Bava Metzia 225:1

אבל מטא זמן חיוביה רמי אנפשיה ומידכר

but when it matures, he charges himself therewith and remembers it. But is the employee then likely to transgress [the law, Thou shalt not rob?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! Just as it is assumed that the employer must have paid him, because he would not transgress a Biblical injunction, so the same should be assumed of the employee, and therefore he should be believed, ');">¹</span>

וכי שכיר עובר משום בל תגזול התם תרי חזקי הכא חדא חזקה גבי בעל הבית איכא תרי חזקי חדא דאין בעל הבית עובר משום (ויקרא יט, יג) בל תלין וחדא דאין שכיר משהא שכרו והכא חדא חזקה:

— There [in the case of the employer] we have two presumptions [in his favour]; whilst here there is only one. Thus: In respect to the employer there are two presumptions. Firstly, that he will not transgress [the law]. [It] shall not abide all night, etc.; and secondly, that the employee will not permit delay of his payment. But in favour of the employee there is only the one presumption [stated above].

אם יש עדים שתבעו הרי זה נשבע ונוטל: והא קתבעו לקמן א"ר אסי שתבעו בזמנו ודלמא לבתר הכי פרע אמר אביי שתבעו כל זמנו

YET IF HE HAS WITNESSES THAT HE DEMANDED PAYMENT, HE CAN STILL SWEAR AND RECEIVE IT, But he [still] demands it now! Said R. Assi: It means that he demanded payment within the set time. But perhaps he paid him subsequently! — Abaye answered: He demanded it all the set time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until the set time lapsed, the employer thus transgressing the Biblical prohibition. ');">²</span>

ולעולם לא פרע ליה א"ר חמא בר עוקבא כנגד אותו היום של תביעה:

And [does this hold good] for ever!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Can we really say that whenever the labourer demands payment, even years after, he is believed on oath, since he has witnesses that he once demanded it of him during all the set time? Surely that is most inequitable! ');">³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המלוה את חבירו לא ימשכננו אלא בב"ד ולא יכנס לביתו ליטול משכונו שנאמר (דברים כד, יא) בחוץ תעמוד היו לו שני כלים נוטל אחד ומניח אחד

— Said R. Hama b. 'Ukba: [He is thus privileged only] for the period following<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'against.' ');">⁴</span>

ומחזיר את הכר בלילה ואת המחרישה ביום ואם מת אינו מחזיר ליורשיו רשב"ג אומר אף לעצמו אינו מחזיר אלא עד שלשים יום ומשלשים יום ולהלן מוכרן בב"ד:

the day of his claim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if he was a day worker, engaged for Monday, he must be paid between Monday evening and Tuesday morning. If he has witnesses that he claimed his money during the whole of that period, he is believed on oath from Tuesday morning until evening, but not later. (So explained in H.M. 89, 3.) ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר שמואל שליח ב"ד מנתח נתוחי אין אבל משכוני לא והתנן המלוה את חבירו לא ימשכננו אלא בב"ד מכלל דבב"ד ממשכנין

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN LENDS [MONEY] TO HIS FELLOW, HE MAY TAKE A PLEDGE OF HIM [WHEN THE DEBT MATURES] ONLY THROUGH THE COURT, AND HE MAY NOT ENTER HIS HOUSE TO TAKE THE PLEDGE, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT STAND WITHOUT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV. 11. ');">⁶</span>

א"ל שמואל אימא לא ינתחנו אלא בב"ד הכי נמי מסתברא דקתני סיפא לא יכנס לביתו ליטול משכונו מני אילימא בעל חוב מרישא שמע מינה אלא לאו שליח ב"ד

IF HE POSSESSED TWO ARTICLES, HE MUST TAKE ONE AND LEAVE ONE, RETURNING THE PILLOW AT NIGHT AND THE PLOUGH BY DAY. BUT IF HE [THE DEBTOR] DIES, HE NEED NOT RETURN [THE PLEDGE] TO HIS HEIRS. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: EVEN TO HIM HIMSELF [THE DEBTOR] HE MUST RETURN IT ONLY UP TO THIRTY DAYS; AFTER THAT, HE MAY SELL IT ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT.

אי משום הא לא איריא ה"ק המלוה את חבירו לא ימשכננו אלא בב"ד מכלל דבב"ד ממשכנים ובעל חוב אפי' נתוחי נמי לא שלא יכנס לביתו ליטול משכונו

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Samuel said: Even the court officer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'agent'. ');">⁷</span>

מתיב רב יוסף (דברים כד, ו) לא יחבל ריחים ורכב הא דברים אחרים חבל (דברים כד, יז) לא תחבל בגד אלמנה הא של אחרים תחבל מאן אי נימא בעל חוב הא כתיב (דברים כד, י) לא תבא אל ביתו לעבוט עבוטו אלא לאו שליח ב"ד

may only forcibly seize [it], but not [enter to] take a pledge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] denotes to take by force; [H], to enter the house and take a pledge. Thus, he may only seize an article from him in the street, but not enter the house and distrain. ');">⁸</span>

תרגמה רב פפא בריה דרב נחמן קמיה דרב יוסף ואמרי לה רב פפא בריה דרב יוסף קמיה דרב יוסף לעולם בבעל חוב ולעבור עליו בשני לאוין

But did we not learn: IF A MAN LENDS MONEY TO HIS FELLOW, HE MAY TAKE A PLEDGE OF HIM ONLY THROUGH THE COURT, which proves that a pledge may be taken by the court? — Samuel can answer you: Say, He may forcibly seize [outside the house] only through the court. That interpretation too is logical. For the second clause States: AND HE MAY NOT ENTER HIS HOUSE TO TAKE THE PLEDGE. To whom does this refer? Shall we say, to the creditor?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he may not enter without the Permission of the Court. ');">⁹</span>

ת"ש ממשמע שנאמר (דברים כד, יא) בחוץ תעמוד איני יודע שהאיש אשר אתה נושה בו יוציא אלא מה תלמוד לומר (דברים כד, יא) והאיש לרבות שליח בית דין מאי לאו שליח בית דין כלוה

But that is known from the first clause! Hence it must surely refer to the court officer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which supports Samuel's ruling. ');">¹⁰</span> As for that, it is not proof. For<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M. and Tosaf. insert: There is a lacuna (in the text of the Mishnah).] ');">¹¹</span> this is its meaning: IF A MAN LENDS MONEY TO HIS FELLOW, HE MAY TAKE A PLEDGE OF HIM ONLY THROUGH THE COURT, from which it follows that a pledge may be taken through the court. But the creditor himself may not even seize forcibly [outside], so that HE MIGHT NOT ENTER HIS HOUSE TO TAKE THE PLEDGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But as for the court officer, he may enter the house. ');">¹²</span> R. Joseph raised an objection: <i>No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid, 6. ');">¹³</span> hence, other things may be taken to pledge. <i>Thou shalt not take a widow's raiment to pledge</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 17. ');">¹⁴</span> implying, if it belongs to others, it may be taken in pledge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The term [H], 'take to pledge', occurring here, as with the millstone, is taken to denote entering the house for the purpose.] ');">¹⁵</span> By whom? Shall we Say, the creditor? But it is written, <i>Thou shalt not go into the house to fetch his pledge</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10. ');">¹⁶</span> Hence it must surely mean the court officer!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that he may enter, and so refutes Samuel. ');">¹⁷</span> — R. Papa, the son of R. Nahman, explained it before R. Joseph — others state, R. Papa, the son of R. Joseph, before R. Joseph: In truth, the creditor is meant, and it is to intimate that he violates two prohibitions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., no man shall take the nether, etc., and, Thou shalt not take a widow's, etc., refers to the creditor himself; but these injunctions do not teach that other articles may be distrained, or that one may distrain upon any but a widow, for these two are forbidden in the verse, Thou shalt not go into his house, etc. Their purpose is to intimate that in respect of these, two injunctions are transgressed, viz., the general one last cited, and the specific one. ');">¹⁸</span> Come and hear: From the implication of the verse, <i>Thou shalt stand without</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 11. ');">¹⁹</span> do I not know that the man of whom you claim shall bring it out? Then what is taught by, And the man? The inclusion of the court officer. Surely that means that he is like the debtor!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he and the debtor enter the house to take the pledge, translating, and the man — sc. the court officer — and he of whom thou dost claim, etc. This refutes Samuel. ');">²⁰</span>