Bava Metzia 229:1

למה חוזרין וממשכנין שלא תהא שביעית משמטתו ולא יעשה מטלטלין אצל בניו

why is it again taken in pledge?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it must be returned again the following day, what is the creditor's advantage? ');">¹</span>

טעמא דהדר ומשכניה הא לא הדר ומשכניה לא

— So that the Sabbatical year should not cancel it [the debt].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the creditor holds a pledge against his debt, it is not cancelled by the Sabbatical year. v. Shebu. 48b. ');">²</span>

אמר רב אדא בר מתנא ולאו תרוצי קא מתרצת לה תריץ הכי וכי מאחר שמחזירין למה ממשכנין מעיקרא שלא תהא שביעית משמטתו ולא יעשה מטלטלין אצל בניו

and that it [the pledge] should not be accounted as movable property in the hands of his children.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After death, v. p. 598. ');">³</span>

ת"ר (דברים כד, י) לא תבא אל ביתו לעבוט עבוטו לביתו אי אתה נכנס אבל אתה נכנס לביתו של ערב וכן הוא אומר (משלי כ, טז) לקח בגדו כי ערב זר וגו'

Now, the reason is only that he took the pledge again;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it was in the creditor's hands when the debtor died. ');">⁴</span>

ואומר (משלי ו, א) בני אם ערבת לרעך תקעת לזר כפיך נוקשת באמרי פיך נלכדת באמרי פיך עשה זאת אפוא בני והנצל כי באת בכף רעך לך התרפס ורהב רעיך

but had he not taken the pledge again, it would not be so!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But would rank as any other legacy of movable property. which cannot be seized for the testator's debts, which refutes R. Johanan. ');">⁵</span>

אם ממון יש לו בידך התר לו פיסת יד ואם לאו הרבה עליו רעים

— R. Adda b. Mattena replied: Are you not bound in any case to emend it? Then emend it thus: Since it is returned, why is it taken in pledge in the first place? That the Sabbatical year should not cancel it, and that it should not rank as movable property in the hands of his children.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Once the creditor takes it in pledge, it becomes his property. and when he returns it for the debtor's use, it is considered as a bailment.] ');">⁶</span>

לצד שני לביתו אי אתה נכנס אבל אתה נכנס לשכר כתף לשכר חמר לשכר פונדק לשכר דיוקנאות יכול אפילו זקפן עליו במלוה ת"ל משאת מאומה:

Our Rabbis taught: <i>Thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge</i>: his [the debtor's] house thou mayest not enter, but thou mayest enter the house of the surety [to distrain]; and thus it is written, <i>Take his garment that is surety for a stranger</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XX, 16. ');">⁷</span>

מתני' אלמנה בין שהיא ענייה בין שהיא עשירה אין ממשכנין אותה שנאמר (דברים כד, יז) לא תחבול בגד אלמנה:

also, <i>My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, If thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger, thou art snared with the words of thy mouth. Do this now, my son, and deliver thyself when thou art come into the hand of thy friend; go, humble thyself and make sure thy friend</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI. 1-3. ');">⁸</span>

גמ' ת"ר אלמנה בין שהיא ענייה בין שהיא עשירה אין ממשכנין אותה דברי ר' יהודה

thus, if thou owest him money, untie thy hand to him [i.e., pay him]; if not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But hast wronged him in some other way, slander, or an affront to his pride. ');">⁹</span>

ר"ש אומר עשירה ממשכנין אותה ענייה אין ממשכנין אותה שאתה חייב להחזיר לה ואתה משיאה שם רע בשכנותיה

bring many [of thy] friends round him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To apologise in their presence. This is a play on words and a comment on the last phrase: [H] (E.V. 'humble thyself') is read, [H] 'unloose the wrist (of thy hand)', [H], is translated, 'make thy neighbour proud' — by a public apology. ');">¹⁰</span>

למימרא דר' יהודה לא דריש טעמא דקרא ור"ש דריש טעמא דקרא והא איפכא שמעינן להו

Another interpretation:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in a second direction.' ');">¹¹</span>

דתניא (דברים יז, יז) ולא ירבה לו נשים ר' יהודה אומר מרבה הוא ובלבד שלא יהו מסירות את לבו ר"ש אומר אפילו אחת והיא מסירה את לבו ה"ז לא ישאנה א"כ מה ת"ל ולא ירבה לו נשים אפילו כאביגיל

His house thou mayest not enter, but thou mayest enter [to distrain] for porterage fees, payment for hiring asses, the hotel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'inn'. ');">¹²</span>

לעולם ר' יהודה לא דריש טעמא דקרא ושאני הכא דמפרש קרא ולא ירבה לו נשים ולא יסור מאי טעמא לא ירבה לו נשים משום דלא יסור

bill, or artists' fees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for any debt incurred on account of service. ');">¹³</span>

ור"ש מכדי בעלמא דרשינן טעמא דקרא לכתוב רחמנא לא ירבה ולא בעינן לא יסור ואנא ידענא מאי טעמא לא ירבה משום דלא יסור לא יסור דכתב רחמנא למה לי אפילו אחת ומסירה את לבו הרי זה לא ישאנה:

I might think that this holds good even if it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The payment due for service. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> החובל את הריחים עובר משום לא תעשה וחייב משום שני כלים שנאמר (דברים כד, ו) לא יחבול ריחים ורכב ולא ריחים ורכב בלבד אמרו אלא כל דבר שעושין בו אוכל נפש שנאמר כי נפש הוא חובל:

was converted into a loan: therefore Scripture writes, When thou dost lend thy brother anything.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 10. ');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב הונא חבל ריחים לוקה שתים משום ריחים ומשום כי נפש הוא חובל ריחים ורכב לוקה שלש משום ריחים ורכב ומשום כי נפש הוא חובל

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A MAN MAY NOT TAKE A PLEDGE FROM A WIDOW, WHETHER SHE BE RICH OR POOR, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT NOT TAKE A WIDOW'S RAIMENT TO PLEDGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 17. ');">¹⁶</span>

ורב יהודה אמר חבל ריחים לוקה אחת ורכב לוקה אחת ריחים ורכב לוקה שתים כי נפש הוא חובל

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: Whether a widow be rich or poor, no pledge may be taken from her: this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Simeon said: A wealthy widow is subject to distraint, but not a poor one, for you are bound to return [the pledge] to her, and you bring her into disrepute among her neighbours. Now, shall we say that R. Judah does not interpret the reason of the Writ, whilst R. Simeon does?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Judah applies the law to all, whilst R. Simeon seeks the reason of any Scriptural law, and having found it, exempts from the scope of the law those to whom it is inapplicable. ');">¹⁷</span> But we know their opinions to be the reverse. For we learnt: <i>Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, [that his heart turn not away]</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVII, 17. ');">¹⁸</span> R. Judah said: He may multiply [wives], providing that they do not turn his heart away. R. Simeon said: He may not take to wife even a single one who is likely to turn his heart away; what then is taught by the verse, <i>Neither shall he multiply wives to himself</i>? Even such as Abigail!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The most righteous. This shews that R. Judah interpreted the Scriptural reason, whilst R. Simeon did not; v, Sanh. 21a. ');">¹⁹</span> — In truth, R. Judah does not Interpret the reason of Scripture; but here it is different, because Scripture itself states the reason: <i>Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, and his heart shall not turn away</i>. Thus, why <i>'shall he not multiply wives to himself'</i>? So <i>'that his heart turn not away</i>.' And R. Simeon [argues thus]: Let us consider. As a general rule, we interpret the Scriptural reason:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On his view, i.e., where it is not stated. ');">²⁰</span> then Scripture should have written, <i>'Neither shall he multiply</i> [etc.].' whilst <i>'and his heart shall not turn away'</i> is superfluous, for I would know myself that the reason why he must not multiply is that his heart may not turn away. Why then is <i>'shall not turn away</i>' [explicitly] stated? To teach that he must not marry even a single one who may turn his heart. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. HE WHO TAKES A MILL IN PLEDGE TRANSGRESSES A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT AND IS GUILTY ON ACCOUNT OF TWO [FORBIDDEN] ARTICLES, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, NO MAN SHALL TAKE THE NETHER OR THE UPPER MILLSTONE TO PLEDGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 6; hence, in taking the mill, which consists of both, he seizes two forbidden articles. ');">²¹</span> AND NOT THE NETHER AND THE UPPER MILLSTONES ONLY WERE DECLARED FORBIDDEN, BUT EVERYTHING EMPLOYED IN THE PREPARATION OF FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'food of the soul.' ');">²²</span> FOR IT IS WRITTEN, FOR HE TAKETH A MAN'S LIFE TO PLEDGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">²³</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Huna said: If a man takes to pledge the nether millstone, he is twice flagellated, [once] on account of the [injunction against] the nether millstone, and [once] on account of, 'for he taketh a man's life to pledge,' for the nether and the upper millstones, he is thrice flagellated: (twice) on account of the nether and the upper millstones, and (once) on account of, 'for he taketh a man's life to pledge.' But Rab Judah maintained: For taking to pledge the nether millstone, he is flagellated once; for the upper millstone he is likewise flagellated once; for the nether and upper millstones he is flagellated twice; and as for, 'for he taketh a man's life to pledge'