## Bava Metzia Daf 113a

###### Bava Metzia 113a:1
[Bava Metzia 113a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/113a:1)

אֲבָל מְטָא זְמַן חִיּוּבֵיהּ – רָמֵי אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ וּמִידְּכַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but** when **the time of his obligation** to pay **arrives, he applies himself and remembers** all the details, so as not to violate the prohibition of delaying payment of the laborer’s wages.


###### Bava Metzia 113a:2
[Bava Metzia 113a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/113a:2)

וְכִי שָׂכִיר עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תִּגְזֹל״? הָתָם תְּרֵי חֲזָקֵי, הָכָא חֲדָא חֲזָקָה. גַּבֵּי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אִיכָּא תְּרֵי חֲזָקֵי: חֲדָא דְּאֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תָּלִין״, וַחֲדָא דְּאֵין שָׂכִיר מְשַׁהֶא שְׂכָרוֹ. וְהָכָא חֲדָא חֲזָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why would one rely upon the presumption that the employer would not transgress? **But is the hired laborer** suspected of **violating** the **prohibition of stealing?** The Gemara replies: **There,** concerning the credibility of an employer, there are **two presumptions,** whereas **here,** concerning the credibility of a laborer, there is only **one presumption.** The Gemara explains: **Concerning** the credibility of **an employer there are** the following **two presumptions: One** is **that the employer does not violate** the **prohibition of delaying** payment of wages, **and** the other **one** is **that a hired laborer does not delay** the request for **his wages. But here,** concerning the credibility of the laborer, there is only **one presumption,** i.e., that the laborer does not violate the prohibition of stealing.


###### Bava Metzia 113a:3
[Bava Metzia 113a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/113a:3)

אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. וְהָא (קָתָבְעוֹ לְקַמַּן) [קָא תָבַע לֵיהּ קַמַּן]? אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ. וְדִלְמָא לְבָתַר הָכִי פְּרַע? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שֶׁתְּבָעוֹ כָּל זְמַנּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **If there are witnesses** who testify **that he claimed** the money from **him, he takes an oath and receives** the money. The Gemara asks: **But** what need is there for witnesses that he lodged a claim, when **he is claiming** it from **him in front of us? Rabbi Asi said:** The *tanna* is referring to witnesses **that** testified that he **claimed** it from **him at its** proper **time.** The Gemara challenges: Even if the laborer claimed the money at the proper time, **perhaps** the employer **paid** him **afterward. Abaye said:** The witnesses testify **that he claimed** it from **him the entire time,** i.e., from the time he completed his labor until the end of that day.


###### Bava Metzia 113a:4
[Bava Metzia 113a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/113a:4)

וּלְעוֹלָם לָא פָּרַע לֵיהּ?! אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא: כְּנֶגֶד אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם שֶׁל תְּבִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And** is it **always** assumed that the employer **did not pay** the laborer? Why does the fact that he claimed his money at the proper time mean that his claim against his employer is always accepted? **Rav Ḥama bar Ukva said:** The *tanna* means that he is given another day **corresponding to that day of** his **claim** during which the laborer can claim that he has not been paid.


###### Bava Metzia 113a:5
[Bava Metzia 113a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/113a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ – לֹא יְמַשְׁכְּנֶנּוּ אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין. וְלֹא יִכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ לִיטּוֹל מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בַּחוּץ תַּעֲמֹד״. הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵלִים – נוֹטֵל אֶחָד וּמַנִּיחַ אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to one **who lends** money to **another** and the debtor fails to repay it at the end of the term of the loan, the creditor **may take collateral from him** to ensure payment **only by means of** an agent of **the court,** not of his own accord. **And he may not enter** the debtor’s **house to take his collateral, as it is stated:** “When you lend your neighbor any manner of loan, you shall not go into his house to take his collateral. **You shall stand outside,** and the man to whom you lend shall bring forth the collateral to you outside” (Deuteronomy 24:10–11). If the debtor **had two utensils** of the same kind, the creditor **takes one and leaves** the other **one** in the debtor’s possession.


###### Bava Metzia 113a:6
[Bava Metzia 113a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/113a:6)

וּמַחְזִיר אֶת הַכַּר בַּלַּיְלָה וְאֶת הַמַּחְרֵישָׁה בַּיּוֹם. וְאִם מֵת – אֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף לְעַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר אֶלָּא עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וּמִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּלְהַלָּן מוֹכְרָן בְּבֵית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** in addition, the creditor **must return a pillow at night,** as the debtor requires it for sleeping, **and a plow,** which is needed for his daytime work, **by day. If** the debtor **died,** he is **not** required to **return** it **to** the debtor’s **heirs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even to** the debtor **himself** he needs to **return** the collateral each day **only until thirty days** have passed, **and from thirty days onward,** the creditor can **sell them in court,** with the proceeds going toward payment of the debt.


###### Bava Metzia 113a:7
[Bava Metzia 113a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/113a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין מְנַתַּח נַתּוֹחֵי – אִין, אֲבָל מַשְׁכּוֹנֵי – לָא. וְהָתְנַן: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא יְמַשְׁכְּנֶנּוּ אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין, מִכְּלָל דִּבְבֵית דִּין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Shmuel says: An agent** of **the court** who was granted permission to appropriate items from a debtor up to the sum of the loan **may seize** these items from him in the marketplace, **but** is **not** permitted to enter the debtor’s house and **take collateral.** The Gemara asks: **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna that one **who lends** money to **another may take collateral from him only by means of** an agent of **the court,** which proves **by inference that** when it is taken **by means of** an agent of **the court** the agent of the court may enter the debtor’s house and **take collateral?**


###### Bava Metzia 113a:8
[Bava Metzia 113a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/113a:8)

אָמַר לָךְ שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵימָא, לֹא יְנַתְּחֶנּוּ אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: לֹא יִכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ לִיטּוֹל מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ. מַנִּי? אִילֵּימָא בַּעַל חוֹב – מֵרֵישָׁא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Shmuel** could have **said to you: Say** that the mishna meant as follows: **He may seize it** forcibly from him **only by means of** an agent of **the court.** The Gemara adds: **So, too, it is reasonable** that this is correct, **as the latter clause** of the mishna **teaches:** And **he may not enter** the debtor’s **house to take his collateral. Who is** the *tanna* referring to here? **If we say** it is referring to **the creditor,** this clause is not needed, as this *halakha* can be **concluded from the first clause** of the mishna, which states that a creditor has no right to take collateral himself. **Rather, is it not** referring **to the court agent?** Accordingly, this teaches that even an agent of the court may not enter the debtor’s house to take the collateral.


###### Bava Metzia 113a:9
[Bava Metzia 113a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/113a:9)

אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא – לָא אִירְיָא. הָכִי קָאָמַר: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא יְמַשְׁכְּנֶנּוּ אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין, מִכְּלָל דִּבְבֵית דִּין מְמַשְׁכְּנִים, וּבַעַל חוֹב אֲפִילּוּ נַתּוֹחֵי נָמֵי לָא, שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ לִיטּוֹל מַשְׁכּוֹנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes the above claim: **If** the argument to understand the mishna in that manner **is due to that** reason, **there is no** conclusive **argument,** as it is possible that **this** is what the mishna **is saying:** One **who lends** money to **another may take collateral from him** by entering the debtor’s house **only by means of** an agent of **the court,** which proves **by inference that** it is permitted to **take collateral** by entering the debtor’s house **by means of** an agent of **the court.** One can then infer: **But** as for the **creditor** himself, he may **not even seize** collateral outside the debtor’s house. This is a rabbinic decree so **that** he should **not enter** the debtor’s **house to take his collateral.**


###### Bava Metzia 113a:10
[Bava Metzia 113a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/113a:10)

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: ״לָא יַחֲבֹל רֵיחַיִם וָרָכֶב״, הָא דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים – חֲבֹל. ״לֹא תַחֲבֹל בֶּגֶד אַלְמָנָה״, הָא שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים – תַּחְבֹּל, מַאן? אִי נֵימָא בַּעַל חוֹב, הָא כְּתִיב: ״לֹא תָבֹא אֶל בֵּיתוֹ לַעֲבֹט עֲבֹטוֹ״, אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef raises an objection** to Shmuel’s statement from a *baraita*: The Torah states: **“He may not take the lower or upper millstone as collateral”** (Deuteronomy 24:6). **But** it may be inferred that **other items** may be **taken as collateral.** Similarly, it states: **“You may not take a widow’s garment as collateral”** (Deuteronomy 24:17), **but** clothing that **belongs to others you may take as collateral.** The Gemara analyzes these statements: **Who** is permitted to do so? **If we say** that **the creditor** may take these items, that cannot be, as it **is written: “You shall not go into his house to take his collateral”** (Deuteronomy 24:10). **Rather, is it not** referring to **the agent of the court,** which indicates that the agent of the court may enter the debtor’s house and take collateral, although the Torah places limits on which item he can take?


###### Bava Metzia 113a:11
[Bava Metzia 113a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/113a:11)

תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב פָּפָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף: לְעוֹלָם בְּבַעַל חוֹב, וְלַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa, son of Rav Naḥman, interpreted** the *baraita* **before Rav Yosef; and some say** it was **Rav Pappa, son of Rav Yosef,** who interpreted the *baraita* **before Rav Yosef: Actually,** it is referring **to a creditor, and** the Torah’s additional prohibition against appropriating certain items is given **so that he will violate two prohibitions** for this action. For example, if he took the lower or upper millstone he violates both the command: “You shall not go into his house,” as well as the more specific prohibition.


###### Bava Metzia 113a:12
[Bava Metzia 113a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/113a:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בַּחוּץ תַּעֲמֹד״ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁ״הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה נוֹשֶׁה בוֹ יוֹצִיא״! אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהָאִישׁ״ – לְרַבּוֹת שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין. מַאי לָאו: שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין כְּלֹוֶה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a different *baraita* that contradicts Shmuel: **From the implication of that** which **is stated: “You shall stand outside,” do I not know that: “And the man to whom you lend shall bring forth outside”** (Deuteronomy 24:11)? **Rather, why** must **the verse state** the inclusive phrase **“And the man** to whom you lend shall bring forth outside”? This serves **to include the agent of the court.** The Gemara comments: **What, is it not** that **the agent of the court** has the same status **as the debtor** himself, indicating that just as the debtor may enter his own house at any time, the court agent may act likewise?