From the words of

<<both of them

<<we learn

<<that the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is from the Torah.

<<And even

<<Rabbi Shimon

<<did not

<<say it

<<except

<<because

<<are not

<<specified

<<the verses;

<<but

<<were specified

<<the verses,

<<we would expound

<<an a fortiori.

<<On account of

<<what?

<<Is it not

<<on account of

<<the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<that we expound?

Perhaps

<<because

<<there is

<<loss of

<<money.

<<And thus

<<it says:

<<if

<<loading,

<<which does not have

<<in it

<<loss of

<<money —

<<he is obligated;

<<unloading,

<<which has

<<in it

<<loss of

<<money,

<<is it not all the more so?!

And loading —

<<is there not

<<in it

<<loss of

<<money?

<<Are

<<we not

<<dealing

<<with where meanwhile

<<he is idled

<<from his market,

<<or else

<<come

<<thieves

<<and take

<<all

<<that

<<there is

<<with him?

Know

<<that the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is from the Torah,

<<for it teaches

<<in the latter clause:

<<Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

<<says:

<<if

<<there was

<<on it

<<more

<<than

<<its load,

<<he is not

<<bound

<<to it,

<<for it is said:

<<“under

<<its load” —

<<a load

<<that it is able

<<to stand

<<under.

<<Is it not

<<by inference

<<that the first Tanna

<<holds

<<he is bound

<<to it?

<<What is the reason?

<<Is it not

<<because

<<the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is from the Torah?

Perhaps

<<about “under

<<its load”

<<they disagree:

<<that Rabbi

<<Yosei

<<holds:

<<we expound

<<“under

<<its load” —

<<a load

<<that it is able

<<to stand

<<under;

<<and the Rabbis

<<hold:

<<we do not

<<expound

<<“under

<<its load”.

Know

<<that the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is not

<<from the Torah,

<<for it teaches

<<in the first clause:

<<if he went

<<and sat

<<himself down

<<and said

<<to him:

<<since

<<upon you

<<is the mitzvah

<<to unload,

<<unload —

<<he is exempt,

<<for it is said:

<<“with him”.

<<And if

<<it enters your mind

<<that the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is from the Torah,

<<what

<<is it to me

<<that there is

<<its owner

<<with it,

<<and what

<<is it to me

<<when

<<there is not

<<its owner

<<with it?

Actually,

<<the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is from the Torah.

<<Do

<<you hold

<<that “exempt”

<<is exempt

<<entirely?

<<But perhaps

<<he is exempt

<<for free,

<<but obligated

<<for pay.

<<And thus

<<says

<<the Merciful One:

<<when

<<there is

<<its owner

<<with it,

<<work

<<beside him

<<for free;

<<and when

<<there is not

<<its owner

<<with it,

<<work

<<beside him

<<for pay;

<<and actually

<<the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is from the Torah.

(A mnemonic:

<<the animal of,

<<the animal of,

<<a friend,

<<an enemy,

<<one that lies down).

Shall we say

<<it supports

<<him:

<<the animal of

<<a gentile —

<<he attends

<<to it

<<as the animal of

<<a Jew.

<<If you say, granted,

<<the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is from the Torah —

<<because of that

<<he attends

<<to it

<<as the animal of

<<a Jew;

<<but

<<if

<<you say

<<the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is not

<<from the Torah,

<<why

<<does he attend

<<to it

<<as the animal of

<<a Jew?

<<There,

<<because of

<<enmity.

So

<<too

<<it stands to reason,

<<for it teaches:

<<if

<<it was

<<loaded with

<<libation wine,

<<he is not

<<bound

<<to it.

<<If you say, granted,

<<it is not

<<from the Torah —

<<because of that

<<he is not

<<bound

<<to it;

<<but

<<if

<<you say

<<it is from the Torah,

<<why

<<is he not

<<bound

<<to it?

<<Thus

<<it says:

<<and to load it with

<<libation wine

<<he is not

<<bound

<<to it.

Come and hear:

<<the animal of

<<a gentile

<<and the load of

<<a Jew —

<<“and you shall refrain”.

<<And if

<<you say

<<the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is from the Torah,

<<why

<<“and you shall refrain”?

<<“Unload,

<<you shall unload”

<<is needed

<<for it!

<<Actually,

<<the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is from the Torah;

<<there,

<<with loading.

If so,

<<say

<<the latter clause:

<<the animal of

<<a Jew

<<and the load of

<<a gentile —

<<“unload,

<<you shall unload”.

<<And if

<<with loading,

<<why

<<“unload,

<<you shall unload”?

<<Because of

<<the distress

<<of the Jew.

If so,

<<even

<<the first clause

<<also!

<<The first clause —

<<with a driver

<<who is a gentile;

<<the latter clause —

<<with a driver

<<who is a Jew.

<<What

<<have you decided?

<<The ordinary way

<<of the matter:

<<a person

<<after

<<his donkey

<<goes.

But

<<“and you shall refrain”

<<and “unload,

<<you shall unload”

<<about unloading

<<it is

<<that they are written!

He said to him:

<<this —

<<whose is it?

<<Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

<<it is,

<<who said:

<<the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is not

<<from the Torah.

Come and hear:

<<a friend

<<to unload

<<and an enemy

<<to load —

<<the mitzvah

<<is with the enemy,

<<in order

<<to subdue

<<his inclination.

<<And if

<<it enters your mind

<<that the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is from the Torah,

<<this one

<<is preferable

<<for him!

<<Even so,

<<in order

<<to subdue

<<his inclination

<<is preferable.

Come and hear:

<<the enemy

<<of which they spoke —

<<an enemy

<<who is a Jew,

<<and not

<<an enemy

<<from the nations of the world.

<<If

<<you say

<<the suffering of

<<living creatures

<<is from the Torah,

<<what

<<is it to me

<<an enemy

<<who is a Jew,

<<and what

<<is it to me

<<an enemy

<<from the nations of the world?

Do

<<you hold

<<on the enemy

<<of the verse

<<it stands?

<<On the enemy

<<of our baraisa

<<it stands.

Come and hear: