AFTER THE WAGES ARE DUE [line 2]
Question: Do we suspect that a worker (who claims payment after the due time) is trying to steal?
Answer: Two Chazakos support the employer, and only one supports the worker.
There is a Chazakah that an employer will not transgress "Lo Salin", and that a worker does not delay claiming his wages;
The only Chazakah supporting the worker is that we do not suspect him of stealing.
(Mishnah): If witnesses saw the worker demand his wages, he swears and collects after the time.
Question: Why do witnesses change things? Even without them, we see the worker demanding his wages!
Answer (Rav Asi): Witnesses saw the worker demand his wages before the due time.
Question: Perhaps the employer paid him afterwards!
Answer (Abaye): Witnesses saw the worker claiming the entire time until the deadline.
Question: After this, is the employer never believed?!
Answer (Rav Chama bar Ukva): The worker is believed to swear (and collect) only the next day.
TAKING A SECURITY [line 11]
(Mishnah): If Reuven lent Shimon, he may Memashken him (take a security from Shimon's house) only through Beis Din.
He may not enter Shimon's house to take it - "ba'Chutz Ta'amod."
If Shimon has two Kelim, Reuven only takes one.
Reuven returns a pillow (when Shimon needs it) at night, and a plow for the day.
If Shimon dies, he need not return it to the heirs (he may sell it to collect the debt);
R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, (even when Shimon is alive) Reuven never need return the security after 30 days. After that, he sells it in Beis Din.
(Gemara - Shmuel): The Shali'ach of Beis Din may be Menate'ach (take a security from Shimon in the market), but he may not be Memashken him.
Question (Mishnah): If Reuven lent Shimon, he may be Memashken him only through Beis Din.
This shows that he may be Memashken him through Beis Din!
Answer (Shmuel): The Mishnah means that he may be Menate'ach.
Support (Mishnah): He may not enter Shimon's house to take it - "ba'Chutz Ta'amod."
Question: Who is forbidden to enter?
It cannot mean Reuven. The first clause teaches this!
Answer: Rather, the Shali'ach of Beis Din is forbidden.
Rejection: No. The Mishnah teaches that Reuven may not Memashken him, but Beis Din may;
Reuven may not even Menate'ach him (Bach - this is a decree), so he will not come to enter his house.
Question (Rav Yosef): "Lo Yachavol Rechayim va'Rachev", but one may be Memashken other things!
"Lo Sachavol Beged Almanah" - one may be Memashken garments of other people!
Question: Who may be Memashken other things or people?
It cannot be the lender - "Lo Savo El Beiso La'avot Avoto"!
Answer: Rather, it is a Shali'ach of Beis Din.
Answer (Rav Papa brei d'Rav Nachman): Really, the verses discuss the lender. He transgresses an extra Lav if he takes a millstone or a widow's garment.
(Beraisa) Question: "Ba'Chutz Ta'amod" already teaches that the borrower will take out the security. What do we learn from "veha'Ish"?
Answer: This includes a Shali'ach of Beis Din.
Suggestion: A Shali'ach of Beis Din is like the borrower. (He may enter the borrower's house.)
Answer: No, he is like the lender (he may not enter the borrower's house).
Question (Beraisa): "Im Chavol Tachbol Salmas Re'echa" - the verse discusses a Shali'ach of Beis Din.
Question: Perhaps it discusses the lender!
Rejection: "Lo Savo El Beiso La'avot Avoto" forbids the lender. "Im Chavol" discusses a Shali'ach of Beis Din.
Answer: Tana'im argue about whether or not or not a Shali'ach of Beis Din may be Memashken. Shmuel holds like the following Tana.
(Beraisa #1): If a Shali'ach of Beis Din comes to Memashken, he may not enter the house - "ba'Chutz Ta'amod veha'Ish (the borrower)" will take out the security.
LEAVING KELIM FOR THE BORROWER [line 10]
(Beraisa #2): If a lender comes to be Memashken, he may not enter the house - "ba'Chutz Ta'amod";
A Shali'ach of Beis Din may enter the house to be Memashken him.
He may not be Memashken things used to make food;
He leaves a rich borrower with two beds and a felt blanket. He leaves a poor borrower with two beds and a mattress of reeds.
He leaves what the borrower needs himself, not for the borrower's wife and children.
Just like we are Mesader (leave essentials) for a borrower, we are Mesader for one who owes money of Erchin.
Question: Just the contrary! The Torah teaches Sidur for one who owes Erchin (but does not explicitly teach Sidur for a borrower)!
Correction: Rather, just like we are Mesader for one who owes Erchin, also for a borrower.
(Beraisa): He leaves a rich borrower with two beds and a felt blanket. He leaves a poor borrower with two beds and a mattress of reeds.
Question: For whom does he leave the second bed?
It cannot be for his wife or children. The Beraisa continues 'he leaves for the borrower himself, not for his wife and children!'
Answer: Both are for the borrower. One is to eat on, and one is to sleep on.
(Shmuel): I know how to cure anything, with three exceptions: one who eats a bitter date on an empty stomach, one who girds a belt of wet flax, and one who does not walk four Amos after eating before he sleeps. (Therefore, it is advisable to have a second bed for sleeping at least four Amos from where he eats.)
(A reciter of Beraisos): Just like we are Mesader for one who owes Erchin, we are Mesader for a borrower.
Objection (Rav Nachman): We even sell the borrower's property. All the more so, we are not Mesader for him!
Question: Do we really sell his property?!
(Mishnah): He returns a pillow at night, and a plow during the day.
Answer: The Beraisa is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that we sell a security after 30 days.
(Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Reuven need not return the security after 30 days. After 30 days, he sells it in Beis Din.
Question: What is the source that R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that the security is sold entirely to pay the debt?
Perhaps for 30 days, the security is returned intact, and after this, an expensive security is sold, and the lender buys a (cheaper) replacement appropriate for the borrower!
Answer: R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that even an expensive security is appropriate for any Yisrael.
BNEI YISRAEL ARE SONS OF KINGS [line 36]
(Abaye): R. Shimon ben Gamliel, R. Shimon, R. Yishmael and R. Akiva all hold that Bnei Yisrael are sons of kings.
R. Shimon ben Gamliel - (Mishnah): We may not move Luf (a type of legume) nor mustard on Shabbos, since they cannot be used until cooked or ground;
R. Shimon ben Gamliel permits Luf, since it is food for ravens (it is appropriate for sons of kings to raise ravens).
R. Shimon - (Mishnah): Sons of kings may rub scented oil on their wounds on Shabbos, for they anoint themselves with scented oil even when they have no wound;
R. Shimon says, all Bnei Yisrael are sons of kings (and are permitted).
R. Yishmael and R. Akiva - (Beraisa): If Shimon owed 1000 Zuz, and he was wearing a garment worth 10,000, we make him sell it and buy something fitting for himself;
(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): Any Yisrael is worthy of such a garment (he need not sell it).
(Beraisa - R. Akiva): Any Yisrael is worthy of such a garment.
Question: Earlier, we suggested that an expensive security is sold, and the lender buys a (cheaper) replacement fitting for the borrower;
There are blankets and pillows of varying qualities, but a plow is a plow!
Answer (Rava bar Rabah): The security was a silver plow.
Question (Rav Chaga): Why can't the lender say 'I am not responsible for your livelihood'?
Answer (Abaye): The Torah makes him responsible - "u'Lcha Tihyeh Tzedakah"!