Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 12, scan section 66

sion of his children. Said R. Ada b. Mathna: Have you not tried to explain the curiosity of pledging and returning in some way? Explain it then thus: If it is to be returned, why then the pledging altogether ? For the purpose that the sabbatic year shall not free it, and it shall never be considered the prop- erty of his children. The rabbis taught : The verse [Deut. xxiv. 10] : " Thou shalt not go into his house to take his pledge," signifies that in his house only you shall not go ; you may, however, go into the house of his surety, and it is so written [Proverbs, xx. 16]: " Take away his garment because he has been surety for a stran- ger." And it is also said \ibid. vi. 1-4]: " My son, if thou hast become surety for thy friend," which means, if you were surety, then give him what you have assured, and if you have no money, see some friend, who shall ask him to favor you. " Into his house you must not go " to regain money loaned, but you may do so, for the payment of your work (with your shoulders), for your ass, for your man, or your pictures if you have not made this as a loan to him. MISHNA XIII. : A widow must not be pledged whether she is rich or poor, as it is written [Deut. xxiv. 17]: " Thou shalt not take in pledge the raiment of a widow." GEMARA: The above is the decree of R. Jehudah. R. Simeon, however, said that only a poor one must not be pledged, * Bo Hashemesh is the Hebrew term, which can be explained " the sun rises and also it goes down." (See Isaiah, Ix., Gen. xxvii. ; in both places the word Bo is used.) Hence, Shizby explains, the first the sun rises and the second it goes down. -~^ ■v:^-:;- 306 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. because it must be returned (daily), and she would get a bad name among her neighbors, but to a rich one it does not mat- ter. (The reason of that statement will be explained in the Third Gate in its proper.place.) MISHNA J^/K/ One who pledged a nether and upper mill- stone transgresses a negative commandment and is guilty for two articles, as it is written \ibid., ibid. 6] : "No man shall take to pledge the nether or the upper mill-stone" (and not this only, but all other articles which are for the preparation of food), " for he taketh a man's life to pledge." GEMARA: R. Huna said: He who has pledged the nether in question is punished with stripes prescribed for a negative commandment twice, for two negative commandments, for the nether and for man's life; both the nether and the upper mill- stone, he is to be punished thrice. R. Jehudah, however, main- tains for each part of them, but not for man's life, as that verse signifies that all other working instruments are under the same law. There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Jehudah: If one has pledged a pair of scissors, or a team of cows, he is guilty for two crimes. If, however, he pledge only one of them, he is guilty for one ; and another Boraitha states : Lest one say that he is guilty for one crime even if he pledge a pair, therefore it is written: "He shall not pledge the nether or the upper, mill-stone." As these are separate instruments used together, one is guilty for each of them separately; so also is the case with all other instruments of such a kind. There was a man who pledged a butcher knife from his debtor, and Abye told him to return it, as it is an instrument used for preparing food; and for his debt he shall summon the butcher. Rabha, however, maintains that this is not necessary, as the pledger could claim, I bought it. Therefore the whole value of this pledge can be collected for his debt. But did not Abye hold the same theory ? Why should this be so different from the case which happened in Nahardai, that goats have con- sumed peeled barley, and the owner of the barley took the goats for pledge, and has claimed more than the value of it, and the father of Samuel decided that he could collect from them the whole value ? There it was different, as the barley was not for hire and loan, but the knife was for loan and hire. And R. Huna b. Abin sent a message: That all things which are for loan and hire, the one who claims that he has bought it is to be TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 307 trusted. But did not Rabha hold this theory? Has he not taken away from orphans a pair of scissors and a book of Hagada be- cause they were for loan and hire ? Rabha may say that a knife which became spoilt by frequent use one is particular not to lend. CHAPTER X. RULES CONCERNING HOUSES, GARDENS, AND OTHER REAL ESTATE OWNED IN PARTNERSHIP, AND WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE DONE IN PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES. MISHNA/. / If one owns a house, the upper chamber of which belongs to another, and it falls, the wood, stones, and all other materials are to be divided accordingly (/.<?., he who has had a greater share in this building takes more). If some stones or bricks are still saved, an investigation is to be made, from which part of the building the stones were most liable to break; then the saved ones belong to that part which was not liable to break. If, however, one of them recognizes some of his stones, he may take them, provided he reckons them to his account. GEMARA: From this statement it is to be investigated which part was more liable to break. We may infer that the cause of the ruin was known ; then let us see if it was ruined because of the lower, which could not hold the upper part any longer; then the materials which lie in that place where the lower part was placed belong to its owner, and the materials beside it belong to the upper part ; and if it was ruined by a storm or a stroke so that the upper part fell first, then there can be no doubt that the upper bricks are the broken ones. Why then the above statement ? The Mishna treats in case the material was removed immediately after the falling occurred by the street cleaner, who paid no attention to the cause and the manner of its falling. If so, let us see under whose control they are now, and for the other party who is the plaintiff it is to bring evidence ? Partners usually are not particular in such a case where the materials are placed. Provided he reckons them to his account. Rabha was about to say that it must be divided according to the value, i.e., that he must get broken ones for the amount of his partner's saved ones. Hence he is benefited by his claim that he recognizes the stones belonging to him. Said Abye to him: On the con- TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 309 trary, this will not benefit him, but damage, as according to his claim he recognized all that belongs to him; consequently all other stones do not belong to him, but to his partner. There- fore he said the Mishna meant that his partner shall take other