פסחים 31:2 — Soncino English Talmud

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,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:That whilst in his possession it is his, and he is responsible for all accidents.
^ᵇnote:Deut. XXIV, 13.
^ᶜnote:There is no particular righteousness in returning what does not belong to one.
^ᵈnote:The dictum of R. Isaac.
^ᵉnote:Therefore he does not transgress in respect of the leaven.
^ᶠnote:Hence the leaven stood in the ownership of the Israelite.
^ᵍnote:When he deposited the leaven with him he said to him, ‘If I do not repay by the stipulated time, the leaven is yours from now’. Hence the leaven stands in the lender's ownership, whether Jew or Gentile.
^ʰnote:Therefore, where the Gentile lent to the Jew, all agree that even if the debt was not repaid, the leaven may not be 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.
^ⁱnote:Purni was a large oven in which large loaves were baked. ‘Large loaves’ are mentioned as a natural thing, since only such are sufficiently valuable to be a pledge.
^ʲnote:From now, if I do not repay at the proper time.
^ᵏnote:In both cases we assume that the leaven was of the stock, and did not belong to one of the workers.
^ˡnote:Since it is inaccessible.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘whatever’.
^ⁿnote:Lest the debris be removed during the festival.
^ᵒnote:The leaven must be covered by not less than three handbreadths of debris; otherwise a dog can search it out, and it would therefore be necessary to remove the debris and destroy the leaven.
^ᵖnote:That is the only way in which a bailee can carry out his charge; otherwise he is guilty of negligence and liable for 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).
^ᵠnote:If the leaven is covered by less, a dog can smell it.
^ʳnote:A town S. of Mahuza.
^ˢnote:I.e., he did not know that it was terumah, even if he knew that it was leaven. Though leaven has no value during 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.
^ᵗnote:I.e., he knew that it was terumah, even if he did not know that it was leaven.
^ᵘnote:If the terumah was unclean, when it has no other value, since unclean terumah may not be eaten. The reason is this: 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.