The Doubled Verbs That Stretch a Commandment Beyond Its First Reading

"If you take a pledge." I would know only of one who takes a pledge with permission [of the court]; from where do I include one who takes a pledge without permission? Scripture teaches, "you take a pledge" [the doubled verb], in any case. "You shall surely restore it to him" (Deuteronomy 24:13) — I would know only of one who took a pledge with permission; from where the one without permission? Scripture teaches, "surely restore," in any case. And why do I need two verses? One for a daytime garment and one for a nighttime garment. "Restore" implies even a hundred times. "You shall restore them" (Deuteronomy 22:1) — I would know only of returning a lost item to his house; from where to his garden or his ruin? Scripture teaches, "you shall restore them," in any case, and this accords with Rabbi Elazar, that all returns require the owner's knowledge except the return of a lost object, for the Torah multiplied returns many times. "Send" (Deuteronomy 22:7) — even a hundred times. "You shall send" — I would know only the case of an optional matter; from where a matter of mitzvah? Scripture teaches "surely send," in any case. "Rebuke" (Leviticus 19:17) — even a hundred times. "You shall rebuke" — I would know only a teacher rebuking a student; from where a student rebuking a teacher? Scripture teaches "you shall rebuke," in any case. "You shall surely help" (Exodus 23:5) — I would know only when the owner is with him; from where when the owner is not with him? Scripture teaches "you shall help," in any case. "You shall surely raise up" (Deuteronomy 22:4) — I would know only when the owner is with him; from where when the owner is not with him? Scripture teaches "you shall raise up," in any case. Why state the law for unloading and also for loading? It is necessary. For had the Merciful One written only of unloading, one might think it applies because there is animal suffering and monetary loss, but loading, where there is no animal suffering, does not apply. And had it taught only loading, one might think it applies because it is for payment, but unloading, done for free, does not. Therefore both are necessary. And as for Rabbi Shimon, who says both are done for free, what is there to say? For Rabbi Shimon the verses are not decisive. Why teach both these and also the lost object? It is necessary. For had it taught these two, one might think they apply because there is distress both to the animal and to its owner, but a lost object, where there is distress to the owner but not to the object, does not apply. And had it taught the lost object, one might think it applies because the owner is not present with it, but these two, where the owner is present, do not. Therefore both are necessary. "The one who strikes shall surely be put to death" — I would know only the death written concerning him; from where that if you cannot put him to death by the death written concerning him, you may put him to death by any death you can? Scripture teaches "shall surely be put to death," in any case. "You shall surely strike" (Deuteronomy 13:16) — I would know only the striking written concerning him, and so forth. "You shall surely open" (Deuteronomy 15:8, 11) — I would know only the poor of your city; from where the poor of another city? Scripture teaches "surely open," in any case. "You shall surely give to him" (Deuteronomy 15:10) — I would know only a large gift; from where a small gift? Scripture teaches "surely give," in any case. "You shall surely furnish him" — I would know only a case where the house was blessed on his account; from where if the house was not blessed on his account? Scripture teaches "surely furnish," in any case. And according to Rabbi Elazar who says the words are to be taken as written, if the house was blessed on his account we furnish him and if not we do not, what is there to say? The Torah spoke in the language of human beings. "You shall surely lend him" (Deuteronomy 15:8) — I would know only one who has nothing and does not wish to support himself, for the Merciful One said give to him by way of a loan; from where one who has but does not wish to support himself? Scripture teaches "you shall lend him," in any case. And according to Rabbi Shimon who says we do not attend to one who has but refuses to support himself, why state "you shall lend him"? The Torah spoke in the language of human beings.