Bava Metzia 231:1

יתירא הוא כיון דיתירא הוא שדייה אריחים ורכב

is [an] additional [injunction],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this is certainly required as an additional injunction against seizing any article employed in the preparation of food. ');">¹</span>

אבל הכא כי אם צלי אש לאו יתירא הוא דמבעי ליה לכדתניא בשעה שישנו בקום אכול צלי ישנו (שמות יב, ט) בבל תאכל נא בשעה שאינו בקום אכול צלי אינו בבל תאכל נא

and that being so, relate it to the nether and upper millstones [too].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For once it is recognised as a separate injunction, there is no reason for excluding the millstones from its scope, notwithstanding that they are already mentioned; hence in respect of the millstones we have an additional prohibition. ');">²</span>

תניא כוותיה דרב יהודה חבל זוג של ספרים וצמד של פרות חייב שתים זה בעצמו וזה בעצמו אינו חייב אלא אחת

But here, 'save roast with fire' is not [an] additional [prohibition], for it is needed for what has been taught: When one is subject to [the command], Arise and eat 'roast', one is [also] subject to, 'Eat not of it raw;' when he is not subject to the former, he is not subject to the latter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the prohibition of half-roast meat holds good only on the evening of the fifteenth, when one is bidden to eat the roast of the passover sacrifice, but not on the day of the fourteenth, before the obligation commences. ');">³</span>

ותניא אידך חבל זוג של ספרים וצמד של פרות יכול לא יהא חייב אלא אחת ת"ל (דברים כד, ו) לא יחבול ריחים ורכב מה ריחים ורכב שהן מיוחדין שני כלים ועושין מלאכה אחת וחייב על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו אף כל דברים שהן שני כלים מיוחדים ועושין מלאכה אחת חייב על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו

It has been taught in accordance with Rab Judah: If one takes in pledge a pair of barber's shears or a yoke of oxen, he incurs a double penalty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Barber's shears were so made that each half could be used separately. 'The yoke of oxen' is translated by Rashi: (i) a pair of oxen for ploughing together with their yoke; (ii) the yoke alone, which he conjectures to have been jointed. Tosaf. on 113a s.v. [H], on the grounds that only objects directly used in the preparation of food are forbidden, translates (with a slightly different reading): a pair of vegetable scissors for trimming vegetables, and a pair of oxen that stamped out the corn. According to both interpretations, the scissors and the oxen (or their yoke) were divisible, and therefore rank as two distinct objects, thus involving a double penalty for the infringement of, 'for he taketh a man's life to pledge.' ');">⁴</span>

ההוא גברא דחבל סכינא דאשכבתא מחבריה אתא לקמיה דאביי א"ל זיל אהדריה דהוי ליה כלי שעושים בו אוכל נפש ותא קום בדינא עלה רבא אמר לא צריך למיקם בדינא עלה ויכול לטעון עד כדי דמיהן

But if he takes in pledge each part separately, he incurs only one penalty. And another [Baraitha] taught [likewise:] If one took a pair of barber's shears or a yoke of oxen in pledge. I might think that he incurs only one penalty, therefore Scripture teaches, No man shall take the nether or the user millstone to pledge; just as the nether and the upper millstones are distinguished in that they are two objects which [together] perform one operation, and a penalty is incurred for each separately, so all things which are two objects used [together] for one operation, a penalty is incurred for each separately.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not altogether clear how these Baraithas support Rab Judah, nor whether they support him singly or only in conjunction with each other. Rashi maintains that the proof is adduced from the combination of the two. The mere fact that he is flagellated twice only, not three times, does not support him, since there is no verse to imply three in this case even on R. Huna's view, which is limited to the nether and upper millstones. The proof, however, lies in the fact that the verse, 'no man shall take, etc.' is extended to all articles and quoted to shew double flagellation, whilst no reference is made to threefold punishment. Tosaf. maintains that the proof does follow from the first Baraitha alone (so that the second teaching is introduced by 'Another Baraitha, etc.' not, 'And another Baraitha etc.'). ');">⁵</span>

ואביי לית ליה ההיא סברא מאי שנא מהנהו עיזי דאכלי חושלא בנהרדעא ואתא מרא דחושלא ותפס להו וקא טעין טובא ואמר אבוה דשמואל יכול לטעון עד כדי דמיהן

A certain man took a butcher's knife in pledge. On his coming before Abaye, he ordered him: Go and return it, because it is a utensil used in the preparation of food, and then come to stand at judgment for it [the debt].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bring proof that he is in your debt. ');">⁶</span>

התם לאו מידי דעבדא לאושולי ולאוגורי הוא הכא מידי דעביד לאושולי ולאוגורי הוא דשלח רב הונא בר אבין דברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר ואמר לקוחין הן בידי אינו נאמן

Raba said: He need not stand at judgment for it, but can claim [the debt] up to its [sc. the pledge's] value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even without witnesses or an I.O.U.; since he could have pleaded in the first place that he had bought the pledge, he is now believed, up to the value of the pledge. ');">⁷</span>

ורבא לית ליה האי סברא והא רבא אפיק זוגא דסרבלא וספרא דאגדתא מיתמי בדברים העשויין להשאיל ולהשכיר אמר לך רבא האי נמי כיון דמיפגמא קפדי אינשי ולא מושלי:

Now, does not Abaye accept that logic? Wherein does it differ from the case of the goats which ate some husked barley, whereupon their owner came, seized them, and preferred a large claim [for damages]; and Samuel's father ruled that he can claim up to their value?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he could have pleaded that he had bought them from their first owner. ');">⁸</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך המקבל</strong></big><br><br>

— In that case, It was not an object that is generally lent or hired, whereas in this case it is.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the Possession of the butcher's knife did not prove ownership; therefore Abaye held that the debt itself had to be proved. ');">⁹</span> For R. Huna b. Abin sent word:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">¹⁰</span> With respect to objects that are generally lent or hired, if a man claims, 'I have purchased them,' he is not believed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 36a. ');">¹¹</span> Now, does then Raba disagree with this reasoning? But Raba himself ordered orphans to surrender scissors for woollen cloth and a book of aggada,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 215. n. 1, ');">¹²</span> which are objects that are generally loaned or hired!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their first owners, who were known, pleaded that they had lent these objects to the deceased, and Raba accepted their plea. But if a counter-plea of 'I bought them' is valid in such cases, it should have been advanced on their behalf, it being a general rule that the court itself assumes what the deceased might legally have pleaded, when the orphans themselves are ignorant of the true facts. ');">¹³</span> — [No.] These too, since they depreciate in value, people are particular not to loan.