Bava Metzia 114a (קיד.) — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to Rav Haga:

to Rav Haga:

Indeed,

the debtor’s livelihood is

upon him,

the creditor,

for it is incumbent upon him, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 24] concerning the return of collateral:

with regard to the return of the collateral:

“And to you,

the debtor, it shall be

a charitable gift.”

This indicates that the creditor is charged with ensuring that the debtor is not deprived of the beauty, honor, and pleasure to which he is accustomed.

And we conclude, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that one does not arrange a means of subsistence for a debtor; rather, after thirty days, his property is sold in order to repay his debt.

But according to the Sages, who maintain that the debtor’s property is not sold, and that a daytime utensil is returned during the day and a nighttime utensil is returned during the night,

they raised a dilemma: What is the halakha concerning arranging a means of subsistence for a debtor?

Is the source of their statement that one returns the debtor’s pillow and plow derived from the law of arranging a means of subsistence for a debtor, or not?

Did he derive the rule by means of the verbal analogy “poor, poor” from the laws of valuations,

just as one who assesses himself to give his valuation to the Temple treasury is left with enough for his livelihood, so too a debtor who has no money with which to pay is left with enough for his livelihood,

or not?

Come and hear: For Ravin sent in his letter: “I asked this matter,

whether one derives “poor, poor” from the laws of valuations or not,

of all my teachers, and they told me nothing.

However, this was the question

that was asked in the beit-midrash, and from it an answer to this question may be derived:

If one says: “It is incumbent upon me to give one hundred dinars for the Temple treasury,”

they collect from him whatever he presently has, and he pays the remainder when he acquires it. And the question was raised,

what is the halakha concerning arranging a means of subsistence

for one who committed himself to give one hundred dinars to the Temple treasury? Do they leave him his household utensils, as they do when arranging a means of subsistence for one who assessed himself when he has no money,

Rabbi Yaakov said in the name of bar Peda, and Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Ilfa: They said,

This matter can be derived by

a kal va-chomer from a debtor:

And if a debtor, who

has no means with which to pay his debt, if they took a pillow and mattress from him as collateral,

they return

them to him when he needs them, and nevertheless, when they collect from him,

they do not arrange

a means of subsistence for him, since we do not derive the rule by means of “poor, poor” from the laws of valuations,

then one who commits himself to give one hundred dinars to

the Temple treasury, who

had a pillow or the like taken from him, and from whom they

do not return it—does it not follow that they certainly do not arrange a means of subsistence for him?

Apparently, it is obvious to Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Yirmeya that one does not arrange a means of subsistence for a debtor.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

In the passage concerning valuations [Leviticus 27:2], “When a person explicitly utters

a vow, according to your valuation

of persons to the Lord,”

it is written.

“

From the words “a vow, according to your valuation,” it follows that vows are to be juxtaposed to valuations:

Just as with valuations,

when a person assesses his own value and does not have enough to pay his valuation, his property is taken and they

arrange a means of subsistence,

leaving him his household utensils,

so too

one who vows to give one hundred dinars to

the Temple treasury is provided with such an arrangement.

Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement likewise indicates that an arrangement is made for one who vows to give to the Temple treasury only because it is juxtaposed to vows, but otherwise no arrangement is made, because the Torah taught the law of arranging a means of subsistence only with regard to valuations and not with regard to anything else. Apparently, no arrangement is made even for a debtor.

And the other one,

Rabbi Yaakov in the name of bar Peda and Rabbi Yirmeya in the name of Ilfa, who do not juxtapose one who vows to give one hundred dinars to the Temple treasury to valuations—what do they expound from the verse “a vow, according to your valuation”?

That

verse

comes to teach the

law of

one whose value is assessed according to his worth.

When one vows to pay according to the importance of a limb, if life does not depend upon that limb, such as a hand or a leg, they assess how much a slave is worth with a hand and how much he is worth without a hand, and he pays the difference. But if he undertook to give the value of a limb upon which life depends, such as the heart or liver, he must pay its entire value.

And it is with regard to this matter that vows are juxtaposed to valuations:

Just as with valuations, one whose value is assessed according to his worth, so too

one who vows to give to

the Temple treasury is assessed according to his worth.

And we challenge this:

Let them arrange a means of subsistence for a debtor

who has no money with which to pay his debt, and let us derive it by

a kal va-chomer from

the law of arranging a means of subsistence stated in the passage concerning

valuations:

And if with regard to valuations,

one who assesses himself and does not have enough to pay—the law is that if his household utensils were taken from him to repay his debt,

they are not returned

to him when he needs them, nevertheless, initially, when they come to collect from him,

they arrange

a means of subsistence for him and do not take his household utensils from him ,

A debtor, who

is subject to the verse, “If you take your neighbor’s collateral,” and

they return

his household utensils

, does it not follow that

initially they

arrange

a means of subsistence for him?

And we answer: With regard to one who assesses himself,

the verse states [Leviticus 27]:

“

And if he is poor in comparison with your valuation,”

and we expound it: Sustain him from his valuation! From here it follows that an arrangement is made with regard to valuations. And since the verse says with regard to valuations, “If he is poor,”

it is he, but not a debtor.

It is impossible to derive from valuations that an arrangement is made for a debtor.

And the other one,

the first tanna of our Mishna, who maintains that an arrangement is made for a debtor,

this

that it is taught: “And if he is poor,” does not come to exclude a debtor from the law of arranging a means of subsistence. Rather, we expound it to mean that no arrangement is made for one who assesses himself

unless he remains in his “poverty” from beginning to end—

for if he assessed himself while poor and then became wealthy, he must pay the valuation of a wealthy person.

And we challenge Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that an arrangement is made for one who vows to give to the Temple treasury:

And let them return the collateral in the case of the Temple treasury, by a kal va-chomer from a debtor:

And if a debtor, from whom

they come to collect,

is not provided with any arrangement

at all, and nevertheless, every thirty days they

return

his collateral,

with regard to the Temple treasury, for which an arrangement is made, is it not all the more so that they should return the collateral?

And we answer: With regard to the law of returning collateral,

the verse states [Deuteronomy 24]:

“

And he shall lie down in his garment, and he shall bless you.” The Temple treasury is excluded, as it does not require a blessing,

and therefore the collateral is not returned.

And we challenge this:

D

oes the Temple treasury

not

require a blessing?

But it is written [Deuteronomy 8]:

“

And you shall eat and be satisfied, and you shall bless,” and so forth!

Rather,

say this instead: With regard to the law of returning collateral,

the verse states: “And to you it shall be a charitable gift”—one who needs

to perform

charity

must return the collateral.

The Temple treasury is excluded, as it does not need

to perform

charity.

He encountered

Rabba bar Avuha Elijah, who was standing in the cemetery of gentiles,

and said to him:

What is the halakha concerning arranging a means of subsistence for a debtor

who has no way to pay?

He

Elijah

said to him: “The rule ‘poor, poor’ is derived from valuations. With regard to valuations it is written: ‘And if he is poor in comparison with your valuation,’

and we expound that the koen must sustain him and arrange for him the utensils that he needs.

With regard to a debtor

as

it is written [Leviticus 25],

“And when your brother becomes poor,”

‘When your brother becomes poor,’

the debtor is likewise juxtaposed to valuations with regard to this matter, so that an arrangement is made for a debtor as it is for valuations .