1) "HOCHEI'ACH TOCHI'ACH"
QUESTION: The Gemara cites many verses which contain an apparent redundancy, and it explains what the Torah intends to teach with each "extra" word. One of these verses is, "Hochei'ach Tochi'ach" -- "You shall rebuke" (Vayikra 19:17). The Gemara explains that the word "Hochei'ach" teaches that one should rebuke a sinner even one hundred times. The additional word "Tochi'ach" teaches that even if a student sees his Rebbi transgress, he should rebuke him.
This teaching seems to contradict the Gemara in Erchin (16b). The Gemara there says that if one gives rebuke and the sinner does not accept the rebuke, one should continue to rebuke the sinner. The Gemara there derives this from the "Tochi'ach." This implies that the word "Hochei'ach" alone does not imply that one should continue to rebuke a sinner. How are these two Gemaras to be reconciled?
(a) The RAMBAN, RAN, and other Rishonim explain that the Gemara in Erchin refers to a case in which the sinner transgress a specific sin repeatedly, while the Gemara here refers to a case in which the sinner transgresses different sins. One might have thought that only when he sees a person transgress different sins is he obligated to rebuke him continually, since the transgressor might not know that what he is doing is forbidden, or he might be doing it only because no one informed him of how severe a sin it really is. Even if he was originally rebuked about a severe sin and did not listen, it is possible that he had a very strong desire to do that particular sin but upon being rebuked he will listen and not commit a less severe sin which he is not temped to do. The Gemara here derives from the word "Hochei'ach" that one must rebuke a person for different sins. However, once a person has rebuked the sinner about a particular sin but the sinner continues to transgress, one might have thought that he is no longer obligated to rebuke the sinner for that particular sin. The Gemara in Erchin derives from the word "Tochi'ach" that one must continue to rebuke the sinner even for a single sin.
The Ramban and Ran ask that this does not seem to answer the questions satisfactorily. The Gemara here derives from "Tochi'ach" that one is obligated to rebuke even his Rebbi if he sees him transgress, while the Gemara in Erchin derives from the same word "Tochi'ach" that one should give rebuke a second time for the same sin. How can the two Gemaras learn a different law from the same word ("Tochi'ach")? The Ramban and Ran answer that these two laws are really the same: one should give rebuke to any person who sins, whether the sinner has already been rebuked for this sin, or whether the sinner is one's Rebbi.
(b) The HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS (Hilchos De'os 6:4) quotes the YERA'IM who explains that the Gemara here means that even if the sinner repeatedly forgets that his deed is wrong, one should keep reminding him. The Gemara in Erchin (16b) refers to a case in which it is clear that the sinner knows that his action is wrong but he does it anyway. The Gemara there derives from the word "Tochi'ach" that one nevertheless should keep rebuking him for his wrongdoing. (Y. MONTROSE)
2) "LIKE AN IDLE WORKER"
OPINIONS: The Mishnah (30b) teaches that the finder of a lost object may not demand from its owner compensation for the lost income he incurred from his job while attempting to return the object. He may demand only the compensation of "a worker." The Beraisa explains that this means that he may demand only the wages of "an idle worker." Abaye explains that this refers to the payment one would receive as a worker idle from his own job. What exactly does this mean?
(a) RASHI (DH k'Po'el Batel) explains that Beis Din calculates how much a person would be willing to be paid to do the easy work of Hashavas Aveidah instead of his more difficult job. Rashi in Bechoros (29b, DH k'Po'el Batel) gives an example: if a person is normally paid three Zuz to do his labor for the day, but he would be willing to take one Zuz to find a lost object, the owner of the object must pay him only one Zuz. This is also the opinion of the ROSH and RITVA.
TOSFOS in Bechoros (29b, DH k'Po'el Batel) asks that according to this explanation, the finder of the lost object is being paid to do the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah. How can this be the definition of "Po'el Batel" if a person is obligated to do the Mitzvah for free?
(b) TOSFOS explains that "Po'el Batel" refers to a worker who is willing to take a day off from all work (even Hashavas Aveidah) with minimum compensation. Accordingly, when he is paid by the owner of the lost object, he is not paid for doing the job of returning the lost object; he is paid only for his time. This also seems to be the opinion of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Aveidah 12:4) who writes merely that he is paid the amount which he would accept to refrain from doing the work he normally does.
The ROSH here answers Tosfos' question on Rashi's explanation. The Gemara is discussing a case in which the person who finds the lost object is not obligated to return it. The Torah exempts one who is involved in his work from taking off time to do the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah. Accordingly, if he chooses to take off time from his work to do return the object, he may demand compensation for his lost work. (Y. MONTROSE)