Bava Metzia 115a — the Talmud in English

Why do they repeatedly repossess it?

The lender will again have to return the collateral the following day, so what benefit does he gain from taking the collateral?

And Rabbi Meir answers: By taking the collateral, the lender gains the benefit

that the Sabbatical Year will not cancel the debt,

since had he left it with the borrower, the Sabbatical Year would have canceled the debt.

And

there is another benefit to the lender in taking the collateral: If the borrower dies, he can leave the collateral in his possession, and

he will not render

the collateral like

movable property in the possession of his sons.

For had he left the collateral in the borrower's possession, he would no longer have been able to take it from his sons, since the movable property of orphans is not liened to a creditor.

And now we raise an objection to Rabbi Yohanan from that which Rabbi Meir said: They repeatedly repossess the borrower in order that the collateral not become movable property in the possession of the borrower's sons,

It follows from his statement

that the reason

that the lender acquires the collateral applies only when

he again

the lender

repossesses him

the borrower, for then the collateral is in the lender's possession, and therefore he may retain it in his possession if the borrower dies.

But

if

he does not again

the lender

repossess him,

but leaves the collateral in the borrower's possession, then if the borrower dies,

the lender will not

be able to take the collateral from the borrower's sons, since the collateral has become like movable property in the possession of the borrower's sons, and the movable property of orphans is not liened to a creditor.

And this is difficult according to Rabbi Yohanan, who said: If he repossessed him and he died, the lender takes the collateral from his sons. This implies that even if the collateral was in the borrower's possession, the lender can take it from his sons, because he had already acquired the collateral through his initial act of taking it when he first repossessed him.

Rav Adda bar Mattana said: Are you not explaining

the words of Rabbi Meir?

If so,

explain

that

this

is what was difficult to Rabbi Meir:

Since

ultimately

they return

the collateral to the borrower so that he may use it,

why do they repossess him initially?

And Rabbi Meir answers: In order

that the Sabbatical Year will not cancel the debt, and

also so that it

will not become movable property in the possession of his sons ,

but once he has already repossessed him once, the debt no longer becomes like movable property in the possession of the borrower's sons, and the lender collects the collateral from them just as he would have collected it from their father.

It follows that if the lender repossessed the borrower once, the lender acquired the collateral. Each time he must return it to the borrower, it is as though the lender gives the borrower his own property to guard for him, and the borrower's sons have no rights to the collateral, since it is the lender's property .

The Sages taught:

The Torah said [Deuteronomy 24:10]:

“You shall not enter his house to take his pledge.”

And the Sages expounded:

Into his house,

the house of a borrower,

you may not enter, but you may enter the house of a guarantor

in order to repossess him for the borrower's debt.

And so it says

[Proverbs 20]:

“Take his garment, for he has guaranteed a stranger,” and so on.

It follows that one may repossess a guarantor because of the borrower's debt.

And it says:

[Proverbs 6]:

“My son, if you have guaranteed for your fellow, if you have given your hand to a stranger, you have been ensnared by the words of your mouth, you have been caught by the words of your mouth. Do this, then, my son, and extricate yourself, for you have come into the hand of your fellow: humble yourself and urge your fellows.”

The explanation is:

If he has money of his in your possession,

because you accepted liability for money that he lent to another, you must humble yourself before him; that is,

open your hand to him,

pay the borrower's debt.

But if not,

if you do not owe him money, but were ensnared by the words of your mouth, having insulted him with words,

multiply friends for him,

so that they will ask him to forgive you.

Alternatively -

another matter: This verse, “You shall not enter his house to take his pledge,” is expounded as follows:

Into his house,

the house of a borrower,

you may not enter

to repossess him,

, but you may enter

his house in order to repossess him for payment of wages, such as

the wages of a porter,

and likewise

the wages of a donkey driver and the wages of a tavern keeper and the wages of artists -

artists who paint human figures. In all these cases, the craftsman may enter the house of the homeowner who commissioned the work and repossess him, so that he will pay him his wages.

Could it even be the case that he converted the obligation into a loan,

that the worker said to the homeowner: The payment that you owe me shall be considered a loan debt owed by you; would it then be permitted to repossess the debtor, the homeowner?

The verse states:

“When you make a loan to your fellow”

“of any debt,”

“you shall not enter his house to take his pledge” [Deuteronomy 24:10]. From the phrase “of any debt,” it follows that with regard to every monetary debt, if it was recorded as a loan, it is prohibited to take collateral for it.

Mishna:

A widow

who borrowed and did not repay her debt,

whether she is poor or whether she is wealthy, one may not repossess her,

because

it is stated

[Deuteronomy 24:17]:

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

Gemara:

The Sages taught: A widow, whether she is poor or whether she is wealthy, one may not repossess her; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says:

A

wealthy widow may be repossessed,

but a

poor widow may not be repossessed.

What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon? Since

a

poor widow

you are obligated to return to her

her daytime garment during the day and her nighttime garment at night,

and

by doing so

you give her a bad reputation among her neighbors ,

since you enter and leave her home morning and evening .

And we raise the following issue:

Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda

who prohibits repossessing every widow, even a wealthy one, where there is no reason to refrain from repossessing her, holds that his reason is

that he does not expound the reason of the verse,

and since the Torah said, “You shall not take a widow’s garment as collateral,” we say that every widow is included?

And Rabbi Shimon,

who prohibits repossessing a poor widow but permits repossessing a wealthy one, even though the Torah did not distinguish between them,

does expound the reason of the verse,

and it seems reasonable to him to say that the Torah prohibited repossessing only a poor widow, because by doing so a bad reputation spreads among her neighbors.

And we challenge this:

But we have heard the opposite from them!

As it was taught:

It is written [Deuteronomy 17]: “You shall surely appoint a king over you,”

“and he shall not have many wives,”

“so that his heart will not turn away.”

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Although it is stated, “He shall not have many wives,”

he may have

as many wives as he wishes,

provided that they do not turn his heart away,

for the Torah prohibited an excess of wives only when they turn his heart away.

Rabbi Shimon says: Even one wife, if she turns his heart away, he may not marry her.

If so, what is the meaning of

[Deuteronomy 17]

“He shall not have many wives”? Even

a righteous woman

like Abigail

he may not have in excess, because the prohibition “He shall not have many wives” was not stated only with regard to those who turn his heart away; rather, all wives are included.

It is demonstrated that Rabbi Yehuda does expound the reason of the verse, for the prohibition against having many wives is because they turn his heart away. Therefore, if they do not turn his heart away, it is permitted. Rabbi Shimon, by contrast, does not expound the reason of the verse, and therefore prohibited an excess of wives of every kind.

Yet with regard to a widow, Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the reason of the verse, and therefore prohibited repossessing both a poor widow and a wealthy one, whereas Rabbi Shimon does expound the reason of the verse and prohibited repossessing only a poor widow.

And we answer:

Actually, Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the reason of the verse. Here it is different,

for Rabbi Yehuda expounded the reason for the verse “He shall not have many wives” as referring to wives who turn his heart away, because

the verse explicitly explains

the matter:

“He shall not have many wives, so that his heart

will not turn away,” which implies:

What is the reason for “He shall not have many wives”? Because “his heart

will not turn away.” But he may have an excess of wives who do not turn his heart away. In fact, Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the reason of the verse; therefore, with regard to collateral taken from a widow, he prohibited repossessing both a poor widow and a wealthy widow.

And Rabbi Shimon

holds that we do expound the reason of the verse. Therefore, with regard to collateral taken from a widow, he maintained that the prohibition applies only to a poor widow, to whom the reason applies, namely, that you give her a bad reputation among her neighbors; but it is permitted to repossess a wealthy widow.

But with regard to the prohibition “He shall not have many wives,” Rabbi Shimon did not expound the reason of the verse, and prohibited having an excess even of wives who do not turn his heart away.

Because

since,

after all,

in general we do expound the reason of the verse,

why was the reason explicitly written in the Torah, “He shall not have many wives, so that his heart will not turn away”?

Let the Merciful One write, “He shall not have many

wives,”

and we would not require

the Torah to explain that the reason is so that

his heart will not turn away.

his heart

And I would know

through logical reasoning

what is the reason that he shall not have many wives

wives:

because his heart will not turn away

through them.

If so,

why do I need “his heart will not turn away,” which the Merciful One wrote?

Necessarily, when the Torah says “so that his heart will not turn away,” it is not stating the reason that he may not have many wives; rather, it is teaching an additional law, besides the prohibition against having many wives:

Even

one

wife, if she turns his heart away, he may not marry her.

But having many wives is prohibited even in the case of those who do not turn his heart away.

Mishna:

With regard to collateral, the Torah states: “He shall not take a lower millstone or an upper millstone as collateral, for he takes a person's life” [Deuteronomy 24:6].

The lower millstone is the bottom stone, and the upper millstone is the top stone.

One who takes the lower millstone as collateral transgresses a negative commandment,

as it is written: “He shall not take as collateral.”

And

since he took both parts of the millstone,

he is liable

for two sets of lashes,

because of two utensils, as it is stated: “He shall not take the lower millstone or the upper millstone as collateral.”

And it was not only the lower and upper millstones that they said

one may not take as collateral

, but anything used in preparing food

is prohibited to take as collateral, because

it is stated:

“He shall not take as collateral,”

“for he takes a person's life.”

It follows that anything included in the preparation of food is prohibited to take as collateral.

Gemara:

Rav Huna said: If he took

the

lower millstone,

only the bottom part,

, he receives

for it

two

sets of lashes: one

because of

“He shall not take the lower

millstone,” and

one

because of

“for he takes a person's life.”

And if he took both parts of the millstone, the

lower millstone

and the

upper millstone

above,

, he receives three sets of lashes:

one

because of

“You shall not take the lower

millstone,” and

one because of “You shall not take the

upper millstone,” and

one

because of “for he takes a person's life.”

And Rav Yehuda said: If he took

the

lower millstone, he receives one set, and

likewise, if he took the

upper millstone, he receives one set. If he took

the

lower and upper millstones, he receives two sets,

because of “You shall not take the lower millstone or the upper millstone as collateral.”

But he does not receive lashes

because of “for he takes a person's life,”

because “for he takes a person's life” was stated only to

include

other

things

used in preparing food;

that is what it came

to teach: Those items too may not be taken as collateral. The verse did not come to add an additional prohibition with regard to the lower and upper millstones.