Question: There, it is due to Chen (encouraging marriage), or lest she be disgraced in Beis Din, like it explains in Kesuvos (97a)! (How can we learn from there to dividing a partnership?)

Answer: He holds that since the widow sells without Beis Din, even though it is not hers, due to Chen, likewise a partner takes his share without Beis Din, even though there is not the reason of Chen.

Question: We say there (Kesuvos 98a) that if a widow estimated [her husband's property] for herself (kept it for her Kesuvah), it has no effect, for we say to her "who estimated for you?" (How can we say so?) She sold according to a Beis Din of Hedyotos!

Answer: Since she takes for herself, it looks to everyone as if she keeps orphans' property in her hand, even though there is a Beis Din of Hedyotos, since there is not a Beis Din of experts;

However, when she sells to others, it does not seem like she keeps from [the orphans], for she does not keep any [land].

Question: Why is it different, that a widow sells to others without Beis Din, and in Beis Din she can keep even for herself?

Source: Since we say there that they say to her "who estimated for you?", this implies that in Beis Din, she can take land (through their estimation).

Also, it says there that they deposited with a man Kista (fodder or wood) of orphans. He evaluated that it is worth 400 Zuz, and took it for himself. It rose in value. R. Ami said to him "who estimated for you?!" (I.e. it is not yours). This implies that in Beis Din, he can estimate!

Contradiction: A Mishnah below (38a) says that if Reuven deposited Peros with Shimon, and they rotted, he makes a solution for them, and ` in Beis Din;

When he sells them, he sells them to others, and does not sell them to himself. Similar, collectors of Tzedakah [who need to convert large coins to small coins], they convert with others, and not with their own money.

Even in Beis Din, they sell to others, but not to themselves. Outside of Beis Din, they do not sell even to others!

Suggestion: We say "they sell to others in Beis Din", i.e. with permission of Beis Din, but if Beis Din knows the estimation, he can keep it for himself.

Rejection: The Yerushalmi concludes regarding the episode with R. Yochanan Chakuka'ah, brought in Pesachim (13a. He was guarding a deposit of Chametz, and Erev Pesach came. Rebbi) told him to sell it in Beis Din;

Inference: Even though [Rebbi] gave to him permission, he needed to sell in Beis Din!

Answer - part 1: [A widow] sells without Beis Din due to Chen;

Answer #1 - part 2: Also regarding the Kista of orphans, that he would be able to keep for himself [had it been estimated] in Beis Din, we can say that this is only b'Di'eved. Due to suspicion, we do not undo what was done.

Note: Perhaps "suspicion" is that he buys it for his own desire, and not to help the orphans.

Answer #2 - part 2: Regarding the orphans, Beis Din themselves deposited. Therefore, he can keep it for himself with their authority;

However, a deposit of others one may not keep for himself, even through Beis Din.

Implied question: Why did [the one who answered] bring a verse from Kesuvim, and not [a source from the Chumash? It says] "Ish Imo v'Aviv Tira'u", and it says "Es Hash-m Elokecha Tira"!

Answer: He prefers to bring a verse of honor.

Question: If so (all agree that it is mid'Oraisa), why are we Oker (cut animals' legs) when the king dies? It says (Avodah Zarah 11a) that this is not forbidden due to 'ways of the Emori.'

Answer: Due to honor of the king and Nasi, this overrides [pain to animals], just like Bal Tashchis is overridden due to their honor. Onkelus burned 70 Maneh Tzuri (Kelim worth 7000 Dinarim of pure silver - Avodah Zarah 11a) due to the death of R. Gamliel.

Answer #2: Since it says "Es Suseihem Te'aker", it is easy to override [pain to animals] due to the king. (We find that it is overridden for other reasons, e.g. lest Yisrael take their horses and attribute their military success to them.)

Question: In any case, we should expound a Kal va'Chomer from [a case of] loading that has no loss!

Answer: Since loading which has a loss is not for wages, for it is no different than unloading, also loading that has no loss is for free, and unloading was written for some other Drashah.

Explanation: The Makshan held that also the first Tana expounds "a load that it can bear", and a load that it cannot bear, granted, one need not help for free, for there is no Mitzvah to unload, in any case for wages he must help, due to Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim.

Question: According to R. Yosi ha'Glili, who holds that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim Lav mid'Oraisa, and he holds below (33a) that loading is for wages, how is loading unlike unloading?

Answer: He expounds a Kal va'Chomer from financial loss. The Torah could have written only loading, for there is loading without financial loss, and all the more so [there is a Mitzvah of] unloading!

Rather, unloading was written to teach that loading is for wages, and since loading without financial loss is for wages, also where there is financial loss, e.g. he will not be able to sell it in the market (if he does not get the load there in time), it is for wages.

We learn from loading without financial loss [which is for wages]. Now, he comes to prove only that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is mid'Oraisa, but not to affirm that from the Kal va'Chomer we can prove that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is mid'Oraisa;

Perhaps the Kal va'Chomer is from financial loss, like I explained according to R. Yosi.

Question: Perhaps mid'Rabanan [he must help him]!

Answer: The entire Sugya proves that if Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is not mid'Oraisa, he need not help even for wages, like we say below "if the owner is not with him, he should work with it (unload) for wages", and really Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is mid'Oraisa!

However, if it were mid'Rabanan, he would be exempt [from unloading], even for wages.

Support: Also afterwards, it says "if you will say that it is not mid'Oraisa, why does he engage with it?" Why doesn't it say [that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is mid'Rabanan, and he must unload] mid'Rabanan?!

Question: The Sifri expounds "Son'acha" - even a Nochri whom you hate! (Surely, this is because Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is mid'Oraisa.)

Answer: This is a mere Asmachta, for in Pesachim (113b) we expound the verse to discuss a Yisrael Sonei.

Distinction: However, for other matters one must [help], and even to load, due to enmity.

Question: We should answer that [you may refrain from helping] for free, but for wages you are obligated, and really, Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim is mid'Oraisa!

Answer: "V'Chadalta" connotes [that you refrain] totally.

Implied question: Why can't we say that [he must help] in a case when the owner will not be able to sell [if he cannot load quickly]?

Answer: If so, we should say the same in the Reisha.

Question: Since in Pesachim (113b) we expound the verse to discuss a Yisrael whom one may hate, e.g. he saw him transgress Arayos, why should he overcome his Yetzer Ra?

Answer: We do not discuss the Sonei of the verse. (Rather, it is someone whom he hates without justification.)

Observation: We could have answered that one must help a Yisrael for free, and a Nochri for wages.