Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Bava Metzia 115

Bava Metzia 115 contains numerous tips on learning pesukim including whether one should be doresh the meaning of a verse in drawing a rule (ta'am dikra) and whether lashes are given as a punishment for violating a general rule which comes along with specific issuri (aka Lav Shebicllalos).

Within the discussion on whether we are doresh the taa'm of the pasuk, the gemara brings a machlokes which struck a chord with me. The gemara had been discussing over the previous pages whether and how a person can take the security of a person who had defaulted a loan. Then on Bava Metzia 115, the mishna said that when one loans money to an almana (widow) who then defaults on the loan, one should not take her security.

The gemara then brought a machlokes between R' Yehuda and R' Shimon as to whether the law applies universally to both poor and wealthy widows. R' Yehuda learns that regardless of the financial status of the widow, one should not take the security.

Although R' Yehuda's position is learned from a pasuk (Lo Sachbol Beged Almana) it is contrary to the general rule which teaches that one can take the security interest of a poor debtor, provided that the creditor returns the object when it is needed. By way of example, the creditor takes the night clothes of the debtor in the morning and returns them in the evening when they are needed.

In contrast to R' Yehuda, R' Shimon states that a poor widow's objects are not taken while a wealthy widow's items can be taken. He explains that if the creditor shows up at the widow's door morning and evening, the people will assume he is there for illicit purposes. Therefore to prevent causing her to have an evil (false) name with her neighbors, the creditor is barred from seizing her security. This would not apply to a wealthy widow since the creditor would seize the object once and is not required to return it until the debt is paid back.

In this capacity we see that the law which is already compassionate to the poor since their objects can only be seized when they are not needed, is even more conscious of the widow by removing the creditor's leverage to take items even when they are not needed.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!