Comentario citado sobre Deuteronómio 24:13

ואם מך הוא מערכך, “If he is too poor for the valuation, etc.;” on this verse our sages in Erchin 24 say that though the property of the person who vowed to pay this valuation is subject to seizure for the purpose of payment, the bailiff must allow him to retain sufficient chattels and tools, etc., to be able to sustain himself and earn his livelihood. By being deprived of the excess he is deemed to have discharged his vow. He does not have to make payments in the future to settle the part of his debt to the Temple Treasury he has not paid yet. This ruling applies even if in the interval he has become wealthy (Maimonides Hilchot Erchin 3,7).
The procedure here is similar to an ordinary debtor who claims that he is unable to pay his debts. A person deputised for this by the court enters the debtor’s home and assesses what there is that is sale-able leaving him the aforementioned items as his minimum subsistence level. According to the Talmud Baba Metzia 114 this is based on an allusion in the Torah i.e. that the word מך appears in connection with ordinary debts as well as here. Seeing that an ordinary debtor is allowed to retain the necessities of life if he cannot repay the whole debt, the same applies here. (compare Leviticus 25,35 where the Torah commands that we must assist the impoverished Jew). [The type of comparison is called a גזרה שוה, similar language in dissimilar subject matter so that there is not really a conceptual linkage. Ed.] The Talmudic expression for allowing the debtor to retain part of his belongings is known as מסדרין.
There is a difference between the ordinary debtor and the person whose economic circumstances are being assessed by a priest in our paragraph. When personal belongings of the ordinary debtor have been taken as collateral by the bailiff they have to be returned when the owner needs them, such as his pyamas at night. Such a consideration does not apply to the person whose ability to discharge his vow is being assessed by the priest in our paragraph. The reason for this difference is mentioned on the folio of Baba Metzia we quoted. In connection with the legislation concerning collateral the Torah writes that in recognition of returning his nightgown to him the impoverished debtor will bless the lender (Deut. 24,13 and Exodus 22,25). According to the Talmud, the legislation that the pawn must be returned for use by the debtor applies only to creditors in need of blessings. Seeing that the Temple Treasury is not in need of such blessings nothing is to be gained by the pawn going back and forth every night. In connection with this kind of reasoning the question is raised in the Talmud: “does not the Torah write explicitly that when we have eaten and been sated that we must “bless the Lord your G’d” (who has provided us with all this) (Deut. 8,10). Since when does G’d need our blessing? Surely this proves that even the Temple Treasury could use our blessing! The Talmud answers that it is not the blessing mentioned in that verse that determines this but the end of the verse which concludes by saying that the matter will be accounted as an act of righteousness for the party returning the pawn. This is certainly not the case with the Temple Treasury. People who are in need of the merit of having performed acts of righteousness are the subject of the legislation to return a pawn at the time the owner needs it; the Temple Treasury which has no such need does not return collateral for the use of the debtor. G’d the owner of the Temple Treasury dispenses righteousness as He has all that He needs. He does not need to acquire title to it.

You must properly understand what the sages said in Baba Metzia 114 concerning a debtor on the verse in Deut. 24,13 that when the debtor who had to give the lender a blanket as a pawn is allowed by the lender to have it back so he can cover himself with it by night, that G’d will bless the lender who is so considerate even if the debtor will not. The Talmud says that the subject of the word וברכך in that verse is the one in need of a blessing, i.e. only human beings are in need of blessings as opposed to the Temple Treasury which is not in need of blessings. The Talmud there counters: how can you say that הקדש i.e. the Temple Treasury or any property belonging to the Temple does not qualify for blessings in view of our verse that after eating and being sated one must bless G’d the provider? The Talmud answers that the reason pawns owned by the Temple Treasury do not have to be restored at night is that the verse ends “and it will be considered a charitable act on your part (if you give it back). Seeing the Temple Treasury is not in need of charity there is no need to return the pawn at night. It is evident from that passage in the Talmud that whereas the Temple Treasury is in need of blessings it is not in need of charity. The reason is that all charities emanate from G’d (the owner of the Temple treasury).
We have a still more direct proof of the fact that blessings do apply to G’d from the Talmud Berachot 7, where Acatriel, a high ranking angel asked Rabbi Yishmael to bless him, i.e. such blessings are applicable to G’d? We also find in Shabbat 89 that G’d reprimanded Moses for not “assisting Him.” Clearly, man’s blessing or assistance is of value even to G’d? The assistance meant there was a blessing. When we express a blessing for the Lord we add a dimension of Holy Spirit in the universe. Our blessing will become the cause of more of G’d’s creatures receiving His blessing.
The sages said also that G’d is desirous of the prayer of the righteous. If the meaning of the word blessing and prayer only referred to man thanking the Lord, why would G’d be interested specifically in the prayers of the relatively few righteous people instead of His desiring everybody’s prayer? Do we not have a principle that the glory of the king is expressed by the adulation of multitudes (Proverbs 14,28)? Clearly the very word ברכה implies that the one bestowing it adds an additional dimension to the recipient of the blessing. This is why in our prayers we mention the words תתברך ותתרומם, “be blessed and (as a result) be elevated, our King, etc.” This is also the reason for the wording in the Kaddish: יתברך וישתבח ויתפאר ויתרומם ויתנשא, “Blessed and praised, glorified, exalted, extolled, proclaimed in His majesty, etc.” In addition we find that the word ברך, knee, describes the One before Whom each knee bends, i.e. the word ברכה, blessing is directly related to a motion with his knees by the one proclaiming the blessing (compare Sefer Habahir item 4).

מת – the borrower. One does not restore the pledge/security to the heirs [of the borrower], for there is no commandment of restoring the pledge, for it is written (Deuteronomy 24:13): “You must restore the pledge to him…” – to him but not to his heirs.

the pledge the pledge that I commanded [one] to return at sunset.