More Discussions for this daf
1. proofs that are not needed 2. Bava Metzia 114: Eliyahu's status as a Kohen 3. Paying back debts
4. Apparent Redundancy Ignored 5. בארבעה לא מצינא בשיתא מצינא
DAF DISCUSSIONS - BAVA METZIA 114

Efraim Goldstein asked:

Yesterdays daf stated :

They inquired: Do we organize how a debtor should pay back his debt (in his best interests, so that he has the ability to keep items that are essentials despite owing more money)? Do we derive a gezeirah shavah (one of the thirteen principles of Biblical hermeneutics; it links two similar words from dissimilar verses in the Torah) from arachin (where we organize how a person who pledged to give a person's value to the Temple, but has little money to pay it, should pay his debt to hekdesh with his best interests in mind) using the word "mach" (stated by both topics), or not?

Halacha Lemaasei:

Do we in fact have a quasi bankruptcy court system where a debtor comes and we reduce his debts based on ability to repay / gross assets

And if so how does this play out with the institution of eved ivri - who (I was under the impression) sells himself in order to raise funds to cover debts

Thank you for all your efforts.

The Kollel replies:

The Rambam (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 1:7) and the Shulachan Aruch (CM 97:23) rule that we must leave the borrower with sufficient means with which to live. We leave him with thirty days supply of food, and enough clothes for twelve months. We also leave him enough tools that he needs to earn his living.

This is the rule for a person who cannot pay back a loan. However the Torah specifically states that a person who stole is sold to repay his debt.

Dov Freedman