why is it again taken in pledge?1 — So that the Sabbatical year should not cancel it [the debt].2 and that it [the pledge] should not be accounted as movable property in the hands of his children.3 Now, the reason is only that he took the pledge again;4 but had he not taken the pledge again, it would not be so!5 — 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.6
Our Rabbis taught: Thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge: 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, Take his garment that is surety for a stranger;7 also, 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:8 thus, if thou owest him money, untie thy hand to him [i.e., pay him]; if not9 bring many [of thy] friends round him.10 Another interpretation:11 His house thou mayest not enter, but thou mayest enter [to distrain] for porterage fees, payment for hiring asses, the hotel12 bill, or artists' fees.13 I might think that this holds good even if it14 was converted into a loan: therefore Scripture writes, When thou dost lend thy brother anything.15
MISHNAH. 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.16
GEMARA. 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?17 But we know their opinions to be the reverse. For we learnt: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, [that his heart turn not away];18 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, Neither shall he multiply wives to himself? Even such as Abigail!19 — In truth, R. Judah does not Interpret the reason of Scripture; but here it is different, because Scripture itself states the reason: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, and his heart shall not turn away. Thus, why 'shall he not multiply wives to himself'? So 'that his heart turn not away.' And R. Simeon [argues thus]: Let us consider. As a general rule, we interpret the Scriptural reason:20 then Scripture should have written, 'Neither shall he multiply [etc.].' whilst 'and his heart shall not turn away' 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 'shall not turn away' [explicitly] stated? To teach that he must not marry even a single one who may turn his heart.
MISHNAH. 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.21 AND NOT THE NETHER AND THE UPPER MILLSTONES ONLY WERE DECLARED FORBIDDEN, BUT EVERYTHING EMPLOYED IN THE PREPARATION OF FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION,22 FOR IT IS WRITTEN, FOR HE TAKETH A MAN'S LIFE TO PLEDGE.23
GEMARA. 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'
Baba Mezi'a 115b
— this refers to other articles.
Shall we say that Abaye and Raba differ in the same controversy as R. Huna and Rab Judah? For Raba said: If one ate it [the Paschal sacrifice] half roasted, he is flagellated twice: once on account of [the injunction against] half-roast [flesh]. and again because of the verse, [Eat not…] but roast with fire. [If he ate it] boiled, he is flagellated twice: once because of the prohibition against boiled [flesh], and again because of the Verse, [Eat not…] but roast with fire. For both half-roast and boiled, he is flagellated thrice, on account of [the injunction against] half-roast, boiled, and the injunction, Eat not … but roast with fire.1 Abaye said: One is not flagellated on account of an implied prohibition.2 Shall we assume that Abaye agrees with Rab Judah, Raba with R. Huna?3 — Raba can answer you: My ruling agrees even with Rab Judah's. It is only there that Rab Judah maintains [his view], because, 'for he taketh a man's life,' does not [necessarily] imply the nether and the upper millstones; hence it must refer to other things: But here, what is the purpose of 'save roast with the fire'?4 Hence it must be for [the addition of] a negative precept. Abaye can argue likewise: My ruling agrees even with R. Huna's. It is only there that R. Huna maintains [his view], because 'for he taketh a man's life'
- To Next Folio -