Halakhah for Bava Metzia 230:7

And [also] the law of an agent who hired wageworkers, who [is it that] transgresses on account of “do not lay over” — he or the owner — that everything goes according to the expression that he [used] with the workers. And that which they said (Bava Metzia 110a) that the employer only transgresses at the time that the wageworker claims [the wage from] him and he does not give it to him, but if he does not claim [it from] him, he does not transgress. [(Scribal) emendation: Or if he claimed (it from) him and he did not have with what to pay, and he does not find someone who will lend to him, he does not transgress. To here (is the emendation).] And so [too,] if he assigned to the worker that someone else pay him and the worker accepted, the employer is exempt, even though the other one did not pay him later. And that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 110b), that one who delays the wage of a wageworker until after its time — even though he has already transgressed a positive commandment and a negative commandment — he is obligated to give [it] to him as soon as he demands it. And all the time that he delays his payment — even after the time — he transgresses a negative commandment from the rabbis, may their memory be blessed; and they based it on this verse that is written (Proverbs 3:28), “Do not say to your fellow, ‘Go, and come back, etc.’” And [also] the law of the wageworker, that he makes an oath (that the money is still owed) and takes [it], so long as he claims his wages within its time — and even if the wageworker was a minor, he too makes an oath and takes — and they, may their memory be blessed, gave a reason for this (Bava Metzia 112b): since the [employer] is preoccupied with his workers. [These] and the rest of its details are elucidated in the ninth chapter of [Bava] Metzia. (See Tur, Choshen Mishpat 339.)

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (see Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 3:2) that with regard to this prohibition, there is no difference if he took it in pawn with his hand or through the court — from any angle, he is liable for them. And if he took it in pawn, the court returns it — [even] against his will. And our teachers, may God watch over them, explained that this prohibition is only to take the vessels mentioned in pawn when it is not at the time of a loan. But [in exchange for] a loan, it is certainly permissible to take in pawn all the vessels in the world. As it is no worse than selling — as we do not prevent a person from selling all of his vessels, or to put them in pawn. And since some of the great sages of the world erred about this, I have written at length about it. And one who takes in pawn many vessels with which we make life-sustaining food and did not return them before they were burnt or they got lost is liable for lashes for each and every one — and even from two vessels that do one work, like a handmill and an upper millstone or that which is similar to it, he is liable for two lashings. And that is when they were burnt before he returned them. And the rest of its details are elucidated in the ninth chapter of Bava Metzia.

From the laws of this commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 113a) that we not take surety from a widow — not by oneself, and not through the court. (See Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 3:1.) [This] is to say, in no way at all do we cause her pain to take surety from her, as it is stated, “you shall not take a widow’s garment in pawn.” And the rest of its details are elucidated in the ninth chapter of Bava Metzia.