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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 19, 2017 | 讻状讗 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 115

In the event of the borrower’s death, if one had taken聽a collateral, he can keep it as payment for the loan. 聽If there was no collateral and no land to collect from, the lender would lose his money. 聽Does the collateral need to be in his hands at the time of death or is it enough that he took a collateral earlier? 聽Can we expound the reason for mitzvot in the Torah or not? 聽There is an argument between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda about this regarding not taking collateral from a widow. 聽Is it only a poor widow (so that when he reutrns it everyday, people won’t speak negatively about the widow that a man is visiting her house everyday) or any widow? 聽The gemara questions this as the opinions seem switched in a different area (a king not being allowed many wives). 聽The issue is resolved. 聽It is forbidden to take the millstone as collateral and the verse adds “because he is taking his soul (livelihood)”. 聽Is that adding on an extra negative commandment or is it coming to include other items that are essential to his existence? 聽There is an argument about this and the gemara tries to see whether this argument matches the argument between Rava and Abaye regarding not eating the Pesach sacrifice raw or uncooked as the verse also adds “because it needs to be roasted” – if one eats it raw, is he transgressing 2 commandments or one. 聽The gemara rejects the comparison.


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

诇诪讛 讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讜 讜诇讗 讬注砖讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗爪诇 讘谞讬讜

why does one go back and take the collateral again, as the creditor must anyway restore it to the debtor the following day? The Gemara replies: Any loan that is secured by collateral is not canceled by the Sabbatical Year, in contrast to other debts, which are canceled. Therefore, this ensures that the Sabbatical Year should not cancel it. And an additional reason is so that the collateral should not become movable property in the possession of his children, as one generally cannot claim such items from orphans to pay for their father鈥檚 debt.

讟注诪讗 讚讛讚专 讜诪砖讻谞讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 讛讚专 讜诪砖讻谞讬讛 诇讗

The Gemara infers: The reason these exceptions apply is that he goes back and takes it as collateral; but if he did not go back and take it as collateral, these exceptions do not apply. This baraita therefore contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who held that the initial seizing of collateral is sufficient to grant the creditor full rights to it.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 讜诇讗讜 转专讜爪讬 拽讗 诪转专爪转 诇讛 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇诪讛 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 砖诇讗 转讛讗 砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讜 讜诇讗 讬注砖讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗爪诇 讘谞讬讜

Rav Adda bar Mattana said: And did you not resolve this baraita once already by adjusting its wording slightly? Answer it by changing its formulation again in this manner: And since one must return the collateral, why does one take collateral at the outset? It is done so that the Sabbatical Year should not cancel the debt, and so that it should not become movable property in the possession of his children. This version is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as it teaches that one who has taken collateral even on a single occasion may confiscate it from the debtor鈥檚 heirs.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转讘讗 讗诇 讘讬转讜 诇注讘讟 注讘讟讜 诇讘讬转讜 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讻谞住 讗讘诇 讗转讛 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 砖诇 注专讘 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇拽讞 讘讙讚讜 讻讬 注专讘 讝专 讜讙讜壮

The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淲hen you lend your neighbor any manner of loan, you shall not go into his house to take his collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:10). This verse indicates that you may not enter his house, but you may enter the house of a guarantor to take collateral from him. And similarly it states: 鈥淭ake his garment that is a surety for a stranger鈥 (Proverbs 20:16).

讜讗讜诪专 讘谞讬 讗诐 注专讘转 诇专注讱 转拽注转 诇讝专 讻驻讬讱 谞讜拽砖转 讘讗诪专讬 驻讬讱 谞诇讻讚转 讘讗诪专讬 驻讬讱 注砖讛 讝讗转 讗驻讜讗 讘谞讬 讜讛谞爪诇 讻讬 讘讗转 讘讻祝 专注讱 诇讱 讛转专驻住 讜专讛讘 专注讬讱

And it further states with regard to the same issue: 鈥淢y son, if you are a guarantor for your neighbor, if you have struck your hands for a stranger, you are ensnared by the words of your mouth; you are caught by the words of your mouth. Do this, now, my son, and deliver yourself, when you have come into the hand of your friend; go humble yourself and strengthen your friend鈥 (Proverbs 6:1鈥3).

讗诐 诪诪讜谉 讬砖 诇讜 讘讬讚讱 讛转专 诇讜 驻讬住转 讬讚 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讘讛 注诇讬讜 专注讬诐

This passage in Proverbs is interpreted as follows: The phrase 鈥淵ou are snared by the words of your mouth鈥 is referring to a guarantor who obligated himself to pay or one who upset his friend with his comments. In such a case, one should do the following: If he has money in your hand, 鈥済o humble yourself [hitrapes],鈥 which is expounded as: Release for him the palm of your hand [hatter lo pissat yad] to give him his money. And if it is not money that you owe him, but rather you have 鈥渂ecome ensnared by the words of your mouth鈥 and owe him an apology for a personal slight, gather together many neighbors through which to seek his forgiveness.

诇爪讚 砖谞讬 诇讘讬转讜 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讻谞住 讗讘诇 讗转讛 谞讻谞住 诇砖讻专 讻转祝 诇砖讻专 讞诪专 诇砖讻专 驻讜谞讚拽 诇砖讻专 讚讬讜拽谞讗讜转 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪砖讗转 诪讗讜诪讛

The verse 鈥淲hen you lend your neighbor any manner of loan, you shall not go into his house to take his collateral鈥 can be interpreted in a different direction, i.e., in another manner: You may not enter his house to take collateral for the loan, but if he owes wages, you may enter and take collateral for a porter鈥檚 wages, for a donkey driver鈥檚 wages, for an innkeeper鈥檚 payment, or for the wages for one who made drawings [diyokanaot] for him. One might have thought that this applies even if the one owed the money establishes it as a loan for the one who owes the money after he was already liable for such payment. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎ny manner of loan鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:10), which demonstrates that once the debt has been converted into a loan, it is like any other loan, and therefore one may not take collateral against the debtor鈥檚 will.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇诪谞讛 讘讬谉 砖讛讬讗 注谞讬讬讛 讘讬谉 砖讛讬讗 注砖讬专讛 讗讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转讞讘诇 讘讙讚 讗诇诪谞讛

mishna With regard to a widow, whether she is poor or whether she is wealthy, one may not take collateral from her, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you may not take the garment of a widow as collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:17).

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇诪谞讛 讘讬谉 砖讛讬讗 注谞讬讬讛 讘讬谉 砖讛讬讗 注砖讬专讛 讗讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

gemara The Sages taught: With regard to a widow, whether she is poor or whether she is wealthy, one may not take collateral from her. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注砖讬专讛 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 注谞讬讬讛 讗讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖讗转讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讛 讜讗转讛 诪砖讬讗讛 砖诐 专注 讘砖讻谞讜转讬讛

Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to a wealthy widow, one may take collateral from her. But with regard to a poor widow, one may not take collateral from her, because you are obligated to return it to her, in accordance with the halakha that the collateral of a poor person must be returned to him whenever he needs it. And since you will be entering every day to return the collateral to her, you will thereby give her a bad name among her neighbors, as they will suspect her of developing an inappropriate relationship with you. By contrast, in the case of a wealthy widow, since there is no obligation to return her collateral, it is permitted to take collateral from her.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚专讬砖 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗 讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Yehuda does not interpret the rationale behind the mitzva in the verse and draw halakhic conclusions based on that interpretation, and Rabbi Shimon does interpret the rationale behind the mitzva in the verse? But haven鈥檛 we heard them holding the reverse opinions elsewhere?

讚转谞讬讗 讜诇讗 讬专讘讛 诇讜 谞砖讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪专讘讛 讛讜讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪住讬专讜转 讗转 诇讘讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讜讛讬讗 诪住讬专讛 讗转 诇讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬专讘讛 诇讜 谞砖讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讗讘讬讙讬诇

As it is taught in a mishna (Sanhedrin 21a) concerning the mitzvot of a king: 鈥淎nd he should not multiply wives for himself, that his heart not turn away鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:17). Rabbi Yehuda says: He may accumulate many wives for himself, provided that they are not like those who turn his heart from reverence for God. Rabbi Shimon says: Even one who turns his heart away, he should not marry her. If so, why is it stated: 鈥淗e shall not multiply wives for himself鈥? This teaches that even with regard to wives like Abigail, who was righteous and prevented David from sin (see I聽Samuel chapter 25), he is forbidden to have many. In this case, Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the rationale of the verse, while Rabbi Yehuda does interpret its rationale.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诪驻专砖 拽专讗 讜诇讗 讬专讘讛 诇讜 谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讬住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬专讘讛 诇讜 谞砖讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讬住讜专

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda does not generally interpret the rationale of the verse, and it is different here, with regard to a king, as the verse itself specifies the reason: 鈥淎nd he should not multiply wives for himself, that his heart not turn away.鈥 What is the reason that he may not multiply wives for himself? It is because he must ensure that his heart will not turn away.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻讚讬 讘注诇诪讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬专讘讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇讗 讬住讜专 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬专讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讬住讜专 诇讗 讬住讜专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讜诪住讬专讛 讗转 诇讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛

And Rabbi Shimon maintains: Since we generally interpret the rationale in the verse, there is no need for the verse itself to supply the rationale for the prohibition. Let the Merciful One state: 鈥淗e may not multiply,鈥 and we do not need the Torah to add 鈥渢hat his heart not turn away,鈥 and I would already know the answer to the question: What is the reason that he may not accumulate many wives? It is because of the concern that his heart not turn away. If so, why do I need the phrase 鈥淗is heart not turn away鈥 that the Merciful One writes? It must certainly be necessary in order to increase the scope of the prohibition: Even if there is one woman who turns his heart away, he may not marry her. Therefore, the verse includes two halakhot: A general stricture against a king鈥檚 marrying too many women, and a further halakha that a king may not marry even one woman who will lead him astray.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讜讘诇 讗转 讛专讬讞讬诐 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞讘诇 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 讜诇讗 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讬谉 讘讜 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讞讘诇

MISHNA: One who takes a millstone as collateral violates a prohibition, and he is liable for taking two vessels, i.e., both millstones in the pair, as it is stated: 鈥淗e shall not take the lower or upper millstone as collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:6). The tanna adds: Not only did the Sages say that it is prohibited to take the lower or upper millstone as collateral, but they also said that one may not take anything that people use in the preparation of food [okhel nefesh], as it is stated: 鈥淔or he takes a man鈥檚 life [nefesh] as collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:6).

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讘诇 专讬讞讬诐 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讬讞讬诐 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讞讘诇 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 诇讜拽讛 砖诇砖 诪砖讜诐 专讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讞讘诇

GEMARA: Rav Huna says: One who took a lower millstone as collateral is flogged with two sets of lashes: One set is due to violating the prohibition of taking the lower millstone as collateral, and the second is due to: 鈥淔or he takes a man鈥檚 life as collateral,鈥 since he took an item used in the preparation of food. If he took the lower and upper millstone, he is flogged with three sets of lashes: Two sets are due to violating the prohibitions of taking a lower millstone and an upper millstone as collateral, and the third is due to violating the prohibition: 鈥淔or he takes a man鈥檚 life as collateral.鈥

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讞讘诇 专讬讞讬诐 诇讜拽讛 讗讞转 讜专讻讘 诇讜拽讛 讗讞转 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 讻讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讞讘诇

And Rav Yehuda says: If he took a lower millstone as collateral he is flogged with one set of lashes, if he took an upper millstone he is flogged with one set of lashes, and if he took both the lower and upper millstones together as collateral he is flogged with two sets of lashes. With regard to the verse: 鈥淔or he takes a man鈥檚 life as collateral,鈥

诇砖讗专 讚讘专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

it comes to teach about the prohibition against taking as collateral other items used in the preparation of food.

诇讬诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

搂 The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Abaye and Rava, in another dispute, disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of this dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda concerning the collateral? The Torah commands with regard to the preparation of the Paschal offering: 鈥淒o not eat of it raw, nor cooked in water, but roasted with fire, its head with its legs and with the innards thereof鈥 (Exodus 12:9). Abaye and Rava engage in a dispute concerning the case of one who ate the meat when it was not properly roasted.

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讻诇 谞讗 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 诪砖讜诐 谞讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 诪讘讜砖诇 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 诪砖讜诐 诪讘讜砖诇 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 谞讗 讜诪讘讜砖诇 诇讜拽讛 砖诇砖 诪砖讜诐 谞讗 讜诪砖讜诐 诪讘讜砖诇 讜诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇谞讜 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖

As Rava says: If he ate an olive-bulk of it raw, he is flogged with two sets of lashes. One set of lashes is due to the prohibition: 鈥淒o not eat of it raw,鈥 and the other is due to the prohibition: 鈥淏ut roasted with fire.鈥 If he ate an olive-bulk of a Paschal offering that had been cooked, he also is flogged with two sets of lashes: One set of lashes is due to the prohibition against it being cooked in water, and the second is due to the injunction: 鈥淏ut roasted with fire.鈥 If he ate an olive-bulk of both raw meat and cooked meat, he is flogged with three sets of lashes: One set of lashes is due to the prohibition against it being raw, and the second is due to the prohibition against it being cooked, and the third is due to the prohibition: 鈥淒o not eat of it鈥ut roasted with fire.鈥

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转 诇讬诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗

Conversely, Abaye says: The prohibition 鈥淒o not eat of it鈥ut roasted with fire鈥 is not referring exclusively to this issue, but includes many cases, and one is not flogged for violating a general prohibition. In this case, Abaye and Rava apparently disagree over the same matter as do Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda. Shall we say that Abaye states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, and Rava states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讻讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讞讘诇 诇讗 诪砖诪注 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 讛诇讻讱 诇砖讗专 讚讘专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara responds: Rava could have said to you: I state my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, as there is a difference between the two cases: Rav Yehuda states his opinion only there, with regard to collateral, because the phrase: 鈥淔or he takes a man鈥檚 life as collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:6), does not itself indicate that the verse is referring to the lower and upper millstones. Rather, it is a general statement, and therefore it comes to teach about the prohibition against taking as collateral other items used in the preparation of food, not to add a prohibition to take as collateral the lower and upper millstones.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇诇讗讜

But here, the phrase 鈥渂ut roasted with fire鈥 comes for what purpose? It excludes only raw or cooked meat, which were already mentioned. Therefore, learn from it that it comes to include another prohibition in addition to those specific directives referring to raw and cooked meat.

讜讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讻讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讞讘诇

And Abaye could have said to you: I state my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. This is because Rav Huna states his opinion only there, with regard to collateral, because the prohibition 鈥淔or he takes a man鈥檚 life as collateral鈥

  • 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 115

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 115

诇诪讛 讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讜 讜诇讗 讬注砖讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗爪诇 讘谞讬讜

why does one go back and take the collateral again, as the creditor must anyway restore it to the debtor the following day? The Gemara replies: Any loan that is secured by collateral is not canceled by the Sabbatical Year, in contrast to other debts, which are canceled. Therefore, this ensures that the Sabbatical Year should not cancel it. And an additional reason is so that the collateral should not become movable property in the possession of his children, as one generally cannot claim such items from orphans to pay for their father鈥檚 debt.

讟注诪讗 讚讛讚专 讜诪砖讻谞讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 讛讚专 讜诪砖讻谞讬讛 诇讗

The Gemara infers: The reason these exceptions apply is that he goes back and takes it as collateral; but if he did not go back and take it as collateral, these exceptions do not apply. This baraita therefore contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who held that the initial seizing of collateral is sufficient to grant the creditor full rights to it.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 讜诇讗讜 转专讜爪讬 拽讗 诪转专爪转 诇讛 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇诪讛 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 砖诇讗 转讛讗 砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讜 讜诇讗 讬注砖讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗爪诇 讘谞讬讜

Rav Adda bar Mattana said: And did you not resolve this baraita once already by adjusting its wording slightly? Answer it by changing its formulation again in this manner: And since one must return the collateral, why does one take collateral at the outset? It is done so that the Sabbatical Year should not cancel the debt, and so that it should not become movable property in the possession of his children. This version is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as it teaches that one who has taken collateral even on a single occasion may confiscate it from the debtor鈥檚 heirs.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转讘讗 讗诇 讘讬转讜 诇注讘讟 注讘讟讜 诇讘讬转讜 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讻谞住 讗讘诇 讗转讛 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转讜 砖诇 注专讘 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇拽讞 讘讙讚讜 讻讬 注专讘 讝专 讜讙讜壮

The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淲hen you lend your neighbor any manner of loan, you shall not go into his house to take his collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:10). This verse indicates that you may not enter his house, but you may enter the house of a guarantor to take collateral from him. And similarly it states: 鈥淭ake his garment that is a surety for a stranger鈥 (Proverbs 20:16).

讜讗讜诪专 讘谞讬 讗诐 注专讘转 诇专注讱 转拽注转 诇讝专 讻驻讬讱 谞讜拽砖转 讘讗诪专讬 驻讬讱 谞诇讻讚转 讘讗诪专讬 驻讬讱 注砖讛 讝讗转 讗驻讜讗 讘谞讬 讜讛谞爪诇 讻讬 讘讗转 讘讻祝 专注讱 诇讱 讛转专驻住 讜专讛讘 专注讬讱

And it further states with regard to the same issue: 鈥淢y son, if you are a guarantor for your neighbor, if you have struck your hands for a stranger, you are ensnared by the words of your mouth; you are caught by the words of your mouth. Do this, now, my son, and deliver yourself, when you have come into the hand of your friend; go humble yourself and strengthen your friend鈥 (Proverbs 6:1鈥3).

讗诐 诪诪讜谉 讬砖 诇讜 讘讬讚讱 讛转专 诇讜 驻讬住转 讬讚 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讘讛 注诇讬讜 专注讬诐

This passage in Proverbs is interpreted as follows: The phrase 鈥淵ou are snared by the words of your mouth鈥 is referring to a guarantor who obligated himself to pay or one who upset his friend with his comments. In such a case, one should do the following: If he has money in your hand, 鈥済o humble yourself [hitrapes],鈥 which is expounded as: Release for him the palm of your hand [hatter lo pissat yad] to give him his money. And if it is not money that you owe him, but rather you have 鈥渂ecome ensnared by the words of your mouth鈥 and owe him an apology for a personal slight, gather together many neighbors through which to seek his forgiveness.

诇爪讚 砖谞讬 诇讘讬转讜 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讻谞住 讗讘诇 讗转讛 谞讻谞住 诇砖讻专 讻转祝 诇砖讻专 讞诪专 诇砖讻专 驻讜谞讚拽 诇砖讻专 讚讬讜拽谞讗讜转 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讝拽驻谉 注诇讬讜 讘诪诇讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪砖讗转 诪讗讜诪讛

The verse 鈥淲hen you lend your neighbor any manner of loan, you shall not go into his house to take his collateral鈥 can be interpreted in a different direction, i.e., in another manner: You may not enter his house to take collateral for the loan, but if he owes wages, you may enter and take collateral for a porter鈥檚 wages, for a donkey driver鈥檚 wages, for an innkeeper鈥檚 payment, or for the wages for one who made drawings [diyokanaot] for him. One might have thought that this applies even if the one owed the money establishes it as a loan for the one who owes the money after he was already liable for such payment. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎ny manner of loan鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:10), which demonstrates that once the debt has been converted into a loan, it is like any other loan, and therefore one may not take collateral against the debtor鈥檚 will.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇诪谞讛 讘讬谉 砖讛讬讗 注谞讬讬讛 讘讬谉 砖讛讬讗 注砖讬专讛 讗讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转讞讘诇 讘讙讚 讗诇诪谞讛

mishna With regard to a widow, whether she is poor or whether she is wealthy, one may not take collateral from her, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you may not take the garment of a widow as collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:17).

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇诪谞讛 讘讬谉 砖讛讬讗 注谞讬讬讛 讘讬谉 砖讛讬讗 注砖讬专讛 讗讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

gemara The Sages taught: With regard to a widow, whether she is poor or whether she is wealthy, one may not take collateral from her. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注砖讬专讛 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 注谞讬讬讛 讗讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 砖讗转讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讛 讜讗转讛 诪砖讬讗讛 砖诐 专注 讘砖讻谞讜转讬讛

Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to a wealthy widow, one may take collateral from her. But with regard to a poor widow, one may not take collateral from her, because you are obligated to return it to her, in accordance with the halakha that the collateral of a poor person must be returned to him whenever he needs it. And since you will be entering every day to return the collateral to her, you will thereby give her a bad name among her neighbors, as they will suspect her of developing an inappropriate relationship with you. By contrast, in the case of a wealthy widow, since there is no obligation to return her collateral, it is permitted to take collateral from her.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚专讬砖 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗 讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Yehuda does not interpret the rationale behind the mitzva in the verse and draw halakhic conclusions based on that interpretation, and Rabbi Shimon does interpret the rationale behind the mitzva in the verse? But haven鈥檛 we heard them holding the reverse opinions elsewhere?

讚转谞讬讗 讜诇讗 讬专讘讛 诇讜 谞砖讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪专讘讛 讛讜讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪住讬专讜转 讗转 诇讘讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讜讛讬讗 诪住讬专讛 讗转 诇讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬专讘讛 诇讜 谞砖讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讗讘讬讙讬诇

As it is taught in a mishna (Sanhedrin 21a) concerning the mitzvot of a king: 鈥淎nd he should not multiply wives for himself, that his heart not turn away鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:17). Rabbi Yehuda says: He may accumulate many wives for himself, provided that they are not like those who turn his heart from reverence for God. Rabbi Shimon says: Even one who turns his heart away, he should not marry her. If so, why is it stated: 鈥淗e shall not multiply wives for himself鈥? This teaches that even with regard to wives like Abigail, who was righteous and prevented David from sin (see I聽Samuel chapter 25), he is forbidden to have many. In this case, Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the rationale of the verse, while Rabbi Yehuda does interpret its rationale.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诪驻专砖 拽专讗 讜诇讗 讬专讘讛 诇讜 谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讬住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬专讘讛 诇讜 谞砖讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讬住讜专

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda does not generally interpret the rationale of the verse, and it is different here, with regard to a king, as the verse itself specifies the reason: 鈥淎nd he should not multiply wives for himself, that his heart not turn away.鈥 What is the reason that he may not multiply wives for himself? It is because he must ensure that his heart will not turn away.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻讚讬 讘注诇诪讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬专讘讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇讗 讬住讜专 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬专讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讬住讜专 诇讗 讬住讜专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讜诪住讬专讛 讗转 诇讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛

And Rabbi Shimon maintains: Since we generally interpret the rationale in the verse, there is no need for the verse itself to supply the rationale for the prohibition. Let the Merciful One state: 鈥淗e may not multiply,鈥 and we do not need the Torah to add 鈥渢hat his heart not turn away,鈥 and I would already know the answer to the question: What is the reason that he may not accumulate many wives? It is because of the concern that his heart not turn away. If so, why do I need the phrase 鈥淗is heart not turn away鈥 that the Merciful One writes? It must certainly be necessary in order to increase the scope of the prohibition: Even if there is one woman who turns his heart away, he may not marry her. Therefore, the verse includes two halakhot: A general stricture against a king鈥檚 marrying too many women, and a further halakha that a king may not marry even one woman who will lead him astray.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讜讘诇 讗转 讛专讬讞讬诐 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞讘诇 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 讜诇讗 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讻诇 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讬谉 讘讜 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讞讘诇

MISHNA: One who takes a millstone as collateral violates a prohibition, and he is liable for taking two vessels, i.e., both millstones in the pair, as it is stated: 鈥淗e shall not take the lower or upper millstone as collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:6). The tanna adds: Not only did the Sages say that it is prohibited to take the lower or upper millstone as collateral, but they also said that one may not take anything that people use in the preparation of food [okhel nefesh], as it is stated: 鈥淔or he takes a man鈥檚 life [nefesh] as collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:6).

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讘诇 专讬讞讬诐 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讬讞讬诐 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讞讘诇 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 诇讜拽讛 砖诇砖 诪砖讜诐 专讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讞讘诇

GEMARA: Rav Huna says: One who took a lower millstone as collateral is flogged with two sets of lashes: One set is due to violating the prohibition of taking the lower millstone as collateral, and the second is due to: 鈥淔or he takes a man鈥檚 life as collateral,鈥 since he took an item used in the preparation of food. If he took the lower and upper millstone, he is flogged with three sets of lashes: Two sets are due to violating the prohibitions of taking a lower millstone and an upper millstone as collateral, and the third is due to violating the prohibition: 鈥淔or he takes a man鈥檚 life as collateral.鈥

讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讞讘诇 专讬讞讬诐 诇讜拽讛 讗讞转 讜专讻讘 诇讜拽讛 讗讞转 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 讻讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讞讘诇

And Rav Yehuda says: If he took a lower millstone as collateral he is flogged with one set of lashes, if he took an upper millstone he is flogged with one set of lashes, and if he took both the lower and upper millstones together as collateral he is flogged with two sets of lashes. With regard to the verse: 鈥淔or he takes a man鈥檚 life as collateral,鈥

诇砖讗专 讚讘专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

it comes to teach about the prohibition against taking as collateral other items used in the preparation of food.

诇讬诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

搂 The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Abaye and Rava, in another dispute, disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of this dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda concerning the collateral? The Torah commands with regard to the preparation of the Paschal offering: 鈥淒o not eat of it raw, nor cooked in water, but roasted with fire, its head with its legs and with the innards thereof鈥 (Exodus 12:9). Abaye and Rava engage in a dispute concerning the case of one who ate the meat when it was not properly roasted.

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讻诇 谞讗 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 诪砖讜诐 谞讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 诪讘讜砖诇 诇讜拽讛 砖转讬诐 诪砖讜诐 诪讘讜砖诇 讜诪砖讜诐 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 谞讗 讜诪讘讜砖诇 诇讜拽讛 砖诇砖 诪砖讜诐 谞讗 讜诪砖讜诐 诪讘讜砖诇 讜诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇谞讜 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖

As Rava says: If he ate an olive-bulk of it raw, he is flogged with two sets of lashes. One set of lashes is due to the prohibition: 鈥淒o not eat of it raw,鈥 and the other is due to the prohibition: 鈥淏ut roasted with fire.鈥 If he ate an olive-bulk of a Paschal offering that had been cooked, he also is flogged with two sets of lashes: One set of lashes is due to the prohibition against it being cooked in water, and the second is due to the injunction: 鈥淏ut roasted with fire.鈥 If he ate an olive-bulk of both raw meat and cooked meat, he is flogged with three sets of lashes: One set of lashes is due to the prohibition against it being raw, and the second is due to the prohibition against it being cooked, and the third is due to the prohibition: 鈥淒o not eat of it鈥ut roasted with fire.鈥

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转 诇讬诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗

Conversely, Abaye says: The prohibition 鈥淒o not eat of it鈥ut roasted with fire鈥 is not referring exclusively to this issue, but includes many cases, and one is not flogged for violating a general prohibition. In this case, Abaye and Rava apparently disagree over the same matter as do Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda. Shall we say that Abaye states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, and Rava states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讻讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讞讘诇 诇讗 诪砖诪注 专讬讞讬诐 讜专讻讘 讛诇讻讱 诇砖讗专 讚讘专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara responds: Rava could have said to you: I state my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, as there is a difference between the two cases: Rav Yehuda states his opinion only there, with regard to collateral, because the phrase: 鈥淔or he takes a man鈥檚 life as collateral鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:6), does not itself indicate that the verse is referring to the lower and upper millstones. Rather, it is a general statement, and therefore it comes to teach about the prohibition against taking as collateral other items used in the preparation of food, not to add a prohibition to take as collateral the lower and upper millstones.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬 讗诐 爪诇讬 讗砖 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇诇讗讜

But here, the phrase 鈥渂ut roasted with fire鈥 comes for what purpose? It excludes only raw or cooked meat, which were already mentioned. Therefore, learn from it that it comes to include another prohibition in addition to those specific directives referring to raw and cooked meat.

讜讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讻讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讞讘诇

And Abaye could have said to you: I state my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. This is because Rav Huna states his opinion only there, with regard to collateral, because the prohibition 鈥淔or he takes a man鈥檚 life as collateral鈥

Scroll To Top