Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 17, 2017 | 讬状讟 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 113

Study Guide Bava Metzia 113. What are the laws regarding taking a collateral from a borrower in a case that he doesn’t return the loan on time? 聽The gemara analyzes how to understand the laws based on the verses in Shmot and Devarim that discuss the issue. 聽Is there a difference between the lender and the court acting as his representative? 聽Two different explanations are brought.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讘诇 诪讟讗 讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讬讛 专诪讬 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讜诪讬讚讻专

but when the time of his obligation to pay arrives, he applies himself and remembers all the details, so as not to violate the prohibition of delaying payment of the laborer鈥檚 wages.

讜讻讬 砖讻讬专 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讙讝诇 讛转诐 转专讬 讞讝拽讬 讛讻讗 讞讚讗 讞讝拽讛 讙讘讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讬讻讗 转专讬 讞讝拽讬 讞讚讗 讚讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 讜讞讚讗 讚讗讬谉 砖讻讬专 诪砖讛讗 砖讻专讜 讜讛讻讗 讞讚讗 讞讝拽讛

The Gemara asks: Why would one rely upon the presumption that the employer would not transgress? But is the hired laborer suspected of violating the prohibition of stealing? The Gemara replies: There, concerning the credibility of an employer, there are two presumptions, whereas here, concerning the credibility of a laborer, there is only one presumption. The Gemara explains: Concerning the credibility of an employer there are the following two presumptions: One is that the employer does not violate the prohibition of delaying payment of wages, and the other one is that a hired laborer does not delay the request for his wages. But here, concerning the credibility of the laborer, there is only one presumption, i.e., that the laborer does not violate the prohibition of stealing.

讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖转讘注讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讜讛讗 拽转讘注讜 诇拽诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 砖转讘注讜 讘讝诪谞讜 讜讚诇诪讗 诇讘转专 讛讻讬 驻专注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖转讘注讜 讻诇 讝诪谞讜

The mishna teaches: If there are witnesses who testify that he claimed the money from him, he takes an oath and receives the money. The Gemara asks: But what need is there for witnesses that he lodged a claim, when he is claiming it from him in front of us? Rabbi Asi said: The tanna is referring to witnesses that testified that he claimed it from him at its proper time. The Gemara challenges: Even if the laborer claimed the money at the proper time, perhaps the employer paid him afterward. Abaye said: The witnesses testify that he claimed it from him the entire time, i.e., from the time he completed his labor until the end of that day.

讜诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 驻专注 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讻谞讙讚 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖诇 转讘讬注讛

The Gemara continues: And is it always assumed that the employer did not pay the laborer? Why does the fact that he claimed his money at the proper time mean that his claim against his employer is always accepted? Rav 岣ma bar Ukva said: The tanna means that he is given another day corresponding to that day of his claim during which the laborer can claim that he has not been paid.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬诪砖讻谞谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 诇讬讟讜诇 诪砖讻讜谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘讞讜抓 转注诪讚 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 谞讜讟诇 讗讞讚 讜诪谞讬讞 讗讞讚

MISHNA: With regard to one who lends money to another and the debtor fails to repay it at the end of the term of the loan, the creditor may take collateral from him to ensure payment only by means of an agent of the court, not of his own accord. And he may not enter the debtor鈥檚 house to take his collateral, as it is stated: 鈥淲hen you lend your neighbor any manner of loan, you shall not go into his house to take his collateral. You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you lend shall bring forth the collateral to you outside鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:10鈥11). If the debtor had two utensils of the same kind, the creditor takes one and leaves the other one in the debtor鈥檚 possession.

讜诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛讻专 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗转 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讘讬讜诐 讜讗诐 诪转 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专 诇讬讜专砖讬讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

And in addition, the creditor must return a pillow at night, as the debtor requires it for sleeping, and a plow, which is needed for his daytime work, by day. If the debtor died, he is not required to return it to the debtor鈥檚 heirs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even to the debtor himself he needs to return the collateral each day only until thirty days have passed, and from thirty days onward, the creditor can sell them in court, with the proceeds going toward payment of the debt.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪谞转讞 谞转讜讞讬 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诪砖讻讜谞讬 诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬诪砖讻谞谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉

GEMARA: Shmuel says: An agent of the court who was granted permission to appropriate items from a debtor up to the sum of the loan may seize these items from him in the marketplace, but is not permitted to enter the debtor鈥檚 house and take collateral. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that one who lends money to another may take collateral from him only by means of an agent of the court, which proves by inference that when it is taken by means of an agent of the court the agent of the court may enter the debtor鈥檚 house and take collateral?

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讬谞转讞谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 诇讬讟讜诇 诪砖讻讜谞讜 诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪专讬砖讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara responds: Shmuel could have said to you: Say that the mishna meant as follows: He may seize it forcibly from him only by means of an agent of the court. The Gemara adds: So, too, it is reasonable that this is correct, as the latter clause of the mishna teaches: And he may not enter the debtor鈥檚 house to take his collateral. Who is the tanna referring to here? If we say it is referring to the creditor, this clause is not needed, as this halakha can be concluded from the first clause of the mishna, which states that a creditor has no right to take collateral himself. Rather, is it not referring to the court agent? Accordingly, this teaches that even an agent of the court may not enter the debtor鈥檚 house to take the collateral.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬诪砖讻谞谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬诐 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转讜讞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 诇讬讟讜诇 诪砖讻讜谞讜

The Gemara refutes the above claim: If the argument to understand the mishna in that manner is due to that reason, there is no conclusive argument, as it is possible that this is what the mishna is saying: One who lends money to another may take collateral from him by entering the debtor鈥檚 house only by means of an agent of the court, which proves by inference that it is permitted to take collateral by entering the debtor鈥檚 house by means of an agent of the court. One can then infer: But as for the creditor himself, he may not even seize collateral outside the debtor鈥檚 house. This is a rabbinic decree so that he should not enter the debtor鈥檚 house to take his collateral.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 讬讞讘诇 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 讛讗 讚讘专讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讞讘诇 诇讗 转讞讘诇 讘讙讚 讗诇诪谞讛 讛讗 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 转讞讘诇 诪讗谉 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讘讗 讗诇 讘讬转讜 诇注讘讟 注讘讟讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rav Yosef raises an objection to Shmuel鈥檚 statement from a baraita: The Torah states: 鈥淗e may not take the lower or upper millstone as collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:6). But it may be inferred that other items may be taken as collateral. Similarly, it states: 鈥淵ou may not take a widow鈥檚 garment as collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:17), but clothing that belongs to others you may take as collateral. The Gemara analyzes these statements: Who is permitted to do so? If we say that the creditor may take these items, that cannot be, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not go into his house to take his collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:10). Rather, is it not referring to the agent of the court, which indicates that the agent of the court may enter the debtor鈥檚 house and take collateral, although the Torah places limits on which item he can take?

转专讙诪讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇注讜诇诐 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉

Rav Pappa, son of Rav Na岣an, interpreted the baraita before Rav Yosef; and some say it was Rav Pappa, son of Rav Yosef, who interpreted the baraita before Rav Yosef: Actually, it is referring to a creditor, and the Torah鈥檚 additional prohibition against appropriating certain items is given so that he will violate two prohibitions for this action. For example, if he took the lower or upper millstone he violates both the command: 鈥淵ou shall not go into his house,鈥 as well as the more specific prohibition.

转讗 砖诪注 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讘讞讜抓 转注诪讚 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讗讬砖 讗砖专 讗转讛 谞讜砖讛 讘讜 讬讜爪讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻诇讜讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different baraita that contradicts Shmuel: From the implication of that which is stated: 鈥淵ou shall stand outside,鈥 do I not know that: 鈥淎nd the man to whom you lend shall bring forth outside鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:11)? Rather, why must the verse state the inclusive phrase 鈥淎nd the man to whom you lend shall bring forth outside鈥? This serves to include the agent of the court. The Gemara comments: What, is it not that the agent of the court has the same status as the debtor himself, indicating that just as the debtor may enter his own house at any time, the court agent may act likewise?

诇讗 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻诪诇讜讛

The Gemara responds: No, the agent of the court is considered like the creditor, who must wait outside for the debtor to deliver his collateral.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诐 讞讘诇 转讞讘诇 砖诇诪转 专注讱 讘砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转讘讗 讗诇 讘讬转讜 诇注讘讟 注讘讟讜 讛专讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗诐 讞讘诇 转讞讘诇 砖诇诪转 专注讱 讘砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara attempts a further proof. Come and hear that which the Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淚f you take as collateral your neighbor鈥檚 garment, you shall restore it to him until the sun goes down鈥 (Exodus 22:25). The verse is speaking of an agent of the court. Do you say that the verse is speaking of an agent of the court, or perhaps it is referring only to a creditor? When it says: 鈥淵ou shall not go into his house to take his collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:10), the case of a creditor is thereby stated. How then do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淚f you take as collateral your neighbor鈥檚 garment鈥? The verse is speaking of an agent of the court. This indicates that an agent of the court has permission to take collateral.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讘讗 诇诪砖讻谞讜 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讗诇讗 注讜诪讚 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讛诇讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇讜 诪砖讻讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讘讞讜抓 转注诪讚 讜讛讗讬砖

The Gemara responds: This issue is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: An agent of the court who comes to take collateral from a debtor may not enter his house to take the collateral from him. Rather, the agent stands outside and the other, i.e., the debtor, brings out the collateral to him, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall stand outside, and the man to whom you lend shall bring forth the collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:11). According to this tanna, the agent of the court has the same status as the creditor.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖讘讗 诇诪砖讻谞讜 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讗诇讗 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讛诇讛 谞讻谞住 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诇讜 诪砖讻讜谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘讞讜抓 转注诪讚 讜砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讘讗 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 讜诪诪砖讻谞讜

And it is taught in another baraita: A creditor who comes to take collateral from the debtor may not enter his house to take his collateral. Rather, he stands outside, and the other, i.e., the debtor, enters and brings out the collateral to him, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall stand outside, and the man to whom you lend shall bring forth the collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:11). But as for an agent of the court who comes to take collateral from the debtor, this agent may enter his house and take his collateral.

讜诇讗 讬诪砖讻谞谞讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖注讜砖讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讜谞讜转谉 诪讟讛 讜诪讟讛 讜诪爪注 诇注砖讬专 诪讟讛 讜诪讟讛 讜诪驻抓 诇注谞讬 诇讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讗砖转讜 讜诇讗 诇讘谞讬讜 讜诇讘谞讜转讬讜

The baraita continues: The agent of the court may not take as collateral from the debtor items that people use in the preparation of food, as the debtor needs such items, and the Torah explicitly forbade their removal. And the agent gives, i.e., leaves behind, a bed, and a second bed, and blankets, for a wealthy person; and a bed, and a second bed, and a mat, for a poor person. These items are left for the debtor himself, but not for his wife, and not for his sons or for his daughters, as the Torah did not obligate the creditor to care for the debtor鈥檚 family.

讻讚专讱 砖诪住讚专讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讻讱 诪住讚专讬谉 讘注专讻讬谉 讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 注讬拽专 住讬讚讜专 讘注专讻讬谉 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讚专讱 砖诪住讚专讬谉 讘注专讻讬谉 讻讱 诪住讚专讬谉 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘

The tanna adds: In the manner that arrangements are made for a debtor to be left with certain necessary utensils, so arrangements are made for one obligated to give money to the Temple treasury resulting from a vow in the category of valuations. If one vowed to give a certain valuation to the Sanctuary as specified in the Torah (see Leviticus 27) but does not have sufficient money to pay that sum immediately, a similar arrangement is made for him. The Gemara is puzzled by this last clause: Isn鈥檛 it the opposite? The primary discussion of arrangements is stated in the Torah with regard to valuations, from which the halakha of other debts is derived. Rather, say that in the manner that arrangements are made for valuations as explained by the Torah, so arrangements are made for a debtor.

讗诪专 诪专 谞讜转谉 诪讟讛 讜诪讟讛 讜诪爪注 诇注砖讬专 诪讟讛 讜诪讟讛 讜诪驻抓 诇注谞讬 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗砖转讜 讜诇讘谞讬讜 讜诇讘谞讜转讬讜 讛讗 讗诪专转 诇讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讗砖转讜 讜诇讘谞讬讜 讜诇讘谞讜转讬讜 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛

The Master said above: He gives a bed, and a second bed, and blankets, for a wealthy person; and a bed, and a second bed, and a mat, for a poor person. The Gemara asks: For whom is this extra bed? If we say it is for his wife, for his sons, or for his daughters, didn鈥檛 you expressly say that these items are left for him, but not for his wife, for his sons, or for his daughters? Rather, both this bed and that bed are for him.

转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚讗 讚讗讻讬诇 注诇讛 讜讞讚讗 讚讝讙 注诇讛 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讬讚注谞讗 讗住讜转讬讬讛讜 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讗谉 讚讗讻讬诇 讗讛讬谞讗 诪专讬专讗 讗诇讬讘讗 专讬拽谞讗 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 诪讬转谞讗 讚讻讬转谞讗 专讟讬讘讗 讗讞专爪讬讛 讜诪讗谉 讚讗讻讬诇 谞讛诪讗 讜诇讗 诪住讙讬 讗专讘注讛 讙专诪讬讚讬

The Gemara asks: Why does the debtor need two beds when one should suffice for all his needs? The Gemara answers: One is for him to eat on it and one is for him to sleep on it, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel, who was a doctor by profession, said: With regard to all items that cause illness, I know their cure, apart from these three: One who eats a bitter date [ahina] on an empty stomach, one who girds a wet linen belt around his loins, and one who eats bread and does not walk four cubits afterward. It is for this reason that one requires two beds, so that he should not eat and sleep on the same bed without having to walk a little distance between them after his meal.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讚专讱 砖诪住讚专讬谉 讘注专讻讬谉 讻讱 诪住讚专讬谉 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讝讘讜谞讬 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 住讚讜专讬 诪住讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诪讬 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞谉 诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛讻专 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗转 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讘讬讜诐

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Na岣an: In the manner in which arrangements are made for valuations, so arrangements are made for a debtor. Rav Na岣an said to him: Now that it states in the mishna that we sell his collateral, do we arrange for him to keep part of it? The Gemara asks: And do we sell it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that he returns a pillow at night and a plow by day, which demonstrates that such items are not sold?

转谞讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讝讘讜谞讬 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 住讚讜专讬 诪住讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: The tanna taught the baraita before him in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and this is what Rav Na岣an was saying to him: Now, since according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel we sell the collateral, do we make arrangements for him to keep it? As we learned in the mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even to the debtor himself he needs to return the collateral each day only until thirty days have passed, and from that point onward, the creditor can sell them in court, with the proceeds going toward payment of the debt.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讝讘讜谞讬 诇讙诪专讬 拽讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讛讚专 诇讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪讬讛讚专 诇讬讛 诇诪讗讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that he sells the collateral, he was saying that there may be a complete sale? Perhaps this is what he is saying: Until thirty days, the creditor returns it to the debtor as is; from that point onward, the creditor returns to him that which is fit for him, and we sell what is not fit for him.

讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讛谉

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If it enters your mind that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains this reasoning, there is nothing that is unfit for him. As Abaye said: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva all hold that all Israel are the children of kings. In other words, a Jew is never deemed unfit to use a certain item, even if it is a luxury item.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞谉 诇讗 讗转 讛诇讜祝 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讞专讚诇 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪转讬专 讘诇讜祝 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讻诇 诇注讜专讘讬谉

The Gemara cites the cases in which the tanna鈥檌m apply the above principle. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel applies this principle, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 126b): One may not move either raw arum or raw mustard on Shabbat, as these are unfit for consumption when they are raw, and are therefore set-aside [muktze]. In the case of arum, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits moving it because it is considered food for ravens, which wealthy Jews would breed for purposes of ornamentation and amusement. As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits all people to carry arum, not only the rich, it is evident that he maintains that all Jews are considered wealthy in this regard.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 住讻讬谉 砖诪谉 讜讜专讚 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讻讜转讬讛谉 讘砖讘转 砖讻谉 讚专讻谉 诇住讜讱 讘讞讜诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讛谉

Rabbi Shimon applies this principle as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 111a): Princes may smear rose oil on their wounds on Shabbat, even though most people use this oil for medicinal purposes, and healing oneself using oil is prohibited on Shabbat. The reason is that it is the usual manner of princes to smear rose oil on themselves for pleasure during the week. Rabbi Shimon says: All of the Jewish people are princes, and it is permitted for them to smear rose oil on themselves on Shabbat.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讜 谞讜砖讬谉 讘讜 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜诇讘讜砖 讗讬爪讟诇讗 讘转 诪讗讛 诪谞讛 诪驻砖讬讟讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪诪谞讜 讜诪诇讘讬砖讬诐 讗讜转讜 讗讬爪讟诇讗 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讜 讜转谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜转谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 专讗讜讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 讗讬爪讟诇讗

Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva also hold this opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: If creditors were claiming one thousand dinars from someone, and he was wearing a cloak [itztela] worth ten thousand dinars, the court strips it from him and sells it for his debt, and dresses him in a cloak appropriate for him, as one who is in debt does not have the right to withhold payment while possessing such an expensive garment. And it was taught in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and it was similarly taught in the name of Rabbi Akiva: All of the Jewish people are fit for that cloak. One鈥檚 clothing is not sold to pay a debt, and since all Jews are worthy of wearing the finest garments, this halakha applies to an expansive cloak as well.

讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讻专 讜讻住转 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讞专讬砖讛 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 专讘讛 诪讞专讬砖讛 讚讻住驻讗

The Gemara returns to the issue at hand: And with regard to what entered our minds initially, that according to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the creditor returns to him that which is fit for him and we sell what is not fit for him, there is a difficulty, as the examples given in the mishna are bedding and a plow. Granted, this is understandable with regard to a pillow or cushion, as it can mean that the court sells these items only if the difference in cost between the ones he has and less expensive ones that are also fit for him suffices to repay the debt. But for what is a plow fit? In other words, how can there be a difference in price in this case? Rava bar Rabba said: This is referring to a silver plow, which is an ornament and not used for work.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讞讙讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 注诇讬 拽专诪讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬

Rav 岣gga objects to this entire opinion concerning the arrangement made for a debtor: Let the creditor say to the debtor: Your needs are not cast upon me. In other words, why should I, who lent you money, make allowances for your livelihood? Abaye said to him:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 113

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 113

讗讘诇 诪讟讗 讝诪谉 讞讬讜讘讬讛 专诪讬 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讜诪讬讚讻专

but when the time of his obligation to pay arrives, he applies himself and remembers all the details, so as not to violate the prohibition of delaying payment of the laborer鈥檚 wages.

讜讻讬 砖讻讬专 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讙讝诇 讛转诐 转专讬 讞讝拽讬 讛讻讗 讞讚讗 讞讝拽讛 讙讘讬 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讬讻讗 转专讬 讞讝拽讬 讞讚讗 讚讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转诇讬谉 讜讞讚讗 讚讗讬谉 砖讻讬专 诪砖讛讗 砖讻专讜 讜讛讻讗 讞讚讗 讞讝拽讛

The Gemara asks: Why would one rely upon the presumption that the employer would not transgress? But is the hired laborer suspected of violating the prohibition of stealing? The Gemara replies: There, concerning the credibility of an employer, there are two presumptions, whereas here, concerning the credibility of a laborer, there is only one presumption. The Gemara explains: Concerning the credibility of an employer there are the following two presumptions: One is that the employer does not violate the prohibition of delaying payment of wages, and the other one is that a hired laborer does not delay the request for his wages. But here, concerning the credibility of the laborer, there is only one presumption, i.e., that the laborer does not violate the prohibition of stealing.

讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖转讘注讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇 讜讛讗 拽转讘注讜 诇拽诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 砖转讘注讜 讘讝诪谞讜 讜讚诇诪讗 诇讘转专 讛讻讬 驻专注 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖转讘注讜 讻诇 讝诪谞讜

The mishna teaches: If there are witnesses who testify that he claimed the money from him, he takes an oath and receives the money. The Gemara asks: But what need is there for witnesses that he lodged a claim, when he is claiming it from him in front of us? Rabbi Asi said: The tanna is referring to witnesses that testified that he claimed it from him at its proper time. The Gemara challenges: Even if the laborer claimed the money at the proper time, perhaps the employer paid him afterward. Abaye said: The witnesses testify that he claimed it from him the entire time, i.e., from the time he completed his labor until the end of that day.

讜诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 驻专注 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讻谞讙讚 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖诇 转讘讬注讛

The Gemara continues: And is it always assumed that the employer did not pay the laborer? Why does the fact that he claimed his money at the proper time mean that his claim against his employer is always accepted? Rav 岣ma bar Ukva said: The tanna means that he is given another day corresponding to that day of his claim during which the laborer can claim that he has not been paid.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬诪砖讻谞谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 诇讬讟讜诇 诪砖讻讜谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘讞讜抓 转注诪讚 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 谞讜讟诇 讗讞讚 讜诪谞讬讞 讗讞讚

MISHNA: With regard to one who lends money to another and the debtor fails to repay it at the end of the term of the loan, the creditor may take collateral from him to ensure payment only by means of an agent of the court, not of his own accord. And he may not enter the debtor鈥檚 house to take his collateral, as it is stated: 鈥淲hen you lend your neighbor any manner of loan, you shall not go into his house to take his collateral. You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you lend shall bring forth the collateral to you outside鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:10鈥11). If the debtor had two utensils of the same kind, the creditor takes one and leaves the other one in the debtor鈥檚 possession.

讜诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛讻专 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗转 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讘讬讜诐 讜讗诐 诪转 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专 诇讬讜专砖讬讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诪砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

And in addition, the creditor must return a pillow at night, as the debtor requires it for sleeping, and a plow, which is needed for his daytime work, by day. If the debtor died, he is not required to return it to the debtor鈥檚 heirs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even to the debtor himself he needs to return the collateral each day only until thirty days have passed, and from thirty days onward, the creditor can sell them in court, with the proceeds going toward payment of the debt.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪谞转讞 谞转讜讞讬 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诪砖讻讜谞讬 诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬诪砖讻谞谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉

GEMARA: Shmuel says: An agent of the court who was granted permission to appropriate items from a debtor up to the sum of the loan may seize these items from him in the marketplace, but is not permitted to enter the debtor鈥檚 house and take collateral. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that one who lends money to another may take collateral from him only by means of an agent of the court, which proves by inference that when it is taken by means of an agent of the court the agent of the court may enter the debtor鈥檚 house and take collateral?

讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讬谞转讞谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 诇讬讟讜诇 诪砖讻讜谞讜 诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪专讬砖讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara responds: Shmuel could have said to you: Say that the mishna meant as follows: He may seize it forcibly from him only by means of an agent of the court. The Gemara adds: So, too, it is reasonable that this is correct, as the latter clause of the mishna teaches: And he may not enter the debtor鈥檚 house to take his collateral. Who is the tanna referring to here? If we say it is referring to the creditor, this clause is not needed, as this halakha can be concluded from the first clause of the mishna, which states that a creditor has no right to take collateral himself. Rather, is it not referring to the court agent? Accordingly, this teaches that even an agent of the court may not enter the debtor鈥檚 house to take the collateral.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬诪砖讻谞谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬诐 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转讜讞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 诇讬讟讜诇 诪砖讻讜谞讜

The Gemara refutes the above claim: If the argument to understand the mishna in that manner is due to that reason, there is no conclusive argument, as it is possible that this is what the mishna is saying: One who lends money to another may take collateral from him by entering the debtor鈥檚 house only by means of an agent of the court, which proves by inference that it is permitted to take collateral by entering the debtor鈥檚 house by means of an agent of the court. One can then infer: But as for the creditor himself, he may not even seize collateral outside the debtor鈥檚 house. This is a rabbinic decree so that he should not enter the debtor鈥檚 house to take his collateral.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 讬讞讘诇 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 讛讗 讚讘专讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讞讘诇 诇讗 转讞讘诇 讘讙讚 讗诇诪谞讛 讛讗 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 转讞讘诇 诪讗谉 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讘讗 讗诇 讘讬转讜 诇注讘讟 注讘讟讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rav Yosef raises an objection to Shmuel鈥檚 statement from a baraita: The Torah states: 鈥淗e may not take the lower or upper millstone as collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:6). But it may be inferred that other items may be taken as collateral. Similarly, it states: 鈥淵ou may not take a widow鈥檚 garment as collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:17), but clothing that belongs to others you may take as collateral. The Gemara analyzes these statements: Who is permitted to do so? If we say that the creditor may take these items, that cannot be, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not go into his house to take his collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:10). Rather, is it not referring to the agent of the court, which indicates that the agent of the court may enter the debtor鈥檚 house and take collateral, although the Torah places limits on which item he can take?

转专讙诪讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇注讜诇诐 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉

Rav Pappa, son of Rav Na岣an, interpreted the baraita before Rav Yosef; and some say it was Rav Pappa, son of Rav Yosef, who interpreted the baraita before Rav Yosef: Actually, it is referring to a creditor, and the Torah鈥檚 additional prohibition against appropriating certain items is given so that he will violate two prohibitions for this action. For example, if he took the lower or upper millstone he violates both the command: 鈥淵ou shall not go into his house,鈥 as well as the more specific prohibition.

转讗 砖诪注 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讘讞讜抓 转注诪讚 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讗讬砖 讗砖专 讗转讛 谞讜砖讛 讘讜 讬讜爪讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻诇讜讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different baraita that contradicts Shmuel: From the implication of that which is stated: 鈥淵ou shall stand outside,鈥 do I not know that: 鈥淎nd the man to whom you lend shall bring forth outside鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:11)? Rather, why must the verse state the inclusive phrase 鈥淎nd the man to whom you lend shall bring forth outside鈥? This serves to include the agent of the court. The Gemara comments: What, is it not that the agent of the court has the same status as the debtor himself, indicating that just as the debtor may enter his own house at any time, the court agent may act likewise?

诇讗 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻诪诇讜讛

The Gemara responds: No, the agent of the court is considered like the creditor, who must wait outside for the debtor to deliver his collateral.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诐 讞讘诇 转讞讘诇 砖诇诪转 专注讱 讘砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转讘讗 讗诇 讘讬转讜 诇注讘讟 注讘讟讜 讛专讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗诐 讞讘诇 转讞讘诇 砖诇诪转 专注讱 讘砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara attempts a further proof. Come and hear that which the Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淚f you take as collateral your neighbor鈥檚 garment, you shall restore it to him until the sun goes down鈥 (Exodus 22:25). The verse is speaking of an agent of the court. Do you say that the verse is speaking of an agent of the court, or perhaps it is referring only to a creditor? When it says: 鈥淵ou shall not go into his house to take his collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:10), the case of a creditor is thereby stated. How then do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淚f you take as collateral your neighbor鈥檚 garment鈥? The verse is speaking of an agent of the court. This indicates that an agent of the court has permission to take collateral.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讘讗 诇诪砖讻谞讜 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讗诇讗 注讜诪讚 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讛诇讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇讜 诪砖讻讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讘讞讜抓 转注诪讚 讜讛讗讬砖

The Gemara responds: This issue is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: An agent of the court who comes to take collateral from a debtor may not enter his house to take the collateral from him. Rather, the agent stands outside and the other, i.e., the debtor, brings out the collateral to him, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall stand outside, and the man to whom you lend shall bring forth the collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:11). According to this tanna, the agent of the court has the same status as the creditor.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖讘讗 诇诪砖讻谞讜 诇讗 讬讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讗诇讗 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讛诇讛 谞讻谞住 讜诪讜爪讬讗 诇讜 诪砖讻讜谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘讞讜抓 转注诪讚 讜砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讘讗 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 讜诪诪砖讻谞讜

And it is taught in another baraita: A creditor who comes to take collateral from the debtor may not enter his house to take his collateral. Rather, he stands outside, and the other, i.e., the debtor, enters and brings out the collateral to him, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall stand outside, and the man to whom you lend shall bring forth the collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:11). But as for an agent of the court who comes to take collateral from the debtor, this agent may enter his house and take his collateral.

讜诇讗 讬诪砖讻谞谞讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖注讜砖讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讜谞讜转谉 诪讟讛 讜诪讟讛 讜诪爪注 诇注砖讬专 诪讟讛 讜诪讟讛 讜诪驻抓 诇注谞讬 诇讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讗砖转讜 讜诇讗 诇讘谞讬讜 讜诇讘谞讜转讬讜

The baraita continues: The agent of the court may not take as collateral from the debtor items that people use in the preparation of food, as the debtor needs such items, and the Torah explicitly forbade their removal. And the agent gives, i.e., leaves behind, a bed, and a second bed, and blankets, for a wealthy person; and a bed, and a second bed, and a mat, for a poor person. These items are left for the debtor himself, but not for his wife, and not for his sons or for his daughters, as the Torah did not obligate the creditor to care for the debtor鈥檚 family.

讻讚专讱 砖诪住讚专讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讻讱 诪住讚专讬谉 讘注专讻讬谉 讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 注讬拽专 住讬讚讜专 讘注专讻讬谉 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讚专讱 砖诪住讚专讬谉 讘注专讻讬谉 讻讱 诪住讚专讬谉 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘

The tanna adds: In the manner that arrangements are made for a debtor to be left with certain necessary utensils, so arrangements are made for one obligated to give money to the Temple treasury resulting from a vow in the category of valuations. If one vowed to give a certain valuation to the Sanctuary as specified in the Torah (see Leviticus 27) but does not have sufficient money to pay that sum immediately, a similar arrangement is made for him. The Gemara is puzzled by this last clause: Isn鈥檛 it the opposite? The primary discussion of arrangements is stated in the Torah with regard to valuations, from which the halakha of other debts is derived. Rather, say that in the manner that arrangements are made for valuations as explained by the Torah, so arrangements are made for a debtor.

讗诪专 诪专 谞讜转谉 诪讟讛 讜诪讟讛 讜诪爪注 诇注砖讬专 诪讟讛 讜诪讟讛 讜诪驻抓 诇注谞讬 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗砖转讜 讜诇讘谞讬讜 讜诇讘谞讜转讬讜 讛讗 讗诪专转 诇讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讗砖转讜 讜诇讘谞讬讜 讜诇讘谞讜转讬讜 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛

The Master said above: He gives a bed, and a second bed, and blankets, for a wealthy person; and a bed, and a second bed, and a mat, for a poor person. The Gemara asks: For whom is this extra bed? If we say it is for his wife, for his sons, or for his daughters, didn鈥檛 you expressly say that these items are left for him, but not for his wife, for his sons, or for his daughters? Rather, both this bed and that bed are for him.

转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚讗 讚讗讻讬诇 注诇讛 讜讞讚讗 讚讝讙 注诇讛 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讬讚注谞讗 讗住讜转讬讬讛讜 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讗谉 讚讗讻讬诇 讗讛讬谞讗 诪专讬专讗 讗诇讬讘讗 专讬拽谞讗 诪讗谉 讚讗住专 诪讬转谞讗 讚讻讬转谞讗 专讟讬讘讗 讗讞专爪讬讛 讜诪讗谉 讚讗讻讬诇 谞讛诪讗 讜诇讗 诪住讙讬 讗专讘注讛 讙专诪讬讚讬

The Gemara asks: Why does the debtor need two beds when one should suffice for all his needs? The Gemara answers: One is for him to eat on it and one is for him to sleep on it, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel, who was a doctor by profession, said: With regard to all items that cause illness, I know their cure, apart from these three: One who eats a bitter date [ahina] on an empty stomach, one who girds a wet linen belt around his loins, and one who eats bread and does not walk four cubits afterward. It is for this reason that one requires two beds, so that he should not eat and sleep on the same bed without having to walk a little distance between them after his meal.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讚专讱 砖诪住讚专讬谉 讘注专讻讬谉 讻讱 诪住讚专讬谉 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讝讘讜谞讬 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 住讚讜专讬 诪住讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诪讬 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞谉 诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛讻专 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗转 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讘讬讜诐

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Na岣an: In the manner in which arrangements are made for valuations, so arrangements are made for a debtor. Rav Na岣an said to him: Now that it states in the mishna that we sell his collateral, do we arrange for him to keep part of it? The Gemara asks: And do we sell it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that he returns a pillow at night and a plow by day, which demonstrates that such items are not sold?

转谞讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讝讘讜谞讬 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 住讚讜专讬 诪住讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪讜讻专谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: The tanna taught the baraita before him in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and this is what Rav Na岣an was saying to him: Now, since according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel we sell the collateral, do we make arrangements for him to keep it? As we learned in the mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even to the debtor himself he needs to return the collateral each day only until thirty days have passed, and from that point onward, the creditor can sell them in court, with the proceeds going toward payment of the debt.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讝讘讜谞讬 诇讙诪专讬 拽讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讛讚专 诇讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪讬讛讚专 诇讬讛 诇诪讗讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And from where is it known that when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that he sells the collateral, he was saying that there may be a complete sale? Perhaps this is what he is saying: Until thirty days, the creditor returns it to the debtor as is; from that point onward, the creditor returns to him that which is fit for him, and we sell what is not fit for him.

讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讛谉

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If it enters your mind that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains this reasoning, there is nothing that is unfit for him. As Abaye said: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva all hold that all Israel are the children of kings. In other words, a Jew is never deemed unfit to use a certain item, even if it is a luxury item.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞谉 诇讗 讗转 讛诇讜祝 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讞专讚诇 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪转讬专 讘诇讜祝 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讻诇 诇注讜专讘讬谉

The Gemara cites the cases in which the tanna鈥檌m apply the above principle. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel applies this principle, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 126b): One may not move either raw arum or raw mustard on Shabbat, as these are unfit for consumption when they are raw, and are therefore set-aside [muktze]. In the case of arum, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits moving it because it is considered food for ravens, which wealthy Jews would breed for purposes of ornamentation and amusement. As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits all people to carry arum, not only the rich, it is evident that he maintains that all Jews are considered wealthy in this regard.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 住讻讬谉 砖诪谉 讜讜专讚 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讻讜转讬讛谉 讘砖讘转 砖讻谉 讚专讻谉 诇住讜讱 讘讞讜诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讛谉

Rabbi Shimon applies this principle as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 111a): Princes may smear rose oil on their wounds on Shabbat, even though most people use this oil for medicinal purposes, and healing oneself using oil is prohibited on Shabbat. The reason is that it is the usual manner of princes to smear rose oil on themselves for pleasure during the week. Rabbi Shimon says: All of the Jewish people are princes, and it is permitted for them to smear rose oil on themselves on Shabbat.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讜 谞讜砖讬谉 讘讜 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜诇讘讜砖 讗讬爪讟诇讗 讘转 诪讗讛 诪谞讛 诪驻砖讬讟讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪诪谞讜 讜诪诇讘讬砖讬诐 讗讜转讜 讗讬爪讟诇讗 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讜 讜转谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜转谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 专讗讜讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 讗讬爪讟诇讗

Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva also hold this opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: If creditors were claiming one thousand dinars from someone, and he was wearing a cloak [itztela] worth ten thousand dinars, the court strips it from him and sells it for his debt, and dresses him in a cloak appropriate for him, as one who is in debt does not have the right to withhold payment while possessing such an expensive garment. And it was taught in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and it was similarly taught in the name of Rabbi Akiva: All of the Jewish people are fit for that cloak. One鈥檚 clothing is not sold to pay a debt, and since all Jews are worthy of wearing the finest garments, this halakha applies to an expansive cloak as well.

讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讻专 讜讻住转 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讞专讬砖讛 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 专讘讛 诪讞专讬砖讛 讚讻住驻讗

The Gemara returns to the issue at hand: And with regard to what entered our minds initially, that according to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the creditor returns to him that which is fit for him and we sell what is not fit for him, there is a difficulty, as the examples given in the mishna are bedding and a plow. Granted, this is understandable with regard to a pillow or cushion, as it can mean that the court sells these items only if the difference in cost between the ones he has and less expensive ones that are also fit for him suffices to repay the debt. But for what is a plow fit? In other words, how can there be a difference in price in this case? Rava bar Rabba said: This is referring to a silver plow, which is an ornament and not used for work.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讞讙讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 注诇讬 拽专诪讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬

Rav 岣gga objects to this entire opinion concerning the arrangement made for a debtor: Let the creditor say to the debtor: Your needs are not cast upon me. In other words, why should I, who lent you money, make allowances for your livelihood? Abaye said to him:

Scroll To Top