Answer #4 (cont.): The Seifa, which says ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah, means that he brings witnesses that he hired him for two, for the witnesses know the wage if they know that he hired him, like I explained.

Support: It connotes like this in Shevuos (46a). It says about this "it taught a proof [needed to force the owner] to pay. It did not teach a proof [needed to enable the craftsman] to swear" [and collect];

Inference: "He swears and collects" means that he brings a proof that he hired him, and he swears and collects.

Question #1: If so, in his time, why does the worker swear and collect?

The employer should say "I do not remember now. Leave me until dawn, so I will remember whether or not I gave", since after the time, we exempt him due to this reason!

Question #2: When he partially admits, why doesn't the employer swear? He will put the matter to his mind and remember, so he will not swear falsely!

Answer: The Chazakah that the employer does not transgress Bal Talin helps only when there is a Chazakah that the worker does not delay his wages with him, like I will explain below;

If the employer could claim "leave me until dawn", there would be no Chazakah that a worker does not delay his wages, for he did not delay them;

Rather, he claimed from him in Beis Din, and they did not want to give to him, and they delayed him until dawn.

Question: Also the employer has this Chazakah, that he does not transgress Bal Tigzol!

Answer #1: One Lav is as severe to him as two.

Answer #2: Even without this, we answered properly.

Question: In any case, there is the Chazakah that the employer does not transgress Bal Talin against this Chazakah (that the worker does not transgress Bal Tigzol), and it is Bari v'Bari, so ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah!

Answer: The employer's Chazakah is not as good as the worker's, for sometimes he does not put to his mind to remember, and we should say that [the worker] swears and collects;

Also, the Chazakah that a worker does not delay his wages, by itself, is not as important as the Chazakah of the worker. Only when both these Chazakos [favoring the employer, that he does not transgress Bal Talin, and a worker does not delay his wages] are together, they offset the Chazakah of the worker, and it is Bari v'Bari, so ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah.

Explanation: Now we are thinking that "if there are witnesses that he claimed from him" is even after the time. Therefore we ask "why do we need witnesses? He claims from him in front of us!

Implied question: According to the Havah Amina, we could have asked why he swears and collects!

Answer: He asked properly.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Does a worker delay his wage so much?!

Objection: This is not a proof that he was paid. The Chazakah that a worker does not delay his wage helps only when there is with it the Chazakah that the employer does not transgress Bal Talin;

Bal Talin applies only the first morning!

Explanation #2: Does a worker swear and collect forever? This is not a good enactment, that he will be believed forever to say "he did not pay me."

Question: In Temurah (6a), we challenge Rava, who said that anything that the Torah said not to do it, if he did it, he did not accomplish anything;

Citation (6a): Regarding returning a security, the Torah said "do not take his security", and the Mishnah says that he returns a pillow at night (but he may keep it during the day). This shows that it helped!

Summation of question: How does [the Makshan] know that our Mishnah discusses one who took a security b'Isur?

Suggestion: He relies on the Beraisa in Bava Metzia (31b) which teaches "if he took a security without permission [of Beis Din], what is the source [that he is commanded to return it at the proper time]?

Rejection: If so, what is difficult [for Rava]? The Beraisa itself learns from "Hashev Tashiv", like we answer there!

Suggestion: [The Makshan] relies on Shmuel [who says that even the Shali'ach of Beis Din may not enter the borrower's house].

Rejection: If so, why do we need to answer that it says "Hashev Tashiv"? According to Shmuel, the verse primarily discusses one who took a security b'Isur, for "Im Chavol..." connotes that he took a security from his house!

Answer #1: [The Makshan] relies on cases that occur constantly, that one returns even a security taken without permission.

Answer #2: He relies on the Beraisa below (114b), which Rav Sheshes answers "one who lends to his friend may not take a security. If he took a security, he must return it.

Inference: The question against Rava in Temurah is unlike Shmuel, for according to Shmuel, we cannot ask, for the verse is written primarily about one who took a security b'Isur. (This suggests that the Halachah does not follow Shmuel!)

Rejection: We cannot prove from there that the Halachah does not follow Shmuel, for the Gemara is wont to ask and answer unlike the Halachah, like we find in Kesuvos (21a. There we ask from Rav Papi, who taught that if judges signed a validation of a document before the witnesses testified, it is Pasul, for it looks like Sheker. Tosfos (DH veha'Amar) says that the Halachah does not follow him.)

Suggestion: The Beraisa above (31b) which says "I would know only that a security taken with permission [must be returned]..." Shmuel must reverse it to say "I would know only a security taken without permission..." [for the verse primarily discusses this]!

Rejection: No, he establishes it like the Tana who argues with the Tana who holds like [Shmuel], and [Shmuel himself] reverses the Drashah. (He may do so, for the Tana who holds like Shmuel must reverse the Drashah.)

Question #1 (R. Tam): A Beraisa below (116a) says that if one took a security of barbers' scissors and a yoke of cows, he is liable for two Kelim;

Rashi explained that one is liable for taking plowing cows, because they make food.

If so, how was he able to take a plow, that it says "and he returns"? He transgressed "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel"!

Question #2: It seems that one is liable only for what is like Reichayim va'Rachev (millstones), i.e. one fixes the food itself through the Kli!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): "A yoke of cows" refers to cows threshing grain. The text says "Zug Shel Misperayim (a pair of scissors) and not "Zug Shel Saparim (barbers' scissors)." This is also R. Chananel's text.

They are [used] to detach vegetables, or to shear the place of Shechitah, like it says in Bechoros (25a) that their practice was to shear it. However, plowing cows are not called a Kli used for food.

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): "Machreishah" here is not used to plow land. It seems that one is obligated to return only a Kli that is for man's body and Hana'ah.

Support: The Gemara establishes it to discuss a silver Machreishah. It is not normal to plow land with a silver plow!

Rather, [Machreishah] is used to scratch people in the bathhouse, like it says in Shabbos (147b) "his mother made for him a silver scratcher."

Also in Kesuvos (68a), R. Chananel explained that a silver Machreishah is a scratcher.

Question: What is the source that Nitu'ach (taking a security from the borrower in the market) is forbidden to the lender?

Answer (Ri): It is mid'Rabanan, like it says below "also the lender is forbidden Nitu'ach. This is a decree lest he enter the [borrower's] house.

Question: This is astounding, that we say that [the Mishnah] is abbreviated in order to reject [the support for Shmuel! This question is based on the text cited in Hagahos ha'Bach (2).]

Answer #1: This is not difficult, for we do not alter the text so much.

Answer #2: Most texts say "Hachi ka'Amar" (and not Chisurei Michasra...)

Implied question: In Erchin (23b), it teaches only [one] bed spread [with a sheet]!

Answer: Because it is spread, we leave him only one [such bed], like it says here "a bed, a bed and a sheet." (In Erchin it does not mention the second bed, for it is not spread.)

Implied question: In Kesuvos (64b), regarding one who feeds his wife through a third party, the poorest man in Yisrael gives to her only one bed and a sheet!

Answer: That is because before she married him, she had only one bed.

Explanation: [We sell] the pillow and blanket that he has intact. Are we Mesader (leave his needs) for him?!

I.e. should we be Mesader for him to leave from the coins, in order to buy clothing for 12 months, like we do for Erchin?!

Suggestion: He challenges the Mishnah, to ask why he returns the pillow.

Rejection #1: If so, why did he wait until now [to ask]?

Rejection #2: Why must we give reasons for Torah Mitzvos?

Rejection #3: Did he not know the verse "u'Lecha Tihyeh Tzedakah"?!

You are forced to say that he knew, and even so, he asked. If so, what was the answer?

Explanation: Rather, he challenges R. Akiva and R. Yishmael, who say that all of Yisrael are princes, and all of them are proper for that [luxurious] Talis;

What is the reason? Since he wears it only for honor and beauty, why should we say that the verse imposes all of this on the lender, since the verse did not say so explicitly?

It is not more appropriate [to impose this] on him (the lender), more than on someone else, since it suffices for [the borrower] without it!

Explanation (cont.): He answers that also regarding a [luxurious] Talis "u'Lecha Tihyeh Tzedakah" applies. The verse imposed this on [the lender] not to withhold from him the beauty, honor and pleasure that he was used to until now.