That we not take as surety vessels in which life-sustaining food (ochel nefesh) is made: That we have been prevented from taking as surety vessels that are the means for the preparation of food for people — for example (see Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 242), a vessel for grinding and a vessel for kneading and a vessel for cooking and a vessel for slaughtering animals and the others of what are grouped as that with which we make life-sustaining food. And about this is stated (Deuteronomy 24:6), “A handmill or an upper millstone shall not be taken in pawn, for that would be taking someone’s life in pawn.” And the language of the Mishnah (Mishnah Bava Metzia 9:13) is “And they did not refer only to a mill and an upper millstone, but anything that is used to make life-sustaining food, as it states, ‘For that would be taking someone’s life as a pledge.’”
And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 242), “And it remains for us that we explain to you their saying (Mishnah Bava Metzia 9:13), ‘and he is liable for two vessels, as it states, “A handmill or an upper millstone shall not be taken in pawn, for that would be taking someone’s life in pawn”’ — as this brings us to thinking that they are two commandments; and all the more so in their saying (Bava Metzia 115a) that we make liable for the handmill on its own and for the upper millstone on it own. And this matter is that anyone who takes a vessel in which we make life-sustaining food as surety transgresses a negative commandment, as we shall explain; and one who takes many vessels — all of with which we make life-sustaining food — as surety is liable for each and every vessel; for example, if he takes as surety a vessel for grinding and a vessel for bread and a vessel for kneading. And this is like one who takes in pawn the garment of Reuven’s widow and the garment of Shimon’s widow and the garment of Levi’s widow — that he transgresses for each and every garment. However the law in question is about one who takes in pawn two vessels — and he makes life-sustaining food with all of them — but he cannot suffice with (use) one without the other, and [so maybe] he should [only] be liable for one vessel; or perhaps we should say that since they are two vessels, he should be liable for each and every one by itself. And they elucidated for us that he is liable for two vessels, and even though the work is done through the gathering of both of them — for example, a handmill and an upper millstone, with which one cannot grind without the other. Such that if he takes in pawn a handmill and an upper millstone, it will be like he takes in pawn a vessel for the dough and a slaughtering knife — and they are two vessels, each of which has its [own] work. And this is the matter of that which they said, ‘and he is liable for two vessels’ — not that they are two commandments. And this is the language of Sifrei about this matter that I have elucidated to you — they said, ‘Just like a handmill and an upper millstone are two distinct vessels but serve for one work and we make liable for this on its own and for this on it own; so too all two vessels that serve for one work, one is liable for this on its own and for this on it own.’ The elucidation of the thing and its matter is [that] even though we use it for one work, he is liable for this on its own and for this on it own. And if he takes it in pawn, we take it from him and return it to the craftsman.”
From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (see Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 3:2) that with regard to this prohibition, there is no difference if he took it in pawn with his hand or through the court — from any angle, he is liable for them. And if he took it in pawn, the court returns it — [even] against his will. And our teachers, may God watch over them, explained that this prohibition is only to take the vessels mentioned in pawn when it is not at the time of a loan. But [in exchange for] a loan, it is certainly permissible to take in pawn all the vessels in the world. As it is no worse than selling — as we do not prevent a person from selling all of his vessels, or to put them in pawn. And since some of the great sages of the world erred about this, I have written at length about it. And one who takes in pawn many vessels with which we make life-sustaining food and did not return them before they were burnt or they got lost is liable for lashes for each and every one — and even from two vessels that do one work, like a handmill and an upper millstone or that which is similar to it, he is liable for two lashings. And that is when they were burnt before he returned them. And the rest of its details are elucidated in the ninth chapter of Bava Metzia.
5
וְנוֹהֵג אִסּוּר זֶה בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן.
And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times.
שֶׁלֹּא יְמַשְׁכֵּן בְּחוֹבוֹ כֵּלִים שֶׁעוֹשִׂים בָּהֶם אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ – שֶׁנִּמְנַעְנוּ מִלְּמַשְׁכֵּן הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהֵן סִבַּת הֲכָנַת מָזוֹן לִבְנֵי אָדָם בָּהֶן, כְּגוֹן (עי' רמב"ם בסהמ"צ לאוין רמב) כְּלֵי הַטְּחִינָה וּכְלֵי הַלִּישָׁה וּכְלֵי הַבִּשּׁוּל וּכְלֵי שְׁחִיטַת בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים וְזוּלָתָם, מִמָּה שֶׁיִּכְלְלֵהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בּוֹ אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ, וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (דבריס כד ו) לֹא יַחֲבֹל רֵחַיִם וָרָכֶב כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הוּא חֹבֵל. וּלְשׁוֹן הַמִּשְׁנָה (ב"מ קטו, א) לֹא רֵחַיִם וָרֶכֶב בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בּוֹ אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הוּא חֹבֵל.
That we not take as surety vessels in which life-sustaining food (ochel nefesh) is made: That we have been prevented from taking as surety vessels that are the means for the preparation of food for people — for example (see Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 242), a vessel for grinding and a vessel for kneading and a vessel for cooking and a vessel for slaughtering animals and the others of what are grouped as that with which we make life-sustaining food. And about this is stated (Deuteronomy 24:6), “A handmill or an upper millstone shall not be taken in pawn, for that would be taking someone’s life in pawn.” And the language of the Mishnah (Mishnah Bava Metzia 9:13) is “And they did not refer only to a mill and an upper millstone, but anything that is used to make life-sustaining food, as it states, ‘For that would be taking someone’s life as a pledge.’”
וְכָתַב הָרַמְבַּ"ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה (שם) וְנִשְׁאַר שֶׁנְּבָאֵר לְךָ הֵנָּה אָמְרָם זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (שם) וְחַיָּב מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא יַחֲבֹל רֵחַיִם וָרָכֶב, שֶׁזֶּה יָבִיא לַחְשֹׁב שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי מִצְוֹת, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּאָמְרָם וְחַיָּבִין עַל הָרֵחַיִם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְעַל הָרֶכֶב בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְעִנְיָן זֶה שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁיְּמַשְׁכֵּן כְּלִי שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בּוֹ אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר. וּמִי שֶׁמִּשְׁכֵּן כֵּלִים רַבִּים, כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן עוֹשִׂין בּוֹ אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ, חַיָּב עַל כָּל כְּלִי וּכְלִי, כְּגוֹן שֶׁיְּמַשְׁכֵּן כְּלֵי הַטְּחִינָה וּכְלֵי הַלֶּחֶם וּכְלֵי הַלִּישָׁה, וְזֶה מָה שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ בּוֹ לְדַבֵּר, שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹ מִי שֶׁחָבַל בֶּגֶד אַלְמְנַת רְאוּבֵן וּבֶגֶד אַלְמְנַת שִׁמְעוֹן וּבֶגֶד אַלְמְנַת לֵוִי, שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר עַל כָּל בֶּגֶד וּבֶגֶד. וְאָמְנָם דִּין הַשְּׁאֵלָה בְּמִי שֶׁחָבַל שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וּבְכֻלָּן יַעֲשֶׂה אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ, וְלֹא יַסְפִּיק הָאֶחָד מִבִּלְתִּי הָאַחֵר בַּעֲשִׂיַּת אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ, נֹאמַר, אַחַר שֶׁהָאֹכֶל אָמְנָם יִשְׁלַם בְּכֻלָּן הֵם כִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְיִהְיֶה חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם כְּלִי אֶחָד, אוֹ נֹאמַר, אַחַר שֶׁהוּא שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים חַיָּב עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לְבַדּוֹ, וּבֵאֲרוּ לָנוּ, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּקִבּוּץ שְׁנֵיהֶם נַעֲשֵׂית הַמְּלָאכָה, כְּגוֹן רֵחַיִם וָרֶכֶב, שֶׁלֹּא יִטְחַן אֶחָד מֵהֶן בִּלְתִּי הָאַחֵר, שֶׁהוּא אִם חָבַל רֵחַיִם וָרֶכֶב יִהְיֶה כְּמִי שֶׁחָבַל מִשְׁאֶרֶת שֶׁל עִסָּה וְסַכִּין שְׁחִיטָה, וְהֵן שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים, כָּל אֶחָד עוֹמֵד לִמְלַאכְתּוֹ, וְזֶהוּ עִנְיַן אָמְרוֹ וְחַיָּב מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים, לֹא שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי מִצְוֹת. וְזֶה לְשׁוֹן סִפְרִי, בְּזֶה הָעִנְיָן שֶׁבֵּאַרְתִּי לְךָ, אָמְרוּ מָה רֵחַיִם וָרֶכֶב מְיֻחָדִים שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וּמְשַׁמְּשִׁין מְלָאכָה אַחַת וְחַיָּבִים עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, כָּךְ כָּל שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים שֶׁמְּשַׁמְּשִׁין מְלָאכָה אַחַת חַיָּב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. בֵּאוּר הַדָּבָר וְעִנְיָנוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּשַׁמְּשִׁין מְלָאכָה אַחַת חַיָּב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וּכְשֶׁעָבַר וּמִשְׁכֵּן יִלָּקַח מִמֶּנּוּ וְיוּשַׁב לָאֻמָּן.
And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 242), “And it remains for us that we explain to you their saying (Mishnah Bava Metzia 9:13), ‘and he is liable for two vessels, as it states, “A handmill or an upper millstone shall not be taken in pawn, for that would be taking someone’s life in pawn”’ — as this brings us to thinking that they are two commandments; and all the more so in their saying (Bava Metzia 115a) that we make liable for the handmill on its own and for the upper millstone on it own. And this matter is that anyone who takes a vessel in which we make life-sustaining food as surety transgresses a negative commandment, as we shall explain; and one who takes many vessels — all of with which we make life-sustaining food — as surety is liable for each and every vessel; for example, if he takes as surety a vessel for grinding and a vessel for bread and a vessel for kneading. And this is like one who takes in pawn the garment of Reuven’s widow and the garment of Shimon’s widow and the garment of Levi’s widow — that he transgresses for each and every garment. However the law in question is about one who takes in pawn two vessels — and he makes life-sustaining food with all of them — but he cannot suffice with (use) one without the other, and [so maybe] he should [only] be liable for one vessel; or perhaps we should say that since they are two vessels, he should be liable for each and every one by itself. And they elucidated for us that he is liable for two vessels, and even though the work is done through the gathering of both of them — for example, a handmill and an upper millstone, with which one cannot grind without the other. Such that if he takes in pawn a handmill and an upper millstone, it will be like he takes in pawn a vessel for the dough and a slaughtering knife — and they are two vessels, each of which has its [own] work. And this is the matter of that which they said, ‘and he is liable for two vessels’ — not that they are two commandments. And this is the language of Sifrei about this matter that I have elucidated to you — they said, ‘Just like a handmill and an upper millstone are two distinct vessels but serve for one work and we make liable for this on its own and for this on it own; so too all two vessels that serve for one work, one is liable for this on its own and for this on it own.’ The elucidation of the thing and its matter is [that] even though we use it for one work, he is liable for this on its own and for this on it own. And if he takes it in pawn, we take it from him and return it to the craftsman.”
שֹׁרֶשׁ מִצְוָה זוֹ יָדוּעַ, שֶׁהוּא לְתִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם וְצֹרֶךְ יִשּׁוּבוֹ.
The root of this commandment is known, that it is for the betterment of the world and the needs of its civilization.
מִדִּינֵי הַמִּצְוָה. מָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (רמב"ם מלוה ולוה פ"ג ה"ב) שֶׁבְּעִנְיָן אִסּוּר זֶה אֵין חִלּוּק, בֵּין שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין, בְּכָל צַד חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶן, וְאִם חָבַל מַחְזִירִין אוֹתוֹ בֵּית דִּין בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ. וּפֵרְשׁוּ מוֹרֵינוּ יִשְׁמְרֵם אֵל, שֶׁאִסּוּר זֶה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁמִּשְׁכֵּן הַכֵּלִים הַנִּזְכָּרִים, שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַלְוָאָה, וַדַּאי מֻתָּר לְמַשְׁכֵּן כָּל כֵּלִים שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, דְּלָא גָּרַע מִמֶּכֶר, שֶׁאֵין מוֹנְעִין לוֹ לָאָדָם מִלִּמְכּוֹר כָּל כֵּלָיו אוֹ לְמַשְׁכְּנָן. וּמִפְּנֵי שֶׁטָּעוּ בָּזֶה מִגְּדוֹלֵי גְּאוֹנֵי עוֹלָם הֶאֱרַכְתִּי בּוֹ. וְהַחוֹבֵל כֵּלִים הַרְבֵּה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן אֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ וְלֹא הֶחְזִירָן עַד שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ, חַיָּב מַלְקוּת עַל כָּל אַחַת מֵהֶן, וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים שֶׁעוֹשִׂין מְלָאכָה אַחַת, כְּרֵחַיִם וָרֶכֶב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, חַיָּב שְׁתֵּי מַלְקוּיוֹת, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִירָן (רמב"ם שם ה"ג). וְיֶתֶר פְּרָטֵי הַמִּצְוָה מְבֹאָרִין בְּפֶרֶק תְּשִׁיעִי מִמְּצִיעָא.
From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (see Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 3:2) that with regard to this prohibition, there is no difference if he took it in pawn with his hand or through the court — from any angle, he is liable for them. And if he took it in pawn, the court returns it — [even] against his will. And our teachers, may God watch over them, explained that this prohibition is only to take the vessels mentioned in pawn when it is not at the time of a loan. But [in exchange for] a loan, it is certainly permissible to take in pawn all the vessels in the world. As it is no worse than selling — as we do not prevent a person from selling all of his vessels, or to put them in pawn. And since some of the great sages of the world erred about this, I have written at length about it. And one who takes in pawn many vessels with which we make life-sustaining food and did not return them before they were burnt or they got lost is liable for lashes for each and every one — and even from two vessels that do one work, like a handmill and an upper millstone or that which is similar to it, he is liable for two lashings. And that is when they were burnt before he returned them. And the rest of its details are elucidated in the ninth chapter of Bava Metzia.
וְנוֹהֵג אִסּוּר זֶה בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן.
And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times.