Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת בבא מציעא דף ל״ב, but we will start six lines from the bottom of דף ל״א עמוד ב׳. The גמרא quotes the משנה. It said in the משנה: היה בטל מן הסלע, if by finding the object for the other person he was בטל of a סלע, had he worked at that time he would have earned the סלע, לא יאמר לו, he cannot say to the owner of the object, תן לי סלע, give me a סלע that it cost me to return to you your object, אלא נותן לו שכרו כפועל. He just pays him like a worker. And as רש״י explained in the משנה, it means that since he didn't really work that hard, if he would have worked his own work, he would have worked harder, so he would have earned more. Since at that same time he just worked a light work, the work of picking up the object, so for that you don't get paid too much, so he only gets paid as much as his work that he did do was worth. And the גמרא says, תנינא, we learned, נותן לו שכרו כפועל בטל, that what the משנה means is that you give him his reward, his payment, like a worker that is בטל, that is not working. And the גמרא asks, מאי כפועל בטל? What do you mean you pay him like a worker who is not working? He is working! He worked a light work, and he picked up the אבידה, so you pay him as much as this work is worth. But what do we mean when we say פשט in the משנה you pay him like a worker who is בטל, who is not working? The גמרא says, אמר אביי, אביי said, כפועל בטל של אותה מלאכה דבטל מינה, like a worker who is בטל from the מלאכה, from the work that he is בטל from. Which means that since the work he could have done would have been harder work, the work he did do, the finding of the object, is an easier work, so you have to estimate how much would a person be willing to deduct from the money he could have earned if he would do the harder work in order to do the easier work. And as רש״י explains, it's not always the same, because there could be an easy work that you get paid more for, it could be a hard work that you get paid less. So you have to estimate the work that he would have done if he wouldn't be involved in finding the object, how much would he get paid then? How much would he be willing to deduct to do the easier work? And that amount of money he gets from the one that is the owner of the object. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה: אם יש שם בית דין מתנה בפניהם, if there is a בית דין there, he makes a condition in front of the בית דין that he's only ready to pick up the object if the owner of the object will pay him back his loss, how much he would have earned had he worked the work he done did before. And if he made this condition, so then later, when he does return the object, the owner has to pay him the whole money that he could have earned if he would do the work he did. The

גמרא tells a story: איסור ורב ספרא עבד עיסקא בהדי הדדי, איסור and רב ספרא made a business together. They went into partnership in a business. אזל רב ספרא פלג ליה בלא דעתיה דאיסור, so רב ספרא went and he divided the stock that he had without the knowledge of his partner איסור, באפי תרי, and he did it in front of two people. Because if he'd do it all by himself, then his partner would be able to say, "Maybe you cheated me." Therefore, he did it in front of two people, that they should see that he's dividing it equally. אתא לקמיה דרבה בר רב הונא, so he came to רבה בר רב הונא. אמר ליה, so רבה בר רב הונא said to him: אייתי תלתא דפלגת קמייהו, bring me the three people that you divided in front of them, bring me the בית דין that you divided in front of them. אי נמי, or תרי מגו תלתא, or two of those three, and let those two testify that you did it in front of three. ואי נמי, or תרי סהדי דפלגת באפי בי תלתא, or you could bring me two other people that they should testify that they saw that you divided in front of three, in front of a בית דין. אמר ליה, so he said to him: מנא לך? Where do you take this from? How do you know that I have to do it in front of a בית דין? אמר ליה, so he said to him: דתנן, because we learned in our משנה: אם יש שם בית דין מתנה בפניהם, that concerning the אבידה, if you're going to lose money by returning the אבידה because you're going to give up time from your work, so then if you have a בית דין there, and usually a בית דין is of three, then you can make a condition in front of the בית דין that you want the owner of the object to pay you your loss. אין שם בית דין, בפני מי יתנה? שלו קודם. If he doesn't have a בית דין in front of who to make this condition, then his comes first and he doesn't have to return it. So we see from there that only in front of a בית דין you are able to be מפקיר money. Since over here he is obligated to return the object, but on the other hand he is going to have a loss, so the only one that is able to say that we you are taking responsibility for the loss of the owner of the object, that he will pay you the amount of money that you could have made if you would work, so the only way you could do it is if you do it in front of a בית דין. So we see that only בית דין has the כח that somebody else's money should be given to somebody else. So here too, since till now you were partners and now you divided, so you have to have a בית דין there that they should be there when you make your division. אמר ליה, so he said to him, מי דמי? How can you compare it? התם, over there, the case of our משנה, דמפיק ממונא מהאי ומוסיף להאי, since you're taking away money from one and giving to the other, because really the דין is that the owner of the object does not have to pay him the amount of money that he could have made if he would work. So through his making condition in front of בית דין, he's going to cause that they will be taking away the money from that owner of the object and giving it to him. They will obligate the owner of the object to give him money that really he wasn't supposed to, so therefore בעינן בית דין, we need a בית דין. אבל הכא, but over here, דידי שקלי, I'm taking my own. I am a partner, and I'm only dividing my חלק, my part. גילוי מילתא בעלמא הוא, all we need is a גילוי מילתא to reveal that I divided properly, so therefore בתרי סגי ליה, two should be enough. תדע, he says, I'll prove to you that in my case two is enough, דתנן, because we learned in a משנה in כתובות, אלמנה מוכרת שלא בפני בית דין. An אלמנה, a widow, her husband died and left over an estate, and she is supposed to be supported through the estate of her husband, so she's allowed to take the property of her husband and sell it not even in front of a בית דין. So we see that in a case like that, you don't need a בית דין as long as there are two people that will see that she didn't sell the property too cheap, that is enough. So here too, since I am taking mine, I'm only dividing between myself and my partner, so we don't need a בית דין, two people are enough.

אמר ליה אביי, so אביי said to him, ולאו מי איתמר עלה, didn't we learn on that משנה that אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן, like רב יוסף בר מניומי said in the name of רב נחמן, that אלמנה אינה צריכה בית דין של מומחין? What the משנה meant that she doesn't need a בית דין, she could sell without a בית דין, that means she doesn't need a בית דין of experts, אבל צריכה בית דין של הדיוטות, but she does need a בית דין of ordinary people, she does need three people. So you cannot prove from that משנה that in your case you did not need three people, because there too the אלמנה also needs three people. But תוספות asks a קשיא that what was his ראיה לכתחילה from אלמנה? By the case of אלמנה, the גמרא says in כתובות the reason why she could sell without a בית דין is because of חן, because we want to give her חן, we want to give her grace and therefore we made it easier on her. Or since she is a woman, we don't want the woman to have to come to בית דין because it's an embarrassment for a woman to come to בית דין, therefore the חכמים said she could sell without a בית דין. But here in his case, here he needed a בית דין, so what does this prove from the case of an אלמנה? And תוספות answers that he held that since by an אלמנה, even though it's not hers, the estate is her husband's, so it's not hers at all, nevertheless, because of the reason of חן, the חכמים allowed her to sell it without a בית דין, so in his case, since he is taking his own, he was a partner, he's only taking his own, so here, even without the reason of חן, still we shouldn't need a בית דין, because there is more סברא in his case that you shouldn't need a בית דין than in her case, because in her case she was selling somebody else's, in his case he's taking his own. So if over there where she is selling somebody else's, nevertheless, because of חן, this is good enough a reason that she shouldn't need a בית דין, so in his case where he's selling his own, even without חן, he thought that you don't need a בית דין. And אביי said to him that even there, you don't need a בית דין of מומחין, but you do need a בית דין of הדיוטות. Now we'll continue with the משנה. The

משנה says, מצאו ברפת, if you find the animal in the stable, אינו חייב בה, you are not obligated to return it. And the גמרא will explain what the משנה means. If you find it ברשות הרבים, in the street, חייב בה, you are obligated to return it. אם היתה בבית הקברות, if the object was in a cemetery and the one that saw it was a כהן, לא יטמא לה, he should not become טמא and pick it up. And the משנה continues a similar case, אם אמר לו אביו, if his father said to him, he was a כהן and his father said to him, היטמא, become טמא, או שאמר לו אל תחזיר, or if his father said to the son, do not return the lost object to the one it belongs to, לא ישמע לו, he should not listen to him. Even though there is a מצוה of כיבוד אב ואם that you must listen to your father and mother, but if he tells you to do something which is against the תורה, then you do not have to listen to him. Then the משנה continues with another דין, פרק וטען פרק וטען, if you unloaded, you helped somebody unload his animal, and then you loaded, and again you helped and again loaded, אפילו ארבע וחמישה פעמים, even if it was done four or five times, חייב, you are still obligated to help him, שנאמר, because the פסוק says, עזוב תעזוב, that you should help in any way, and as the גמרא learned out before, that in any way, under all circumstances, even if it was not the first time, you still must help him. But if הלך וישב לו, if the owner himself went and sat down, ואמר, and he said to the one that was passing by, הואיל ועליך מצוה, since upon you is a מצוה, you are obligated מצד המצוה to load or to unload, so אם רצונך לפרוק פרוק, so if you want, you want to fulfill your מצוה, so then unload, but I will not help you, you do it because it's your מצוה, then פטור, then he is פטור from unloading, שנאמר, because the פסוק says, עמו, עזוב תעזוב עמו, you should help him. But if he himself doesn't want to participate, then you are not obligated to help him. ואם היה זקן או חולה, but if that owner was old or he was sick, חייב, then you are חייב even if he doesn't help you, because he himself cannot help. Then the משנה says, מצוה מן התורה לפרוק, there's a מצוה from the תורה to help unload, אבל לא לטעון, but there is no מצוה from the תורה to help load. And the גמרא will explain it doesn't mean that he's not obligated to help him load, but what it means is that מדאורייתא when it comes to unload, you must do it even for free, but when it comes to load, then you only are obligated to do it if he's ready to pay you. רבי שמעון אומר, but רבי שמעון says, אף לטעון, that מדאורייתא you are also obligated to help him load, and as the גמרא explains it means that you are obligated to help him load בחינם, without pay. רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר, רבי יוסי הגלילי says, אם היה עליו יתר על משאו, if there was more on the animal than it was able to carry, you put on a burden which was more than it was able to carry, אין זקוק לו, then you don't have to help him, שנאמר, because the פסוק says, תחת משאו, the animal is laying under its burden, that means משאו שיכול לעמוד בו, a burden that it's able to take, but if you put down a burden that it's not able to take, then the one that's passing by is not obligated to help. And the גמרא explains the משנה.

אמר רבא, רבא said, רפת שאמרו, when the משנה said that if you find the animal in the stable you are not obligated to return it, it means אינה מאוסה ואינה משמרת. It's a stable that there is no reason that should cause the animal to wander away, and on the other hand, it is not safe, it is not guarded, in other words, it is not locked. There is nothing there that will push the animal out, but on the other hand, you are not sure that the animal will not open the door and run out. How do we know that's the type of stable the משנה means? So he explains: אינה מאוסה, how do I know that it's a stable that there is no reason for the animal to get lost, to wander out? מדקתני, since it says the דין, אינו חייב בה, that you are not obligated to return it, not obligated to do anything with it, that shows that it's a stable that there is no reason for the animal to get lost. But on the other hand, it must be a stable ואינה משמרת, that's not watched, not guarded either, because מדאיצטריך למישנא, אינו חייב בה, since the משנה has to tell us that you are not obligated to do anything, so that's a ראיה that there must be something missing here, so we must say it's a stable which is not locked, which there is no safeguard there. Because אי סלקא דעתך משמרת, if you would think that the משנה is speaking about a stable which is guarded, so השתא משכח לה אבראי, now if you would even find this animal outside, lost, מעייל לה לגווה, you would be able to bring it inside this stable, and that would be considered that you returned it, as we said before in the גמרא, that you don't have to return it to the owner in the house, even if you return it to his גינה, to his garden, or to his חורבה, to his ruins, you fulfill the מצוה of השבת אבידה. So if you would bring it back to the stable, you would have been fulfilling the מצוה of השבת אבידה. So משכח לה מגווה מבעיא, so if you find it לכתחילה inside, do we have to have the משנה to tell us that you have to leave it there? So the משנה doesn't have to tell us that. אלא שמע מינה, therefore we know from here, that אינה משמרת, that we're talking about a stable which is not guarded. שמע מינה, that is a conclusive ראיה, that the משנה is speaking by a stable which is not guarded. And the חידוש of the משנה is, that being that a stable is not a thing that will cause the animal to wander out, so even if it's not guarded, you do not have to do anything about it, and you just leave it there. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, מצאו ברפת אינו חייב, we just learned the דין that if you find it in the stable you are not חייב to return it, to do anything about it, you just leave it there.

אמר רבי יצחק, so רבי יצחק said, והוא שעומדת תוך לתחום, that's only if it's standing within the תחום. תחום is 2,000 אמה from the city. So if it's standing within the תחום, so then the דין is that if it's in the stable you're not obligated to return it, to do anything about it. But the גמרא says מכלל, from here we understand, דברשות הרבים that if it's in the street ואפילו בתוך התחום נמי חייב. Even if it's within the תחום, you are obligated to return it, because the משנה says that if it's in the stable you are not חייב. If it's in the רשות הרבים you are חייב. Is משמע in the same case that if it would be in the stable you're not חייב, if it is in the רשות הרבים you are חייב. So since we said that when is the דין that you are not חייב if you find it in the stable? That's only if it's within the תחום. So we understand that ברשות הרבים, even if it's in the תחום, then you are still obligated to return it. איכא דמתני לה אסיפא. Others learn the same discussion but on the סיפא. Not on the words מצא ברפת אין חייב בה, but on the words that if you find it ברשות הרבים, חייב בה, you are obligated. So אמר רב יצחק, on these words רב יצחק said, והוא שעומדת חוץ לתחום. That when is the דין that ברשות הרבים you must return it, if it's standing outside of the תחום. So מכלל, from here we have a ראיה, דברפת, that when it's in the stable, אפילו עומדת חוץ לתחום, even if it's standing outside of the תחום, נמי אינו חייב בה, you also don't have to return it. Since the דין of רפת and the דין of רשות הרבים are in the same case, in one case you're חייב and in one you're פטור, so since we say the case of רשות הרבים you are חייב only if it's outside of the תחום, so we understand that in the case stable you are פטור even if it's outside of the תחום. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, בבית הקברות, if the lost object is in the cemetery, לא יטמא לו, you should not become טמא if you are a כהן. And the משנה also continued, if one's father tells him become טמא if he's a כהן, or he tells him to not return the lost object, you should not listen to him, because in a case like this, the מצוה of כיבוד אב ואם does not apply. And the גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, מניין, how do we know שאם אמר לו אביו היטמא, if his father says to him become טמא, או שאמר לו, or he says to him, אל תחזיר, do not return the lost object, שלא ישמע לו, that he should not listen to him? שנאמר, because the פסוק says, איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמורו אני ה׳ אלוקיכם. A man, his mother and father they should fear, and my שבתות you should watch, I am השם, your God. So the תורה puts together the מצוה of כיבוד אב ואם right next to the מצוה of keeping שבת, to tell us that כולכם חייבין בכבודי, that all of you, you and your father and mother, are מחוייב to give me כבוד, to give השם כבוד. And therefore, when it comes to transgress, to do an עבירה, you are not מחוייב to listen to your father and mother. Then the

גמרא asks, טעמא דכתב רחמנא את שבתותי תשמורו. The reason, how do we know, according to this, that if your father tells you not to return the אבידה, you don't have to listen to him, is because of this special פסוק, את שבתותי תשמורו. הא לאו הכי, but if not for that פסוק, הוה אמינא, we would think, נציית ליה, you should listen to your father and not return the object? Now, what would be the reason, why would we think that you do listen to your father and you don't return the object? So we would think it's because of the rule עשה דוחה לא תעשה. That an עשה, a positive מצוה pushes away a negative מצוה. Whenever we are not able to fulfill both, it is or doing the עשה, or not transgressing the לא תעשה, so we have the rule the עשה is דוחה the לא תעשה. So we would think that the עשה of כיבוד אב ואם is דוחה the לא תעשה of לא תוכל להתעלם, which is concerning the מצוה of השבת אבידה. But the גמרא says that is not so. ואמאי, why would we think so? האי עשה והאי לא תעשה ועשה. The מצוה of כיבוד אב is only an עשה. The מצוה of השבת אבידה, of returning a lost object, is a לא תעשה and an עשה, it's a negative מצוה and a positive מצוה. It's the לא תעשה of לא תוכל להתעלם, and the מצוה of השב תשיבם. And the rule is ולא אתי עשה ודחי את לא תעשה ועשה, and an עשה cannot push away a לא תעשה and an עשה. So we would know anyway that the עשה of כיבוד אב does not push away the מצוה of השבת אבידה. So why do we say that the reason we know that you are not supposed to listen to your father if he tells you not to fulfill the מצוה of השבת אבידה is because of this special פסוק of שבתותי תשמורו, without the פסוק we would also know that you do not have to listen to your father? And the גמרא answers, איצטריך, I do need the פסוק. Because סלקא דעתך אמינא, I would think, הואיל והוקש כיבוד אב ואם לכבודו של מקום, since השם compares כיבוד אב ואם to the כבוד of השם, שנאמר כאן, because here it says כבד את אביך ואת אמך, concerning one's father and mother the תורה says, you should honor your father and your mother. ונאמר להלן, in a different פסוק it says in משלי, כבד את ה׳ מהונך, you should honor השם with your money. So in both places the תורה uses the same לשון, כבד. So we would think that the כבוד of one's father and mother is the same as the כבוד of השם. And therefore, הילכך נציית ליה, you should listen to

your father and mother, even if it means going against השם. And תוספות asks a קשיא here that when the גמרא wants to show that we compare the כבוד of a father and mother to השם, why did the גמרא have to quote the פסוק in משלי where it says כבד את השם מהונך? And that's how we see that the father and the mother are similar to השם, because by the father and mother it says כבד את אביך ואת אמך, and here it says כבד את השם מהונך וכולי, and the גמרא could have brought a comparison from חומש itself. The פסוק says איש אמו ואביו תיראו, that a man, his mother and his father they should fear. So it uses the expression fearing one's father and mother. And then there's a פסוק in חומש that says את השם אלקיך תירא, you should fear השם your God. So in both cases we have the same expression of fear. And that also shows that the מצוה of כיבוד אב ואם is similar to the מצוה of fearing השם. So why did the גמרא have to bring the comparison from תנ״ך? And תוספות answers because the גמרא would rather bring a פסוק that uses the term כבוד. It says כבד את השם מהונך, that we find the comparison of כיבוד אב ואם to the כבוד of השם. But if the גמרא would bring the פסוק from חומש, it would bring a comparison concerning fear, and the גמרא would rather bring a פסוק concerning כבוד, and that's why the גמרא brings this פסוק. Then the

גמרא continues, we learned in the משנה: מצוה מן התורה לפרוק, אבל לא לטעון. The משנה had said that it's a מצוה from the תורה to help someone unload his animal, but there is no מצוה to help him load. So the גמרא says: מאי אבל לא לטעון? What does the משנה mean that there is no מצוה to help him load? אילימא, if you're going to say אבל לא לטעון כלל, that there is no מצוה at all to help him load, why is that? מאי שנא פריקה? Why should unloading be different, that that should be a מצוה? מדכתיב, because the תורה says עזוב תעזוב עמו, that you should help him, and that is a פסוק that speaks about unloading, and that is why it's a מצוה. טעינה נמי, הא כתיב הקם תקים עמו. When it speaks about loading, there is also a פסוק! The פסוק says you should help him pick up his animal. So that is a פסוק that speaks about loading. So why is this פסוק not a מצוה? So how could the משנה say that there is no מצוה in helping someone load his animal? אלא, what did the משנה mean? מצוה מן התורה לפרוק בחנם. There's a מצוה from the תורה to help somebody unload his animal for free, ולא לטעון בחנם אלא בשכר. But there is no מצוה from the תורה to help someone load his animal for free, but for money. There is a מצוה to help him load because the פסוק says הקם תקים עמו, but you do not have to do it for free, he has to pay you for it. רבי שמעון אומר, in the

משנה it said that רבי שמעון says: אף לטעון בחנם, that even to load you also have to do for free. And the גמרא says: תנינא להא דתנו רבנן, so it comes out that the משנה is telling us the same thing that we learned in a ברייתא. It said in a ברייתא: פריקה בחנם, טעינה בשכר, to unload you have to do for free, but to load you're able to take money for. רבי שמעון אומר: זו וזו בחנם, that both have to be done for free. So we see a clear ברייתא that tells us the פשט that we learned in the משנה. Then the גמרא asks: מאי טעמייהו דרבנן? What is the reason of the רבנן? Why did the רבנן hold that there is a difference between unloading and loading, that unloading you do for free, but loading is only for money? So they say: דאי סלקא דעתך כרבי שמעון, if you're going to think it's like רבי שמעון, that in both cases you have to do it for free, ליכתוב רחמנא טעינה, let the תורה just tell us the דין of loading, ולא בעי פריקה, and the תורה wouldn't have to tell us the דין of unloading, and I would understand myself that there is a מצוה to help unload. Why? I know, I mean I would say, ומה טעינה דלית בה צער בעלי חיים, that if loading that doesn't involve צער בעלי חיים, an animal doesn't suffer because the load is not on the back of the animal, we're just trying to load the animal, so there is no צער בעלי חיים involved, and also וליכא חסרון כיס, there's no loss of money, because there's no damage done to the animal if I will not help him, nevertheless חייב, the תורה says that we are חייב to help him. פריקה, when it comes to unload, דאית בה צער בעלי חיים, there is here suffering of an animal because the load is on the back of the animal, and if you don't unload it the animal suffers, and also חסרון כיס, there is a loss of money, because if the load stays too long on the animal it could damage the animal, so the owner of the animal will have a loss, so certainly, כל שכן certainly the דין is that you have to help the person. אלא למה הלכתא כתביה רחמנא? So why did the תורה write specifically the דין of unloading? We would know it ourselves from the דין of loading. למימרא, that comes to tell you that פריקה בחנם, that when you unload you have to do it for free, טעינה בשכר, that if you load you do it for money. Since the תורה does not say that when you load you should do it for free free, so we understand that you're able to ask for money. Now if the תורה would just write the דין of loading, and we would understand the דין of unloading with a קל וחומר, then we would say, דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון, that whenever we learn out a קל וחומר, one thing from another, so the thing that is learned out is always not better than the thing it's learned out from. Since you're only learning it out from the other דין, so it can't be better than the thing it comes from. So here too, if we would only learn out the דין of unloading from the דין of loading, and since the דין of loading is for money, we would say that unloading is also for money. Because the whole דין of unloading would be learned out with a קל וחומר from the דין of loading, so we would say that דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון, it's enough that the thing that is learned out has the same דין as from where you learn out, so therefore the unloading would also be for money. So that's

why the תורה has to tell us a special דין that you're a מחוייב to unload, so since there's a special דין, so we know that what is the תורה trying to tell us? That even בחינם, if you don't get paid, you still have to help him unload. But then the גמרא asks, ולרבי שמעון מאי טעמא? What is the reason of רבי שמעון? According to רבי שמעון that says that both have to be done for free, so why did the תורה have to write the דין of unloading? Why didn't the תורה just write the דין of loading, and we would know ourselves with a קל וחומר that you also have to help unload? And we would say that just like loading is supposed to be done for free, unloading is also done for free. So why did the תורה have to write specially the דין of unloading? So he says, משום דלא מסיימי קראי, because the פסוקים are not clear. We don't know exactly which פסוק means loading and which פסוק means unloading. So if the תורה would just write one פסוק, whichever one, we would say probably that פסוק refers to the דין of unloading, because there is more סברא that you have to help unload than to load, and if there would be only one פסוק, we would say that that פסוק means unloading, and we would not know the דין of loading. Therefore, the תורה has to write both. Then the גמרא asks, ורבנן, what do the רבנן say? According to the רבנן, that they learn out their דין from the fact that the תורה writes an extra פסוק the דין of unloading, but didn't רבי שמעון explain that it's not extra because if the תורה would just write one, we wouldn't know what it goes for? So the גמרא says, they say, אמאי לא מסיימי קראי? Why do you say that the פסוקים are not clear? It is definitely clear. הכא כתיב רובץ תחת משאו, in one פסוק it says that the animal was laying under its burden, so obviously the burden is on the back of the animal. So what are we talking about? About taking off the burden from the animal, that is unloading. והתם, over there in the other פסוק כתיב it says נופלים בדרך, that the animals are falling in the way. That means דרמו אינהו וטעונייהו באורחא משמע. That's משמע that they and their packages are laying on the floor, and what are we trying to do? To get the packages back onto the animal, so that is loading. So the פסוקים are clear that one is loading, one is unloading. And therefore the question comes back, why did the תורה have to specially write a דין of unloading? To teach us that when you unload it's for free, when you load it's for money. ורבי שמעון, so לכאורה how could רבי שמעון say that the פסוקים are not clear? Didn't the רבנן say that it is clear? Don't they show that it's clear? Because in the first פסוק it says it's laying under its load, and the second פסוק says that they're falling in the way, which means that they and their packages are on the floor. So he says, no, what the פסוק could mean is נופלים בדרך, they are falling on the way, they're on the floor, אינהו them, וטעונייהו עלייהו משמע, and the packages are on top of them. So we could have said the פשט in the פסוק that the package is still on them and we're trying to unload it. So since the פסוקים are not clear, therefore the תורה has to write it both, and we have no ראיה to learn out that טעינה, loading is for money and unloading is for free, but רבי שמעון holds that they're both for free. Then the גמרא says, אמר רבא, רבא said, מדברי שניהם נלמד, from the words of both, from the חכמים and from רבי שמעון, we learn out that צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא, that to avoid suffering to an animal is a דין from the תורה. From the fact that both of them hold that פריקה is a greater מצוה than טעינה, that to unload is a greater מצוה than to load, even according to רבי שמעון, because אפילו לרבי שמעון דאמר, אפילו רבי שמעון who says that in הלכה they're both equal, both have to be done for free, but the only reason he says that we learn out unloading with a קל וחומר from loading, לאו, don't you think, משום צער בעלי חיים דשנינן, we would learn it out because of that צער בעלי חיים. Since when you unload, you're also fulfilling the מצוה of avoiding צער to an animal, while when you load, you do not avoid צער בעלי חיים because there is no צער בעלי חיים, so that's why we would say that there's a greater מצוה to unload than to load. So from here we see that even רבי שמעון holds that צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא. But then the גמרא asks, how do you know that? דילמא, maybe משום דאיכא חסרון כיס? Maybe the קל וחומר קל וחומר that he had in mind that we would have learned loading, unloading from loading is not because it's a greater מצוה to unload because of צער בעלי חיים, but for a different reason, because when you unload, you're helping somebody saving him money, because the fact that the load is on the animal, it could damage the animal. והכי קאמר, this is what he would mean. This is what the קל וחומר would be: ומה טעינה דלית בה חסרון כיס חייב, that if to load, that by helping him load, you're not saving him money, still you're חייב to help him, פריקה, to unload, דאית בה חסרון כיס, that it does involve a loss of money, because if you don't help him unload, he could lose money, it could cause damage to the animal, לא כל שכן, certainly you have to do it. So we have no ראיה that צער בעלי חיים is דאורייתא, because maybe the קל וחומר would be made not because of צער בעלי חיים, but because of חסרון כיס. But then the גמרא asks: וטעינה אין בה חסרון כיס? How can you say that loading has nothing to do with a loss of money, you're not saving somebody money? מי לא עסקינן, aren't we also talking in a case דאדהכי והכי בטיל משוקא, that if you're not going to help him, so it's going to take him much longer till he will be able to load the load on top of the animal, in the meantime he will miss out on the market? He is going to the market to make money. Now if you will not help him and it'll take him longer to load it, he will have a loss. So could be טעינה also is involved with a loss of money. אי נמי, or אתו גנבי ושקלו כל מאי דאיכא בהדיה. If you will not help him load, robbers could come and steal everything he has. So by helping him load, you're also saving him money. So how can you say that a קל וחומר would be made that מה דאך helping one's load, which has nothing to do with saving money, you still have to help him, certainly when you unload, which saves him money, you certainly have to help, it's no ראיה, you can't make such קל וחומר, because when you help him load, you're also saving him money. Then the גמרא continues:

תא שמע, I want to prove to you דצער בעלי חיים דאורייתא, that to avoid suffering to an animal is a דין from the תורה, דקתני סיפא, because it says in the end of our משנה, רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר, רבי יוסי הגלילי says, אם היה עליו יתר על משאו, if he had on him, the animal had on its back more than it's able to take, אין זקוק לו, then you don't have to help him, שנאמר, because the פסוק says תחת משאו, and if you see the animal laying under its load, so we דרשנן משאו שיכול לעמוד בו, a load that it's able to take, but if it's a load that it's not able to take, then you don't have to help. לאו, don't you think, מכלל that from here we see דתנא קמא סבר, תנא קמא holds, זקוק לו, you do have to help him. Since it says that only רבי יוסי הגלילי holds that if it's a load more than it's able to take you don't have to help, is משמע that the תנא קמא, the first תנא holds that even in a case like that, you also have to help him. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? לאו, don't you think, משום דצער בעלי חיים דאורייתא, because the first תנא in the משנה holds, the רבנן hold, and also רבי שמעון, who is also a previous תנא in the משנה, also holds that צער בעלי חיים is דאורייתא, and that is the reason that even though the owner put a load on top of the animal which is too much for the animal, you still have to help him take it off because of צער בעלי חיים. So that shows that even though רבי יוסי הגלילי טאקע holds that צער בעלי חיים is not דאורייתא and therefore he says you don't have to help, but the תנא קמא holds that צער בעלי חיים is דאורייתא. So the גמרא says no, it's no ראיה, דילמא בתחת משאו פליגי, maybe they argue in the פשט of the פסוק where it says that you find the animal laying under its load, the מחלוקת is what that פסוק means: דרבי יוסי סבר דרשינן תחת משאו, רבי יוסי holds that you do דרשן from the words תחת משאו, that משאו שיכול לעמוד בו, that it's only if it's a load that it's able to take, ורבנן סברי, the רבנן hold, לא דרשינן תחת משאו, they do not דרשן these words תחת משאו that it means only a load that you're able to take. But באמת could be that תנא קמא also holds צער בעלי חיים is לאו דאורייתא, but you still have to help even if the load is too big, because he does not דרשן the words תחת משאו that only if the load is יכול לעמוד בו. Then the גמרא continues: תא שמע, I'll bring another ראיה צער בעלי חיים לאו דאורייתא, that צער בעלי חיים is not a דין דאורייתא, דקתני רישא, because it says in the beginning of the משנה, הלך וישב לו, if the owner went away and he sat down, ואמר לו, and he tells to the person who passes by, הואיל ועליך מצוה לפרוק פרוק, since there's a מצוה upon you to unload, so you unload and I'm not going to do anything, so he's פטור, שנאמר עמו, because the פסוק says you have to help him, do it with him. If he doesn't want to do it, then you don't have to do it. אי סלקא דעתך צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא, if you're going to think that to avoid suffering of an animal is a דין of the תורה, מה לי איתיה למאריה בהדיה, what difference is it whether the owner is there too, ומה לי כי ליתיה למאריה בהדיה, or whether the owner is not there, still you should have to take off the load because of צער בעלי חיים. And the גמרא answers, לעולם באמת I could tell you צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא, that there is a דין מדאורייתא that you have to avoid צער from an animal. אי, the question is, so why if the owner doesn't want to help you, you are פטור from unloading? מי סברת, do you think פטור פטור לגמרי? That when the משנה says that if the owner doesn't want to help you, then you are פטור completely, you don't have to unload? דילמא פטור בחנם. What the משנה means, maybe, is that you are not obligated to do it for free, but וחייב בשכר, but you are obligated to do it with payment. That you have to unload anyway, but the owner is obligated to pay you. והכי קאמר רחמנא, this is what the תורה means. כי איתיה למריה בהדיה, if the owner is there too, he's also helping, עביד גביה בחנם, then work with him for free. וכי ליתיה למריה בהדיה, if the owner is not there, עביד גביה בשכר, then do it together with him for payment. ולעולם, but באמת, צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא, that מדאורייתא you have to avoid the suffering of the animal, that's why you have to do it whether he wants to help you or not. Just that if he doesn't want to help you, then you can make him pay. And then the גמרא brings a סימן of the next ראיות that the גמרא is going to bring. So the גמרא is going to bring a few ראיות, and the סימן to remember which are the ראיות, so the word is בהמה, בהמה, אוהב, שונא, רבצן, because these are the different ראיות the גמרא brings later. The גמרא says, לימא מסייע ליה, let us say that there's a ראיה to רבא, that רבא said before that צער בעלי חיים is דאורייתא, לכאורה we have a ראיה to רבא. Because we learned in a ברייתא, בהמת עובד כוכבים, if it's a בהמה of a גוי, מטפל בה כבהמת ישראל, you have to bother with it like a בהמה of a ייד. That if you see that he cannot get the load off, you have to help him unload from the בהמה even though it belongs to a גוי. ואי אמרת בשלמא צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא, if you're going to say that צער בעלי חיים is מדאורייתא, משום הכי מטפל בה כבהמת ישראל. So that's the reason why you have to bother yourself with a בהמה of a גוי like you would have to with a בהמה of a ייד. אלא אי אמרת צער בעלי חיים לאו דאורייתא, but if you're going to say that צער בעלי חיים is not a דין of the תורה, אמאי מטפל בה כבהמת ישראל? So why do you have to bother yourself to help the בהמה of a גוי? But the גמרא answers, התם משום איבה. Over there is a different reason, since it's a גוי, and if you're not going to help him there will be hatred. So in order to avoid hatred between the גוים and the יידן, so the דין is that you must help the גוי to take off the load from his animal. And the גמרא says, הכא נמי מסתברא, the סברא also tells us this way. We see from the ברייתא itself that this is the reason why you have to help him, דקתני, because in the same ברייתא it

says, אם היתה טעונה יין נסך, if that animal was loaded with non-kosher wine, אין זקוק לה, then you don't have to help him. And the reason is because you're able to tell the גוי that the reason I'm not helping you is because I'm not allowed. Since it's treif wine, I'm not allowed to help you take it off. So אי אמרת בשלמא לאו דאורייתא, if you're going to say that צער בעלי חיים is not דאורייתא, and the whole reason why the ברייתא said that under normal circumstances you do have to help the גוי is because of hatred, משום הכי אין זקוק לה. So therefore in the case where it's carrying non-kosher wine, you don't have to help him because here there is no problem. As far as צער בעלי חיים there is no דין, because צער בעלי חיים לאו דאורייתא. As far as איבה, to be afraid that the גוי will hate you, there is no דין because you have a good excuse. So therefore, if he's carrying יין נסך, you don't have to help. אלא אי אמרת דאורייתא, but if you're going to say that צער בעלי חיים is דאורייתא, אמאי אין זקוק לה, why don't you have to help him in the case where it's carrying יין נסך? But the גמרא says, הכי קאמר, this is what the ברייתא means, ולהטעינה יין נסך אין זקוק לה, to load it with non-kosher wine you don't have to. In other words, when the ברייתא said in the beginning that a בהמה of a גוי you have to bother yourself with it like a בהמה of a ייד, it wasn't only talking about unloading, it was talking about unloading and loading. The reason you would have to help him unload is because of צער בעלי חיים. The reason you would have to help him load is משום איבה. There is no צער בעלי חיים there, but משום איבה, because you don't want to cause hatred. And concerning that part it says that if it comes to load יין נסך, then you don't have to, because here there is no צער בעלי חיים. The

only reason we said before why you have to help him load is because of איבה, and since there is no איבה if it's going to be יין נסך because you have a good excuse, that's why you don't have to help him load the non-kosher wine. Then the גמרא says, תא שמע, come hear. We learned, בהמת עובד כוכבים ומשא ישראל, that if the בהמה belongs to a גוי, but the load belongs to a ייד, וחדלת, then you are allowed to hold yourself back, you don't have to help him. ואי אמרת צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא If you're gonna wanna say that צער בעלי חיים is a דין of the תורה, אמאי וחדלת? Why is the דין that you're allowed to hold yourself back not to help him because the בהמה belongs to a גוי? עזב תעזב מיבעי ליה, you're supposed to help him. Since the בהמה has צער, and צער בעלי חיים is דאורייתא, what do we care if the בהמה belongs to either, to a גוי, you still have to unload because of צער בעלי חיים. And since it says that you don't have to help him unload if it belongs to a גוי, that proves that צער בעלי חיים is not דאורייתא. And the גמרא says no, לעולם, באמת I could tell you צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא. התם בטעינה. When it says here that you don't have to help him, it's not talking about unloading, but about loading. And by loading, there is no צער בעלי חיים. But then the גמרא asks: אי הכי, if you're gonna tell me that it's talking about loading, אימא סיפא, look into the סיפא, it says further: בהמת ישראל ומשאו עובד כוכבים, if the בהמה belongs to a ייד, and the load belongs to a גוי, עזב תעזב, and you do have to help him. ואי בטעינה, and if we're speaking about loading, אמאי עזב תעזב? Why do you have to help? Since the load belongs to a גוי, so why do you have to help him load it? There is no צער בעלי חיים because we're talking about loading. So since the load belongs to a גוי, why do you have to help him load it? And the גמרא answers: משום צערא דישראל, not because of the package, but because of the צער of the ייד. Since the בהמה belongs to a ייד, so the ייד is standing there with the בהמה. If you're not gonna help him load it, he'll have to stand there and wait till he'll be able to load it, so in the meantime, the ייד has צער. So therefore, to save the צער of the ייד who's waiting there, that's why you have to help him load. So the גמרא says: אי הכי, if so, that because of the צער of the ייד you have to help him load, אפילו רישא נמי, in the first case you should also have to help him load! In the case where the בהמה is of a גוי and the load is of a ייד, why shouldn't you have to help him load there because of the ייד that's standing and waiting for it to be loaded? So the גמרא says:

רישא בחמר עובד כוכבים, the רישא is speaking that the one that's leading the בהמה is a גוי. And therefore, the ייד is not there. Even though we said that the load belongs to a ייד, but the ייד is not there to say that he's suffering while he can't load the animal. But סיפא בחמר ישראל, the סיפא where it says that the בהמה belongs to a ייד and the load belongs to a גוי is speaking about the case where the leader, the one that was leading the בהמה, was a ייד, so he is standing there and he is suffering if you will not help him, therefore, in the סיפא you do have to help him load. So the גמרא asks: מאי פסקא? How can you make this so clear cut to say that the רישא is speaking in a case where the one that's leading the animal is a גוי, and the second case, the סיפא is a ייד, and that is the reason why in the רישא you do not have to help and in the סיפא you do have to help? So the גמרא says: yes, it is clear. סתמא דמילתא, the סתם ענין is that איניש בתר חמריה אזיל, a person follows his donkey. Since in the רישא we said the בהמה belongs to a גוי and the משא, the load is a ייד, so since the בהמה belongs to a גוי, מסתמא a גוי is the one that's leading it. In the סיפא where it says that the בהמה belongs to a ייד and the load belongs to a גוי, so מסתמא since the בהמה belongs to a ייד, a ייד is leading it. And therefore, in the רישא you don't have to help, in the סיפא you do have to help. But then the גמרא asks a קשיא: How can you tell me that this whole ברייתא is speaking about טעינה, about loading, not about unloading, since the ברייתא uses the term וחדלת, and the term עזב תעזב, וחדלת ועזב תעזב בפריקה הוא דכתיבא? These words, וחדלת, and the words ועזב תעזב, they're פסוקים in פרשת משפטים that talks about unloading, so how can we say that this ברייתא that uses the words וחדלת and עזב תעזב is speaking about loading? The גמרא says: אמר ליה, he said to him: you are right, we must say that this is speaking about unloading. But if so, why is the דין that if the בהמה belongs to a גוי you are not obligated to help it unload if צער בעלי חיים is דאורייתא? So that proves that צער בעלי חיים is not דאורייתא. So the גמרא says: אמר ליה הא מני רבי יוסי הגלילי היא. We must say that this ברייתא goes according to רבי יוסי הגלילי, דאמר, that he says צער בעלי חיים לאו דאורייתא, that צער בעלי חיים is not מדאורייתא. As the גמרא proved before that since in our משנה, רבי יוסי הגלילי said that if the load is too much, then you are not obligated to help, so that shows that רבי יוסי הגלילי holds that צער בעלי חיים is not דאורייתא. So we have to say that that ברייתא too goes according to רבי יוסי הגלילי who holds that צער בעלי חיים is not דאורייתא. Then the גמרא continues: תא שמע, come and hear, we learned: אוהב לפרוק ושונא לטעון. If you

have a choice of helping your friend unload or helping your enemy load, מצוה בשונא, the מצוה first comes to help your enemy load. The reason is כדי לכוף את יצרו, in order to bend your יצר הרע. Since you really don't wanna help your enemy? So therefore, in order to bend your יצר הרע, first comes to help your enemy load before your friend unload. אי סלקא דעתך, the גמרא says, if you're going to think צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא, then הא עדיפא, this should be better, since your friend wants you to unload, and when it comes to unload, it involves the מצוה of צער בעלי חיים. So why shouldn't the דין be that first you should help your friend unload before you help your enemy load? But the גמרא says, אפילו הכי, still, כדי לכוף את יצרו עדיף. To bend your יצר הרע is better, and even though if you would help your friend unload, you would be doing the מצוה of צער בעלי חיים, you would avoid צער from an animal, helping your enemy load has nothing to do with צער בעלי חיים, but still it's better to help your enemy load before your friend unload because there's a different gain that you have when you help your enemy load, the gain of bending your יצר הרע, and that is stronger. Then the גמרא says, תא שמע, come and hear.

שונא שאמרו, when we say that you have to help even if he's your enemy, שונא ישראל, it means a איד who is your enemy, ולא שונא עובד כוכבים, but not a גוי who is your enemy. And at this point, the גמרא felt that this is explaining the פסוק. The פסוק that deals with unloading starts off with the words כי תראה חמור שונאך רובץ תחת משאו, if you will see the donkey of your enemy laying under its load, you might think not to help it, the פסוק says, עזב תעזב עמו, you should help with him. So the פסוק says that this דין is even if you see the donkey of your enemy. So the גמרא thinks that when the ברייתא says that שונא שאמרו, that when the דין is that you have to help your enemy, it means only a איד who is your enemy, but not a גוי, so it's as if the ברייתא is saying that if the same thing would happen by a גוי, you wouldn't have to help him unload. So the גמרא asks, אי אמרת צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא, if you're going to hold that צער בעלי חיים is דין of the תורה, מה לי שונא ישראל, מה לי שונא עובד כוכבים? So what difference does it make whether the one that owns the donkey, who is your enemy, is a איד or a גוי, you still should have to help him unload because of צער בעלי חיים. But the גמרא says, מי סברת, do you think, אשונא דקרא קאי, that when it says here that שונא means a שונא who is a איד but not a שונא who is a גוי, refers to the פסוק? אשונא דמתניתין קאי. It refers to the ברייתא that we said before, that if you have אוהב לפרוק ושונא לטעון, that if you have a friend to help him unload and an enemy to help him load, so first comes the enemy, that's what we're talking about, that that enemy that's mentioned in that ברייתא only means a איד. But if that enemy would be a גוי, then we wouldn't say that you should first help the enemy load before you help your friend unload. So according to that, we have no ראיה that צער בעלי חיים is not דאורייתא, because there we're not talking about unloading your enemy's donkey, but we're talking about loading your enemy's donkey. So there there is no צער בעלי חיים, and therefore, we're able to say that this only applies if the שונא was a איד, but not if the שונא was a גוי.

Continuing, we learned in the גמרא before that we have a special פסוק to tell us that if the father says to the son not to do a מצוה, to do an עבירה, so then the דין is that you do not have to listen to your father, because the פסוק says, איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמורו. And if not for that פסוק, we would think that you do have to listen to your father. And the reason, the way it comes out from the גמרא, is because we would say עשה דוחה לא תעשה. The עשה of כיבוד אב is דוחה the לא תעשה, and therefore, you do have to listen to your father. So the תוספות ישנים in כתובות דף מ' asks a קשיא: Why do we need a פסוק that the עשה of כיבוד אב is not דוחה the לא תעשה? לכאורה, without the פסוק it wouldn't be דוחה anyway, because since the דין is that if a father says he is מוחל on his כבוד, then you do not have to give him כבוד, and in a case like that, if it's an עשה that could be מוחל, then that עשה is not דוחה the לא תעשה, because the גמרא there in כתובות says that the עשה of ולו תהיה לאשה is not דוחה the לא תעשה. The דין is that if someone is מאנס, forces a woman to do an עבירה with her, and she is not an אשת איש, so the דין is ולו תהיה לאשה, she's supposed to stay married to him always. And nevertheless, if there is a לא תעשה involved, if for instance he is a כהן and he divorced her, he cannot take her back because there is a לא תעשה that he is not allowed to marry a גרושה. איי, why don't we say that the עשה of ולו תהיה לאשה, the עשה that she should be married to him, דוחה the לא תעשה? But the גמרא says that since this is a kind of עשה that is not always there, because if the woman herself says, "I don't want to stay married to him," then there is no עשה on him to stay married to her. So since this is an עשה that is dependent on somebody else, that if somebody says, "I don't want, you don't have to fulfill it," such an עשה is not דוחה the לא תעשה. So according to that, that, here too, since if the father would want, he could be מוחל on his כבוד, so why would we think that this עשה is דוחה the לא תעשה? And תוספות ישנים answer that still, לפועל, if the father does tell him to do it, there is an עשה there. So therefore we would think that עשה is דוחה. What is the פשט in the words of the תוספות ישנים? לכאורה, what the גמרא is saying is that even if she did not say, "I don't want," it is because she is able to say, "I don't want," that is enough to say that the עשה should not be דוחה the לא תעשה. So here too, טאקע at this point the father did not say, "I am מוחל on the כבוד," but since he is able to say that he is מוחל on the כבוד, so we also should not say that עשה דוחה לא תעשה. So the חתם סופר there explains the פשט in the תוספות ישנים, that they mean to say as follows: by the case of אונס, as soon as he does the act of אונס, right away he is מחוייב in the עשה of ולו תהיה לאשה. Later on, if she says, "I don't want," then the עשה is מתבטל, there is no עשה to begin with. And that is the reason why in a case like that we do not say עשה דוחה לא תעשה, because this is not similar to the general דין of עשה דוחה לא תעשה. Generally, the example of עשה דוחה לא תעשה is for instance כלאים בציצית. That when you have a בגד that's מחוייב בציצית, and the only way you could fulfill the מצוה of ציצית is by putting in wool which will make it into שעטנז, so we say the עשה of ציצית is דוחה the לא תעשה of שעטנז. So we say that only if it's an עשה דוחה לא תעשה similar to the case of כלאים בציצית, a case where you cannot be מבטל the מצוה, you cannot say that you could do something that there should be no מצוה, in a case like that we say עשה דוחה לא תעשה. But in the case of the אונס, since you could do something to be מבטל the עשה לכתחילה, there we don't say עשה דוחה לא תעשה. But that is only in the case of אונס. But in the case of כיבוד אב, לכתחילה the עשה does not come till the father says, "I want you to do this and this עבירה." And after he said it already and the עשה is there, there's nothing that you could do that should take the עשה away. And therefore, in a case like that, we do say עשה דוחה לא תעשה. But the

תוספות הראש answers the קשיא in the name of רבינו מאיר differently. He says that in the case of אונס, if she says, "I don't want to marry him," then there is no עשה at all לגבי this מאנס. But here, if the father says, "I don't want you to do it," so it doesn't mean that he is מבטל the עשה forever. He still could fulfill the עשה through other things, so it comes out that the עשה is not מתבטל completely, so that's why it's not the same as the case of the מאנס. And also he says, even if he says, "I don't want," there is still an עשה, because you still have to be מכבד your father even if he is מוחל. While over there, if she says, "I don't want," there is no עשה whatsoever. But the קצות in סימן צ״ז סעיף קטן א׳, he writes that כיבוד אב is different than the case of the אונס, because by כיבוד אב there's a special לימוד that the תורה compared the כבוד of the parents to the כבוד of ה׳. So there we would think that even if it's a מצוה that the father could be מוחל, but nevertheless it still should be דוחה the לא תעשה because it's a special מצות עשה, therefore we need a special פסוק that it's not דוחה. But the תורת חסד answers a different תירוץ. He says that by השבת אבידה there's a special דין. Since by השבת אבידה also, if the one that lost the object would say, "I don't want it back," there is no מצוה of returning it. So it comes out that the לא תעשה of השבת אבידה and the עשה of כיבוד אב are both equal: the עשה doesn't always have to be, the father could be מוחל, and the לא תעשה doesn't always have to be. And therefore we would think in a case like that, the עשה is דוחה the לא תעשה. But the שואל ומשיב מהדורא תליתאה חלק ג׳ סימן ל״ו gives a different תירוץ. And he says that the whole reason why we say עשה דוחה לא תעשה, the רמב״ן explains in חומש, is because when you do an עשה, you fulfill the רצון of ה׳. When you do a לא תעשה, the פשט is you are careful from not going against the רצון of ה׳. It is greater to do in a positive way the רצון of ה׳ than being careful of transgressing. And therefore an עשה, which is the positive way of doing the רצון of ה׳, is greater than being careful of a לא תעשה, that's why we say עשה דוחה לא תעשה. So therefore, in the case of אונס, since even though there is an עשה of ולו תהיה לאשה, but still this whole עשה ה׳ would be happier if it would never come to it. ה׳ would be happier if you would never be מענה her and never have to come onto the עשה. In a case like that, we say such an עשה, since also if she wants she could say, "I don't want," and the עשה is not so strong, we don't say עשה דוחה לא תעשה. But by the case of כיבוד אב, since he is fulfilling a positive מצוה of כיבוד אב, so even though if the father would be מוחל there would be no מצוה, nevertheless the מצוה is a positive מצוה that the אייבערשטער, that ה׳ is happy with, so here there is a סברא to say that it should be דוחה the לא תעשה even if it isn't a case where there is a possibility for the father to say that I am מוחל and there would be no עשה. And therefore we need the special פסוק of את שבתותי תשמורו that even in a case like that, we don't say עשה דוחה לא תעשה. But לכאורה this whole רמב"ן is not understood, that he says that the reason עשה דוחה לא תעשה is because עשה is greater, לכאורה it's a contradiction to what the גמרא says in the beginning of יבמות that לאו לא תעשה חמיר מיניה, that isn't a לא תעשה stricter than the עשה, and nevertheless עשה דוחה לא תעשה. So we see that the גמרא feels that the reason why עשה דוחה לא תעשה is not because an עשה is stronger. So לכאורה we must say the answer, that it depends how we look at it, whether we look at the fulfillment or at the עבירה. One thing we do know, that always a קום ועשה, a positive act, is always stronger than a שב ואל תעשה, than not doing something. When it comes to doing something right, if you do a קום ועשה right, or you do right by not doing an עבירה, so the קום ועשה is stronger. And the same is when it comes to doing an עבירה: it's worse when you do an עבירה בקום ועשה, than when you do an עבירה through a שב ואל תעשה. And therefore, whenever we say עשה דוחה לא תעשה, we do one thing right, we're מקיים one, we're מקיים the עשה, and we are עובר on the לא תעשה. So if we're looking as far as the fulfillment, so we say the עשה is stronger, because we fulfill the מצוה through a קום ועשה, while the לא תעשה we would have fulfilled through a שב ואל תעשה. But when it comes to the עבירה, when we look at the other side, at what we are עובר, so we're עובר the לא תעשה through a קום ועשה, while we are עובר on the מצות עשה, if we would have been עובר, through a שב ואל תעשה. So when the גמרא says that a לא תעשה is חמור, it speaks about being עובר, because to be עובר on a לא תעשה, it's worse than to be עובר on a עשה, because you're עובר through קום ועשה. On the other hand, when the רמב"ן says that the עשה is stronger, he is talking about the קיום, about the fulfillment. When you fulfill a עשה, it's stronger than fulfilling a לא תעשה, because by fulfilling the עשה it is through a קום ועשה, through doing something; fulfilling a לא תעשה is by not doing something. And based on this רמב"ן, the בעל התניא in beginning of אגרת התשובה, he writes also that the reason why עשה דוחה לא תעשה is because there is a greater אור, a greater light of השם that comes down through an עשה than לא תעשה. So the commentaries say that the reason the אלטער רבי says this is because he bases it on the רמב"ן that he says that the עשה is stronger, and therefore we say עשה דוחה לא תעשה.