בתורי דנפיש פסידייהו: that this applies to laborers who work with oxen, whose potential for causing damage is great if they are not supervised, as they will trample the crops.
שוטחה לצורכה אבל לא לכבודו וכו': איבעיא להו לצורכו ולצורכה מאי § The mishna teaches that one who found a lost garment spreads it for its sake to ventilate it, but may not use it as a decoration for his own prestige. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one spreads it both for his sake and for its sake, what is the halakha?
ת"ש שוטחה לצורכה לצורכה אין הא לצורכו ולצורכה לא אימא סיפא אבל לא לכבודו לכבודו הוא דלא הא לצורכה ולצורכו שפיר דמי אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the mishna: He spreads it for its sake. The Gemara infers: For its sake, yes, he spreads it, but both for his sake and for its sake, he may not do so. The Gemara rejects the proof: Say the latter clause of the mishna: But not for his own prestige. The Gemara infers: It is for his prestige alone that he may not spread it, but for its sake and for his sake, one may well do so. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna, as there are conflicting inferences from the first clause and the latter clause.
ת"ש לא ישטחנה לא על גבי מטה ולא על גבי מגוד לצרכו אבל ישטחנה על גבי מטה ועל גבי מגוד לצרכה נזדמנו לו אורחים לא ישטחנה לא על גבי מטה ולא על גבי מגוד בין לצורכו בין לצורכה The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one finds a lost garment, he may not spread it on a bed or on a hanger for his sake, but he may spread it on a bed or on a hanger for its sake. If guests happened to visit, he may not spread it, neither on a bed nor on a hanger and neither for his sake nor for its sake. Apparently, it is prohibited to spread it for both his sake, to enhance his prestige before his guests, and for its sake.
שאני התם דמקלא קלי לה אי משום עינא אי משום גנבי The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, as spreading it before his guests is tantamount to burning it, either due to the evil eye that will result, or due to thieves, as once the guests are aware of the valuable item in his possession they may be tempted to steal it.
תא שמע הכניסה לרבקה ודשה כשירה בשביל שתינק ותדוש פסולה והא הכא דלצורכו ולצורכה הוא וקתני פסולה The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one introduced a calf into a yoke [lirvaka] so that it would suckle, and it threshed with the cows, it is fit for use in the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken, because the owner did not intend for it to perform labor. But if the owner introduces it so that it will suckle and it will thresh, it is unfit for use in that ritual because his intent is for the calf to perform labor, and the intentional performance of labor disqualifies it. And here, isn’t the placement of the calf in the yoke for both his sake, threshing, and for its sake, suckling, and the baraita teaches that the calf is unfit? Apparently, it is prohibited for one who found a lost garment to spread it for both his sake and for its sake.
שאני התם דאמר קרא (דברים כא, ג) אשר לא עובד בה מ"מ The Gemara rejects this proof by citing a verse written with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken. It is different there, as the verse states: “The Elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd that has not been worked with and that has not pulled a yoke” (Deuteronomy 21:3), indicating that the heifer is rendered unfit in any case of labor performed. Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn with regard to spreading the garment.
אי הכי אפילו רישא נמי The Gemara asks: If it is so that the calf is rendered unfit by any labor that it performed, then it should be unfit even in the first clause, where the owner did not intend for the calf to perform labor.
הא לא דמיא אלא להא דתנן שכן עליה עוף כשירה עלה עליה זכר פסולה מאי טעמא The Gemara answers. This is comparable only to this other case, as we learned in a mishna (Para 2:4): If a bird rested upon a red heifer, it remains fit for use in the purification ritual, as supporting the bird on its back is considered neither labor nor comparable to pulling a yoke. If a male animal mounted it for mating, it is unfit for use in the purification ritual. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the difference between the two cases?
כדרב פפא דאמר רב פפא אי כתיב עובד וקרינן עובד הוה אמינא אפילו ממילא ואי כתיב עבד וקרינן עבד הוה אמינא עד דעבד בה איהו The difference is in accordance with the statement of Rav Pappa, as Rav Pappa says with regard to the verse written concerning the heifer whose neck is broken: “And the Elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd that has not been worked with and that has not pulled a yoke” (Deuteronomy 21:3). If the word were written with an additional letter vav, which would mean the passive: Has been worked with [ubbad], and we also vocalized the word in the passive voice, ubbad, I would say that even if the heifer performed labor by itself, it is disqualified for use in the ritual. If the word were written without an additional letter vav, which would mean the active: He used it for labor [avad], and we also vocalized the word in the active voice, avad, I would say that indicates that the heifer was fit for use in the ritual until its owner intentionally used it for labor.
השתא דכתיב עבד וקרינן עובד בעינן עובד דומיא דעבד מה עבד דניחא ליה אף עובד דניחא ליה: Now that the word is written without an additional letter vav as avad and we vocalize the word with an additional letter vav, as ubbad, in order to render the heifer unfit we require the situation described by the word ubbad be similar to the situation described by the word avad. Just as the word avad indicates that the owner is amenable to the performance of that labor, so too, the word ubbad means that the owner is amenable to the performance of that labor. Since the owner is amenable to the heifer mating, the heifer is rendered unfit. So too, in the first clause of the baraita: If one introduced a calf into a yoke so that it may suckle, and it threshed with the cows, it is fit for use in the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken, because the owner is not amenable to its performing labor.
כלי כסף וכלי נחושת משתמש בהן וכו': ת"ר המוצא כלי עץ משתמש בהן בשביל שלא ירקבו כלי נחושת משתמש בהן בחמין אבל לא על ידי האור מפני שמשחיקן כלי כסף משתמש בהן בצונן אבל לא בחמין מפני שמשחירן מגריפות וקרדומות משתמש בהן ברך אבל לא בקשה מפני שמפחיתן כלי זהב וכלי זכוכית לא יגע בהן עד שיבא אליהו § The mishna teaches: If one found silver vessels or copper vessels, he may use them for their own sake; and the same halakha applies to other vessels. The Sages taught in a baraita: One who finds wooden vessels uses them, so that they will not deteriorate due to lack of use. If one found copper vessels he uses them with hot water, but not directly on the fire, due to the fact that it erodes them. If one found silver vessels he uses them with cold water, but not with hot water, because it tarnishes them. If one found rakes or axes, he may use them with soft substances but not with hard substances because using them with those substances damages them. If one found gold vessels or glass vessels, which do not deteriorate due to lack of use, he may not touch them until Elijah will come and identify the owner.
כדרך שאמרו באבידה כך אמרו בפקדון פקדון מאי עבידתיה גביה אמר רב אדא בר חמא אמר רב ששת בפקדון שהלכו בעליהן למדינת הים: The baraita continues: In the manner that the Sages said with regard to a lost item, so they said with regard to a deposit. The Gemara asks: What is the bailee doing with a deposit; i.e., the owner should tend to his own item, why is the bailee using it at all? The Gemara answers: Rav Adda bar Ḥama said that Rav Sheshet said: It is referring to a deposit whose owner went to a country overseas. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the bailee to tend to the deposit until his return.
מצא שק או קופה [וכל דבר] שאין דרכו ליטול הרי זה לא יטול: מנהני מילי דת"ר (דברים כב, א) והתעלמת פעמים שאתה מתעלם ופעמים שאי אתה מתעלם § The mishna teaches: If a person found a sack or a basket or any other item that it is not his typical manner to take and carry because it is beneath his dignity, he shall not take it. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to the return of a lost item: “You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep wandering and disregard them; you shall return them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1). The tanna explains that the phrase “and disregard them” means that there are occasions in which you may disregard lost items and there are occasions in which you may not disregard them.
הא כיצד היה כהן והיא בבית הקברות או שהיה זקן ואינה לפי כבודו או שהיתה מלאכה שלו מרובה משל חבירו לכך נאמר והתעלמת מהם How so; under what circumstances may one disregard a lost item? One may do so in a case where he was a priest and the lost item is in the graveyard (Leviticus 21:1–4), or where he was an elderly person and it is not in keeping with his dignity to tend to the item, or where the value of his labor was greater than the value of the lost item of the other person, i.e., if the finder was to return the item, reimbursing him for his lost wages would cost more than the value of the item; therefore, it is stated: “And disregard them.”
למאי איצטריך קרא אילימא לכהן והיא בבית הקברות פשיטא האי עשה והאי לא תעשה ועשה ולא אתי עשה ודחי את לא תעשה ועשה ותו לא דחינן איסורא מקמי ממונא The Gemara asks: For what case was a verse necessary to derive that one may disregard a lost item? If we say that the verse is necessary for the case of a priest and the lost item in the graveyard, it is obvious that he need not return the item, as this obligation to return the lost item is a positive mitzva: “You shall return them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1), and that entry of a priest into a graveyard is prohibited by both a prohibition: “To the dead among his people he shall not defile himself” (Leviticus 21:1), and a positive mitzva: “You shall be holy” (Leviticus 19:2); and there is a principle that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition and a positive mitzva. And furthermore, we do not override a ritual prohibition in the face of monetary matters.
אלא לשלו מרובה משל חבירו מדרב יהודה אמר רב נפקא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב (דברים טו, ד) אפס כי The Gemara suggests: Rather, say that the verse is necessary to derive the exemption from returning the lost item in the case where the value of his labor was greater than the value of the lost item of the other. The Gemara rejects that possibility: That halakha is derived not from the phrase: “And disregard them,” but from that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is written: “Only so that