on the highway,

<<or a cow

<<running

<<among

<<the vineyards —

<<this is

<<a lost object.

<<A cloak

<<beside

<<a fence,

<<an axe

<<beside

<<a fence,

<<or a cow

<<grazing

<<among

<<the vineyards —

<<this is not

<<a lost object.

<<Three

<<days

<<one

<<after

<<another —

<<this is

<<a lost object.

<<If he saw

<<water

<<flooding

<<and coming,

<<he

<<fences

<<before it.

Rava said:

<<“For every

<<lost object of

<<your brother” —

<<to include

<<the loss of

<<land.

<<Rav Chananya said to Rava:

<<It was taught

<<in support of

<<you:

<<if he saw

<<water

<<flooding

<<and coming,

<<he

<<fences

<<before it.

He said to him:

<<If

<<on account of

<<this,

<<it does not

<<support me.

<<Here

<<with what

<<are we dealing?

<<Where there are

<<sheaves.

<<If

<<there are

<<sheaves,

<<what

<<is there to say?

<<It is not

<<necessary,

<<except where there are

<<in it

<<sheaves

<<that need

<<the land;

<<you might

<<say:

<<since

<<they need

<<the land,

<<like

<<the body of

<<the land

<<they are —

<<it teaches us.

If he found

<<a donkey

<<or a cow

<<etc.

<<This

<<itself

<<is difficult!

<<You said:

<<if he found

<<a donkey

<<or a cow

<<grazing

<<on the road —

<<this is not

<<a lost object;

<<grazing

<<on the road

<<is where

<<they are not

<<a lost object,

<<but

<<running

<<on the road,

<<or grazing

<<among

<<the vineyards —

<<it is

<<a lost object.

<<Say

<<the latter clause:

<<a donkey

<<with its utensils

<<overturned,

<<or a cow

<<running

<<among

<<the vineyards —

<<this is

<<a lost object.

<<Running

<<among

<<the vineyards

<<is where

<<it is

<<a lost object,

<<but

<<running

<<on the road,

<<or grazing

<<among

<<the vineyards —

<<this is not

<<a lost object!

Abaye said:

<<“It tells

<<about it,

<<its fellow”:

<<it taught

<<grazing

<<on the road

<<that it is not

<<a lost object,

<<and the same

<<is the law

<<for grazing

<<among

<<the vineyards.

<<It taught

<<running

<<among

<<the vineyards

<<that it is

<<a lost object,

<<and the same

<<is the law

<<for running

<<on the road.

Rava said to him:

<<If

<<“it tells

<<about it,

<<its fellow”,

<<let it teach

<<the lenient one,

<<and all the more so

<<the stringent one.

<<Let it teach

<<running

<<on the road

<<that it is

<<a lost object,

<<and all the more so

<<running

<<among

<<the vineyards.

<<And let it teach

<<grazing

<<among

<<the vineyards

<<that it is not

<<a lost object,

<<and all the more so

<<grazing

<<on the road.

Rather,

<<Rava said:

<<running

<<against running

<<is not

<<difficult:

<<this —

<<where its face is

<<toward

<<the field;

<<that —

<<where its face is

<<toward

<<the town.

Grazing

<<against grazing

<<also

<<is not

<<difficult:

<<here —

<<with the loss of

<<itself;

<<there —

<<with the loss of

<<land.

When

<<it teaches

<<grazing

<<on the road

<<is not

<<a lost object,

<<but

<<grazing

<<among

<<the vineyards

<<is

<<a lost object —

<<with the loss of

<<land.

<<And when

<<it teaches

<<running

<<among

<<the vineyards

<<is

<<a lost object,

<<but

<<grazing

<<among

<<the vineyards

<<is not

<<a lost object —

<<with the loss of

<<itself;

<<for one running

<<among

<<the vineyards

<<is wounded,

<<and one grazing

<<among

<<the vineyards

<<is not

<<wounded.

And one grazing

<<among

<<the vineyards —

<<granted

<<that it is not

<<wounded,

<<let it be derived

<<for him

<<on account of

<<the loss of

<<land!

<<Where it is a gentile's.

And let it be derived

<<for him

<<on account of

<<the loss of

<<itself,

<<for perhaps

<<they will kill

<<it!

<<In a place

<<where they warn

<<and then

<<kill.

<<But perhaps

<<they warned

<<about it!

<<If

<<they warned

<<about it

<<and they did not

<<take care

<<of it,

<<certainly

<<a loss

<<with awareness

<<it is.

If he returned it

<<and it fled,

<<returned it

<<and it fled

<<etc.

<<Said to him

<<a certain one

<<of the Rabbis

<<to Rava:

<<say:

<<“return” —

<<one

<<time;

<<“you shall return them” —

<<two

<<times!

He said to him:

<<“return” —

<<even

<<a hundred

<<times

<<it implies;

<<“you shall return them” —

<<I have only

<<to his house;

<<to his garden

<<or to his ruin

<<from where?

<<The verse states:

<<“you shall return them” —

<<in any case.

<<What is the case?

<<If

<<it is guarded,

<<it is obvious!

<<If

<<it is not

<<guarded,

<<why?

Actually,

<<it is guarded,

<<and this

<<it teaches us:

<<that we do not

<<require

<<the knowledge of

<<the owner.

<<And like Rabbi

<<Elazar,

<<who said:

<<all

<<require

<<the knowledge of

<<the owner,

<<except

<<for the return of

<<a lost object,

<<for the Torah

<<included

<<returnings

<<many.

“Send away,

<<you shall send away” —

<<say:

<<“send away” —

<<one

<<time;

<<“you shall send away” —

<<two

<<times!

He said to him:

<<“send away” —

<<even

<<a hundred

<<times

<<it implies.

<<“you shall send away” —

<<I have only

<<for a matter of

<<choice;

<<for a matter of

<<a mitzvah

<<from where?

<<The verse states:

<<“you shall send away” —

<<in any case.

Said to him

<<a certain one

<<of the Rabbis

<<to Rava:

<<but say:

<<“rebuke” —

<<one

<<time;

<<“you shall rebuke” —

<<two

<<times?

He said to him:

<<“rebuke” —

<<even

<<a hundred

<<times

<<it implies.

<<“you shall rebuke” —

<<I have only

<<a teacher

<<to a student;

<<a student

<<to a teacher

<<from where?

<<The verse states:

<<“rebuke,

<<you shall rebuke” —

<<in any case.

“Unload,

<<you shall unload

<<with him” —

<<I have only

<<where its owner

<<is with it;

<<where there is not

<<its owner

<<with it,

<<from where?

<<The verse states:

<<“unload,

<<you shall unload” —

<<in any case.

“Raise,

<<you shall raise

<<with him” —

<<I have only

<<where its owner

<<is with it;

<<where there is not

<<its owner

<<with it,

<<from where?

<<The verse states:

<<“raise,

<<you shall raise” —

<<in any case.

And why

<<does it need

<<to write

<<unloading,

<<and why

<<does it need

<<to write

<<loading?

<<They are needed,

<<for if

<<had written

<<the Merciful One

<<unloading,

<<I would have said:

<<because

<<there is

<<the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<and there is

<<loss of

<<money;

<<but

<<loading,

<<where no

<<suffering of

<<living creatures

<<there is

<<and no

<<loss of

<<money

<<there is —

<<say

<<not.

And if

<<it had taught us

<<loading —

<<because

<<it is for pay;

<<but

<<unloading,

<<which is for free,

<<say

<<not.

<<It is needed.

And according to Rabbi

<<Shimon,

<<who said:

<<also

<<loading

<<is for free,

<<what

<<is there

<<to say?

<<According to Rabbi

<<Shimon,

<<are not

<<specified

<<the verses.

Why

<<do I need

<<to write

<<these

<<two,

<<and why

<<do I need

<<to write

<<a lost object?

<<They are needed,

<<for if

<<had written

<<the Merciful One

<<these

<<two —

<<because

<<the distress

<<of its owner

<<is there,

<<the distress

<<of itself

<<is there;

<<but

<<a lost object,

<<where the distress

<<of its owner

<<is there

<<but the distress

<<of itself

<<is not —

<<say

<<not.

<<And if

<<it had taught us

<<a lost object —

<<because

<<there is not

<<its owner

<<with it;