Alternative text: R. Chananel's text says "b'Tavrei", i.e. workers who lead the cattle for plowing, and do not make the plow go three Tefachim deep into the ground, and the seeds do not take root well.

Explanation: We ask only about spreading out a garment, and everything similar, for perhaps he will leave it spread out more than it needs, and it will be ruined.

Distinction: However, regarding a Sefer, we say that he reads in it, even though it is for his need just like for its need, and we do not decree, for there is nothing to be concerned for...

[There is no concern,] since [Chachamim] fixed a time for it, once every 30 days or once every 12 months, and he may not learn a new matter in it, and he may not read in it and repeat it.

Regarding copper Kelim, a Beraisa teaches below that he may use them even with hot [food or drink];

Silver Kelim are permitted with cold even for his need, since they cannot come to be ruined through this use.

Proof: (Below, it says that the laws of an Aveidah apply also to a deposit.) If [we permit a Shomer Aveidah, and hence also a regular Shomer] only for the need of the Kli, what was the question "a deposit? What is he doing with it?!"

Since he is a Shomer, he must investigate so it not get ruined, even though the owner does not tell him to use it!

Reference: This is taught in the Tosefta of Parah (2:3) regarding Parah Adumah.

Citation: The end of the Tosefta teaches "for his need, it is Pasul. For its need, it is Kosher." Therefore, we ask "this implies that for his need and its need is considered like for his need, and it is forbidden (i.e. disqualifies)!"

We answer that there, mid'Oraisa it is Pasul, like when a male mated with it. It is Pasul due to Rav Papa's teaching [since he is pleased with this].

Question: Why do we bring the case of a bird that rested on it?

Suggestion: It is because Rav Papa taught his teaching regarding it.

Objection: Why didn't he teach it on this case of entering it into the Ravkah (yoked team of animals)?

Answer: The teaching of the Ravkah is a Beraisa, but "a bird that rested on it" is a Mishnah.

Question: What is the source regarding Parah Adumah that we require that he is pleased [with the Melachah, in order to disqualify it]?

This is fine for the one who learns [the Pesul of] labors regarding Parah from a Gezeirah Shavah "Ol-Ol" (from Eglah Arufah. It is just like Eglah);

However, according to the opinion that does not learn the Gezeirah Shavah, and learns [the Pesul of] labors from [the verse of] Parah itself, what is the source that he must be pleased?

Answer: Since [Parah and Eglah Arufah] are the same regarding the Pesul of a yoke and labors, we should equate them also that he must be pleased.

Question: When a male mated with it, why is it Pasul? Surely he is not pleased that his Parah, which is very valuable [when it is Kosher], be disqualified for a small matter!

Answer: If it would be Kosher, he would be pleased. Therefore, we are not Machshir it.

Question: When he entered it into the Ravkah and it threshed, why is it Kosher? Why is this different than when a male mated with it? Then it is Pasul!

Answer: There, he is not pleased that it threshed, for he does not profit so much. Even without this, the grain will be threshed.

Question: If he did not know when the male mated with it, why is it Pasul? Why is this unlike Hechsher, which we say above (22a, that) if [he was pleased after] it dried, it is not Huchshar!

Answer: If we will say that it is disqualified only when he knew at the time it was mating, this is fine.

Support: It is also fine that in a Mishnah (Parah 2:1), R. Eliezer is Machshir a pregnant Parah;

Question: Does he not hold that if a male mated with it, it is Pasul?!

Answer #1: According to what I answered, it is fine.

Answer #2: [R. Eliezer] holds like R. Yehudah (Parah 2:4), who says that only if [the owner] mated the bull with it [it is Pasul], but if it mated by itself, it is Kosher.

Answer #3 (R. Yitzchak of Simpon): [R. Eliezer and Rabanan] do not argue about [a pregnant] Parah itself, only about its daughter;

Rabanan disqualify, like we expound in the Sifri "va'Yikchu Elecha Parah" - it must be a Parah [and not a fetus] at the time [Hekdesh] buys it. R. Eliezer disagrees with this Drashah.

Observation: Alternatively, they could argue about when they bought a small Parah (less than two or three years old, it is called an Eglah - Parah 1:1).

Question: One who does Melachah with Parah Adumah, it says that he is liable b'Yedei Shamayim [for disqualifying it - Bava Kama 56a].

Why is it Pasul? Surely, the owner is not pleased!

Answer #1: The case is, [the one who did Melachah with it] is a partner [in the Parah].

Answer #2: We do not require that the owner is pleased, only that the one who did Melachah with it is pleased.

Question: In Avodah Zarah (23b), R. Eliezer disqualifies a Parah bought from Nochrim, for he is concerned for bestiality. The Gemara infers that [Parah] is Kodshei Mizbe'ach, for if it were Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, why is it Pasul due to bestiality?

We should say that it is Pasul due to a yoke (just like when a bull mates with it)!

Answer: It connotes that he does not disqualify due to a yoke, for the Seifa teaches "and so R. Eliezer disqualifies other Korbanos." Therefore, we say that it is Kodshei Mizbe'ach, for which we exclude (disqualify) a Nirva (an animal used for bestiality) from "Min ha'Behemah." (See also Tosfos Avodah Zarah 23b DH Shma. He gives another answer, that we can disqualify due to a yoke when a bull mates with it, for it rests on the cow. A man stands while having Bi'ah with a cow, and does not rest on it.)

Question: In Yevamos (21a) and Sanhedrin (19a), we count a widow to a Kohen Gadol as a mere Lav. Why is this? There is [also] the Aseh "Kedoshim Yihyu"!

Answer: The Aseh "Kedoshim Yihyu" applies only to what is written in that Parshah (i.e. of a Kohen Hedyot, the Isurim of Tum'ah, tearing out hair, shaving, making deep scratches, and marrying a Zonah, Chalalah or divorcee).

Question #1: We say that Ein Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh when the Lav and Aseh are Shavah b'Chol. This Lav and Aseh are not Shavah b'Chol. An Aseh is Docheh them!

This is proven in Nazir (58b) that the Aseh of [Tiglachas] Metzora overrides the Lav and Aseh of Kohanim [to shave]!

Question #2: Below (32a), it says "one might have thought that if [a Kohen's father] told him "become Tamei" [he should obey...], and the Gemara asks "we already know this, for Ein Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh";

Regarding Kohanim, the Lo Sa'aseh v'Aseh are not Shavah b'Chol. An Aseh is Docheh them!

Answer #1: The Aseh of Metzora is different, because Shalom (Taharas Metzora permits him to his wife) is great, like it says in Chulin (141a) that the Aseh for a Metzora [to bring birds] would have overridden the Lav and Aseh of Shilu'ach ha'Kan if not for the repetition "Shale'ach Teshalach";

However, a regular Aseh is not Docheh Lav and Aseh even if it is not Shavah b'Chol.

Question: This answer is not valid according to the opinion that a Metzora Muchlat is permitted to his wife (the Aseh of Metzora is no greater than other Mitzvos Aseh, for even beforehand he was permitted to his wife), in Mo'ed Katan (7b)!

Answer #2: According to him, we can say that he relied on "further, do we override Isur due to monetary matters?!"

Answer #3: Below we give a better answer. [Kivud Av v'Em] would have overridden even a Lav and Aseh if not for a verse, even though normally, an Aseh is not Docheh a Lav and Aseh.

Implied question: In Yevamos (21a), regarding the argument of R. Yochanan and R. Elazar about a Kohen Gadol who had Bi'ah with a widow, and agree that he does not exempt the Tzarah, for an Aseh does not override a Lav and Aseh. (The Lav and Aseh are not Shavah b'Chol. An Aseh is Docheh them!)

Answer: [The Isur of a widow to a Kohen Gadol] is considered Shavah b'Chol, since the widow transgresses just like the Kohen, for we read "Lo Yikach" like Lo Yukchu (widows will not marry Kohanim Gedolim. The Isur applies to all women), even though it does not apply to all [men], only to Kohanim;

However, [the Lav and Aseh of] shaving the beard does not apply to women [at all]. The Aseh of Metzora overrides it.

Question: We already know from "ul'Achoso" that Kevod ha'Briyos overrides Bris Milah of one's son and Shechitah of Korban Pesach! (The verse teaches that if one (even a Nazir or Kohen Gadol) was heading to do one of these Mitzvos, and he encountered a Mes Mitzvah, he buries it, even though due to this he will not be able to do the Mitzvah he was engaged in.)

Answer: Kevod ha'Briyos of a Mes Mitzvah is more stringent. It is cast in disgrace, lest it rot or dogs eat it.

Implied question: In Berachos (20a), it is proven that if [the Isur of wearing] Sha'atnez were a passive transgression, it would be overridden due to Kevod ha'Briyos! (I.e. a Mes Mitzvah is no more stringent than other cases of Kevod ha'Briyos!)

Answer: That is because being naked is a great disgrace, like it says (Yevamos 63b) that no one is more disgusting than one who walks around naked;

Implied question: [Why do we need "ul'Achoso" to teach that Kevod ha'Briyos overrides Milah and Pesach? We should learn] from here (a Chacham is exempt from Hashavas Aveidah if it is disgraceful for him)!

Answer: [From here] we know [that Kevod ha'Briyos] overrides only monetary Mitzvos. We could not learn to Isurim such as [neglect to fulfill] Pesach or Milah, and also there is Kares [for neglecting them. See also Tosfos Shevu'os 30b. He discusses whether we could have said that we cannot learn from Zaken v'Einah l'Fi Kevodo , which is passive, to Kevuras Mes Mitzvah. He says also that money is more lenient, because it can be pardoned.)

Explanation: He did so (made it Hefker) lest people stumble in theft.

Question: It says in Nedarim (45a) that Hefker is only in front of three people!

Answer #1: Also here, there were three.

Answer #2: Mid'Oraisa, it is Hefker even without three.

Question: It says in Shabbos (18b) that [according to Beis Shamai, who forbid that one's Kelim do Melachah on Shabbos, one is Mafkir a barrel [in which beer brews], a lamp and a pot, even though there are not three people there!

Answer: There, Anan Sahadei (we can testify) that he is Mafkir in his heart lest he transgress the Isur of Shevisas Kelim. (Therefore, we do not need three.)

Question: In Yoma (9b), it says that [the second Churban] was due to groundless hatred!

Answer: [Not going past letter of the law] and [groundless hatred] caused [the Churban].

Explanation: [We ask what is an Aveidah about which the finder] understands that the owner does not know that it is there.