## Bava Metzia Daf 31a

###### Bava Metzia 31a:1
[Bava Metzia 31a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:1)

בְּאִסְרַטְיָא וּפָרָה רָצָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים – הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲבֵידָה. טַלִּית בְּצַד גָּדֵר, קַרְדּוֹם בְּצַד גָּדֵר, וּפָרָה רוֹעָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים – אֵין זוֹ אֲבֵידָה. שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה – הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲבֵידָה. רָאָה מַיִם שֶׁשּׁוֹטְפִין וּבָאִין – הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹדֵר בִּפְנֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**on a main thoroughfare [*be’isratiyya*], or a cow running through the vineyards, that is lost property.** If one found **a cloak alongside a fence, an ax alongside a fence, or a cow grazing among the vineyards, that is not lost property.** If one sees these items for **three consecutive days, that is lost property.** If **one saw water that is flowing and coming** to inundate another’s field, **he must establish a barrier before** the water in order to preserve the field.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:2
[Bava Metzia 31a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: ״לְכׇל אֲבֵידַת אָחִיךָ״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֲבֵידַת קַרְקַע. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חֲנַנְיָא לְרָבָא: תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיַּיע לָךְ, רָאָה מַיִם שֶׁשּׁוֹטְפִין וּבָאִין הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹדֵר בִּפְנֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says** that the verse: “And so shall you do **with every lost item of your brother”** (Deuteronomy 22:3), serves **to include** an obligation to protect your brother from the **loss of** his **land. Rav Ḥananya said to Rava:** There is a *baraita* **that is taught that supports your** opinion. If **one saw water that is flowing and coming** to inundate another’s field, **he must establish a barrier before** the water in order to preserve the field.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:3
[Bava Metzia 31a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא לָא (תְּסַיְּיעַי) [תְּסַיְּיעַן], הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בִּדְאִיכָּא עוּמְרִין. אִי דְּאִיכָּא עוּמְרִין, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא – לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִית בַּהּ עוּמְרִין דִּצְרִיכִי לְאַרְעָא, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דִּצְרִיכִי לְאַרְעָא, כִּי גּוּפַהּ דְּאַרְעָא דָּמַיִין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to** Rav Ḥananya: **If** you are attempting to bring support for my ruling **due to that** *baraita*, **do not support my** ruling. **With what are we dealing here** in the *baraita*? We are dealing with a field **in which there are sheaves** of grain on the land. The *tanna* of the *baraita* is referring to preservation of the sheaves, not of the land itself. The Gemara asks: **If** the *baraita* is referring to a field **in which there are sheaves** of grain, **what** is the purpose **of stating** it? Isn’t it obvious that one is obligated to preserve the sheaves as he would any other item? **No,** it is **necessary** to state the *halakha* only in a case where **there are sheaves that need the land** in order to dry. **Lest you say: Since they still need the land, their** legal status **is like** that of **the land itself** and he is not obligated to return them, the *baraita* **teaches us** that the sheaves are independent of the land and must be preserved.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:4
[Bava Metzia 31a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:4)

מָצָא חֲמוֹר וּפָרָה [וְכוּ׳]. הָא גּוּפַהּ קַשְׁיָא! אָמְרַתְּ: מָצָא חֲמוֹר וּפָרָה רוֹעִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ – אֵין זוֹ אֲבֵידָה, רוֹעִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ הוּא דְּלָא הָווּ אֲבֵידָה, הָא רָצָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְרוֹעָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים הָוְיָא אֲבֵידָה. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: חֲמוֹר וְכֵלָיו הֲפוּכִים וּפָרָה רָצָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים – הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲבֵידָה. רָצָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים הוּא דְּהָוְיָא אֲבֵידָה, הָא רָצָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְרוֹעָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים – אֵין זוֹ אֲבֵידָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **one found a donkey or a cow** grazing on the path, that is not deemed lost property. The Gemara asks: **This itself** is **difficult.** On the one hand **you said:** If **one found a donkey or a cow grazing on the path, that is not lost property,** from which it may be inferred that only if it is **grazing on the path it is not lost property, but** if it was **running on the path or grazing among the vineyards, it is a lost item.** On the other hand, **say the latter clause** of the mishna: If one found **a donkey with its accoutrements overturned, or a cow** that **ran through the vineyards,** that **is lost property.** From this wording it may be inferred that only if the animal is **running through the vineyards is it lost property, but** if it is **running on the path or grazing among the vineyards, it is not lost property.**


###### Bava Metzia 31a:5
[Bava Metzia 31a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:5)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״יַגִּיד עָלָיו רֵעוֹ״; תְּנָא רוֹעָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ דְּלָא הָוְיָא אֲבֵידָה, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְרוֹעָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים. תְּנָא רָצָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים דְּהָוְיָא אֲבֵידָה, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְרָצָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** that the *tanna* employs the style of: **Its counterpart tells about it** (see Job 36:33), and the mishna distinguishes between grazing and running. The *tanna* **taught** a case of **grazing on the path, where** the animal is **not** considered **lost property, and the same is true** of a case where the animal is **grazing among the vineyards.** And the *tanna* **taught** a case of **running through the vineyards, where** the animal **is** considered **lost property, and the same is true of** a case where the animal is **running on the path.**


###### Bava Metzia 31a:6
[Bava Metzia 31a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי ״יַגִּיד עָלָיו רֵעוֹ״ – לִיתְנֵי קִילְּתָא, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן חֲמִירְתָּא. לִיתְנֵי רָצָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ דְּהָוְיָא אֲבֵידָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן רָצָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים. וְלִתְנֵי רוֹעָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים, דְּלָא הָוְיָא אֲבֵידָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן רוֹעָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: If** the *tanna* employs the style of: **Its counterpart tells about it, let him teach the lenient** case **and all the more so** it would apply to **the stringent** case. The Gemara elaborates: **Let** the *tanna* **teach** that when the animal is **running on the path it is lost property and all the more so** it is lost property when it is **running through the vineyards. And let** the *tanna* **teach** that when the animal is **grazing among the vineyards it is not lost property, and all the more so** it is not lost property **when** it is **grazing on the path.**


###### Bava Metzia 31a:7
[Bava Metzia 31a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:7)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: רָצָה אַרָצָה לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאַפַּהּ לְגַבֵּי דַּבְרָא, הָא דְּאַפַּהּ לְגַבֵּי מָתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** The apparent contradiction **between** the inference from the first clause with regard to **running** on the path and the inference from the latter clause with regard to **running** on the path is **not difficult. This** inference from the first clause that an animal running on the path is lost property is referring to a case **where its face is** directed **toward the field,** and it is running away from the city. **That** inference from the latter clause that an animal running on the path is not lost property is referring to a case **where its face is** directed **toward the city.**


###### Bava Metzia 31a:8
[Bava Metzia 31a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:8)

רוֹעָה אַרוֹעָה נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בַּאֲבֵידַת גּוּפָהּ, כָּאן בַּאֲבֵידַת קַרְקַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: The apparent contradiction **between** the inference from the first clause with regard to **grazing** among the vineyards and the inference from the latter clause with regard to **grazing** among the vineyards is **also not difficult. Here,** the inference from the latter clause that an animal grazing among the vineyards is not lost property is **with regard to loss of** the animal **itself. There,** the inference from the first clause that the *halakhot* of lost property apply in the case of an animal grazing among the vineyards is referring to **loss** in the sense of damage **to the land.**


###### Bava Metzia 31a:9
[Bava Metzia 31a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:9)

כִּי קָתָנֵי רוֹעָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ לָא הָוְיָא אֲבֵידָה, הָא רוֹעָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים הָוְיָא אֲבֵידָה בַּאֲבֵידַת קַרְקַע. וְכִי קָתָנֵי רָצָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים הָוְיָא אֲבֵידָה, הָא רוֹעָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים לָא הָוְיָא אֲבֵידָה בַּאֲבֵידַת גּוּפָהּ, דְּרָצָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים מִסְ[תַּ]קְּבָא, וְרוֹעָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים לָא מִסְ[תַּ]קְּבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **When** the *tanna* **teaches** that in the case of an animal **grazing on the path,** the *halakhot* of **lost property do not** apply, from which it is inferred: **But** in the case of an animal **grazing among the vineyards** the *halakhot* of **lost property do** apply, it is referring to preventing **loss** in the sense of damage **to the land** caused by the animal. **And when** the *tanna* **teaches** that in the case of an animal **running among the vineyards** the *halakhot* of **lost property do** apply, from which it is inferred: **But** in the case of an animal **grazing among the vineyards** the *halakhot* of **lost property do not** apply, it is referring **to loss of** the animal **itself, as** an animal **running among the vineyards** is typically **wounded** with lacerations from the vines, **but** an animal **grazing among the vineyards** is **not** typically **wounded.**


###### Bava Metzia 31a:10
[Bava Metzia 31a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:10)

וְרוֹעָה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים, נְהִי דְּלָא מִסְ[תַּ]קְּבָא תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם אֲבֵידַת קַרְקַע! בִּדְגוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to the inference from the latter clause that in the case of an animal **grazing among the vineyards** the *halakhot* of lost property do not apply, **although it is not wounded,** why not **derive** that the *halakhot* of lost property do apply **due to loss** in the sense of damage **to the land** caused by the animal? The Gemara answers: It is stated **with regard to** the land **of a gentile,** which one is not obligated to return or preserve.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:11
[Bava Metzia 31a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:11)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם אֲבֵידַת גּוּפָהּ, דְּדִלְמָא קָטְלוּ לַהּ! בְּאַתְרָא דְּמַתְרוּ וַהֲדַר קָטְלִי. וְדִלְמָא אַתְרוֹ בָּהּ! אִי אַתְרוֹ בַּהּ וְלָא אִזְדְּהַרוּ בַּהּ, וַדַּאי אֲבֵידָה מִדַּעַת הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **But** why not **derive** that one is obligated to return it **due to loss of** the animal **itself, as perhaps** the gentiles will **kill it?** The Gemara answers: It is stated **with regard to a place where they forewarn** the owner **and** only **then kill** the animal. The Gemara challenges: **And perhaps they** already **forewarned** the owner **with regard to** the animal. The Gemara explains: **If they** already **forewarned** the owner **with regard to** the animal **and** the owner **did not heed** the warning, **this is certainly** a case of **deliberate loss,** where there is no obligation to return it.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:12
[Bava Metzia 31a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:12)

הֶחְזִירָהּ וּבָרְחָה הֶחְזִירָהּ וּבָרְחָה [וְכוּ׳]. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא, אֵימָא: ״הָשֵׁב״ חֲדָא זִמְנָא, ״תְּשִׁיבֵם״ תְּרֵי זִמְנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: In a case where **one returned** the lost animal **and it fled,** and he again **returned it and it fled,** even if this scenario repeats itself four or five times, he is obligated to return it each time, as it is stated: “You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep wandering and disregard them; you shall return them [*hashev teshivem*] to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1). The Gemara understands that from the use of the compound form of the verb, “*hashev teshivem*,” the mishna derives that one must return the lost animal multiple times if it flees. The Gemara asks: **A certain** one **of the Sages said to Rava: Say** that from **“*hashev*”** one derives the obligation to return the animal **once,** and from **“*teshivem*”** one derives the obligation to return the animal **twice,** and beyond that there is no obligation.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:13
[Bava Metzia 31a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הָשֵׁב״ אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים מַשְׁמַע, ״תְּשִׁיבֵם״ אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לְבֵיתוֹ, לְגִינָּתוֹ וּלְחוּרְבָּתוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תְּשִׁיבֵם״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּמִינַּטְרָא, פְּשִׁיטָא. אִי דְּלָא מִינַּטְרָא, אַמַּאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him: “*Hashev*” indicates** that there is an absolute obligation to return the animal, **even** if it flees **one hundred times. “*Teshivem*”** teaches another matter: **I have** derived **only** that one may return the animal **to** the owner’s **house. From where** is the *halakha* derived that one may return the animal **to his garden or to his** building in **ruins? The verse states: “*Teshivem*,”** to teach that **in any case,** wherever one returns the lost animal, he fulfills the mitzva of returning it. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If** those areas are **protected,** it is **obvious** that one who returns the animal there fulfills his obligation. **If** they are **not protected, why** is he considered to have returned the lost animal? It will just flee again.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:14
[Bava Metzia 31a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:14)

לְעוֹלָם דְּמִינַּטְרָא, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן דַּעַת בְּעָלִים. וְכִדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמַר: הַכֹּל צְרִיכִין דַּעַת בְּעָלִים, חוּץ מֵהֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵידָה, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה רִיבְּתָה הֲשָׁבוֹת הַרְבֵּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** it is a case **where** the property is **protected. And this teaches us that we do not require the owner’s knowledge** in order to return the lost item to him. **And** this ruling **is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, who says: Every** instance involving return of an item to its owner, e.g., by a bailee or by a thief, **requires the owner’s knowledge** that it is being returned, **except for the return of a lost item, as the Torah amplified** the *halakha* to permit **multiple** forms of **return** by means of the compound verb “*hashev teshivem*,” among them return without the owner’s knowledge.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:15
[Bava Metzia 31a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:15)

״שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח״, אֵימָא: ״שַׁלֵּחַ״ חֲדָא זִימְנָא, ״תְּשַׁלַּח״ תְּרֵי זִמְנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites additional mitzvot where the Torah employs the compound verb form, and the Sages derived additional *halakhot* from the phrasing of the verse. With regard to the mitzva of dispatch of the mother bird from the nest before taking its eggs or fledglings, the verse states: **“You shall dispatch [*shalle’aḥ teshallaḥ*]** the mother, but the young take for yourself; that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days” (Deuteronomy 22:7). The Gemara understands that from the use of the compound form of the verb, “*shalle’aḥ teshallaḥ*,” the Sages derive that one must dispatch the mother bird multiple times if it returns. The Gemara asks: **Say** that from **“*shalle’aḥ*”** one derives the obligation to dispatch the mother **once,** and from **“*teshallaḥ*”** one derives the obligation to dispatch the mother **twice,** and beyond that there is no obligation.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:16
[Bava Metzia 31a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״שַׁלֵּחַ״ – אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים מַשְׁמַע. ״תְּשַׁלַּח״ אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לִדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת, לִדְבַר מִצְוָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תְּשַׁלַּח״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him: “*Shalle’aḥ*” indicates** that one must dispatch the mother **even one hundred times. “*Teshallaḥ*”** teaches another matter: **I have** derived **only** the obligation to dispatch the mother bird in a case where one takes the eggs or the fledglings and wants to take the mother bird **for a non-compulsory matter,** e.g., to eat it. In a case where one takes the eggs or the fledglings and needs the mother bird **for a matter** involving **a mitzva,** e.g., the purification of a leper, **from where** is the *halakha* that he must dispatch the mother derived? **The verse states: “*Teshallaḥ*,”** to teach that **in any case** one must dispatch the mother bird.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:17
[Bava Metzia 31a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: וְאֵימָא ״הוֹכֵחַ״ חֲדָא זִימְנָא, ״תּוֹכִיחַ״ תְּרֵי זִמְנֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the mitzva of rebuke, the verse states: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall rebuke [*hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ*] your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him” (Leviticus 19:17). The Gemara understands that from the use of the compound form of the verb, “*hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ*,” the Sages derive that one must rebuke another multiple times if necessary. **A certain** one **of the Sages said to Rava: Say** that from **“*hokhe’aḥ*”** one derives the obligation to rebuke another **once,** and from **“*tokhiaḥ*”** one derives the obligation to rebuke another **twice,** and beyond that there is no obligation.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:18
[Bava Metzia 31a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הוֹכֵחַ״ – אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים מַשְׁמַע. ״תּוֹכִיחַ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הָרַב לְתַלְמִיד. תַּלְמִיד לְרַב מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him: “*Hokhe’aḥ*” indicates** that one must rebuke another **even one hundred times. “*Tokhiaḥ*”** teaches another matter: **I have** derived **only** the obligation of **a teacher to** rebuke **a student.** With regard to the obligation for **a student to** rebuke **a teacher, from where** is it derived? **The verse states: “*Hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ*”** to teach that one is obligated to rebuke another **in any case** that warrants rebuke.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:19
[Bava Metzia 31a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:19)

״עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב עִמּוֹ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ. שֶׁאֵין בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites additional derivations from compound verb forms. “If you see the donkey of him that hates you collapsed under its burden, you shall forgo passing him by; **you shall release it [*azov ta’azov*] with him”** (Exodus 23:5). **I have** derived **only** that one is obligated to help unload the fallen animal in a case where **its owner is with it. From where** is the obligation to unload it in a case **where its owner is not with it** derived? **The verse states: “*Azov ta’azov*,”** indicating that there is an obligation to unload it **in any case.**


###### Bava Metzia 31a:20
[Bava Metzia 31a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:20)

״הָקֵם תָּקִים עִמּוֹ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ. שֶׁאֵין בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הָקֵם תָּקִים״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The verse states: “You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fallen by the wayside, and hide yourself from them; **you shall lift them [*hakem takim*] with him”** (Deuteronomy 22:4). **I have** derived **only** that one is obligated to help load the animal in a case where **its owner is with it. From where** is the obligation to load it in a case **where its owner is not with it** derived? **The verse states: “*Hakem takim*,”** to teach that there is an obligation to load it **in any case.**


###### Bava Metzia 31a:21
[Bava Metzia 31a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:21)

וּלְמָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב פְּרִיקָה, וּלְמָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב טְעִינָה? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא פְּרִיקָה – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים וְאִיכָּא חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס, אֲבָל טְעִינָה, דְּלָאו צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אִיכָּא וְלָא חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס אִיכָּא, אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And why does** the Torah need **to write** the compound verb form to teach the obligation in the owner’s absence with regard to **unloading and why does** the Torah need **to write** the compound verb form to teach the obligation in the owner’s absence with regard to **loading** the animal? The Gemara answers: They **are** both **necessary, as had the Merciful One written** this *halakha* only with regard to **unloading, I would say** that one is obligated to unload the animal even when the owner is not present, **due to** the fact **that** in the failure to unload the animal **there is** potential **suffering of animals and there is** potential **monetary loss,** as the burden might be damaged or the animal might die. **But in** the case of **loading,** where **there is no** potential **suffering of animals and there is no** potential **monetary loss,** I would **say no,** there is no obligation to load the animal when the owner is not present.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:22
[Bava Metzia 31a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:22)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן טְעִינָה מִשּׁוּם דִּבְשָׂכָר, אֲבָל פְּרִיקָה דִּבְחִנָּם, אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its answer: **And had** the Torah **taught us** the obligation in the owner’s absence with regard to **loading,** I would say that it is **due to** the fact **that** his action is rewarded **with remuneration,** as one is paid for loading an animal. **But** with regard to **unloading, which is** performed **for free,** I would **say no,** there is no obligation to unload the animal when the owner is not present. Due to the unique element in each, both are **necessary.**


###### Bava Metzia 31a:23
[Bava Metzia 31a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:23)

וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: אַף טְעִינָה בְּחִנָּם, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא מְסַיְּימִי קְרָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says** that **even loading** must be performed **for free, what is there to say** to explain why it was necessary to repeat the obligation with regard to unloading? The Gemara answers: **According to Rabbi Shimon,** it **is not** clearly **defined** which of **the verses** is referring to loading and which is referring to unloading. Had the Torah written one verse, it would have been interpreted to be referring to unloading and one might assume that he need not load an animal in the absence of the owner.


###### Bava Metzia 31a:24
[Bava Metzia 31a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/31a:24)

לְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, וּלְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב אֲבֵידָה? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי – מִשּׁוּם דְּצַעֲרָא דְּמָרַהּ אִיתָא, צַעֲרָא דִּידַהּ אִיתָא. אֲבָל אֲבֵידָה, דְּצַעֲרָא דְּמָרַהּ אִיתָא וְצַעֲרָא דִּידַהּ לֵיתָא, אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן אֲבֵידָה – מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיתֵאּ לְמָרַהּ בַּהֲדַהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the Torah **to write these two** mitzvot of unloading and loading, **and why do I** need the Torah **to write** the obligation to return **a lost item?** Write one of them, and derive the other from it, as they are all mitzvot to preserve another’s property. The Gemara answers: Both **are necessary, as had the Merciful One written** only **these two** mitzvot of unloading and loading, one would say that it is **due to** the fact that in those cases **there is** the **suffering of its owner and there is** the **suffering of** the animal **itself. But** in the case of **a lost item, where there is** the **suffering of its owner but there is no suffering of** the lost item, I might **say no,** there is no obligation to return the lost item. **And had** the Torah **taught us** only the obligation to return **a lost item,** one would say that is **due to** the fact that **its owner is not with it** to care for it;