know for sure that if it was grazing on the road. So we can't say that really it is יגיד עליו רעו, and he says one case and he means a similar case. So if we can't say that, we're back to the question that there is a contradiction between the רישא and the סיפא. In the רישא it's משמע that if it's running on the road or grazing amongst the vines, it is an אבידה, and in the סיפא it's משמע that only if it's running amongst the vines, that's an אבידה. But if it's running on the road or grazing amongst the vines, it's not an אבידה. אלא אמר רבא, so רבא said, רצה ארצה לא קשיא, there is no קושיא in concerning the דין of רצה. That one place is משמע that if it's running on the road it is not an אבידה, and one place is משמע that if it's running on the road it is an אבידה. הא דאפיה לגבי דברא, הא דאפיה לגבי מתא. And one case if it's facing the field, and one is if it's facing the city. If it's facing the city, then you know that it's not lost. Since it's running towards the city, it's being sent home, it was put that way by its owner. If it's running towards the field, then we assume that it's lost. רועה ארועה נמי לא קשיא, the דין of grazing is also no סתירה, that in one place it's משמע that if it's grazing amongst the vines it's not considered an אבידה, and the other place is משמע that if it's grazing amongst the vines it is considered an אבידה, because כאן באבידת גופה, כאן באבידת קרקע. That one is the case where we're discussing whether it itself is considered an אבידה, and the other one is the problem is whether the קרקע, the כרמים, the vines that it's eating, whether that is considered an אבידה, and we have to take away the cow because it shouldn't destroy the vines. And רבא explains it: כי תני, when we learned, רועה בדרך לא הוי אבידה, that if it's grazing on the road it's not an אבידה, and from here we learned that הא רועה בין הכרמים הוי אבידה, but if it was grazing among the vines, it is an אבידה, that is באבידת קרקע. That is concerning the loss of the קרקע, and that's how we say it is an אבידה. And you must take the cow away from there and return it to its owner, because we want to save the vines. וכי קתני רצה בין הכרמים הוי אבידה, and the other one where we learned that if it's running among the vines, that's when it's an אבידה, הא רועה בין הכרמים לא הוי אבידה, but if it's grazing among the vines, it's not considered an אבידה, באבידה דגופה. That is when we worry about the thing itself, the cow itself, whether it is considered a lost object that we should return it. So there we say that רצה בין הכרמים, if it's running among the vines, מסקבא, it will get hurt, and therefore you have to

return it. But if רועה בין הכרמים, if it is grazing among the vines, לא מסקבא, it won't get hurt, and therefore we do not have to return it, because the animal will not get damaged, so there is no loss that will be done to the owner of the animal. And that's why you don't have to return it. But the other דיוק that we had, that even if it's grazing among the vines you do have to return it, that is in order to save the vines. But then the גמרא asks: ורועה בין הכרמים, this last case that we said, that if it's grazing among the vines you don't have to return it because it will not get hurt, so there is no damage done to the animal, but נהי דלא מסקבא, even though itself will not get hurt, תפיק ליה משום אבידת קרקע! But anyway you would have to return it, because it's spoiling the ground, it's spoiling the קרקע! So how can there be a דיוק in the משנה to say that if it's grazing among the vines you don't have to return it, because we're only worried about the damage done to the cow itself, but at the same time you should have to return it for the reason of the קרקע? So how can the דין be that you shouldn't have to return it? And the

גמרא answers, בדכותי, in the case of a גוי, that the field is of a גוי. So we don't have to worry about the field. The only thing we have to worry about is the cow itself. And since it's only grazing among the vines, not running among the vines, it will not get hurt, so we don't have to worry about the damage done to the cow, and you don't have to return it. But then the גמרא asks, ותפיק ליה משום אבידה דגופה? If it is in the field of a גוי, we should have to return it even if it's grazing among the vines, for its own sake, because דלמא קטיל לה! Because maybe the גוי will kill it. When the גוי will see the cow eating his כרמים, he will kill it! So we should have to return the animal for its own sake, too, even if it's only grazing amongst the vines where it will not get hurt by the vines, but it could get hurt by the גוי killing it! And the גמרא answers, באתרא דמתרו והדר קטלי, we're talking in a case where it's a place that no one would kill an animal unless he would first warn its owner that the animal is trespassing, and then he would kill it. But the גמרא asks, ודלמא אתרו ביה? Maybe they actually warned already? How do we know that he didn't warn yet? And therefore we know for sure he won't kill the animal, maybe it is already after the warning? But the גמרא answers, אי אתרו ביה ולא איזהר ביה, if he was warned, the owner was warned, and he nevertheless wasn't careful, and he let his cow enter the כרמים of the גוי, ודאי אבידה מדעת היא, that is certainly considered an אבידה מדעת, that that is considered an intentional loss, and therefore we are not obligated to return it, because if the owner doesn't care about his own object, why should we have to return it? Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה: החזירה וברחה החזירה וברחה וכולי, if he returned it and it ran away again, he returned it and it ran away again, etc., and the

משנה says you still have to return it even four or five times because the פסוק says: השב תשיבם. אמר ליה ההוא מרבנן לרבא, one of the רבנן said to רבא: אימא, why don't we say that when the פסוק says השב תשיבם, that you must return it, using both terms, השב and תשיבם, maybe what it means is השב חדא זימנא, the first word השב means return it one time, the first time. תשיבם, when the תורה adds another word תשיבם, it means תרי זימני, twice, two times. But not more than two times! So how come we say that even if it happened many times you still have to return it because we learn it out from the words השב תשיבם? אמר ליה, so he said to him like this: that השב אפילו מאה פעמים משמע. The word השב itself means even a hundred times. Since it says השב, you should return it, without any limit, it means even a hundred times. Now what do we use the word תשיבם for? Why does the תורה also write another word תשיבם? So that comes to teach us another דין. Because אין לי אלא לביתו, I would only know that you must return it to the house. That when you find a lost object, you must bring it to the house of the owner. לגינתו ולחורבתו מניין? How do we know that you're also able to return it to his garden or to his חורבה, to his ruins, that if you bring it there, you've already fulfilled the מצוה of השבת אבידה, and you're not responsible for it anymore, מניין, how do we know that? תלמוד לומר, the פסוק teaches us by using the word תשיבם, מכל מקום, anyway. In

other words, as long as you returned it to the place of the owner, you fulfilled the מצוה of השבת אבידה, even if you brought it to his גינה or to his חורבה. But then the גמרא asks, היכי דמי? What is this case? אי דמינטרא, if it'll be guarded in the garden and in the ruins of your friend, פשיטא. Certainly, you don't need a פסוק for that. That is a place that is guarded, so therefore when you return it to that place of the owner, it is considered that you fulfilled the מצוה of השבת אבידה, without the פסוק. אי דלא מינטרא, if it is a place that is really not guarded, אמאי? So why is it sufficient if you return it to the garden or to the ruin? The גמרא says, לעולם באמת דמינטרא, that it is guarded there. אי, the question is, why do we need a פסוק special פסוק to tell us that it's sufficient? הא קא משמע לן, the פסוק comes to tell us a דין, דלא בעינן דעת בעלים, that we don't need the knowledge of the owner. And you could return it to his garden or to his חורבה, and he doesn't know that you returned it there, you still fulfilled the מצוה of השבת אבידה. וכדרבי אלעזר, it is like רבי אלעזר said, דאמר, as he said, הכל צריכין דעת בעלים.

Every other case needs דעת בעלים. For instance, if someone is a גנב, or someone is a גזלן, or a שומר, he's watching something for somebody else, and he returns it, he must notify the owner that he returned it. And if he didn't notify the owner he returned it, and then it got stolen, or it died, or whatever happened, so then he is responsible for it, because the owner could always say that I didn't know that you returned it. I knew it was missing, and I didn't know it was returned, so I didn't watch it. So therefore, you must have דעת בעלים when you return it. The owner must know about it. חוץ מהשבת אבידה, except when you return an אבידה, it doesn't need דעת בעלים, שהרי ריבתה השבות הרבה, because the תורה included many returns. Since the תורה added the word תשיבם, which means in any way you return it, you fulfilled the מצוה. So therefore by השבת אבידה, you don't need דעת בעלים. Then the גמרא continues and quotes more פסוקים where we find a similar expression, where the תורה uses two words instead of one, and the second word comes to teach us a special דין.

One פסוק is שלח תשלח, this is concerning the מצוה of שילוח הקן. This is a פסוק in פרשת כי תצא, קפיטל כ"ב, starting with פסוק ו'. The תורה says that if you happen to see a nest, and there are eggs in the nest, or little chicks in the nest, and you see the mother that is there, so the פסוק says in פסוק ז', שלח תשלח את האם ואת הבנים תקח לך, you should send away the mother, and the children you could take to yourself. And we know the דין, as the גמרא says in חולין, that even if you send it away once and it came back, a second time and it came back, more times, you still every time are obligated to send it away again. But the גמרא asks, אימא, why don't we say, שלח, חדא זימנא, the first word, שלח, which means send away, means one time. תשלח, תרי זימני, when the תורה added the word, you should send away, that means a second time. But why is the דין that even if it's more than two times, you still have to fulfill the מצוה of שילוח הקן? אמר ליה, so he said to him, שלח אפילו מאה פעמים משמע. Just the word שלח, you should send away, since there are no limits, is משמע even a hundred times. Then, when the תורה adds the word תשלח, what does that come to teach us? Because איני אלא לדבר דבר הרשות. Because we would think that when must you send away the mother? Only if you want to use the mother for a דבר הרשות, for a permissible thing, but not an obligatory thing. If you want to use the mother not for a מצוה, for your own personal needs. But לדבר מצוה מניין? And how do you know that even if you want to use that mother, that bird, for a מצוה, you also must send away? For instance, if a person is a מצורע, and after he finishes with his צרעת, he must bring ציפורים, must bring birds. So what happens if he wants to use this mother, this bird, as one of his birds that he has to bring when he finishes his צרעת, which is a מצוה? So how do we know that even for a מצוה you're not allowed to take the mother, but you must send it away? תלמוד לומר, the תורה teaches us, תשלח מכל מקום, that you have to send away no matter what, even if you want to use it for a מצוה. And the גמרא continues,

אמר ליה ההוא מדרבנן לרבא, one of the רבנן said to רבא, ואימא, let us say, הוכח חדא זימנא, תוכח תרי זימני. This refers to the פסוק in פרשת קדושים, קפיטל י"ט, פסוק י"ז. The פסוק says, לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, you shall not hate your brother in your heart, הוכח תוכח את עמיתך, you should rebuke you your friend. And the דין is that even if you rebuked him once and it didn't help, you rebuked him הוכח אפילו מאה פעמים משמע. The word הוכח itself is משמע even a hundred times. Then what do we do with the word תוכח? Because איני, I would think, אלא הרב לתלמיד, only a רבי to his student, is supposed to rebuke. תלמיד לרב מניין, how do we know that the תלמיד should rebuke his רבי too if he sees his רבי does something not right, he should also tell him? תלמוד לומר, that's what the תורה says, הוכח תוכיח מכל מקום, in any way that you're able to rebuke, you have to rebuke even a תלמיד to a רב. Then the גמרא continues, there is a

פסוק that says עזוב תעזוב עמו. This is a פסוק in פרשת משפטים, קפיטל כ"ג, פסוק ה'. The פסוק starts: כי תראה חמור שונאך רובץ תחת משאו, if you will see the donkey of your enemy that's laying under his load, וחדלת מעזוב לו, and you will think that you're allowed to hold yourself back from helping him, the פסוק says עזוב תעזוב עמו, you should help him. And this is the דין of פריקה, that when you see a donkey, an animal that has a very heavy load, you're supposed to help to unload this animal. But the גמרא says: אין לי אלא בעליו עמו, I would only think that if the owner of the donkey is there, then you have to help him unload the donkey. שאין בעליו עמו מניין, how do we know that even if the owner is not there, you also are supposed to help unload? תלמוד לומר עזוב תעזוב, so the פסוק says עזוב תעזוב, the extra word תעזוב, מכל מקום, in any way. Then the גמרא continues, the פסוק says הקם תקים עמו. This is a פסוק in פרשת כי תצא, קפיטל כ"ב, פסוק ד'. The פסוק says: לא תראה את חמור אחיך או שורו נופלים בדרך, you should not see the donkey of your brother or his ox are falling on the road, והתעלמת מהם, and you might turn away from them, close your eyes, make yourself as if you don't see it, the פסוק says הקם תקים עמו, you should pick it up with him. And this is the דין of טעינה, that if you see that your friend is not able to load his donkey, you are obligated to help him load the donkey. So אין לי אלא בעליו עמו, we would only think that if his master is with him, then you have to help it load. שאין בעליו עמו מניין, how do we know that if the master, the owner is not there, you also have to help? תלמוד לומר, so the פסוק says הקם תקים, מכל מקום, in any way, that as long as you're able to help, you are obligated to help. And then the גמרא asks: ולמה לי למכתב פריקה, ולמה לי למכתב טעינה, why did the תורה have to tell us that you have to help unload and also have to tell us that you have to help load? And as תוספות explains, the גמרא שאלה is not on the general דין why the תורה has to tell us that you are obligated to do it, but it means the special לימוד that we said before. We learned out from the extra word that even if the owner is not there, you still have to help him unload. And we learned out also from a special פסוק that if the owner is not there, you have to help them load. Why did the תורה have to tell us this special דין, that even if the owner is not there, you still have to help? Why does it have to tell it to us in both places? Why wouldn't it be enough if it would say in one of the two places, and we would ourselves learn it out from there to the other place? And the גמרא says: צריכא, we need both. דאי כתב רחמנא פריקה, if the תורה would just tell us the דין in the case of unloading, הווה אמינא, I would think, משום דאיכא צער בעלי חיים, because there is pain for an animal, ואיכא חסרון כיס, there's also a loss of money. There are two things there: If you don't help him unload, first of all, the animal suffers, and there's a דין of צער בעלי חיים, we're supposed to avoid suffering to an animal; plus, if you don't unload it, the animal will lose some of its strength, so there'll be a loss of money to the owner of the animal. אבל טעינה, but to load, דלאו צער בעלי חיים איכא, there is no suffering for an animal, because the animal is standing without the load, we're just trying to load it. In the case of unloading, the animal is standing with a heavy load, so the animal has pain. But in the case of loading, there is no צער בעלי חיים, ולא חסרון כיס איכא, and there is also no loss of money, because it doesn't do any harm to the animal if the animal is not loaded. אימא, I would think, לא, that you don't have to help. That's why this פסוק has to tell us that you also have to help load. ואי אשמועינן טעינה, if the פסוק would just tell us the דין by the case of loading, I would think משום דבשכר, because the דין by loading is that you only are supposed to do it if you get paid for it. If you don't get paid for it, you are not obligated to do it. אבל פריקה דבחינם, but when it comes to unloading, where the דין is that you also are obligated to do it for free, אימא לא, I would think so you wouldn't have to do it because you don't get paid for it. צריכא, that's why we also have to have the פסוק concerning unloading. But then the גמרא asks: ולרבי שמעון, according to רבי שמעון, דאמר, that he says, אף טעינה בחינם, that also loading you're obligated to do for free, מאי איכא למימר, what can we say there? Why doesn't the תורה just tell us this דין by the case of loading, and we would know that מה דהך, when it comes to loading, where there is no צער בעלי חיים and there's no loss of money, you're obligated to do it for free, certainly to unload, you're certainly obligated to do it, and for free. So why does the פסוק have to tell us the דין by the case of unloading? And the גמרא answers: לרבי שמעון לא מסיימי קראי. According to רבי שמעון, he learned that the פסוקים are not specific, that we don't know which פסוק of these two refers to loading, and which one to unloading, and therefore we must have two פסוקים, because if we would only have one, we would say it means one, not the other. Therefore we have to have both פסוקים, so we know that this דין applies סיי by loading, and also by unloading. Then the גמרא asks, למה לי למיכתב הני תרתי ולמה לי למיכתב אבידה? Why does the תורה have to tell us this דין in both of these cases of loading and unloading, and also have to tell us the דין by אבידה, that if your friend lost an animal, you must return it. לכאורה it's all the same thing. They're all a loss of money of your friend, and the תורה tells us that you must make sure that he doesn't lose his money. So why does the תורה have to tell us the דין concerning פריקה and טעינה, and also by אבידה? And the גמרא answers, צריכא, we need it. דאי כתב רחמנא הני תרתי, if the תורה would just write these two, that you must help him unload, and help him load, I would think משום דצערא דמרא איתא וצערא דדא איתא, there is צער, there is pain for the owner, and there is pain for the animal. There is pain for the owner, he's standing there, and he can't load or he can't unload, and there is pain for the animal. In the case of unloading, there is certainly pain for the animal. Even in the case of loading, where the גמרא said before there is no צער בעלי חיים, nevertheless there is a little bit צער there is, as the מהר"ם שיף explains, that if you can't load it properly, so then the animal will have pain. So even though the גמרא said before that there is no צער בעלי חיים concerning loading, it means there is not as much צער בעלי חיים as concerning unloading, but some צער there is. So therefore we would think that only in these two, where there is pain for the owner and pain for the animal, that's the דין when you have to help him. אבל אבידה, דצערא דמרא איתא וצערא דדא ליתא, but by an אבידה, when there is pain for the owner, he's missing his object, but there is no pain for the animal itself, אימא, I would think לא, there is no obligation to return it, therefore the תורה has to tell us the דין by אבידה also. ואי אשמעינן אבידה, if the תורה would tell us this דין only by אבידה, I would think משום דליתא למרא בהדה, the owner is not there. An אבידה means you found an object and the owner is not there. So therefore you are obligated to see that it's returned to the owner. אבל הני תרתי, but these two, unloading and loading, דאיתא למרא בהדה, the owner is standing there too, אימא לא, I would think you don't have to help. צריכא, so therefore, the תורה has to tell us that also in the case of loading and unloading, you must help. And even though the גמרא said before that in the case of loading and unloading, even if אין בעליו עמו, if the owner is not there, you still must help, so how could the גמרא say that in these two cases the owner is there? So תוספות says, we would think that in the case where he is old, or he is sick, and he can't help, so even though he can't help, but he could hire workers, so maybe I don't have to help him, let him hire workers. And that's the חידוש of the פסוק, that even in a case like that, one is obligated to help. Then the

גמרא continues, it says a פסוק מות יומת המכה. This is a פסוק in פרשת מסעי, קפיטל ל"ה, פסוק כ"א, and this is concerning the דין of a רוצח, a דין of a murderer. So the תורה says, מות יומת המכה, the one that killed the other person, he should be killed. So אין לי אלא במיתה הכתובה בו, I would only think that you're allowed to kill him with the מיתה that the תורה prescribed for him, which is the מיתה of סייף, the מיתה of killing him by sword. מניין, how do we know, שאם אי אתה יכול להמיתו במיתה הכתובה בו, that if you cannot kill him with the מיתה that the תורה prescribed, for instance he is running away, he jumped into a boat and he's running away, so how do we know שאתה רשאי להמיתו בכל מיתה שאתה יכול להמיתו, that you're allowed to kill him in any way you're able to kill him, for instance as רש"י says shoot him with an arrow or see that his ship sinks, so how do we know you're allowed to do that? תלמוד לומר, so the תורה says, מות יומת, the תורה adds the extra word יומת, מכל מקום, in any way, that if you cannot kill him in the way you should, then kill him any other way. Then the

גמרא continues, there's a פסוק הכה תכה. This is a פסוק in פרשת ראה, קפיטל י"ג, פסוק ט"ז. And this is concerning the דין of עיר הנדחת, that if there was a city that the whole city worshiped עבודה זרה, so there's a special דין concerning this city, and the תורה says, הכה תכה את יושבי העיר ההיא לפי חרב, that you should hit, should kill all the inhabitants of the city with the sword. אין לי אלא בהכאה הכתובה בהן, I would think only you're allowed to hit them, kill them in the way that תורה prescribed. מניין, how do we know, שאם אי אתה יכול להמיתם בהכאה הכתובה בהן, that if you cannot kill them in the way the תורה prescribed, שאתה רשאי להכותם בכל הכאה שאתה יכול, that you're allowed to hit them with any way you're able to hit them and kill them? תלמוד לומר, so the תורה says, הכה תכה, תכה, it uses the extra word תכה, מכל מקום, in any way, that if you cannot kill them in the right way, then kill them any other way. We learn in another פסוק: השב תשיב. This is a פסוק in פרשת כי תצא, קפיטל כ״ד, פסוק י״ג, and this refers to a משכון, that if a person takes collateral from somebody. So the פסוק

says: השב תשיב לו את העבוט כבוא השמש ושכב בשלמתו, that you should return to him the משכון when the sun goes down, and he will sleep in his clothes, that if you take a garment that he needs for at night, so then, when the night comes, you must return to him this משכון, and the next morning he will give it back to you. So, we would think אין לי אלא שמשכנו ברשות בית דין, that this דין applies only if you took the משכון with the permission of בית דין. משכנו שלא ברשות בית דין, מניין, how do we know that even if you took the משכון without the permission of בית דין, the דין also applies that you must return it in the evening? תלמוד לומר, so the פסוק says: השב תשיב, מכל מקום, that you must return it in any, under any circumstances, that even if you took it without the בית דין. And the reason we would have a הוה אמינא that only if you took it with the רשות of בית דין, that's when you have to return it at night, so רש״י explains, is because the פסוק before starts off like this: כי תשה ברעך משאת מאומה לא תבא אל ביתו לעבט עבטו, that if someone owes you something, do not enter his house to take the משכון. בחוץ תעמד, you should stand outside, והאיש אשר אתה נשה בו יוציא אליך את העבוט החוצה, that the one that you are claiming from, he will bring you out the משכון outside. And the גמרא explains later on in פרק המקבל that this means that the שליח בית דין will go into the house and he will take the משכון out. And then the פסוק continues: ואם איש עני הוא לא תשכב בעבטו, if he is a poor man, do not sleep in his משכון. And then the פסוק continues: השב תשיב לו את העבוט, you should return to him the משכון, כבוא השמש, when the sun comes down. So, it seems from the פסוק that only if you didn't want to pay your debt, and you had to go to בית דין, to scream in בית דין, and בית דין had to come to you and take a משכון, so then the תורה says that you have to return the משכון in the evening. So, we would think that only if he went to בית דין, and בית דין forced him to give the משכון, that's when you must return the משכון at night. But if not, you wouldn't have to. That's why we have the פסוק: השב תשיב, מכל מקום, that even if it came without the רשות of בית דין, you also must return it. Then the גמרא continues, we

have another פסוק: חבל תחבל. This is a פסוק in פרשת משפטים, קפיטל כ״ב, פסוק כ״ה. The פסוק says that if you will lend money to somebody, do not constantly ask for it. Then it says: אם חבל תחבל שלמת רעך, if you will take the garment of your friend as a משכון, עד בא השמש תשיבנו לו, you should return it to him when the sun goes down. So, only I would think אלא שמשכנו ברשות, that only if the משכון was taken ברשות בית דין, that's when you have to return it. And as רש״י explains, because סתם משכון is usually taken by בית דין, because another person without בית דין has no חוצפה to enter into his friend's house and take out מטלטלין without permission. So probably he got permission from בית דין to take the מטלטלין. So, I would think that only if he has permission to take the משכון, that's when the דין is that you have to return it in the evening. משכנו שלא ברשות, but if he took the משכון without רשות, מניין, how do we know that you also have to return it in the evening? תלמוד לומר, so the פסוק says: חבל תחבל, that uses the extra word תחבל, מכל מקום, in any way, under any circumstances, you must return it. But then the גמרא asks: והני תרי קראי למה לי, why do we need these two פסוקים? Aren't they saying the same thing, that if you take a משכון, you must return it in the evening? And the גמרא answers: חד לכסות יום וחד לכסות לילה. One is to tell us the דין concerning garment of the day, and one is to tell us the דין concerning the garment of the night. That if you take the garment of the day, then you must return it to him for the use of the day; if you took a garment that he needs for the night, you must return it to him so he should be able to use it at night. Then the גמרא continues:

The פסוק says: פתוח תפתח. This is a פסוק in פרשת ראה, קפיטל ט״ו, פסוק ח׳. This refers to the מצוה of צדקה. The פסוק says before that if there will be a poor man in your city, so do not tighten your heart, do not close your hand, but כי פתוח תפתח את ידך לו, you should open your hand to him. Only I only would know אלא לעניי עירך, only the poor people of your city, because the פסוק says before that, that if there will be a poor man in your city, in your gates, then you should open your hand. So, I would think it's only to the poor people of your city. לעניי עיר אחרת מניין, how do we know that you also have to give צדקה to the poor people of another city? תלמוד לומר, so the פסוק says: פתוח תפתח, the extra word תפתח, you should open, מכל מקום, in any way, under any circumstances. Then the גמרא continues, that later on in that same פרשה, the פסוק says, נתון תתן, it says, נתון תתן לו, you should give him, ולא ירע לבבך בתתך לו, you shouldn't feel bad when you give it to him. So, אין לי אלא מתנה מרובה, so we would only think that you have to give him a מתנה מרובה, if you're able to give him a lot, a big present, then you should give him, because נתינה means something which is substantial. מתנה מועטת מניין, how do we know that if you can't give him a big present, you should give him even a small present? תלמוד לומר, so the פסוק says, נתון תתן מכל מקום, give him, the extra word תתן, in any way that you're able to, you should give him. Then the פסוק continues that later on in that same פרשה it says, הענק תעניק, this refers to an עבד עברי, that when you have a Jewish slave, the דין is he stays for six years, and after he is finished with the six years, you let him free. So the

פסוק says in פסוק י"ד there, הענק תעניק לו מצאנך ומגרנך ומיקבך אשר ברכך ה' אלוקיך תתן לו, that you should stuff him up, fill him up with all good things from the צאן and the גורן and the יקב that you have, that when he leaves, not only does he have the money that you paid him when you hired him as your עבד, but also you must give him along other things too. So, אין לי, I would only think, אלא שנתברך הבית בגללו, that you only give him if the house was blessed because of him, if he was a good worker and he brought blessing into the house. And the reason we would think that you only have to give him הענקה if the house was blessed because of him, is because the פסוק says, אשר ברכך ה' אלוקיך תתן לו, as ה' blessed you. So it comes out that only if ה' blessed you because of this עבד, then you have to give him הענקה. But לא נתברך הבית בגללו מניין, how do we know that even if the house was not blessed because of him, you also give him הענקה? תלמוד לומר, the פסוק says, הענק תעניק מכל מקום, you have to give him הענקה anyway under all circumstances. But then the גמרא asks, לרבי אלעזר בן עזריה דאמר נתברך הבית בגללו

מעניקין לו, according to רבי אלעזר בן עזריה who holds that if the house was blessed because of him, we do give him הענקה, לא נתברך הבית בגללו אין מעניקין, and if the house was not blessed because of him, you do not give him הענקה, so then תעניק למה לי, so why does the תורה add the word תעניק? According to us that we say that even if the house was not blessed because of him, you have to give him הענקה, so that's why the תורה adds the extra word תעניק, to tell us that under all circumstances you must give him הענקה. But according to רבי אלעזר בן עזריה who holds that you don't have to give him if the house was not blessed because of him, so why does the תורה write the word תעניק? And the גמרא answers, דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם, that the תורה speaks in the לשון of people, that this is the common way people speak, that they double a certain word when you want to stress it, and therefore here too, the תורה mentions it double, הענק תעניק, but not in order to tell us a certain חידוש in the דין. Then the גמרא continues, the פסוק says in the same פרשה there, העבט תעביטנו. The פסוק says, והעבט תעביטנו די מחסורו אשר יחסר לו, that you should lend him enough to fill his needs. אין לי, I would only think, אלא שאין לו, talking about a person who doesn't have his own money, ואינו רוצה להתפרנס, and he doesn't want to get support from צדקה, he doesn't want to take charity. So then, אמר רחמנא, the תורה says, תן לו דרך הלואה, give him in the form of a loan. If he doesn't want to take charity, so then you should lend him the money. But if יש לו, if he has his own money, ואינו רוצה להתפרנס, and he doesn't want to use his money to support himself, מניין, how do we know that you still have a מצוה of lending him money? תלמוד לומר, the פסוק says, תעביטנו, it says העבט תעביטנו, the extra word תעביטנו means מכל מקום, under all circumstances you're supposed to lend another ייד money. But then the גמרא asks, לרבי שמעון, according to רבי שמעון, דאמר, he says, יש לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס אין נזקקין לו, that if a person has his own money, but does not want to support himself with his own money, then you don't have to lend him any money, תעביטנו למה לי, so why does the תורה add this extra word, תעביטנו? And the גמרא answers, דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם, the תורה speaks in the לשון of people, that's the way people speak, that they mention the same word twice, but not that the תורה comes to tell us an extra דין with this extra word תעביטנו.

Concerning what the גמרא brought before the פסוק הוכח תוכיח, and the question they asked was maybe הוכח means חדא זימנא, once, and תוכיח means twice, how do we know that even more than twice you also must be מוכיח, must give rebuke? And he answered, the word הוכח itself means אפילו מאה פעמים. And the word תוכיח comes to tell us that even if it's a תלמיד לרב, he also must be מוכיח. So, some ראשונים, the רמב"ן, the ר"ן, the נימוקי יוסף, ask a קשיא, that לכאורה this is a סתירה to what the גמרא says in ערכין דף ט"ז עמוד ב'. There the גמרא says, הוכיח ולא קיבל מניין שחוזר ומוכיחו, if you rebuked somebody and he didn't accept. How do we know that you have to rebuke him again? תלמוד לומר תוכיח. So the גמרא quotes the second part of the פסוק, the second word, תוכיח. So from that גמרא is משמע that the word הוכח only means once, and the word תוכיח comes to tell us more than once. And in this גמרא, it says that the word הוכח itself means אפילו מאה פעמים. So the רמב"ן and the ר"ן and the נימוקי יוסף answer that the difference is between this גמרא and that גמרא, that here we're talking about many עבירות, that even if you rebuked him on one עבירה, and then you see him do another עבירה, you must rebuke him again. And if you see him do a third עבירה, you must rebuke him again. אפילו a hundred times. If you see that he does a hundred different עבירות, you must rebuke him every time. But the גמרא over there is talking on the same עבירה. How do we know that if you gave him תוכחה on the same עבירה and he didn't listen, how do we know that we have to give him תוכחה again? That we learn out from the word תוכיח. But some want to say that really it's a מחלוקת between the גמרא in ערכין and our גמרא. The גמרא in ערכין holds that the word הוכח itself only means once. The word תוכיח comes to teach us that אפילו מאה פעמים. And the גמרא here learns that the word הוכח means even מאה פעמים, and the word תוכיח comes to add that even if it's a תלמיד לרב, you also have to be מוכיח. And based on that they want to say that this is the reason why the רמב"ם in הלכות דעות, where he speaks about the דינים of תוכחה, does not mention this דין that a תלמיד is supposed to be מוכיח the רב. לכאורה, why does he skip this דין? Since in our גמרא we see that we learn out from the word תוכיח that a תלמיד is supposed to give תוכחה to his רב, so why doesn't the רמב"ם bring it there? The truth is that in הלכות תלמוד תורה the רמב"ם does mention it. But in הלכות דעות, where you have the עיקר דין of תוכחה, that's where the רמב"ם should have said it. So they want to say that the רמב"ם learns that it's a מחלוקת between the גמרא in ערכין and our גמרא. And according to the גמרא in ערכין, you טאקע don't have the word תוכיח as an extra word, so we do not learn out from the word תוכיח that even a תלמיד לרב is supposed to give תוכחה. And therefore the רמב"ם in הלכות דעות פסקנט like the גמרא in ערכין, that a תלמיד does not have to give תוכחה to his רב. But nevertheless, even though from the פסוק תוכיח we do not learn out that a תלמיד should give תוכחה to his רב, but מדברי קבלה, from תנ"ך, we do know that this is the דין, because we know that יונתן gave תוכחה to שאול. So therefore, in הלכות תלמוד תורה, the רמב"ם does bring this דין. Because לפועל, this is a דין that you have to be מוכיח even if he is your רב. But in הלכות דעות where he speaks about the דינים of תוכחה which are a חיוב מדאורייתא, so then there the רמב"ם doesn't bring it. The reason is to show that it's not מדאורייתא, but he can't skip the דין at all because we do learn it out מדברי קבלה, so therefore, in הלכות תלמוד תורה he does bring this דין. Another interesting thing in the גמרא here is, the גמרא asks the קשיא, why do we need the פסוק by אבידה, and why do we need the פסוק by טעינה ופריקה, by loading and unloading? Why do we need the פסוק in all three places? And רש"י explain the גמרא's שאלה is that since כולהו אזהרות ממון ישראל הוא, they're all warnings concerning ממון of another איד, money of another איד, so they're all really the same thing, so why do we need the פסוק in all these cases? So the תורת חיים asks a קשיא that לכאורה, why is the גמרא's קשיא only concerning אבידה and טעינה ופריקה? The same קשיא would apply to לא תגזול, ולא תעשוק, ולא תגנוב, the עבירות of not stealing, not holding back someone else's pay. לכאורה, they're all under the same category, they're all אזהרות for ממון ישראל. So why does the גמרא only ask the קשיא concerning טעינה ופריקה and אבידה? And he answers that באמת these three - פריקה וטעינה, unloading and loading, and אבידה, returning a lost object - are all the same דין, because the reason why you have to help unload and help load is because this is a דין of השבת אבידה. And therefore, the חיוב is only, if you were going in the street and you see that your friend cannot unload or cannot load, you must help him, because if not, he's going to have a loss. So you're saving him from a loss, so this is a דין of השבת אבידה. And therefore, the גמרא asks the שאלה only concerning these, that why does the תורה have to tell us פריקה וטעינה and אבידה, since they are all in the same category. But the גמרא couldn't ask the שאלה, why do we have to have a פסוק לא תגזול ולא תגנוב ולא תעשוק, because they are in a different category altogether, and that's why the תורה has to write about them separately. But these three, which are all in the same category of השבת אבידה, the גמרא asks the קשיא, why do we have to have all three? And he explains that that is the reason why in the משנה later on the תנא includes the דינים of פריקה וטעינה, the דינים of unloading and loading. So לכאורה, what is that doing in the פרק אלו מציאות? This פרק is a פרק that deals with the מצוה of השבת אבידה, when you have to return an object and when not. So why does the תנא also include the דינים of פריקה וטעינה in this פרק? So he says it's all for the same reason, because פריקה וטעינה are all included in the דין. of השבת אבידה. And for that reason, the תורה writes the דין of פריקה וטעינה and the דין of אבידה in פרשת משפטים ופרשת כי תצא, they're all together, because the דין of פריקה וטעינה go together with אבידה because they are all because of the מצוה of השבת אבידה. Also, concerning this דין of צדקה, the גמרא said that we would think that only if you give a מתנה מרובה you have to give, but if you're only able to give מתנה מועטת, a small מתנה, how do we know that you're supposed to give that too? The גמרא brings the פסוק that you're supposed to give that too. לכאורה, this seems to be saying that even if you are very poor, even if you yourself are supported through צדקה, you still have to give צדקה too, even if you're only able to afford a מתנה מועטת. So לכאורה, it comes out from this גמרא that the פסוק the גמרא brings here teaches us this דין that even a poor man is obligated to give צדקה. So some מפרשים ask a קשיא that the גמרא in גיטין דף ז learns out this דין that even an עני is supposed to give צדקה from a different פסוק, from the פסוק ועניתיך. So there the גמרא brings that מר זוטרא said אפילו עני המתפרנס מן הצדקה יעשה צדקה, and here it seems that we learn it out from a different פסוק. So one of the תירוצים that's given in the ריטב״א is that from here we don't learn out this דין that if you are an עני which is supported by צדקה yourself, you're supposed to give also צדקה. Here we're talking about an עשיר, a person who is not in the category of an עני, but he doesn't have too much and he's not able to give a מתנה מרובה, so we would think maybe he doesn't have to give a מתנה מועטת, because by giving away even a little bit it'll cause him maybe later that he himself will have to take צדקה. But that's what the פסוק says, that nevertheless you have to give צדקה. But this דין that even an עני המתפרנס מן הצדקה is חייב בצדקה, that is learned out from the פסוק ועניתיך as the גמרא says in גיטין. But בכלל, in the שיטה מקובצת, there is another גירסא brought in the גמרא here completely, that not the way we have the גירסא, that only if you're able to give מתנה מרובה, מתנה מועטת מניין, how do we know that you also have to give if you're only able to give a small מתנה, and that's where we have the פסוק. So in the שיטה מקובצת, the גירסא is different. According to the גירסא of the שיטה מקובצת, the גמרא refers to the end of the פסוק where it says כי בגלל הדבר הזה יברכך השם, that because of the צדקה you're going to give, השם will give you a ברכה. And that's where the גמרא's question is, that אין לי שמתברך אלא בנותן מתנה מרובה, we would think that when do you get a ברכה for giving צדקה? Only if you give a big present, a lot of money. נתן מתנה מועטת מניין שמתברך? If you gave a small present, how do we know you also get the ברכה? And that's what the פסוק comes to tell us, that even if you give a מתנה מועטת, still השם will give you the ברכה.