Support (Beraisa): If one found a garment or axe on a paved road, or a cow running through a vineyard, it is an Aveidah;

A garment or axe next to the fence, or a cow grazing in the vineyard (Gra - in the grass) is not an Aveidah

If this persisted for three straight days, it is an Aveidah.

If Reuven saw water coming to flood Shimon's field. he should block it.

(Rava): "L'Chol Aveidas Achicha" includes land.

Support (R. Chananyah - Beraisa): If Reuven saw water coming to flood Shimon's field, he should block it.

Rejection (Rava): Perhaps this is only when there are (detached) sheaves in the field.

Question: If so, surely he must save them! (They are like the examples of Aveidos in the Torah.)

Answer: Really, the sheaves need to remain attached a bit longer. One might have thought that they are considered like land (and Hashavas Aveidah does not apply to them). The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): A donkey or cow...

Question: The inferences contradict each other!

It says that if it was grazing on the path, it is not an Aveidah. This implies that if it was running on the path or grazing in a vineyard, it would be an Aveidah!

Then it says that a cow running through vineyards is an Aveidah. This implies that if it was running on the path or grazing in a vineyard, it would not be an Aveidah!

Answer #1 (Abaye): Each case teaches about a similar case.

If it was grazing on the path, it is not an Aveidah. The same applies if they were grazing in a vineyard!

If it was running through vineyards, it is an Aveidah. The same applies if it was running on a path!

Rejection (Rava): If each case teaches about a similar case, it should teach the bigger Chidush each time!

It should teach that running on the path is an Aveidah, and all the more so, running in a vineyard!

It should teach that grazing in a vineyard is not an Aveidah, and all the more so, grazing on the path!

Answer #2 (Rava): Running is an Aveidah if it is heading away from the city, but not if it is heading to the city;

A grazing animal is not an Aveidah, but it is a loss for the landowner!

It says that grazing on the path is not an Aveidah. Grazing in a vineyard is an Aveidah, i.e. a loss to the vineyard;

It says that a cow running through vineyards is an Aveidah. Grazing in a vineyard is not an Aveidah. This refers to the animal;

It gets wounded when running through a vineyard, but not when grazing.

Question: Grazing in a vineyard is an Aveidah, i.e. to the vineyard!

Answer: It is a Kusi's vineyard.

Question: It is a potential loss of the animal. Perhaps the Kusi will kill it!

Answer: It is in a place where they warn before killing the animal.

Question: Perhaps he already warned about it!

Answer: If so, the owner knowingly gives up his animal. We are not commanded to save it.

(Mishnah): If he returned it and it got lost again, he returned it and it got lost again...

Question: We should say that "Hashev" teaches that it must be returned once, and "Teshivem" teaches a second time (but no more)!

Answer (Rava): "Hashev" connotes even 100 times;

"Teshivem" teaches that one may return not only to his house, rather, even to his garden or fallen house.

Question: What is the case?

If it is guarded there, obviously, it is returned!

If it is not guarded there, why is it considered returned?

Answer: Really, it is guarded. The Beraisa teaches that the owner need not know that it was returned;

(R. Elazar): All thieves and Shomrim must inform the owners when returning the object. Only an Aveidah may be returned without the owner's knowledge, for the Torah included many ways to return it.

Question: We should say that "Shale'ach (send)" obligates sending (a bird crouching on eggs or chicks) once, and "Teshalach" teaches a second time (but no more)!

Answer (Rava): "Shale'ach" connotes even 100 times;

"Teshalach" obligates sending the bird even if he needs it for a Mitzvah (e.g. Taharas Metzora).

Question: We should say that "Hoche'ach" obligates rebuking once, and "Tochi'ach" teaches a second time (but no more)!

Answer (Rava): "Hoche'ach" connotes even 100 times;

"Tochi'ach" teaches that even a Talmid must rebuke his Rebbi.

Suggestion: Perhaps "Azov Ta'azov Imo" obligates helping to unload only if the owner helps!

Rejection: "Azov Ta'azov" obligates even if the owner cannot help.

Suggestion: Perhaps "Hakem Takim Imo" obligates helping to load only if the owner helps!

Rejection: "Hakem Takim" obligates even if the owner cannot help.

Question: Why must the Torah write both Mitzvos, loading and unloading?

Answer #1: Both are needed;

Had it taught only unloading, one might have thought that this is due to pain to the animal and a monetary loss to the owner (the animal gets weaker), but these do not apply to loading;

Had it taught only about loading, one might have thought that that is because he is paid, but there would be no Mitzvah to unload for free.

Question: R. Shimon says that also loading is for free. How can he answer?

Answer #2: He says that there is no indication which verse discusses loading and which discusses unloading. Had the Torah written only one, we would assume there is a Mitzvah only to unload.

Question: Why must the Torah write both these Mitzvos and the Mitzvah of returning an Aveidah?

Answer: All are needed.

Had it taught only loading and unloading, one might have thought that that it because there is pain both to the owner and animal, but regarding an Aveidah, there is pain only to the owner;

Had it taught only returning an Aveidah, one might have thought that that it because the owner is not there (to save his object), but regarding loading and unloading, the owner is there, so he could hire people to help him!

(Continuation of Beraisa) Question: Perhaps "Mos Yamus ha'Makeh (the murderer will be killed)" is only like the Torah said, with a sword. What is the source that if we cannot kill him this way, we kill him any way we can?

Answer: "Mos Yumas' - in any event.

Question: Perhaps "Hakeh Takeh" (you will destroy the city in which the majority of people served idolatry) is only like the Torah said, by burning. What is the source that if we cannot burn it, we destroy it any way we can?

Answer: "Hakeh Takeh" - in any event.

Question: Perhaps "Hashev Tashiv (you will return)" discusses only a security taken with permission of Beis Din. What is the source for a security taken without permission of Beis Din?

Answer: "Hashev Tashiv" - in any event.

Question: Perhaps "Chavol Tachbol" discusses returning only a security taken with permission of Beis Din. What is the source for a security taken without permission of Beis Din?

Answer: "Chavol Tachbol" - in any event.

Question: Why are both verses needed?

Answer: One (the latter) teaches about a day garment (one must return it before morning). The other teaches about a night garment (one must return it before nightfall).

Question: Perhaps "Paso'ach Tiftach (open your hand to give)" applies only to poor people of your city. What is the source that it applies even to poor people of another city?

Answer: "Paso'ach Tiftach" - in any case.

Question: Perhaps "Nason Titen" is only if you can give a big gift. What is the source that it applies even to a small gift?

Answer: "Nason Titen" - in any case.

Question: Perhaps "Ha'anek Ta'anik" (you will bestow a gift to a Yisrael slave when he goes free) is only if your house was blessed while he worked for you (like the verse says). What is the source that it applies even if it was not blessed?

Answer: "Ha'anek Ta'anik" - in any event.

Question: According to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, who says that you do not give him if the house was not blessed - why does the Torah say "Ha'anek Ta'anik"?

Answer: The Torah speaks like people do.

Question: Perhaps "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu (you will lend him)" is only if he has no money and does not want a gift. What is the source that it applies if he has money, but does not want to use it?

Answer: "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu" - in any event.

Question: According to R. Shimon, who says that if he has money and does not want to use it, we do not lend him - why does it say "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu"?

Answer: The Torah speaks like people do.

(Mishnah): If Reuven lost one Sela of earnings, he may not demand compensation of one Sela. Rather, he is paid like a worker.

(Beraisa): He is paid like an idle worker (the amount he would want to receive to consent to neglect his work and be idle).

Question: He did not rest. He returned an Aveidah!

Answer (Abaye): He is paid like a worker would want to receive to engage in light labor (such as returning an Aveidah) instead of his job.