This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities. The employer is trusted to deny a worker's claim that the worker was not yet paid, once the date for paying salary has passed. The assumption is that on the day one is supposed to be paid, the employer will remember to pay to avoid transgressing the prohibition of delaying a salary payment. Why is the worker's claim not accepted based on an assumption that the worker would not steal? The Gemara explains that the employer has two chazakas in their favor (would not transgress delaying salary payment and that the worker would demand the salary on the given day, and the worker only has one. The creditor can take a collateral if one does not pay a loan on time, however, the creditor may not enter the borrower's house to seize an item. Instead, an agent of the court collects the collateral on behalf of the creditor. Shmuel rules that an agent of the court is also not permitted to enter the borrower's house but can seize the borrower's item in the marketplace. Three sources are raised as difficulties against Shmuel's position. Eventually, they explain that whether or not the court can enter the borrower's house is a subject of a tannaitic debate. A braita rules that when taking an item for collateral, the court's agent must ensure that the borrower is left with basic needs for himself, but not for his wife and children. What are these basic needs? This is derived by a gezeira shava from laws of valuations to the Temple. Rav Nachman raises a difficulty against this from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's position in the Mishna that thirty days after the loan, the creditor can sell the item seized as collateral. If it can be sold, it is clear that one does not need to leave the borrower with basic needs.