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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 18, 2017 | 讻壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 114

If one collects an object as collateral, in the event that he sells it to pay back the loan, if the borrower needs the object, does the lender need to downgrade the object and leave the borrower with something more basic in its stead? 聽This is called mesadrim, which is a law learned in a case of erchin, valuations (when one promises the value of a person to the beit hamikdash). 聽 Would the law also apply to hekdesh (a case where one promises the value of an object to the beit hamikdash). 聽 The similarities and differences between these 3 cases are discussed.

讗讬讘专讗 注诇讬讛 拽专诪讬 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讱 转讛讬讛 爪讚拽讛

Indeed, the debtor鈥檚 needs are cast upon him, because it is stated in connection with this same issue of returning the collateral: 鈥淎nd it shall be righteousness to you鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:13), which indicates that there is an obligation for the creditor to act toward the debtor with righteousness.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 砖讬住讚专讜 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讬 讙诪专 诪讬讻讛 诪讬讻讛 诪注专讻讬谉 讗讜 诇讗

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 鈥減oor鈥 written in the context of a debtor (Leviticus 25:35) and the term 鈥減oor鈥 written in the context of valuations (Leviticus 27:8), as the Gemara will discuss further at the end of the amud.

转讗 砖诪注 讚砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 讘讗讙专转讬讛 讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗诇转讬 诇讻诇 专讘讜转讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬 讚讘专 讘专诐 讻讱 讛讬转讛 砖讗诇讛 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讛 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诪讛讜 砖讬住讚专讜

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?

专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讘专 驻讚讗 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇驻讗 讗诪专讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜诪讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讬谉 诪住讚专讬谉 讛拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪住讚专讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讚专 讘注专讻讱 讻转讬讘 诪讛 注专讻讬谉 诪住讚专讬谉 讗祝 讛拽讚砖 诪住讚专讬谉

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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 Yo岣nan says: It is written: 鈥淲hen a man shall clearly utter a vow according to your valuation鈥 (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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诪讛 注专讻讬谉 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜 讗祝 讛拽讚砖 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜

The Gemara asks: And what do the other Sages, i.e., Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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 鈥渁 vow according to your valuation鈥 indicates that just as valuations are judged by their significance, so too consecrated property is judged by its significance.

讜讬住讚专讜 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪注专讻讬谉 讜诪讛 注专讻讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪住讚专讬谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪住讚专讬谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 诪讱 讛讜讗 诪注专讻讱 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘

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: 鈥淏ut if he is too poor for your valuation鈥nd the priest shall value him, according to the means of the one that vowed shall the priest value him鈥 (Leviticus 27:8). The Torah emphasizes that this halakha is applicable only to 鈥渉e鈥 who makes a valuation, but not to a debtor.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗讬 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘诪讻讜转讜 诪转讞讬诇转讜 讜注讚 住讜驻讜

The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion, which maintains that they do make arrangements for a debtor, how is the word 鈥渉e鈥 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.

讜讬讞讝讬专讜 讘讛拽讚砖 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜诪讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖讗讬谉 诪住讚专讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讛拽讚砖 砖诪住讚专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖讻讘 讘砖诇诪转讜 讜讘专讻讱 讬爪讗 讛拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘专讻讛

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: 鈥淵ou shall restore to him the collateral鈥and he will sleep in his garment and he will bless you鈥 (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.

讜诇讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇转 讜砖讘注转 讜讘专讻转 讜讙讜壮 讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇讱 转讛讬讛 爪讚拽讛 诪讬 砖爪专讬讱 爪讚拽讛 讬爪讗 讛拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 爪讚拽讛

The Gemara is puzzled by this claim: And is consecrated property not in need of a blessing? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd you shall eat and be satisfied, and bless the Lord your God鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd it shall be righteousness [tzedaka] for you鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:13), which is referring to caring for one who requires charity [tzedaka], excluding consecrated property, which does not require charity.

讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗诇讬讛讜 讚拽讗讬 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 砖诇 谞讻专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 砖讬住讚专讜 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专 诪讬讻讛 诪讬讻讛 诪注专讻讬谉 讙讘讬 注专讻讬谉 讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 诪讱 讛讜讗 诪注专讻讱 讙讘讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱

搂 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 鈥減oor鈥 written in the context of a debtor and the term 鈥減oor鈥 written in the context of valuations. With regard to valuations, it is written: 鈥淏ut if he is too poor [makh] for your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:8), and with regard to a creditor, it is written: 鈥淏ut if your brother be poor [yamukh]鈥 (Leviticus 25:35).

诪谞讬谉 诇注专讜诐 砖诇讗 讬转专讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 讘讱 注专讜转 讚讘专

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: 鈥淎nd He see no unseemly thing in you鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗讬 诪专 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪转谞讬 诪专 讟讛专讜转 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 拽讘专讬讛谉 砖诇 谞讻专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转谉 爪讗谞讬 爪讗谉 诪专注讬转讬 讗讚诐 讗转诐 讗转诐 拽专讜讬讬谉 讗讚诐 讜讗讬谉 谞讻专讬诐 拽专讜讬讬谉 讗讚诐

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 Yo岣i says that the graves of gentiles do not render one impure, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man鈥 (Ezekiel 34:31), which teaches that you, i.e., the Jewish people, are called 鈥渕an,鈥 but gentiles are not called 鈥渕an.鈥 Since the Torah states with regard to ritual impurity imparted in a tent: 鈥淚f a man dies in a tent鈥 (Numbers 19:14), evidently impurity imparted by a tent does not apply to gentiles.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗专讘注讛 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讘砖讬转讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讞讬拽讗 诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讘专讬讛 讜注讬讬诇讬讛 诇讙谉 注讚谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻砖讜讟 讙诇讬诪讱 住驻讬 砖拽讜诇 诪讛谞讬 讟专驻讬 住驻讗 砖拽诇

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.

讻讬 讛讜讛 谞驻讬拽 砖诪注 讚拽讗诪专 诪讗谉 拽讗 讗讻讬诇 诇注诇诪讬讛 讻专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 谞驻抓 砖讚谞讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讗转讬讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讬讛 住讞讟 讙诇讬诪讗 专讬讞讗 讝讘谞讬讛 讘转专讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讚讬谞专讬 驻诇讙讬谞讛讜 诇讞转谞讜讜转讬讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讗诐 讗讬砖 注谞讬 讛讜讗 诇讗 转砖讻讘 讘注讘讟讜 讛讗 注砖讬专 砖讻讬讘 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诐 讗讬砖 注谞讬 讛讜讗 诇讗 转砖讻讘 讜注讘讜讟讜 讗爪诇讱 讛讗 注砖讬专 砖讻讬讘 讜注讘讜讟讜 讗爪诇讱

The Sages taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淚f he be a poor man, you shall not sleep with his collateral鈥 (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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讜注讜讘专 讘讻诇 讛砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讜讗诐 诪砖讻谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讜注讜讘专 讘讻诇 讛砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜 讗住讬驻讗

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讜讗诐 诪砖讻谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诪砖讻谞讜 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛诇讜讗转讜 讗讘诇 诪砖讻谞讜 讘砖注转 讛诇讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讜注讜讘专 讘讻诇 讛砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜 讗专讬砖讗

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.

转谞讬 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 注讚 讘讗 讛砖诪砖 转砖讬讘谞讜 诇讜 讝讜 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 讛砖讘 转砖讬讘 诇讜 讗转 讛注讘讜讟 讻讘讜讗 讛砖诪砖 讝讜 讻住讜转 讬讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讚诇讬诇讬讗 讘讬诪诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

Rav Sheizevi taught the following baraita before Rava: With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd if you take as collateral your neighbor鈥檚 garment, you shall restore it to him until the sun goes down鈥 (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: 鈥淵ou shall restore to him the collateral when the sun goes down鈥 (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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬住诪讬讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讚 讘讗 讛砖诪砖 转砖讬讘谞讜 诇讜 讝讜 讻住讜转 讬讜诐 砖谞讬转谞讛 诇讞讘讜诇 讘诇讬诇讛 讛砖讘 转砖讬讘 诇讜 讗转 讛注讘讜讟 讻讘讜讗 讛砖诪砖 讝讜 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 砖谞讬转谞讛 诇讞讘讜诇 讘讬讜诐

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 鈥淵ou shall restore it to him until when the sun goes down,鈥 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 鈥淵ou shall restore to him the collateral when the sun goes down,鈥 this is referring to a garment worn at night, which may be taken as collateral by day.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讻谞讜 讜诪转 砖讜诪讟讜 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讘谞讬讜 诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 诇诪讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇诪讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讗讛讚专 讗诇讗 诪讗讞专 砖诪讞讝讬专讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If he took collateral from him, returned it, and then the debtor died, the creditor may take the collateral from the debtor鈥檚 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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 114

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 114

讗讬讘专讗 注诇讬讛 拽专诪讬 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讱 转讛讬讛 爪讚拽讛

Indeed, the debtor鈥檚 needs are cast upon him, because it is stated in connection with this same issue of returning the collateral: 鈥淎nd it shall be righteousness to you鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:13), which indicates that there is an obligation for the creditor to act toward the debtor with righteousness.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 砖讬住讚专讜 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讬 讙诪专 诪讬讻讛 诪讬讻讛 诪注专讻讬谉 讗讜 诇讗

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 鈥減oor鈥 written in the context of a debtor (Leviticus 25:35) and the term 鈥減oor鈥 written in the context of valuations (Leviticus 27:8), as the Gemara will discuss further at the end of the amud.

转讗 砖诪注 讚砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 讘讗讙专转讬讛 讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗诇转讬 诇讻诇 专讘讜转讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬 讚讘专 讘专诐 讻讱 讛讬转讛 砖讗诇讛 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讛 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诪讛讜 砖讬住讚专讜

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?

专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讘专 驻讚讗 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讬诇驻讗 讗诪专讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜诪讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讬谉 诪住讚专讬谉 讛拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪住讚专讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讚专 讘注专讻讱 讻转讬讘 诪讛 注专讻讬谉 诪住讚专讬谉 讗祝 讛拽讚砖 诪住讚专讬谉

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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 Yo岣nan says: It is written: 鈥淲hen a man shall clearly utter a vow according to your valuation鈥 (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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诪讛 注专讻讬谉 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜 讗祝 讛拽讚砖 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讻讘讜讚讜

The Gemara asks: And what do the other Sages, i.e., Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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 鈥渁 vow according to your valuation鈥 indicates that just as valuations are judged by their significance, so too consecrated property is judged by its significance.

讜讬住讚专讜 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪注专讻讬谉 讜诪讛 注专讻讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪住讚专讬谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪住讚专讬谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 诪讱 讛讜讗 诪注专讻讱 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘

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: 鈥淏ut if he is too poor for your valuation鈥nd the priest shall value him, according to the means of the one that vowed shall the priest value him鈥 (Leviticus 27:8). The Torah emphasizes that this halakha is applicable only to 鈥渉e鈥 who makes a valuation, but not to a debtor.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗讬 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘诪讻讜转讜 诪转讞讬诇转讜 讜注讚 住讜驻讜

The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion, which maintains that they do make arrangements for a debtor, how is the word 鈥渉e鈥 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.

讜讬讞讝讬专讜 讘讛拽讚砖 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜诪讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖讗讬谉 诪住讚专讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讛拽讚砖 砖诪住讚专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖讻讘 讘砖诇诪转讜 讜讘专讻讱 讬爪讗 讛拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘专讻讛

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: 鈥淵ou shall restore to him the collateral鈥and he will sleep in his garment and he will bless you鈥 (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.

讜诇讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讗讻诇转 讜砖讘注转 讜讘专讻转 讜讙讜壮 讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇讱 转讛讬讛 爪讚拽讛 诪讬 砖爪专讬讱 爪讚拽讛 讬爪讗 讛拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 爪讚拽讛

The Gemara is puzzled by this claim: And is consecrated property not in need of a blessing? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd you shall eat and be satisfied, and bless the Lord your God鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd it shall be righteousness [tzedaka] for you鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:13), which is referring to caring for one who requires charity [tzedaka], excluding consecrated property, which does not require charity.

讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗诇讬讛讜 讚拽讗讬 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 砖诇 谞讻专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 砖讬住讚专讜 讘讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专 诪讬讻讛 诪讬讻讛 诪注专讻讬谉 讙讘讬 注专讻讬谉 讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 诪讱 讛讜讗 诪注专讻讱 讙讘讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱

搂 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 鈥減oor鈥 written in the context of a debtor and the term 鈥減oor鈥 written in the context of valuations. With regard to valuations, it is written: 鈥淏ut if he is too poor [makh] for your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:8), and with regard to a creditor, it is written: 鈥淏ut if your brother be poor [yamukh]鈥 (Leviticus 25:35).

诪谞讬谉 诇注专讜诐 砖诇讗 讬转专讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 讘讱 注专讜转 讚讘专

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: 鈥淎nd He see no unseemly thing in you鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗讬 诪专 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪转谞讬 诪专 讟讛专讜转 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 拽讘专讬讛谉 砖诇 谞讻专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转谉 爪讗谞讬 爪讗谉 诪专注讬转讬 讗讚诐 讗转诐 讗转诐 拽专讜讬讬谉 讗讚诐 讜讗讬谉 谞讻专讬诐 拽专讜讬讬谉 讗讚诐

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 Yo岣i says that the graves of gentiles do not render one impure, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man鈥 (Ezekiel 34:31), which teaches that you, i.e., the Jewish people, are called 鈥渕an,鈥 but gentiles are not called 鈥渕an.鈥 Since the Torah states with regard to ritual impurity imparted in a tent: 鈥淚f a man dies in a tent鈥 (Numbers 19:14), evidently impurity imparted by a tent does not apply to gentiles.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗专讘注讛 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讘砖讬转讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讞讬拽讗 诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讘专讬讛 讜注讬讬诇讬讛 诇讙谉 注讚谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻砖讜讟 讙诇讬诪讱 住驻讬 砖拽讜诇 诪讛谞讬 讟专驻讬 住驻讗 砖拽诇

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.

讻讬 讛讜讛 谞驻讬拽 砖诪注 讚拽讗诪专 诪讗谉 拽讗 讗讻讬诇 诇注诇诪讬讛 讻专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 谞驻抓 砖讚谞讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讗转讬讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讬讛 住讞讟 讙诇讬诪讗 专讬讞讗 讝讘谞讬讛 讘转专讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讚讬谞专讬 驻诇讙讬谞讛讜 诇讞转谞讜讜转讬讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讗诐 讗讬砖 注谞讬 讛讜讗 诇讗 转砖讻讘 讘注讘讟讜 讛讗 注砖讬专 砖讻讬讘 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诐 讗讬砖 注谞讬 讛讜讗 诇讗 转砖讻讘 讜注讘讜讟讜 讗爪诇讱 讛讗 注砖讬专 砖讻讬讘 讜注讘讜讟讜 讗爪诇讱

The Sages taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淚f he be a poor man, you shall not sleep with his collateral鈥 (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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讜注讜讘专 讘讻诇 讛砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讜讗诐 诪砖讻谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讜注讜讘专 讘讻诇 讛砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜 讗住讬驻讗

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讜讗诐 诪砖讻谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诪砖讻谞讜 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛诇讜讗转讜 讗讘诇 诪砖讻谞讜 讘砖注转 讛诇讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讜注讜讘专 讘讻诇 讛砖诪讜转 讛诇诇讜 讗专讬砖讗

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.

转谞讬 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 注讚 讘讗 讛砖诪砖 转砖讬讘谞讜 诇讜 讝讜 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 讛砖讘 转砖讬讘 诇讜 讗转 讛注讘讜讟 讻讘讜讗 讛砖诪砖 讝讜 讻住讜转 讬讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讚诇讬诇讬讗 讘讬诪诪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

Rav Sheizevi taught the following baraita before Rava: With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd if you take as collateral your neighbor鈥檚 garment, you shall restore it to him until the sun goes down鈥 (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: 鈥淵ou shall restore to him the collateral when the sun goes down鈥 (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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬住诪讬讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讚 讘讗 讛砖诪砖 转砖讬讘谞讜 诇讜 讝讜 讻住讜转 讬讜诐 砖谞讬转谞讛 诇讞讘讜诇 讘诇讬诇讛 讛砖讘 转砖讬讘 诇讜 讗转 讛注讘讜讟 讻讘讜讗 讛砖诪砖 讝讜 讻住讜转 诇讬诇讛 砖谞讬转谞讛 诇讞讘讜诇 讘讬讜诐

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 鈥淵ou shall restore it to him until when the sun goes down,鈥 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 鈥淵ou shall restore to him the collateral when the sun goes down,鈥 this is referring to a garment worn at night, which may be taken as collateral by day.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讻谞讜 讜诪转 砖讜诪讟讜 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讘谞讬讜 诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 诇诪讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇诪讛 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讗讛讚专 讗诇讗 诪讗讞专 砖诪讞讝讬专讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If he took collateral from him, returned it, and then the debtor died, the creditor may take the collateral from the debtor鈥檚 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,

Scroll To Top