Bava Metzia 113a — the Talmud in English

But

if

when the time of his obligation arrived, he applied himself,

he directs his attention to examining carefully whether he paid him or not,

and remembers.

And therefore, if its time passed, the hired worker is not trustworthy, for we say: there is a presumption that the householder does not transgress “You shall not leave it overnight,” and certainly he already paid him.

And we refute: Even if its time passed, why should we not believe the hired worker under oath that he did not receive his wage?

And is

the

hired worker

suspected of swearing falsely and

transgressing because of “You shall not rob”!?

And we answer:

There,

the householder has

two presumptions,

two presumptions that say that he is not lying. But

here,

the hired worker has only

one presumption.

And as the Gemara will explain immediately. And therefore, where there are two presumptions against one presumption, they do not make the one who has one presumption swear; rather, they believe the one who has two presumptions.

And now he explains it and proceeds:

With regard to the householder there are two presumptions: one, that a householder does not transgress because of “You shall not leave it overnight,”

and certainly he examined carefully to pay it in its time.

And one, that a hired worker does not

delay his wage,

and certainly he already received his wage.

And

on the other hand,

here,

the hired worker has only

one presumptio

that he is not suspected of robbing; therefore, they believe the householder and do not make the hired worker swear.

We learned in the Mishna:

If there are witnesses that he claimed it, he swears and collects:

And we are astonished: For what purpose are witnesses needed to permit him to swear and collect?

But he claimed it below,

for he claims it before us now; and in either event, if he claimed it in its time, he swears and collects even without witnesses, while if he claimed it not in its time, how will the witnesses help him? There are two presumptions in favor of the householder against him, and they will not impose an oath upon him.

And we answer:

Rabbi Asi said:

Here it is speaking of witnesses who came and testified

that

already

he claimed it in its time,

so that they make him swear even if its time passed.

And we object:

And perhaps after that,

after he claimed it,

he paid

him, the householder, so as not to transgress “You shall not leave it overnight”; and what does their testimony that he claimed it in its time help?

Abaye said:

Here it is speaking of witnesses who testified

that he claimed it the entire

day until

its time passed,

for since he already transgressed “You shall not leave it overnight,” he no longer has the presumption that a householder does not transgress “You shall not leave it overnight.” And the hired worker is trustworthy under oath.

But the Gemara is astonished:

And

since the hired worker claimed from the employer in its time throughout the entire day,

forever

shall we say that

he did not pay him], so that the hired worker will be trustworthy to swear and collect!? For there is against the hired worker the presumption that a hired worker does not delay his wage; and certainly the hired worker did not delay so long before claiming his wage, but rather he already received his due,

и работник будет заслуживать доверия, чтобы поклясться и получить деньги!? Ведь против работника существует презумпция, что наёмный работник не откладывает получение своей платы. Несомненно, работник не стал бы так долго откладывать требование своей платы; значит, он уже получил причитающееся ему.

Rav Hama bar Ukva said:

The hired worker is not trustworthy to swear and collect except on the following day,

corresponding to that day of the claim,

but thereafter we say there is a presumption that he does not delay his wage; and if he claims his wage, the law is that the one who takes from his fellow bears the proof.

Mishna:

This Mishna deals with returning the collateral.

It is stated in the Torah: “If you take your fellow’s garment as collateral, until the sun comes out you shall return it to him. For it alone is his covering; it is his garment for his skin. In what shall he lie down? And it shall be, when he cries out to Me, I shall hear, for I am gracious.” [Exodus 22:25]

And it is likewise stated: “When you lend your fellow something, you shall not enter his house to take his collateral. Outside you shall stand, and the man to whom you lend shall bring the collateral outside to you. And if he is a poor man, you shall not lie down with his collateral; you shall surely return the collateral to him when the sun comes out, and he shall lie down in his garment and bless you, and it shall be for you charity before the Lord your God.” [Deuteronomy 24:10]

1.

One who lends to his fellow,

and the time for repayment of the loan arrives, and the borrower does not repay his debt, if the lender wishes to take collateral against his debt,

he shall not take collateral from him

himself,

but

he shall summon him

before

a court,

and they will send their agent to take collateral from him.

2.

And

the court agent who comes to take collateral from the borrower,

shall not enter his house to take his collateral,

but shall wait outside, and the borrower shall bring the collateral out to him.

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 24], “You shall not enter his house to take his collateral,”

“You shall stand outside.”

outside you shall stand.”

3. And if the lender transgressed and went himself to take collateral from the borrower,

then if

he had

the borrower

two utensils,

and the debt was equal to the value of the two utensils, and the borrower used both of them alternately, and the lender took both of them as collateral,

he takes,

the lender keeps in his possession

one

of the two utensils that he took as collateral, the utensil that the borrower does not currently need,

and leaves one,

the utensil that the borrower now needs he returns to him; and it is as one who leaves it in the borrower’s possession.

And

for example, the lender took from the borrower a mattress and a plow.

At night, the borrower needs the mattress in order to lie upon it, whereas he needs the plow, with which work is done, during the daytime. Therefore,

he returns the mattress,

which the borrower needs in order to lie upon,

at night.

And the plow

he returns to him

during the day,

when the borrower needs it.

4.

And if

the lender received the collateral, and afterward

the borrower died,

заёмщик,

he does not return

the mattress and the plow

to his heirs,

because it is stated, “You shall surely return the collateral to him,” and the Sages expounded: only “to him”—you are obligated to return it to the borrower himself, but not to his heirs.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even to

the borrower

himself

there are times when he

does not return it.

Rather,

this is the law: from the time the repayment time arrived

until

after

thirty days [which are the period granted by the court], he returns the mattress and the plow to him.

[которые являются сроком, установленным судом] ему возвращают подушку и плуг.

And from thirty days onward,

he is not obligated to return them; rather, he may

sell them in court,

and collect his debt with their proceeds.

Gemara:

Shmuel said: The court agent

who comes to take collateral from the borrower—if he sees the borrower in the street, then

he may snatch,

to snatch from the borrower’s hand against his will,

yes,

he is permitted to do so. And likewise, he may come to his house and wait outside until the borrower brings the collateral out to him.

But

to enter his house and

take collateral from him, no!

And we refute:

But we learned: One who lends to his fellow shall not take collateral from him,

so that he should not take the collateral from him himself,

but

he shall summon him

before the court,

and they will send their agent to take collateral from him.

By implication

you learn

that

if he summoned him

before the court, they take collateral

from the borrower even from within his house, and there is no need to wait until the borrower brings it outside.

Shmuel can say to you: Say

the law of the Mishna thus: One who lends to his fellow

shall not snatch it,

he shall not snatch the collateral from his hand,

but

he shall summon him

before the court,

and they will send their agent to snatch collateral from his hand. But to enter his house and take collateral from him within his house, even a court agent is not permitted.

This too is reasonably

to interpret thus in the Mishna:

For it teaches at the end: He shall not enter his house to take his collateral.

And it must be considered:

Who is it?

Who is the one forbidden to enter the borrower’s house?

If you say the creditor,

the lender himself, this law has already been

learned from the beginning,

that he is forbidden to enter his house, for it teaches: he shall not take collateral from him, but before the court.

Rather, is it not

that the tanna says this at the end:

the court agent,

who comes to take collateral from the borrower, shall not enter his house to take collateral from him. And as Shmuel explained.

And we reject this:

If because of this, it is not so.

This is no proof for Shmuel’s words. For perhaps the tanna in our Mishna says

the following: One who lends to his fellow shall not take collateral from him

himself,

but

he shall summon him

before the court,

and they will take collateral from him.

And

by implication

you learn

that

if he summoned him

before the court, they take collateral

the court, through its agent, takes collateral from the borrower even in his house.

And

if

a creditor

who wishes to take collateral from the borrower,

even snatching, also no.

A decree

that

he should not come to

enter his house to take his collateral

But a court agent may enter the borrower’s house to take collateral from him. And this is not according to Shmuel!

Rav Yosef raised an objection:

It is stated concerning one who lends to his fellow [Deuteronomy 24]:

“You shall not take as collateral a millstone or an upper millstone.”

And it implies:

this

if he wished to take other things as collateral,

take collateral,

he is permitted to take collateral from him.

And it is likewise stated there:

“You shall not take as collateral a widow’s garment.”

And it implies:

this

garment

of

other borrowers,

take as collateral ,

And we have to discuss,

who,

who is the one whom the Torah prohibited from seizing as collateral a millstone and a widow’s garment?

If we say [it is] a creditor,

for the creditor himself, this is impossible. For

it is written

there: "

You shall not enter his house to take his pledge."

And it follows that he has no possibility of taking even permitted things as collateral, because he is prohibited even from approaching his house.

Rather, necessarily,

the prohibition of seizing a millstone and an upper millstone and a widow’s garment was stated concerning

a court agent

who comes to take collateral, for he was permitted to take only things that are not utensils used for preparing food or a widow’s garment,

And if so, it follows that it is permitted for a court agent to enter the borrower’s house to take the collateral, because the plain meaning of the expression “seizure” is against the will of the one from whom it is seized, and this is unlike Shmuel, who prohibited a court agent from entering the borrower’s house.

And we answer:

Rav Pappa son of Rav Nahman explained it before Rav Yosef, and some say, Rav Pappa son of Rav Yosef before Rav Yosef: In fact,

the verse, “You shall not seize a millstone and an upper millstone, and you shall not seize a widow’s garment,” was stated

concerning a creditor, and

as for what is difficult for you—that in any event he is prohibited from coming and taking collateral in the borrower’s house—indeed, that is so; rather, the verse comes to add a prohibition upon him,

to make him violate two negative commandments.

Ta shma

from a beraita, in which we learned: It is stated, “You shall not enter his house to take his pledge; outside you shall stand, and the man to whom you are a creditor shall bring the pledge out to you.”

From the implication of what is stated, ‘Outside you shall stand,’

and

do I not know

from this

that the man to whom you are a creditor shall bring out

the pledge?

Rather, what is the meaning of saying, ‘And the man’?

To include a court agent.

What, is it not that a court agent

has

the status of a borrower,

and just as the borrower is permitted to enter his own house in order to bring out the collateral, so too the court agent is permitted to enter the borrower’s house to collect the collateral,

and the verse says as follows: “Outside you shall stand, and the man”—that is, the court agent—and likewise the borrower to whom you are a creditor—shall bring the pledge out to you. And this is unlike Shmuel.