Parallel
פסחים 31
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
and the creditor can come and redeem it, for we learned: He adds another denar and redeems this property. They differ where the creditor sold or dedicated [it]. Abaye said: ‘He collects retrospectively’; since the time [for payment] came and he did not repay him, the matter was retrospectively revealed that from the [very] beginning it stood in his possession, and he rightly dedicated or sold [it]. But Raba ruled: ‘He collects from now and onwards’; since if he [the debtor] had money, he could have quitted him with money, it is found that he [the creditor] acquires it only now. Yet did Raba say thus? Surely Rami b. Hama said: if Reuben sold his estate to Simeon with security, and he [Simeon] set it [the money] up as a loan against himself, then Reuben died, and Reuben's creditor came and seized [the estate] from Simeon, whereupon Simeon went and satisfied him with money, it is by right that the children of Reuben can go and say to Simeon, ‘As for us, we [maintain that] our father left [us] movables in your possession, and the movables of orphans are not under lien to a creditor.’ Now Raba said: If Simeon is wise, he lets them seize the land, and then he reclaims it from them. For R. Nahman said: If orphans seize land for their father's debt, a creditor [of their father] can in turn seize it from them. Now, if you agree that he [a creditor] collects retrospectively, it is right: for that reason he in turn can seize it from them, because it is just as though they had seized it in their father's lifetime. But if you say that he collects it from now and henceforth, why can he in turn seize it from them: surely it is as though the orphans had bought [immovable] property, and if orphans buy [immovable] property, is it then under a lien to [their father's] creditor? — There it is different, because he can say to them, just as I was indebted to your father, so I was indebted to your father's creditor. [This follows] from R. Nathan[‘s dictum]. For it was taught, R. Nathan said: How do we know that if one man [claims a maneh from his neighbour, and his neighbor [claims a like sum] from another neighbour, that we collect from the one [the last] and give to the other [the first]? From the verse, and he shall give it unto him to whom he is indebted. We learned: IF A GENTILE LENT [MONEY] TO AN ISRAELITE ON HIS LEAVEN, AFTER PASSOVER IT IS PERMITTED FOR USE. It is right if you say that he collects retrospectively: therefore it is permitted for use. But if you say that he collects from now and henceforth, why is it permitted for use? [Surely] it stood in the possession of the Israelite! — The circumstances here are that he deposited it with him. Shall we say that it is dependent on Tannaim: If an Israelite lent [money] to a Gentile on his leaven, after Passover he does not transgress. In R. Meir's name it was said: he does transgress. Now do they not differ in this, viz., one Master holds [that] he collects retrospectively, while the other Master holds [that] he collects from now and onwards. — Now is that logical! Consider the second clause: But if a Gentile lent [money] to an Israelite on his leaven, after Passover he transgresses on all views. But surely the reverse [of the rulings in the first clause] is required: according to the view there [in the first clause] that he does not transgress, here he does transgress; [while] according to the view there that he does transgress, here he does not transgress! 16
—
Rather the circumstances here [in both clauses] are that he [the borrower] deposited it [the leaven] with him, and they differ in R. Isaac[‘s dictum]. For R. Isaac said: Whence do we know that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge? Because it is said, [Thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goeth down...] and it shall be righteousness unto thee: if he has no title thereto, whence is his righteousness? Hence it follows that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge. Now the first Tanna holds, That applies only to an Israelite [taking a pledge] from an Israelite, since we read in his case, ‘and it shall be righteousness unto thee’; but an Israelite [taking a pledge] from a Gentile does not acquire a title. While R. Meir holds, [It follows] a fortiori; if an Israelite acquires from an Israelite, how much the more an Israelite from a Gentile! But if a Gentile lent [money] to an Israelite on his leaven, after Passover all agree that he transgresses: there the Gentile certainly does not acquire a title from the Israelite. We learned: IF A GENTILE LENT [MONEY] TO AN ISRAELITE ON HIS LEAVEN, AFTER PASSOVER IT IS PERMITTED FOR USE. Now even granted that he deposited it with him, surely you said that a Gentile does not acquire a title from an Israelite? There is no difficulty: there [in the Mishnah] it means that he said to him, ‘From now’; here [in the Baraitha] it means that he did not say to him, ‘From now’, And whence do you assure that we draw a distinction between where he said ‘from now and where he did not say ‘from now’? — Because it was taught: If a Gentile deposited with an Israelite large loaves as a pledge, he [the Israelite] does not transgress; but if he said to him, ‘I have made them yours,’ he transgresses. Why is the first clause different from the second? This surely proves that where he says to him, ‘from now,’ it is different from where he does not say, ‘from now.This proves it. Our Rabbis taught: A shop belonging to an Israelite and its wares belong to an Israelite, while Gentile workers enter therein, leaven that is found there after Passover is forbidden for use, while it need not be stated for eating. A shop belonging to a Gentile and the wares belong to a Gentile, while Israelite workers go in and out, leaven that is found there after Passover may be eaten, while it is unnecessary to state [that] benefit [is permitted]. MISHNAH. IF RUINS COLLAPSED ON LEAVEN, IT IS REGARDED AS REMOVED. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: PROVIDED THAT A DOG CANNOT SEARCH IT OUT. GEMARA. R. Hisda said: Yet he must annul it in his heart. A Tanna taught: How far is the searching of a dog? Three handbreadths. R. Aha the son of R. Joseph said to R. Ashi: As to what Samuel said, Money can only be guarded [by placing it] in the earth — do we require [it to be covered by] three handbreadths or not? — Here, he replied, we require three hand breadths on account of the smell [of the leaven]; but there [it is put into the earth] in order to cover it from the eye; therefore three handbreadths are not required. And how much [is necessary]? — Said Rafram of Sikkara: one handbreadth. MISHNAH. HE WHO EATS TERUMAH OF LEAVEN ON PASSOVER UNWITTINGLY, MUST REPAY [TO THE PRIEST] THE PRINCIPAL PLUS A FIFTH; IF DELIBERATELY, HE IS FREE FROM PAYMENT AND FROM [LIABILITY FOR] ITS VALUE AS FUEL. GEMARA. We learned elsewhere: He who eats terumah unwittingly must restore the principal plus a fifth; whether he eats, drinks,
—
Rather the circumstances here [in both clauses] are that he [the borrower] deposited it [the leaven] with him, and they differ in R. Isaac[‘s dictum]. For R. Isaac said: Whence do we know that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge? Because it is said, [Thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goeth down...] and it shall be righteousness unto thee: if he has no title thereto, whence is his righteousness? Hence it follows that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge. Now the first Tanna holds, That applies only to an Israelite [taking a pledge] from an Israelite, since we read in his case, ‘and it shall be righteousness unto thee’; but an Israelite [taking a pledge] from a Gentile does not acquire a title. While R. Meir holds, [It follows] a fortiori; if an Israelite acquires from an Israelite, how much the more an Israelite from a Gentile! But if a Gentile lent [money] to an Israelite on his leaven, after Passover all agree that he transgresses: there the Gentile certainly does not acquire a title from the Israelite. We learned: IF A GENTILE LENT [MONEY] TO AN ISRAELITE ON HIS LEAVEN, AFTER PASSOVER IT IS PERMITTED FOR USE. Now even granted that he deposited it with him, surely you said that a Gentile does not acquire a title from an Israelite? There is no difficulty: there [in the Mishnah] it means that he said to him, ‘From now’; here [in the Baraitha] it means that he did not say to him, ‘From now’, And whence do you assure that we draw a distinction between where he said ‘from now and where he did not say ‘from now’? — Because it was taught: If a Gentile deposited with an Israelite large loaves as a pledge, he [the Israelite] does not transgress; but if he said to him, ‘I have made them yours,’ he transgresses. Why is the first clause different from the second? This surely proves that where he says to him, ‘from now,’ it is different from where he does not say, ‘from now.This proves it. Our Rabbis taught: A shop belonging to an Israelite and its wares belong to an Israelite, while Gentile workers enter therein, leaven that is found there after Passover is forbidden for use, while it need not be stated for eating. A shop belonging to a Gentile and the wares belong to a Gentile, while Israelite workers go in and out, leaven that is found there after Passover may be eaten, while it is unnecessary to state [that] benefit [is permitted]. MISHNAH. IF RUINS COLLAPSED ON LEAVEN, IT IS REGARDED AS REMOVED. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: PROVIDED THAT A DOG CANNOT SEARCH IT OUT. GEMARA. R. Hisda said: Yet he must annul it in his heart. A Tanna taught: How far is the searching of a dog? Three handbreadths. R. Aha the son of R. Joseph said to R. Ashi: As to what Samuel said, Money can only be guarded [by placing it] in the earth — do we require [it to be covered by] three handbreadths or not? — Here, he replied, we require three hand breadths on account of the smell [of the leaven]; but there [it is put into the earth] in order to cover it from the eye; therefore three handbreadths are not required. And how much [is necessary]? — Said Rafram of Sikkara: one handbreadth. MISHNAH. HE WHO EATS TERUMAH OF LEAVEN ON PASSOVER UNWITTINGLY, MUST REPAY [TO THE PRIEST] THE PRINCIPAL PLUS A FIFTH; IF DELIBERATELY, HE IS FREE FROM PAYMENT AND FROM [LIABILITY FOR] ITS VALUE AS FUEL. GEMARA. We learned elsewhere: He who eats terumah unwittingly must restore the principal plus a fifth; whether he eats, drinks,
—