Reference: I explained above (25b DH v'Im, that it is not an Aveidah, for it is in a guarded place, or it was intentionally placed, for it is normal for workers to leave their Talesim or axes next to the fence of that field in which they work).

Suggestion: We ask why we need the entire verse of unloading or loading.

Rejection #1: If so, how can the Gemara say "had it taught [only] loading, [I would say that he is obligated to help load only because] he is paid"? Below (32a), it connotes that [we know that] he is paid for loading only because unloading is written!

Rejection #2: This Tzerichusa applies only below!

Explanation: Rather, we ask why the Torah wrote extra words in the verse to teach about when the owner is not with him regarding unloading, and also regarding loading.

Question: Below (32a), it connotes that according to R. Shimon, the verse "Noflim ba'Derech" does not unequivocally refer to loading, for it connotes that the load is on it. Had it written only one verse, we would have established it to discuss unloading;

However, all agree that the verse "Rovetz Tachas Masa'o" refers only to unloading. Now that both were written, also according to R. Shimon, the verse "Noflim ba'Derech" refers to loading;

If so, according to R. Shimon the Torah needed to write only one extra matter for the case when the owner is not with him, in the verse of Noflim ba'Derech!

Answer: According to R. Shimon, also Rovetz Tachas Masa'o is ambiguous. It could connote loading, for since there are not many people to [finish] load[ing], the load becomes heavy on the animal, and it crouches;

Below, we needed to say that it is ambiguous only regarding the verse Noflim ba'Derech (but really, both are ambiguous).

Implied question: Below (32b), it says "v'Chadlata is written regarding unloading!" (According to Tosfos, R. Shimon holds that the verse could refer to either!)

Answer: This is only according to Rabanan. According to R. Shimon, it could refer to loading.

Implied question: Above (31a), we include when the owner is not with him! (Why do we say here that the owner is with him?)

Answer: [Above,] it means that the owner is old or sick. Granted, [the owner] cannot help [load or unload]. He could hire workers! One might have thought that [one who sees him need] not [load or unload]. The verse teaches that this is not so.

Reference: I explained this below (113a DH Machazir. Shmuel says that even the Shali'ach of Beis Din may not enter the borrower's house. The verse primarily discusses one who took a security b'Isur. He need not reverse our Beraisa to say "I would know only a security taken without permission..." Tana'im argue about this. Shmuel holds like the other Tana.)

Question #1: Do they (R. Elazar ben Azaryah and R. Shimon, who say that the Torah speaks like people, and we need not expound the repetition) disagree with all the Drashos above?!

Question #2: Above (31a), we resolved according to R. Shimon (why each verse has a repetition, Azov Ta'azov or Hakim Takim), that the verses are ambiguous (either could discuss loading or unloading)!

Question #3: In Rosh Hashanah (8a), R. Shimon expounds "Aser Ta'aser" to teach about Ma'aser of grain and Ma'aser Behemah!

Answer: Only here, regarding these two verses, we say Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam, for the verses prove so. It says "Dai Machsoro" (which connotes that he truly needs), and the other verse says "Asher Berachecha" (it connotes that he was blessed).

Implied question - Citation (below, 94b): Had the Torah written only "Im Ganav", I would know only theft. What is the source to include Aveidah? It says "Yiganev";

It asks, according to the opinion that Dibrah Torah k'Leshon Bnei Adam, how can we answer? (What is the question? This opinion says so only when the verse proves so!)

Answer: Also there, there is a proof, for "Geneivah" connotes specifically theft, and not an Aveidah.

Explanation: He stipulates that [the loser] will pay him all that he would have earned in the task he was doing. If there is no Beis Din, he does not return it, since if he will return it, he will get only like a worker [wants to receive to be] idle [rather than toil and receive his full wage];

However, if he does not work, he returns for free.

Question: Above (30a), it says "or if his [wages that he will lose] were more [than the Aveidah is worth, he does not return it]". What is the case?

If there is no Beis Din, even if [his wage] is less [he does not return it];

If it is in front of Beis Din, also when [his wage] is not greater, rather, the same [as the Aveidah], why should Beis Din stipulate to pay him his full wage? If so, what does the owner gain?

Answer: (It is in front of Beis Din. Even if it is worth the same,) the owner profits [getting back] an animal that is used to his home, or [is spared] extra exertion [to buy a new animal].

Support: We answer like this below (93b).

Question: Here, [the loser] pays at least wages like an idle worker, and so we answer below (93b) regarding a shepherd who could have gathered shepherds and sticks [to fend off a lion]...

A Shomer Sachar should hire them for wages, and a Shomer Chinam should hire them for free. A Shomer Sachar who hired for wages, he gets the money back from the owner, and presumably also a Shomer Chinam who hired for wages, he gets it back from the owner;

In Bava Kama (115b), a Mishnah teaches that if an overflowing river swept away his donkey and his friend's donkey, and he abandoned his own and saved his friend's, he gets only his wage. [His friend] does not pay for the [rescuer's] donkey that drowned!

Answer #1: There we discuss when his friend could have saved [his own] with difficulty. If not, [the rescuer] could say "I acquired from Hefker!", like it says there.

Answer #2: Since the owner of the [rescued] donkey is there, he can say [had you not saved mine,] I would have hired workers to save it.

Question: Here, why does he get wages? And below, if a Shomer Chinam, who need not hire [shepherds and sticks] for wages, if he did, why does he get it back from the owner?

We say in Bava Kama (58a) that Mavri'ach Ari (one who chases away a lion) from his friend's property, the friend is exempt [from paying him]!

Answer #1: According to the latter version in Bava Kama, that Mavri'ach Ari is exempt because he has no loss, this is fine. Here, he has a loss.

Question: However, according to the first version, which says that Mavri'ach Ari is when he intentionally [saves], this connotes that even if he has no loss, [the owner] is exempt, since [the saver] intentionally [saved]. This is difficult! (Here, he is liable.)

Answer (Ri): Mavri'ach Ari is exempt, i.e. only when he saves from fear of a lion. He was afraid lest it come, and he gathered shepherds and chased it away. The damage was not clear. Without his saving, perhaps [the lion] would not have come;

However, one who saves from the mouth of a lion, or an overflowing river swept away his donkey, and an Aveidah, in which the damage is clear, if one came and saved, he gets his wage.

Question: Reuven may pay the loan of Shimon, who may not benefit from Reuven due to a vow (Nedarim 33a, Kesuvos 108a). We consider this Mavri'ach Ari, even though the damage was clear, and Reuven lost [money]!

Answer #1: Also there, he does not save him from a loss. This that the lender takes from [the borrower] is not a loss, for he was obligated to him. Therefore, he is considered Mavri'ach Ari. (Sha'arei Yosher 3:26 - had the borrower himself paid, he would have received benefit from this, i.e. the Mitzvah to pay a loan. Therefore, it is not considered a [pure] loss.)

Answer #2: It is like the Yerushalmi in Nedarim explains. [The borrower says] "I would have appeased [the lender], and he would have pardoned me." Even [if the lender had] a security, [he can say] "I would have appeased him, and he would have returned my security." The Yerushalmi concludes like this even regarding a creditor who presses for payment;

It seems that the reason is because he can say "I would have found many friends to pay for me." This is like those reasons (it is not a sure loss).

Implied question: In Bava Basra (53a), why do we say that if one inserted a pebble or removed a pebble, to dam up water or release water, he is Mavri'ach Ari, even though he saves him from damage? The river would have flooded [his property]!

Answer: There, he is not called Mavri'ach to exempt [the owner] from paying wages for the rescue. Rather, [he is called Mavri'ach to show why] this is not a Chazakah, since he does not improve the field, rather, he merely protects it so it will not be ruined.

Assertion: Also R. Tam holds that it is not considered Mavri'ach Ari in a case that he saves him from a loss.

Source: [R. Tam] established the case of paying [the Mudar's] his debt specifically regarding feeding his wife, like he explained in Kesuvos (108a), because it is possible that she would have worked and eaten [her earnings], or been supported from Tzedakah or her relatives, who would give to her for free;

However, other cases of paying a debt, R. Tam says that this is not Mavri'ach Ari, rather, an absolute gift. The Yerushalmi argues with the Bavli.

Opinion #1: Based on this, if an officer stole Reuven's house, and his friend Shimon appeased the officer [to give up the house] for a small amount, if Reuven wants to take [back] his house, he must pay Shimon. Also R. Gershom ruled like this.

Opinion #2: However, Rashi (Gitin 58b) ruled that [Shimon] must return the house to him for free.

Pesak: It seems that [Reuven must pay] not only if Shimon bought it for [a small amount of] money, that he saved Reuven from the loss that Reuven would have paid [the officer to return it]. Rather, it is even if [Shimon] bought it for its value.

This is unlike Mavri'ach Ari, for had it stayed with the officer, he would never have returned it, even for its value.

This is like one who hired shepherds and sticks for wages. We say that he gets back the wages, up to the value [of what he saved. The owner] profits an animal that is used to his home, or [is spared] extra exertion.

Assertion: Even if it is known definitely that even had he not rushed to buy [the house, the officer] would have returned it for this amount, whenever [Reuven] will want, whether he bought it for much money, or a little money, he is unlike Mavri'ach Ari;

Since the house left the Chazakah of Yisrael, and came to a Nochri's hand, and [Shimon] removed it from the Nochri's Chazakah and returned it to Yisrael, he receives the amount he benefited him (Reuven pays what he would have had to pay the officer).

Reference: I explained this below (68a DH v'Nosen. There it connotes that this is what one pays one who was not engaged in work. However, Rashi says that it is what one pays one to neglect the work he was engaged in, and do this task, and other Gemaros connote like this.)