Bava Metzia 114
אִיבְרָא עֲלֵיהּ קָרְמֵי, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְךָ תִּהְיֶה צְדָקָה״.
Indeed, the debtor’s needs are cast upon him, because it is stated in connection with this same issue of returning the collateral: “And it shall be righteousness to you” (Deuteronomy 24:13), which indicates that there is an obligation for the creditor to act toward the debtor with righteousness.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ שֶׁיְּסַדְּרוּ בְּבַעַל חוֹב? מִי גָמַר ״מִיכָה״ ״מִיכָה״ מֵעֲרָכִין, אוֹ לָא?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to making arrangements for the debtor so that he will retain some of his possessions so that he may continue living as before, albeit at a slightly lower standard? The issue on which this is based is whether or not a verbal analogy is derived from the usage of the term “poor” written in the context of a debtor (Leviticus 25:35) and the term “poor” written in the context of valuations (Leviticus 27:8), as the Gemara will discuss further at the end of the amud.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דִּשְׁלַח רָבִין בְּאִגַּרְתֵּיהּ: דָּבָר זֶה שָׁאַלְתִּי לְכׇל רַבּוֹתַי, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לִי דָּבָר. בְּרַם כָּךְ הָיְתָה שְׁאֵלָה: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מָנֶה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת״, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּסַדְּרוּ?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as Ravin sent a message in his letter from Eretz Yisrael: I asked all my teachers concerning this matter, but they did not tell me anything. But there was this question concerning a similar matter that I heard them discuss: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring one hundred dinars for the Temple maintenance, what is the halakha as to whether they make arrangements for him? Although an arrangement is explicitly taught only with regard to the specific type of donation of valuations, is it applicable here as well?
רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּבַר פַּדָּא, וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאִילְפָא אָמְרִי: קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִבַּעַל חוֹב. וּמָה בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁמַּחְזִירִין – אֵין מְסַדְּרִין, הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁאֵין מַחְזִירִין – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵין מְסַדְּרִין! וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״נֶדֶר בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״ כְּתִיב, מָה עֲרָכִין מְסַדְּרִין – אַף הֶקְדֵּשׁ מְסַדְּרִין.
Rabbi Ya’akov in the name of bar Padda, and Rabbi Yirmeya in the name of Ilfa, each say: It is an a fortiori inference from the halakhot of a debtor: And if for a debtor, to whom one returns his collateral, they do not make arrangements for the payment of his debt, then in the case of consecration, where they do not return his collateral, is it not logical that they should not make arrangements for the payment of his debt? And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is written: “When a man shall clearly utter a vow according to your valuation” (Leviticus 27:2). In this verse, all vows of consecrated property are juxtaposed to valuations, teaching that just as they make arrangements for the payment of a debt with regard to valuations, so too they make arrangements for the payment of a debt with regard to any vow of consecration.
וְאִידַּךְ: הַהוּא לְנִידּוֹן בִּכְבוֹדוֹ הוּא דַּאֲתָא. מָה עֲרָכִין נִידּוֹן בִּכְבוֹדוֹ – אַף הֶקְדֵּשׁ נִידּוֹן בִּכְבוֹדוֹ.
The Gemara asks: And what do the other Sages, i.e., Rabbi Ya’akov and Rabbi Yirmeya, derive from this juxtaposition between vows and valuations? The Gemara replies: They maintain that this juxtaposition comes to teach the halakha that a vow of consecration is judged by its significance. If one stated a vow of valuation concerning a vital part of his body, e.g., that he will donate the value of his heart, he is obligated to pay not only the value of that organ, but the valuation of his entire self. Consequently, the phrase “a vow according to your valuation” indicates that just as valuations are judged by their significance, so too consecrated property is judged by its significance.
וִיסַדְּרוּ בְּבַעַל חוֹב קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵעֲרָכִין: וּמָה עֲרָכִין שֶׁאֵין מַחְזִירִין – מְסַדְּרִין, בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁמַּחְזִירִין – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמְּסַדְּרִין? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם מָךְ הוּא מֵעֶרְכֶּךָ״ – ״הוּא״ וְלֹא בַּעַל חוֹב.
The Gemara asks: But they should make arrangements for a debtor based on an a fortiori inference from the halakhot of valuations, as follows: And if in the case of valuations the halakha is that they do not return his collateral and yet they do make arrangements for the payment of his debt, then with regard to a debtor, where the halakha is that one does return his collateral, is it not logical that they should make arrangements for the payment of his debt? The Gemara responds: The verse states: “But if he is too poor for your valuation…and the priest shall value him, according to the means of the one that vowed shall the priest value him” (Leviticus 27:8). The Torah emphasizes that this halakha is applicable only to “he” who makes a valuation, but not to a debtor.
וְאִידַּךְ: הַאי, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּמָכוּתוֹ מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ.
The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion, which maintains that they do make arrangements for a debtor, how is the word “he” interpreted? The Gemara answers: This word teaches that the halakha does not apply unless he remains in his state of poverty from the beginning to the end. If he was rich at the outset, or grew wealthy at some later stage, arrangements are not made for him.
וְיַחְזִירוּ בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִבַּעַל חוֹב: וּמָה בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁאֵין מְסַדְּרִין – מַחְזִירִין, הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁמְּסַדְּרִין – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמַּחְזִירִין? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְשָׁכַב בְּשַׂלְמָתוֹ וּבֵרְכֶךָּ״, יָצָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ, שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ בְּרָכָה.
The Gemara asks an additional question: And once it is established that arrangements are not made for a debtor, they should return the collateral in the case of consecration based on an a fortiori inference from the halakhot of a debtor: And if in the case of a debtor, where they do not make arrangements for him, the creditor nevertheless returns his collateral, with regard to consecration, where they do make arrangements for the payment of his debt, is it not logical that they should return his collateral to him? The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to a regular loan: “You shall restore to him the collateral…and he will sleep in his garment and he will bless you” (Deuteronomy 24:13), excluding consecration, where there is no need for a blessing, and therefore it is not included in the halakha of returning the collateral.
וְלָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ וּבֵרַכְתָּ וְגוֹ׳״! אֶלָּא אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּלְךָ תִּהְיֶה צְדָקָה״, מִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ צְדָקָה, יָצָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ צְדָקָה.
The Gemara is puzzled by this claim: And is consecrated property not in need of a blessing? But isn’t it written: “And you shall eat and be satisfied, and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10), indicating that consecrated property also requires a blessing? Rather, the reason is that the verse states with regard to the restoration of collateral: “And it shall be righteousness [tzedaka] for you” (Deuteronomy 24:13), which is referring to caring for one who requires charity [tzedaka], excluding consecrated property, which does not require charity.
אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ לְאֵלִיָּהוּ דְּקָאֵי בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַהוּ שֶׁיְּסַדְּרוּ בְּבַעַל חוֹב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גָּמַר ״מִיכָה״ ״מִיכָה״ מֵעֲרָכִין. גַּבֵּי עֲרָכִין כְּתִיב ״וְאִם מָךְ הוּא מֵעֶרְכֶּךָ״, גַּבֵּי בַּעַל חוֹב כְּתִיב ״וְכִי יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ״.
§ The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Avuh found Elijah standing in a graveyard of gentiles. Rabba bar Avuh said to him: What is the halakha with regard to making arrangements for the debtor? Elijah said to him: A verbal analogy is derived from the usage of the term “poor” written in the context of a debtor and the term “poor” written in the context of valuations. With regard to valuations, it is written: “But if he is too poor [makh] for your valuation” (Leviticus 27:8), and with regard to a creditor, it is written: “But if your brother be poor [yamukh]” (Leviticus 25:35).
מִנַּיִן לְעָרוֹם שֶׁלֹּא יִתְרוֹם? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא יִרְאֶה בְךָ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״.
Rabba bar Avuh now asks Elijah another question: From where is it derived with regard to a naked person that he may not separate teruma? He replied: As it is written: “And He see no unseemly thing in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). This verse indicates that one may not recite any words of sanctity, including the blessing upon separating teruma, in front of one who is naked.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו כֹּהֵן הוּא מָר? מַאי טַעְמָא קָאֵי מָר בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מַתְנֵי מָר טְהָרוֹת? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: קִבְרֵיהֶן שֶׁל נׇכְרִים אֵין מְטַמְּאִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַתֵּן צֹאנִי צֹאן מַרְעִיתִי אָדָם אַתֶּם״. אַתֶּם קְרוּיִין ״אָדָם״, וְאֵין נׇכְרִים קְרוּיִין ״אָדָם״.
The amora proceeded to ask Elijah a different question and said to him: Is not the Master a priest? What is the reason that the Master is standing in a cemetery? Elijah said to him: Has the Master not studied the mishnaic order of Teharot? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says that the graves of gentiles do not render one impure, as it is stated: “And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man” (Ezekiel 34:31), which teaches that you, i.e., the Jewish people, are called “man,” but gentiles are not called “man.” Since the Torah states with regard to ritual impurity imparted in a tent: “If a man dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14), evidently impurity imparted by a tent does not apply to gentiles.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּאַרְבְּעָה לָא מָצֵינָא, בְּשִׁיתָּא מָצֵינָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְאַמַּאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּחִיקָא לִי מִילְּתָא. דַּבְרֵיהּ וְעַיְּילֵיהּ לְגַן עֵדֶן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּשׁוֹט גְּלִימָךְ, סְפִי שְׁקוֹל מֵהָנֵי טַרְפֵי. סְפָא שְׁקַל.
Rabba bar Avuh said to him: How could I be familiar with that baraita? If I cannot be proficient in the more commonly studied four orders of the Mishna, can I be knowledgeable in all six? Elijah said to him: Why are you not learned in them all? Rabba bar Avuh said to him: The matter of a livelihood is pressing for me, and I am therefore unable to study properly. Elijah led him and brought him into the Garden of Eden and said to him: Remove your cloak, gather up and take some of these leaves lying around. Rabba Bar Avuh gathered them up and took them.
כִּי הֲוָה נָפֵיק, שְׁמַע דְּקָאָמַר: מַאן קָא אָכֵיל לְעָלְמֵיהּ כְּרַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ. נְפַץ שְׁדָנְהוּ. אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי אַתְיֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ, סְחַט גְּלִימָא רֵיחָא. זַבְּנֵיהּ בִּתְרֵיסַר אַלְפֵי דִּינָרֵי, פַּלְגִינְהוּ לְחַתְנָווֹתֵיהּ.
When he was exiting, he heard a voice that declared: Who else consumes his World-to-Come like Rabba bar Avuh, who takes his merit of the next world for his use in the present one? He spread out his cloak and threw away the leaves. Even so, when he brought his cloak back, he discovered that the cloak had absorbed such a good scent from those leaves that he sold it for twelve thousand dinars. Since he knew that this was taken from his portion in the World-to-Come, he did not want to benefit from it himself, and he therefore divided the sum among his sons-in-law.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאִם אִישׁ עָנִי הוּא לֹא תִשְׁכַּב בַּעֲבֹטוֹ״, הָא עָשִׁיר – שְׁכַיב. מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״וְאִם אִישׁ עָנִי הוּא״ – לֹא תִשְׁכַּב וַעֲבוֹטוֹ אֶצְלְךָ. הָא עָשִׁיר – שְׁכַב וַעֲבוֹטוֹ אֶצְלְךָ.
§ The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “If he be a poor man, you shall not sleep with his collateral” (Deuteronomy 24:12), but if he is wealthy, one may lie down. The Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying? Rav Sheshet said that this is what he is saying: And if he be a poor man, you shall not sleep while his collateral is with you; rather, you must restore it to him before the sun sets. But if he is a wealthy man, you may lie down while his collateral is with you.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ, וְעוֹבֵר בְּכׇל הַשֵּׁמוֹת הַלָּלוּ. מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָכִי קָאָמַר, הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ, וְאִם מִשְׁכְּנוֹ – חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ. וְעוֹבֵר בְּכׇל הַשֵּׁמוֹת הַלָּלוּ – אַסֵּיפָא.
The Sages taught: One who lends money to another is not permitted to take collateral from him, and is not obligated to return it to him, and transgresses all of these labels [shemot] of prohibitions. The meaning of this baraita is unclear, and the Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying? Rav Sheshet said: This is what he is saying: One who lends money to another is not permitted to take collateral from him, and if he did take collateral from him, he is obligated to return it to him. As for the clause: And he transgresses all of these labels of prohibitions, this is referring to the latter clause, i.e., the case implicit in the baraita, where the creditor took collateral from the debtor and did not return it, and the baraita explains that such a person violates all of the Torah prohibitions that apply to this situation.
רָבָא אָמַר: הָכִי קָאָמַר: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְמַשְׁכְּנוֹ, וְאִם מִשְׁכְּנוֹ – חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ, אֲבָל מִשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָתוֹ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ. וְעוֹבֵר בְּכׇל הַשֵּׁמוֹת הַלָּלוּ – אַרֵישָׁא.
Rava said: This is what the tanna is saying: One who lends money to another is not permitted to take collateral from him, and if he did take collateral from him, he is obligated to return it to him. In what case is this statement said? It is referring to where he took collateral from him when it was not at the time of the loan, but rather as a means of ensuring payment. But if he took collateral from him at the time of the loan, in which case the collateral serves as a guarantee of the loan, he is not obligated to return it to him. According to this interpretation, the statement: And he transgresses of all these labels of prohibitions, is referring to the first clause of the baraita, concerning the prohibition against taking collateral.
תָּנֵי רַב שֵׁיזְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״עַד בֹּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ״ – זוֹ כְּסוּת לַיְלָה, ״הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב לוֹ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט כְּבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״ – זוֹ כְּסוּת יוֹם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּימָמָא בְּלֵילְיָא לְמָה לִי, וּדְלֵילְיָא בִּימָמָא לְמָה לִי?
Rav Sheizevi taught the following baraita before Rava: With regard to the verse: “And if you take as collateral your neighbor’s garment, you shall restore it to him until the sun goes down” (Exodus 22:25), this is referring to a garment worn at night and teaches that the garment is returned during the day; and with regard to the verse: “You shall restore to him the collateral when the sun goes down” (Deuteronomy 24:13), this is referring to a garment worn during the day. Rava said to him: This statement is puzzling, as with regard to a garment worn in the day, why do I need it at night, and as for a garment worn at night, why do I need it in the day? What purpose is served by giving back the garments at such times?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיסְמְיַיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״עַד בֹּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ״ – זוֹ כְּסוּת יוֹם שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה לַחֲבוֹל בַּלַּיְלָה, ״הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב לוֹ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט כְּבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״ – זוֹ כְּסוּת לַיְלָה שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה לַחֲבוֹל בַּיּוֹם.
Rav Sheizevi said to him: Do you think this baraita is so corrupt that I should erase it, i.e., no longer teach it? Rava said to him: No, do not erase it, because this is what it is saying: With regard to the verse “You shall restore it to him until when the sun goes down,” this is referring to a garment worn during the day, which may be taken as collateral by night but must be returned to the debtor for the day. With regard to the verse “You shall restore to him the collateral when the sun goes down,” this is referring to a garment worn at night, which may be taken as collateral by day.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשְׁכְּנוֹ וּמֵת, שׁוֹמְטוֹ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי בָנָיו. מֵיתִיבִי, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁמְּמַשְׁכְּנִין לָמָּה מַחְזִירִין? לָמָּה מַחְזִירִין?! רַחֲמָנָא אָמַר אַהְדַּר! אֶלָּא: מֵאַחַר שֶׁמַּחְזִירִין,
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If he took collateral from him, returned it, and then the debtor died, the creditor may take the collateral from the debtor’s children and is under no obligation to leave it with them. The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: Rabbi Meir said: But since one takes collateral, why does he return it? The Gemara expresses surprise at this question: Why does he return it? The Merciful One states to return it. Rather, the question is as follows: Since he must return it,
