Pesachim — Daf 31b

אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהרהינו אצלו וקמיפלגי בדר' יצחק דא"ר יצחק מנין לבעל חוב שקונה משכון שנאמר (דברים כד, יג) ולך תהיה צדקה אם אינו קונה משכון צדקה מנין מכאן לבעל חוב שקונה משכון

ת"ק סבר הני מילי ישראל מישראל הוא דקרינא ביה ולך תהיה צדקה אבל ישראל מנכרי לא קני

ור"מ סבר קל וחומר ישראל מישראל קני ישראל מנכרי לא כל שכן אבל נכרי שהלוה את ישראל על חמצו אחר הפסח דברי הכל עובר התם ודאי נכרי מישראל לא קני

תנן נכרי שהלוה ישראל על חמצו אחר הפסח מותר בהנאה נהי נמי דהרהינו אצלו הא אמרת נכרי מישראל לא קני לא קשיא הא דאמר ליה מעכשיו הא דלא אמר ליה מעכשיו

ומנא תימרא דשני ליה בין היכא דאמר מעכשיו ובין היכא דלא אמר מעכשיו דתניא נכרי שהרהין פת פורני אצל ישראל אינו עובר ואם אמר לו הגעתיך עובר מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא אלא לאו שמע מינה שאני היכא דא"ל מעכשיו להיכא דלא אמר ליה מעכשיו שמע מינה

ת"ר חנות של ישראל ומלאי של ישראל ופועלי נכרים נכנסין לשם חמץ שנמצא שם אחר הפסח אסור בהנאה ואין צריך לומר באכילה חנות של נכרי ומלאי של נכרי ופועלי ישראל נכנסין ויוצאין לשם חמץ שנמצא שם אחר הפסח מותר באכילה ואין צריך לומר בהנאה:

מתני׳ חמץ שנפלה עליו מפולת הרי הוא כמבוער רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כל שאין הכלב יכול לחפש אחריו:

גמ׳ אמר רב חסדא וצריך שיבטל בלבו תנא כמה חפישת הכלב שלשה טפחים

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב יוסף לרב אשי הא דאמר שמואל כספים אין להם שמירה אלא בקרקע מי בעינן שלשה טפחים או לא אמר ליה הכא משום ריחא בעינן שלשה טפחים התם משום איכסויי מעינא הוא ולא בעי שלשה וכמה אמר רפרם בר פפא מסיכרא טפח:

מתני׳ האוכל תרומת חמץ בפסח בשוגג משלם קרן וחומש במזיד פטור מתשלומין ומדמי עצים:

גמ׳ תנן התם האוכל תרומה בשוגג משלם קרן וחומש אחד האוכל ואחד השותה

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?1 Because it is said, [Thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goeth down...] and it shall be righteousness unto thee:2 if he has no title thereto, whence is his righteousness?3 Hence it follows that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge. Now the first Tanna holds, That4 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.5 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.6 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’;7 here [in the Baraitha] it means that he did not say to him, ‘From now’,8 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,9 he [the Israelite] does not transgress; but if he said to him, ‘I have made them yours,’10 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].11 MISHNAH. IF RUINS COLLAPSED ON LEAVEN, IT IS REGARDED AS REMOVED.12 R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: PROVIDED THAT13 A DOG CANNOT SEARCH IT OUT. GEMARA. R. Hisda said: Yet he must annul it in his heart.14 A Tanna taught: How far is the searching of a dog? Three handbreadths.15 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 earth16 — 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];17 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:18 one handbreadth. MISHNAH. HE WHO EATS TERUMAH OF LEAVEN ON PASSOVER UNWITTINGLY, MUST REPAY [TO THE PRIEST] THE PRINCIPAL PLUS A FIFTH;19 IF DELIBERATELY,20 HE IS FREE FROM PAYMENT AND FROM [LIABILITY FOR] ITS VALUE AS FUEL.21 GEMARA. We learned elsewhere: He who eats terumah unwittingly must restore the principal plus a fifth; whether he eats, drinks, from now’. Hence the leaven stands in the lender's ownership, whether Jew or Gentile. used, because during Passover it was definitely in the Jew's ownership, notwithstanding that it was deposited with the Gentile, because he does not acquire a title from a Jew. But the dispute arises only where the Israelite lent to the Gentile. such are sufficiently valuable to be a pledge. would therefore be necessary to remove the debris and destroy the leaven. theft. — In ancient days there was probably no other place as safe, but nowadays it suffices if the bailee puts the money in the place where he keeps his own (Asheri, B.M. 42a). Passover, yet here he must make the usual restoration of the principal plus a fifth (v. Lev. XXII, 14), not in money but in kind, the same as he ate, v. infra p. 147. the law of restoring the principal plus a fifth, in kind, holds good only when the terumah is misappropriated unwittingly, the restoration being for the purpose of atonement. But when one appropriates it deliberately his act constitutes larceny, and he must return its value in money, not in kind, as in all cases of larceny. Leaven during Passover, however, has no monetary value, all benefit thereof being interdicted: hence he is free from payment.

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?1 Because it is said, [Thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goeth down...] and it shall be righteousness unto thee:2 if he has no title thereto, whence is his righteousness?3 Hence it follows that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge. Now the first Tanna holds, That4 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.5 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.6 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’;7 here [in the Baraitha] it means that he did not say to him, ‘From now’,8 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,9 he [the Israelite] does not transgress; but if he said to him, ‘I have made them yours,’10 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].11 MISHNAH. IF RUINS COLLAPSED ON LEAVEN, IT IS REGARDED AS REMOVED.12 R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: PROVIDED THAT13 A DOG CANNOT SEARCH IT OUT. GEMARA. R. Hisda said: Yet he must annul it in his heart.14 A Tanna taught: How far is the searching of a dog? Three handbreadths.15 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 earth16 — 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];17 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:18 one handbreadth. MISHNAH. HE WHO EATS TERUMAH OF LEAVEN ON PASSOVER UNWITTINGLY, MUST REPAY [TO THE PRIEST] THE PRINCIPAL PLUS A FIFTH;19 IF DELIBERATELY,20 HE IS FREE FROM PAYMENT AND FROM [LIABILITY FOR] ITS VALUE AS FUEL.21 GEMARA. We learned elsewhere: He who eats terumah unwittingly must restore the principal plus a fifth; whether he eats, drinks, from now’. Hence the leaven stands in the lender's ownership, whether Jew or Gentile. used, because during Passover it was definitely in the Jew's ownership, notwithstanding that it was deposited with the Gentile, because he does not acquire a title from a Jew. But the dispute arises only where the Israelite lent to the Gentile. such are sufficiently valuable to be a pledge. would therefore be necessary to remove the debris and destroy the leaven. theft. — In ancient days there was probably no other place as safe, but nowadays it suffices if the bailee puts the money in the place where he keeps his own (Asheri, B.M. 42a). Passover, yet here he must make the usual restoration of the principal plus a fifth (v. Lev. XXII, 14), not in money but in kind, the same as he ate, v. infra p. 147. the law of restoring the principal plus a fifth, in kind, holds good only when the terumah is misappropriated unwittingly, the restoration being for the purpose of atonement. But when one appropriates it deliberately his act constitutes larceny, and he must return its value in money, not in kind, as in all cases of larceny. Leaven during Passover, however, has no monetary value, all benefit thereof being interdicted: hence he is free from payment.