Bava Metzia 114a — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to Rav Haga:

to Rav Haga:

Indeed,

the borrower’s livelihood is

upon it,

upon the lender,

it is incumbent, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 24] concerning the returning of the collateral:

concerning the returning of the collateral:

“And for you,

the borrower, it shall be

charity.”

It follows that it was imposed upon the lender to take care that the borrower not be deprived of the beauty, honor, and pleasure to which he was accustomed.

And we conclude according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that one does not arrange 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 borrower’s property is not sold, and forever, a day utensil is returned during the day and a night utensil is returned during the night,

they raised a dilemma: Is it the case that one arranges for a debtor?

Is the source of their statement that the pillow and the plow are returned to the borrower derived from the law of arranging for a debtor, or not?

Did he derive “poor, poor” from valuations,

just as one who evaluates himself to give his valuation to the Sanctuary is left with what he needs for his livelihood, so a debtor who has no money to pay is also left with what he needs for his livelihood,

or not.

Come and hear: For Ravin sent in his letter: This matter,

whether “poor, poor” is derived from valuations or not,

I asked all my masters, and they did not tell me anything.

However, this was the question

in the beit-midrash, and from it a response to this question may be learned:

One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to give one hundred dinars for the repair of the Temple,”

they collect from him what he has now, and he will pay the remainder when he has it. And we ask,

what is it that they arrange

for one who undertook to give one hundred dinars for the repair of the Temple? Do they leave him his household utensils, just as they arrange for one who evaluates himself when he has no money,

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

This matter may be learned by

a kal va-chomer from a debtor,

And if a debtor, who

has nothing with which to pay his debt, if a pillow and mattress were taken from him as collateral,

they return

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

they do not arrange

for him, for we do not derive “poor, poor” from valuations,

then one who undertook to give one hundred dinars to

the Sanctuary, who

had a pillow and the like taken from him, who

is not returned them— is it not certainly the case that they do not arrange for him?

It is evident that, according to Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Yirmeya, one does not arrange for a debtor.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

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

a vow according to your valuation

of persons to the Lord,”

it is written.

For from the words of the verse

“a vow according to your valuation,” it follows that vows are to be equated with valuations:

Just as valuations,

when a person evaluates himself and does not have enough in his possession to pay his valuation, his property is taken and they

arrange,

leaving him his household utensils,

so too

one who vows one hundred dinars to

the Sanctuary is arranged for.

And it is likewise implied from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words that one arranges for the Sanctuary only because it was equated with vows; but otherwise, one does not arrange, because arranging was taught only with regard to valuations and not with regard to anything else. It follows that one does not arrange even for a debtor.

But the other one,

Rabbi Yaakov in the name of bar Padda and Rabbi Yirmeya in the name of Ilfa, who do not equate one who vows one hundred dinars to the Sanctuary with valuations, what do they expound from the verse “a vow according to your valuation”?

That

verse

came for the

law of

the assessed limb, according to its value.

For the one who vows must pay according to the importance of the limb whose value he vowed to pay: 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 without a hand, and he pays the difference; but if he undertook to bring the value of a limb upon which life depends, such as the heart or liver, he must pay its entire value.

And for this matter a vow was equated with valuations:

Just as in valuations the assessed limb is valued according to its worth, so too

one who vows to

the Sanctuary is assessed according to its worth.

And we object:

Let them arrange for a debtor

who has no money with which to pay his debt, and let this be learned by

a kal va-chomer from

the law of arranging stated in the passage of

valuations:

And if valuations,

when a person evaluates himself and does not have enough with which to pay, the law is that if his household utensils were taken from him for repayment of his debt,

they do not return

them to him when he needs them, nevertheless, at the outset, when they come to collect from him,

they arrange

for him and do not take his household utensils ,

A debtor, who

is stated with regard to him, “If you surely return to him the pledge,” and

they return

his household utensils to him,

, is it not certainly the case that

at the outset

they arrange

for him?

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

the verse says [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 they arrange with valuations. And it follows, since the verse says with regard to valuations, “if he is poor,”

he, but not a debtor.

And it is impossible to learn from valuations that one arranges for a debtor.

But the other one,

the first tanna of our Mishna, who maintains that one arranges for a debtor,

this

that it teaches, “And if he is poor,” did not come to exclude a debtor from the law of arranging; rather, we expound it to mean that one does not arrange for one who evaluates himself

until he is in “his poverty” from beginning to end—

so that if he evaluated himself while he was poor and then became wealthy, he must pay the value of a wealthy person.

And we object to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that one arranges for the Sanctuary:

And let them return [the collateral] in the case of the Sanctuary, by a kal va-chomer from a debtor:

And if a debtor, who

is being collected from,

nothing is arranged

for him, and nevertheless, every thirty days they

return

his collateral to him,

the Sanctuary, for which they arrange, is it not certainly the case that they return [the collateral]?

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

the verse says [Deuteronomy 24],

“

And he shall lie down in his garment, and he shall bless you.” The Sanctuary is excluded, for it does not need a blessing,

therefore they do not return the collateral.

And we object:

And

does the Sanctuary

not

need a blessing?

But it is written [Deuteronomy 8],

“

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

Rather,

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

the verse says, “And for you it shall be charity”: one who needs

to perform

charity

must return the collateral,

the Sanctuary is excluded, for it does not need

to perform

charity.

He encountered

found

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

He said to him: Is it the case that one arranges for a debtor

who has no ability to pay?

He said to him

Elijah:

He derived “poor, poor” from valuations; concerning valuations it is written, “And if he is poor in comparison with your valuation,”

and we expound that the kohen must sustain him and arrange for him the utensils that he needs;

concerning a debtor

also

it is written [

Leviticus 25]

“And when your brother becomes poor,”

and a debtor was equated with valuations with regard to this matter, that one arranges for a debtor as with valuations .