1)WHEN ONE MAY ENTER THE BORROWER'S HOUSE TO TAKE A SECURITY
(a)(R. Yochanan): If Reuven returned Shimon's security and Shimon died, Reuven may take it from the orphans.
(b)Question (Beraisa - R. Meir): Since we take a security, why do we return it?
1.Interjection: That is no question. The Torah commanded to return it!
2.Correction: Rather, since we must constantly return a security, why does one keep taking it?
3.Answer: It is so that the debt will not be cancelled in Shemitah, and so the lender can collect the security from the orphans (normally, he may collect only land that they inherited).
4.Summation of question: This shows that had he not taken it back, he would not collect it from the orphans!
(c)Answer (Rav Ada bar Masnah): We needed to correct the Beraisa. We may correct it as follows:
1.Question: Since one must return a security, why does he take it at all?
2.Answer: It is so that the debt will not be cancelled in Shemitah, and so the lender can collect the security from the orphans.
i.Once the lender takes it, it is his. Even when he returns it, it is like a deposit with the borrower.
(d)(Beraisa): "Lo Savo El Beiso La'avot Avoto" - you may not enter the borrower's house, but you may enter the house of the Arev;
1."Lekach Bigdo Ki Arev Zar" (the lender may take the borrower's garment); also, "Im Aravta l'Re'echa...(you will have to pay)";
2.If you were not an Arev, but "Nilkadta b'Imrei Ficha (you afflicted someone with words)... u'Rhav Re'echa (get friends to ask him to forgive you)."
(e)Alternatively, you may not enter a borrower's house, but you may enter the house of one who owes for your labor, for rental of your animal or (inn) room.
(f)Suggestion: Perhaps you may enter even if this was converted to a loan (e.g. a payment date was set)!
(g)Rejection It is forbidden regarding "Mashas Me'umah (any debt)."
2)THE REASON NOT TO TAKE A SECURITY FROM A WIDOW
(a)(Mishnah): One may not take a security from a widow, whether she is rich or poor - "v'Lo Sachavol Beged Almanah".
(b)(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): One may not take a security from a widow, whether she is rich or poor;
(c)R. Shimon says, one may take a security from a rich widow;
1.One may not take a security from a poor widow, for then he must return the security to her every day, and she will get a bad reputation (people will not know that he is returning a security).
(d)Inference: This shows that R. Yehudah does not interpret the Mitzvos according to the (apparent) reason, and R. Shimon does!
(e)Contradiction (regarding both - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "V'Lo Yarbeh Lo Nashim" - a king may marry many wives, on condition that they do not veer his heart (from fearing Hash-m);
(f)R. Shimon says, he may not marry even one who will veer his heart;
1.The Torah forbids marrying many wives, even if they are righteous as Avigayil.
(g)Answer - part 1: Really, R. Yehudah does not (normally) interpret the Mitzvos according to the (apparent) reason;
1.Here is an exception, for the Torah explicitly gives the reason - "v'Lo Yasur" (the Isur is only if they will veer his heart).
(h)Answer - part 2: R. Shimon interprets the Mitzvos according to the reason. The Torah need not give the reason;
1.Here, the Torah explained "v'Lo Yasur" to forbid even one wife who would veer his heart.
3)TAKING A MILLSTONE AS SECURITY
(a)(Mishnah): If one takes a millstone for a security he transgresses a Lav. He is liable for Rechev (the upper, "runner stone") and the Rechayim (the "bedstone" that the Rechev grinds on) - "Lo Yachavol Rechayim va'Rachev."
1.The Lav applies to every Kli used to process food - "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel".
(b)(Gemara - Rav Huna): If one takes a Rechayim for security he is liable twice (receives two sets of 39 lashes), for "Lo Yachavol Rechayim" and for "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel".
1.If he takes a Rechayim and a Rechev he is liable three times, for "Rechayim", for "Rechev", and for "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel."
(c)(Rav Yehudah): If one takes a Rechayim or Rechev, he is liable only once;
1.If he takes both he is liable twice;
2.He is not liable for "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel." That applies only to other Kelim used with food.
(a)Suggestion: Abaye and Rava argue like Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah argue.
1.(Rava): If one eats the Korban Pesach raw, he is lashed twice, for "(do not eat it) Na (raw)" and for "Ki Im Tzli Esh (only roasted)";
i.If he eats it cooked (in water), he is lashed twice, for "Mevushal" and for "Ki Im Tzli Esh";
ii.If he eats (an olive's worth) raw and (an olive's worth) cooked, he is lashed three times, for "Na", "Mevushal" and "Ki Im Tzli Esh":
2.(Abaye): One is not lashed for a Lav shebi'Kelalos (such as "Ki Im Tzli Esh", which encompasses other Lavim).
3.The suggestion is that Abaye holds like Rav Yehudah, and Rava holds like Rav Huna.
(b)Rejection #1: Even Rav Yehudah could agree to Rava. Rav Yehudah exempted from "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" only because it does not connote Rechayim and Rechev, therefore it applies only to other Kelim;
1.But once the Torah forbade eating the Pesach raw or cooked, we know that it must be roasted, so "Ki Im Tzli Esh" must be an additional Lav!
(c)Rejection #2: Even Rav Huna could agree to Abaye. Rav Huna obligated for "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" only because it is extra, to forbid other Kelim, therefore it also applies to Rechayim and Rechev;
1."Ki Im Tzli Esh" is needed to teach the following:
2.(Beraisa): The Isur of eating the Pesach raw applies only at the time there is a Mitzvah to eat it roasted.