אֲבָל הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי דְּאִיתֵאּ לְמָרַהּ בַּהֲדַהּ, אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

but in the case of these two mitzvot of unloading and loading, where its owner is with it, I might say no, there is no need to assist him. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to write both.

״מוֹת יוּמַת הַמַּכֶּה״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּמִיתָה הַכְּתוּבָה בּוֹ. מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲמִיתוֹ בְּמִיתָה הַכְּתוּבָה בּוֹ שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לַהֲמִיתוֹ בְּכׇל מִיתָה שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲמִיתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מוֹת יוּמַת״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

§ The Gemara cites additional derivations from compound verb forms. “Or in enmity struck him with his hand, that he died; he that struck him shall be put to death [mot yumat]” (Numbers 35:21). I have derived only that the murderer is executed with the form of death written with regard to him, i.e., decapitation. From where is it derived that if you are unable to execute him with the form of death written with regard to him, it is permitted for you to execute him with any death with which you are able to execute him? The verse states: “Mot yumat,” to teach that you must execute him in any case.

״הַכֵּה תַכֶּה״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּהַכָּאָה הַכְּתוּבָה בָּהֶן, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲמִיתָן בְּהַכָּאָה הַכְּתוּבָה בָּהֶן שֶׁאַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְהַכּוֹתָן בְּכׇל הַכָּאָה שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַכֵּה תַכֶּה״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

With regard to an idolatrous city, it is written: “You shall strike [hakeh takeh] the inhabitants of that city by sword, destroying it utterly” (Deuteronomy 13:16). I have derived only that the residents of the idolatrous city are executed with the form of death written with regard to them, i.e., decapitation. From where is it derived that if you are unable to execute them with the form of death written with regard to them, it is permitted for you to execute them with any death with which you are able to execute them? The verse states: “Hakeh takeh,” to teach that you must execute him in any case.

״הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת בֵּית דִּין. מִשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת בֵּית דִּין, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

With regard to an item that a poor person needs, e.g., a blanket, that a lender took as collateral when lending him money, it is written: “You shall restore [hashev tashiv] to him the pledge when the sun goes down, that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; and it shall be righteousness for you before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 24:13). I have derived only the obligation to return his garment each night in a case where the lender took collateral with the sanction of the court. From where do I derive the obligation to return his garment each night even in a case where the lender took collateral without the sanction of the court? The verse states: “Hashev tashiv,” to teach that he must return it in any case.

״חָבֹל תַּחְבֹּל״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת. מִשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״חָבֹל תַּחְבֹּל״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

The Gemara brings another derivation from a compound verb written with regard to returning collateral: “If you take as collateral [ḥavol taḥbol] your neighbor’s garment, you shall restore it to him until the sun sets” (Exodus 22:25). I have derived only the obligation to return his garment before sunset in a case where the lender took collateral with the sanction of the court. From where do I derive the obligation to return his garment each night even in a case where the lender took collateral without the sanction of the court? The verse states: “Ḥavol taḥbol,” to teach that he must return it in any case.

וְהָנֵי תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי לְמָה לִי? חַד לִכְסוּת יוֹם, וְחַד לִכְסוּת לַיְלָה.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to these two verses, why do I need both of them to teach the same halakha, that one must return to the debtor any garment that he needs? The Gemara answers: One is referring to a garment worn during the day, and one is referring to a garment worn during the night (see 114b).

״פָּתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לַעֲנִיֵּי עִירֶךָ. לַעֲנִיֵּי עִיר אַחֶרֶת, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״פָּתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

With regard to the mitzva of giving charity and granting loans, it is written: “For the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command you, saying: You shall open [patoaḥ tiftaḥ] your hand to your poor and needy brother in your land” (Deuteronomy 15:11). I have derived only the obligation to give charity to the poor residents of your city. From where is the obligation to give charity to the poor residents of another city derived? The verse states: “Patoaḥ tiftaḥ,” to teach that you must give charity to the poor in any case.

״נָתֹן תִּתֵּן״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַתָּנָה מְרוּבָּה. מַתָּנָה מוּעֶטֶת, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״נָתֹן תִּתֵּן״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

With regard to the mitzva of giving charity it is written: “Beware…and your eye is stingy against your needy brother…You shall give [naton titten] him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give unto him” (Deuteronomy 15:9–10). I have derived only the obligation to give a large gift. From where is the obligation to give even a small gift derived? The verse states: “Naton titten,” to teach that one must give gifts in any case, whether a large gift or a small one.

״הַעֲנֵיק תַּעֲנִיק״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְבָּרֵךְ הַבַּיִת בִּגְלָלוֹ מַעֲנִיקִין. לֹא נִתְבָּרֵךְ הַבַּיִת בִּגְלָלוֹ, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַעֲנֵיק תַּעֲנִיק״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

With regard to the release of a Hebrew slave it is written: “You shall furnish [ha’aneik ta’anik] him liberally from your flock, and from your threshing floor, and from your winepress; of that which the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give unto him” (Deuteronomy 15:14). Based on the conclusion of the verse, I have derived only that when the house is blessed because of him, one furnishes the slave with gifts. From where have I derived the obligation to furnish him with gifts even when the house is not blessed because of him? The verse states: “Ha’aneik ta’anik,” to teach that one must furnish him with gifts in any case.

וּלְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, דְּאָמַר: נִתְבָּרֵךְ הַבַּיִת בִּגְלָלוֹ – מַעֲנִיקִין לוֹ, לֹא נִתְבָּרֵךְ הַבַּיִת בִּגְלָלוֹ – אֵין מַעֲנִיקִין, ״תַּעֲנִיק״ לְמָה לִי? דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who says: If the house is blessed because of him, one furnishes him with gifts, and if the house is not blessed because of him, one need not furnish him with gifts, why do I need a compound verb, “ha’aneik ta’anik”? The Gemara answers: The Torah speaks in the language of people. The compound verb is a common conversational style, and the Torah employs the same style. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds there is nothing extraordinary about it and therefore, nothing may be derived from it.

״הַעֲבֵט תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס, אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: תֵּן לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ הַלְוָאָה. יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

With regard to the mitzva of lending money to the poor it is written: “But you shall open your hand to him, and you shall lend [ha’avet ta’avitennu] him sufficient for his need that he is lacking” (Deuteronomy 15:8). I have derived only that in a case where one does not have resources and does not want to be supported with charity, the Merciful One states: Provide for him by means of a loan. In a case where he has resources and he does not want to support himself with his resources, from where is the obligation to lend him money derived? The verse states: “Ta’avitennu,” to teach that you must grant him a loan in any case.

וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: יֵשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ, ״תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ״ לְמָה לִי? דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that in a case where he has resources and does not want to support himself with his resources one is not obligated to attend to his needs, why do I need a doubled verb: “Ha’avet ta’avitennu”? The Gemara answers: The Torah speaks in the language of people and nothing may be derived from it.

הָיָה בָּטֵל מִן הַסֶּלַע, לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ ״תֵּן לִי סֶלַע״, אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל (בָּטֵל). תְּנַן: נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׂכָרוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל.

§ The mishna teaches: If in the course of tending to and returning the lost item, the finder was idle from labor that would have earned him a sela, he shall not say to the owner of the item: Give me a sela to compensate me for my lost income. Rather, the owner gives him his wage as if he were a laborer. The Gemara cites that we learned in a baraita (Tosefta 4:11): The owner gives him his wage as if he were an idle laborer.

מַאי כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ מְלָאכָה, דִּבְטַל מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: As if he were an idle laborer? In fact, he is not idle, but engaged in return of a lost item. Abaye said: It means that he is paid as a laborer who is idle from that typical labor of his from which he is kept idle. In other words, he must receive the amount of money a person would be willing to accept to refrain from his current occupation and engage in returning a lost item. This calculation accounts for both the degree of difficulty of his steady employment and the amount of his remuneration.

אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם בֵּית דִּין – מַתְנֶה בִּפְנֵיהֶם. אִיסּוּר וְרַב סָפְרָא עֲבֻיד עִיסְקָא בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי. אֲזַל רַב סָפְרָא פְּלַג לֵיהּ בְּלָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּאִיסּוּר בְּאַפֵּי בֵּי תְרֵי. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי תְּלָתָא דִּפְלַגְתְּ קַמַּיְיהוּ, אִי נָמֵי

§ The mishna teaches: If there are three men there who can convene as a court, he may stipulate before the court that he will undertake to return the item provided that he receives full compensation for lost income. The Gemara relates: Issur and Rav Safra formed a joint venture with each other. Rav Safra went and dissolved their partnership without Issur’s knowledge in the presence of two witnesses. Rav Safra came before Rabba bar Rav Huna in order to ratify the dissolution of the partnership. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Go and bring me the court of three before whom you dissolved your partnership. Alternatively, you may bring