|
 Shabbat Parashat Vayetzei| 5764P’ninat MishpatThe Laws of Returning Lost Articles - VII - Extension of the Concept of Returning
We conclude our series on hashavat aveida (returning lost articles) with a glimpse at mitzvot that Chazal saw as extensions of the concept of returning lost objects. The two mitzvot that the gemara (Bava Metzia 31a) compares and contrasts with hashavat aveida are t’ina (placing a load on an animal) and p’rika (removinga load from an animal).
The Torah discusses the mitzva of hashavat aveida twice. The first time (Shemot 23:4) it is directly followed by the mitzva of p’rika. The second time (Devarim 22:1-4) it is directly followed by the mitzva of t’ina. The connection between the three mitzvot is that they require one to go out of his way to make sure that his friend does not unnecessarily lose money or be unable to make proper use of his property. The gemara (ibid., see Rashi, ad loc.) wonders why the Torah needs to write each one separately, as one concept unites all of them. (The gemara (ibid. 61a) asks a similar question in references to three conceptually related, monetary prohibitions: stealing, overpricing, and usury.) The gemara explains that each one has an element which does not apply to the others, and, therefore, each one needs to be addressed separately by the Torah. P’rika and t’ina both refer to cases where the owner is present at the time of need and, thus, has the opportunity to use his ingenuity, connections, or money to extricate himself from his predicament. Yet, the Torah requires the passerby to take the time and make the effort to be of assistance.
The mitzva of p’rika may have an added element to it. The Torah describes a case where the animal is collapsing under the weight of its load, and the owner needs immediate help to remove the load. Here, not only is the owner in need of help, but also the suffering animal is in pain until the load is removed. The gemara says that this may invoke another imperative, which may be from the Torah, namely, the concern for the suffering of animals. If this is the case, then a few halachic distinctions may exist between p’rika, where animal welfare is a concern, and t’ina, where it is not.
One difference is in a case where the owner refuses to do his share in the effort, but tells the passerby to do all the work. As this is an unfair request, the owner should be refused. However, in the case of p’rika, the passerby cannot ignore the plight of the animal because of the obstinance of the owner. Another difference is in regard to pay. According to one opinion among the tanaim, the passerby can demand payment for his work for loading. In contrast, by unloading, he must help anyway for the animal’s sake. Therefore, he cannot wait for an assurance of payment before tending to the needs of the animal, even if his friend seems to be getting a “free ride” on his mitzva.
 Top of page Print this page Send to friend |
|
