Comentário sobre Deuteronômio 24:6

לא יחבל NO MAN SHALL TAKE [THE LOWER OR THE UPPER MILLSTONE] AS PLEDGE — i.e. if one comes to demand a pledge through the court for his debt he should not take as a pledge anything by which food is prepared (Bava Metzia 113b, 115a).

כי נפש הוא חובל, as per Onkelos, you would deprive the debtor of his source of legitimate income.

לא יחבול רחים ורכב, “he must not take an upper or lower millstone as a pledge;” the Torah abbreviated, failing to tell us who the subject is. He is the creditor, who after the loan is overdue, wants to secure his loan with some collateral. If one wants to view this from an aggadic standpoint, the words as they are fit in with the Torah’s directive for the newly wed husband to devote himself to entertaining his bride; a warning to the groom when performing his marital duties not to behave to his wife as if he were grinding mustard seeds.

לא יחבול רחים ורכב, “he must not take as a pledge an upper or lower millstone.” The reason is that these are the very tools with which the debtor earns his livelihood. The Torah mentions these two items merely as examples of other tools which the debtor cannot do without. The precise meaning of the word לא יחבול is that the lender must not bring these tools into his own house as collateral as he is not allowed to do this even with utensils which are not essential to the borrower. The Torah has written specifically in verse 10: “you must not enter his house to take a pledge;” even the messenger of the court must not enter the house of the borrower, but the borrower (debtor) has to bring the pledge outside. (verse 11) Seeing that this is so, why did the Torah have to write our verse at all? Answer: so that he who violates the directions of the Torah in this respect will be guilty of violating two commandments simultaneously(Baba Metzia 113).

If he demands security from him for his debt in court, etc. Rashi means to say that “he may not secure as collateral” implies that he is not permitted to demand security from him in court. But this is not so because it was necessary for the Torah to command, “Return are you to return the pledge to him” (v. 13), which indicates that one is permitted to take security. Rashi answers that when it is written here, “He may not secure as collateral,” is in a case where originally he had lent him without security and “now he demands security, etc.”

V. 6. לא יחבל וגו׳. Auch der Einzelne hat mit der berechtigten Forderung seines Privatrechts vor einer Erschütterung der Existenzbedingung des ihm verschuldeten Bruders zurückzustehen. Dass er ihn überall nicht zur Zahlung drängen dürfe, wenn er von seiner augenblicklichen Zahlungsunfähigkeit überzeugt ist, ist schon Schmot 22, 24 (siehe daselbst) ausgesprochen, ebenso Vers 25 (daselbst) die Pflicht, selbst wenn er zur Sicherstellung seiner bereits verfallenen Schuld sich in gesetzlicher Weise ein Unterpfand hat geben lassen, dasselbe immer zur Gebrauchszeit gegen ein anderes dem Schuldner zurückzugeben. Hier folgt nun als Ergänzung die Bestimmung, dass Speisebereitungsgeräte — כלי אוכל נפש, für welche רחים ורכב durch das beigefügte Motiv כי נפש הוא חובל nur zu exemplifikatorischer Bedeutung erweitert ist — selbst in solcher durch Austauschpflicht beschränkten Weise zu pfänden, von vornherein verboten ist ( siehe סמ׳׳ע zu Choschen Mischpat 97, 11; — siehe ferner Vers 10).

לא יחבול ריחים, “A creditor is not to take as a pledge for an overdue loan the upper millstone;” although the word: “creditor,” did not appear in this verse it is clear that the creditor is the subject in this legislation. An alternate interpretation: The verse addresses itself to the creditor, who normally is not even allowed into the house of the debtor, seeing that such pledges are taken by the court’s messenger in order to preserve the self respect of the debtor. In this instance, the creditor was allowed into the debtor’s house to look for a suitable pledge.

רחים is the lower,

He may not secure implements of food preparation. Rashi is answering the question: It is written “For he is taking life as security,” which indicates anything used for food preparation. [You might ask] if so, why does it say “the upper and lower parts of a millstone,” [writing] only one of them would suffice, because they are both implements of food preparation? The answer is, to give a negative command for the upper part on its own and for the lower part on its own. Even though each needs the other, however since they are two [separate] implements one transgresses a negative command for each implement on its own.

רחים (siehe Bereschit 8, 21). רכב der dem unteren "aufsitzende" Mühlstein.

The Torah warns him not to take something which is essential for the debtor to earn his livelihood.

ורכב is the upper millstone.

ריחים, this is one of a number of words (nouns) that always appear in the plural mode; some others are: ,שמים מים, חיים, פנים, מלקחים, מעים. Seeing that the lower millstone is anchored to the ground, only the upper one could serve as a pledge.