(Mishnah): If there is a Beis Din there, he stipulates in front of them...

Rav Safra and Isar had a joint business venture. Rav Safra, in front of two people, took half the merchandise without telling Isar.

Rabah bar Rav Huna: Bring two of the three people in front of whom you divided, or two witnesses that saw you divide in front of three people.

Question (Rav Safra): What is the source that three are required?

Answer (Rabah bar Rav Huna - Mishnah): If there is a Beis Din there, he stipulates in front of them. If not, he cannot stipulate. He is exempt from returning, because he would lose money.

Question (Rav Safra): To take money from the loser and give it to the finder requires Beis Din. I only took what is mine. I merely clarify that this is my portion. Two witnesses suffice!

Support (Mishnah): A widow can sell (from the estate for her food) not in front of Beis Din.

Rejection (Abaye): Rav Yosef bar Minyomi explained that the Mishnah teaches that she does not need a Beis Din of expert judges, but she must sell in front of three people!

(Mishnah): If one found an animal in a pen, he need not return it. If he finds one in the Reshus ha'Rabim, he must return it.

If it was in a cemetery, a Kohen may not become Tamei to return it.

If a man told his son (a Kohen) to become Tamei, or if he told him not to return an Aveidah (when this was permitted), the son may not listen.

If Reuven helped Shimon load or unload even four or five times, Reuven must still help - "Azov Ta'azov";

If Shimon said, the Mitzvah is upon you, you can unload it yourself, Reuven is exempt - it says "Imo (with him)";

If Shimon is too old or sick to help, Reuven must do it himself.

The Torah only commands to unload, not to load; R. Shimon says, even to load.

R. Yosi ha'Glili says, if the animal was overloaded, Reuven is exempt - "Tachas Masa'o (under its burden)" - a burden fit for it.

(Gemara - Rava): The Mishnah discusses a pen that does not induce animals to flee, nor does it guard them.

It does not induce animals to flee, for the Mishnah says that he need not return it;

It does not guard them. If it did, there would be no need to teach this;

One returns animals found outside to a guarded pen. All the more so, one need not return animals found in a guarded pen!

Version #1 (Mishnah): If one found an animal in a pen, he is exempt.

(R. Yitzchak): This is when it is within the Techum (2000 Amos around the city, where one may go on Shabbos).

Inference: When it is in the Reshus ha'Rabim, even within the Techum, he must return it.

Version #2 (Mishnah): If one found an animal in the Reshus ha'Rabim, he must return it.

(R. Yitzchak): This is when it is outside the Techum.

Inference: When it is in a pen, even outside the Techum, he is exempt.

(Mishnah): If it was in a cemetery, a Kohen may not become Tamei to return it.

(Beraisa) Question: What is the source that if a man told his son to become Tamei, or not to return an Aveidah, the son may not listen?

Answer: "Ish Imo v'Aviv Tira'u v'Es Shabsosai Tishmoru Ani Hash-m" - you are all obligated to honor Me.

Inference: That is only due to the verse. Without it, we would say that he should listen!

Question: Honoring parents is an Aseh, and neglecting an Aveidah is forbidden by a Lav and Aseh. An Aseh does not override a Lav and an Aseh!

Answer: Honor of parents is equated to honor of Hash-m. It says "Kaved Es Avicha v'Es Imecha", and "Kaved Es Hash-m." Therefore, one might have thought that he should listen;

The verse teaches that he may not.

(Mishnah): The Torah only commands to unload, not to load;

R. Shimon says, even to load.

Question: What does it mean 'not to load'?

If it means that it is not a Mitzvah to load at all, why is it different than unloading?

We learn unloading from "Azov Ta'azov." Likewise, we learn loading from "Hakim Takim"!

Answer: Rather, the Torah commands only to unload for free, but not to load for free. R. Shimon says, even to load for free..

(Beraisa): Unloading is for free, but loading is for pay;

R. Shimon says, both are for free.

Question: What is Chachamim's reason?

Answer: If both were for free, the Torah should have written only loading, and we could learn unloading from a Kal va'Chomer:

Loading does not save the owner from a loss, nor does it save the animal from pain, yet one is obligated. All the more so one must unload, which saves the owner from a loss and saves the animal from pain!

Rather, unloading was written to teach that unloading is for free, but loading is for pay.

R. Shimon argues. He says that we cannot tell which verse discusses which. If only one verse were written, we would assume that it teaches unloading!

Chachamim hold that the verses are clear, for it says "Rovetz Tachas Masa'o (crouching under its load)", and "Nofelim ba'Derech" (the animal and its load are on the ground)!

R. Shimon holds that "Nofelim ba'Derech" could mean that the animal fell and the burden is on it.

(Rava): From both Tana'im we learn that the Torah commands to minimize pain to animals.

Even R. Shimon argues only because we cannot tell which verse discusses which. If we knew, he would make the Kal va'Chomer like Chachamim!

Suggestion: The Kal va'Chomer is due to pain to animals.

Question: Perhaps it is due to monetary loss of the owner.

One must load even though it does not save the owner from a loss. All the more so one must unload, which saves the owner from a loss!

Rejection: Sometimes loading save the owner from a loss. A delay loading would reduce the time he has to sell his goods in the market, or robbers will take everything he has!

Support (for Rava - Mishnah - R. Yosi ha'Glili): If the animal was overloaded, Reuven is exempt - "Tachas Masa'o (under its burden)" - a burden fit for it.

Inference: Chachamim obligate helping even in this case.

Suggestion: This is mid'Oraisa, due to pain to animals.

Rejection: Perhaps Chachamim simply do not expound "Tachas Masa'o"!

Support (that pain to animals is not (forbidden) mid'Oraisa - Mishnah): If Shimon said 'the Mitzvah is upon you. You can unload it yourself', Reuven is exempt. We learn from "with him".

If pain to animals were mid'Oraisa, whether or not Shimon helps, Reuven would be obligated!

Rejection: Really, pain to animals is mid'Oraisa;

The Mishnah teaches that Reuven is exempt from unloading for free. He must unload, but he can demand payment.

When Shimon helps, Reuven must unload for free. When he does not help, Reuven unloads for pay.

Support (for Rava - Beraisa): One must help with a Nochri's animal like with a Yisrael's.

We understand this if pain to animals is mid'Oraisa.

If it is not, what is the reason?

Rejection: It is to avoid resentment.

Support (for rejection - Beraisa): If it was carrying forbidden wine, he is exempt.

We understand this if pain to animals is not mid'Oraisa.

If it is mid'Oraisa, what is the reason?

Rejection: The Beraisa means, he is exempt from loading forbidden wine (but he is commanded to unload it).

Question (against Rava - Beraisa): If a Nochri's animal bears a Yisrael's burden, "v'Chadalta (you refrain)".

If pain to animals is mid'Oraisa, he should be obligated!

Answer #1: The Beraisa discusses loading.

Question (Seifa): If a Yisrael's animal bears a Nochri's burden, "Azov Ta'azov (help him)."

If pain to animals is not mid'Oraisa, he should be exempt!

Answer: He is liable due to pain to the Yisrael.

Question: If so, he should be obligated also in the Reisha!

Answer: The Reisha discusses a Nochri donkey-driver. The Seifa discusses a Yisrael donkey-driver.

Question: The Beraisa does not specify. Why should we assume that this is the case?

Answer: Normally, one goes with his animal.

Objection: The Beraisa cannot discuss loading. The verses cited ("v'Chadalta" and "Azov Ta'azov") are written regarding unloading!

Answer #2: Rather, the Tana is R. Yosi ha'Glili, who says that pain to animals is not mid'Oraisa.

Question (against Rava - Beraisa): If Reuven's friend needs help unloading and Reuven's Sonei (one he hates) needs help loading, Reuven helps his Sonei, to overcome his Yetzer Ra (evil inclination).

If pain to animals is mid'Oraisa, unloading should take precedence!

Answer: Even though pain to animals is mid'Oraisa, it is more important to overcome his Yetzer Ra.

Question (Beraisa): The "Sonei" discussed (in the Torah) is a Yisrael, not a Nochri.

If pain to animals is mid'Oraisa, it should make no difference!

Answer: The Beraisa does not refer to "Sonei" written in the Torah, rather, to 'Sonei' in the Beraisa.