בְּתוֹרֵי דִּנְפִישׁ פְּסֵידַיְיהוּ.

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.

שׁוֹטְחָהּ לְצוֹרְכָּהּ אֲבָל לֹא לִכְבוֹדוֹ וְכוּ׳. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לְצוֹרְכּוֹ וּלְצוֹרְכָּהּ, מַאי?

§ 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?

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״שׁוֹטְחָהּ לְצוֹרְכָּהּ״, לְצוֹרְכָּהּ – אִין. הָא לְצוֹרְכּוֹ וּלְצוֹרְכָּהּ לָא! אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״אֲבָל לֹא לִכְבוֹדוֹ״, לִכְבוֹדוֹ הוּא דְּלָא, הָא לְצוֹרְכָּהּ וּלְצוֹרְכּוֹ – שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יִשְׁטָחֶנָּה לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מִטָּה וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מַגּוֹד לְצׇרְכּוֹ, אֲבָל יִשְׁטָחֶנָּה עַל גַּבֵּי מִטָּה וְעַל גַּבֵּי מַגּוֹד לְצׇרְכָּהּ. נִזְדַּמְּנוּ לוֹ אוֹרְחִים – לֹא יִשְׁטָחֶנָּה לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מִטָּה וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מַגּוֹד, בֵּין לְצוֹרְכּוֹ בֵּין לְצוֹרְכָּהּ!

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.

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּמִקְלָא קָלֵי לַהּ אִי מִשּׁוּם עֵינָא, אִי מִשּׁוּם גַּנָּבֵי.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הִכְנִיסָה לְרִבְקָה וְדָשָׁה – כְּשֵׁירָה. בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּינַק וְתָדוּשׁ – פְּסוּלָה. וְהָא הָכָא דִּלְצוֹרְכּוֹ וּלְצוֹרְכָּהּ הוּא, וְקָתָנֵי פְּסוּלָה!

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.

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא עֻבַּד בָּהּ״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

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.

אִי הָכִי אֲפִילּוּ רֵישָׁא נָמֵי!

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.

הָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לְהָא, דִּתְנַן: שָׁכַן עָלֶיהָ עוֹף – כְּשֵׁירָה, עָלָה עָלֶיהָ זָכָר – פְּסוּלָה. מַאי טַעְמָא?

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?

כִּדְרַב פָּפָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי כְּתִיב ״עוּבַּד״ וְקָרֵינַן ״עוּבַּד״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אֲפִילּוּ מִמֵּילָא. וְאִי כְּתִיב ״עָבַד״ וְקָרֵינַן ״עָבַד״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: עַד דַּעֲבַד בָּהּ אִיהוּ.

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.

הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״עָבַד״ וְקָרֵינַן ״עוּבַּד״ – בָּעֵינַן ״עוּבַּד״ דּוּמְיָא דְּ״עָבַד״. מָה ״עָבַד״ דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ, אַף ״עוּבַּד״ דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ.

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.

כְּלֵי כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי נְחוֹשֶׁת מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמּוֹצֵא כְּלֵי עֵץ מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יֵרָקְבוּ, כְּלֵי נְחוֹשֶׁת מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן בְּחַמִּין, אֲבָל לֹא עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשְׁחִיקָן. כְּלֵי כֶּסֶף מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן בְּצוֹנֵן, אֲבָל לֹא בְּחַמִּין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשְׁחִירָן. מַגְרֵיפוֹת וְקַרְדּוּמּוֹת מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן בְּרַךְ, אֲבָל לֹא בְּקָשֶׁה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְחִיתָן. כְּלֵי זָהָב וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ.

§ 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.

כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַּאֲבֵידָה כָּךְ אָמְרוּ בְּפִקָּדוֹן. פִּקָּדוֹן מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ? אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בְּפִקָּדוֹן שֶׁהָלְכוּ בַּעֲלֵיהֶן לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם.

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.

מָצָא שַׂק אוֹ קוּפָּה [וְכׇל דָּבָר] שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לִיטּוֹל – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִטּוֹל. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ״, פְּעָמִים שֶׁאַתָּה מִתְעַלֵּם וּפְעָמִים שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מִתְעַלֵּם.

§ 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.

הָא כֵּיצַד? הָיָה כֹּהֵן וְהִיא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה זָקֵן וְאֵינָהּ לְפִי כְּבוֹדוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְלָאכָה שֶׁלּוֹ מְרוּבָּה מִשֶּׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: ״וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ מֵהֶם״.

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.”

לְמַאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא? אִילֵימָא לְכֹהֵן וְהִיא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת – פְּשִׁיטָא, הַאי עֲשֵׂה וְהַאי לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה, וְלָא אָתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְדָחֵי אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה, וְתוּ: לָא דָּחֵינַן אִיסּוּרָא מִקַּמֵּי מָמוֹנָא.

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 21:6); 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.

אֶלָּא לְשֶׁלּוֹ מְרוּבֶּה מִשֶּׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – מִדְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב נָפְקָא, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: ״אֶפֶס כִּי

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