Pesachim 31a — the Talmud in English

And

for this reason,

the creditor comes and redeems

[redeems] it from the hekdesh for a small amount, and afterwards forecloses it.

And as we hold: if hekdesh worth one hundred maneh was redeemed with something worth one peruta, it is redeemed.

And although ordinarily it is forbidden to redeem hekdesh for less than its value, because of the robbery of hekdesh, here it is different. For the creditor has the right to remove the land from the possession of hekdesh because of his lien even without redemption, just as he forecloses it from purchasers. And only so that people should not say, “Hekdesh goes out without redemption,” do they require him to redeem it. Therefore, any redemption whatsoever is sufficient for him.

And

as we learned:

a borrower who consecrated all his property, which was worth ninety maneh, while his debt was worth one hundred maneh,

adds

the creditor and lends the borrower

another dinar,

with which he

redeems all these properties,

and collects them through his debt! And although as a matter of strict law the creditor should collect them entirely without redemption, this may not be done, so that people should not say, “Hekdesh goes out without redemption”!

And this is so according to everyone. This law does not depend on the dispute between Abaye and Rava above.

They disagree

when

a creditor sells

or

consecrates

[consecrates] the

creditor’s

land of the borrower [to the amount of the debt] before he collected it through his lien, and ultimately the repayment date arrived and the borrower did not repay him. And after he collected the land from the borrower, the creditor wants to retract the consecration.

To

Abaye, who

who

said, “A

debtor’s creditor

collects retroactively,” the creditor’s sale or consecration has already taken effect, and he can no longer retract it.

For

once its time arrived

for repayment

and he did not repay him, it became clear

retroactively

retroactively that from the beginning

[from the time of the loan]

it had been in his domain

of the creditor

it had stood: this land that he is now collecting through his debt. It follows that when he sold or consecrated it, it was his,

as this land, which he now collects toward his debt. It follows that when he sold or consecrated it, it was his;

and he consecrated properly, and he sold properly.

But

to

Rava, who

who

said, “A

debtor’s creditor

collects from then onward,” the creditor cannot sell or consecrate the borrower’s land before he collects it.

the creditor cannot sell or consecrate the borrower’s land before collecting it.

Since, if he had

the borrower

money

at the time of repayment, he

would have removed them

from the creditor, by paying him his debt

with money.

It follows that before the repayment date, it was still not clear to us that this land would ever come into the creditor’s possession through collection.

It is found

[it is found]

that

only

now,

at the time of collection,

the creditor acquires

the land, and not before then. Therefore, his sale or consecration is of no effect.

[And specifically when he consecrated the land, he accomplished nothing. But if he consecrated or sold the debt, the purchaser or the hekdesh acquired it, and they collect it].

And we challenge:

And did Rava say this?

But Rami bar Hama said: Reuven who sold a field to Shimon with a guarantee

[that if the seller’s creditors foreclose the field from the purchaser, the seller will compensate him with money], and Shimon did not have money with which to pay the seller the price of the land,

and

for this reason

he recorded it as a loan against him,

and wrote him a promissory note for it and placed a lien on his property for this debt—there is here a debt against a debt. The seller owes the purchaser the guarantee payment, and the purchaser owes the seller the price of the land.

And

afterwards

Reuven died. And

afterwards

Reuven’s creditor came and foreclosed it

this land

from Shimon

through his debt.

And Shimon came and appeased him

[appeased] the creditor

with money

so that he would return the land to him.

It is the law that Reuven’s sons come

the seller, and collect from Shimon the debt of the sale price that he became obligated to their father. The purchaser cannot retain this money because of the guarantee debt that their father became obligated to him. Nor can he say, “The money that I became obligated to pay your father, I gave to his creditor” [Tosafot].

Because

they say to him

Reuven’s sons say to the purchaser:

We have left movable property of our father with you.

For you were obligated to pay him money, and he bequeathed to us the right to collect the movable property in your possession through this debt. In contrast, you do not have the right to collect from this movable property in payment of the debt that our father became obligated to pay you. For

orphans’ movable property is not liened to a creditor!

For a creditor forecloses only land that fell to the orphans by inheritance from their father, the borrower, because a lien had already taken effect on the land during the father’s lifetime. But movable property, in which the law of a property lien does not apply, can be collected only from the borrower himself, by virtue of the bodily obligation.

And Rava said:

All this applies only when the purchaser paid the orphans with movable property. But

if he is clever,

he,

Shimon,

the purchaser, should say to them, “I have no money.” And

he gives them land

in payment of the debt of the purchase price.

And then he collects it

back, that same land,

from them,

because of the debt that their father owes him. For land is properly liened to a creditor.

And

as Rav Naḥman said: Orphans who collected land

from their father’s borrower

for

the sake of

their father’s debt, and their father owed a debt to another person, that

creditor comes back and collects it from them

through his debt! Even though the land never came into their father’s possession.

for his debt, even though the land never came into their father’s possession.

And here too, the purchaser can collect back from the orphans the land that they collected from him through their father’s debt, because of the guarantee debt that their father owed him.

And we conclude the challenge:

Granted if you say, “A

debtor’s creditor

collects retroactively,”

[therefore] the creditor

comes back and collects it

[the land that the orphans collected from the borrower]

from them,

because of their father’s debt.

For

this

is as though they collected it

from him

during their father’s lifetime.

Because it becomes clear retroactively that from the time their father lent the money, this land of the borrower had already been acquired by him, and consequently it had already become liened during his lifetime to his creditor.

But if you say

that everyone who collects land through his debt

“collects from then onward,” why

does their father’s

creditor come back and collect it from them?

For this land never belonged to their father, and it did not become liened to his creditor.

For this is like property purchased

[that they acquired],

the orphans acquired property,

and it did not come to them by inheritance from their father.

And if orphans acquire property, does it become liened to a creditor?!

Is it not obvious that only land that belonged to the borrower during his lifetime becomes liened?

If so, this is difficult: how did Rava hold that “orphans who collected land through their father’s debt—the creditor comes back and collects it from them”? Does he not hold, “A debtor’s creditor collects from then onward”?

And we answer:

That case is different,

for Shimon comes back and collects the land that the orphans collected from him, not because he collects retroactively, but because

he says to them

the creditor says to the orphans:

Just as

I

am liened to your father,

I

am likewise liened to your father’s creditor

[who is I myself]

by

the law

of Rabbi Natan!

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where do we know that

Reuven

who is owed

a debt

by

Shimon,

and

Shimon,

his fellow,

is owed an unpaid debt by

his fellow

who

[Reuven lent to Shimon, and Shimon lent to Levi],

that they take it from this one

[from Levi]

and give it to that one

[to Reuven]?—

As it is said: “And he shall give it to the one to whom he is indebted”!

Since it is not written, “to the one to whom he lent,” but “to the one to whom he is indebted,” this indicates that they give it to the one to whom the principal belongs—that is, to the one whose the original money was. “Indebted” means the principal. Since Levi is liened to Shimon, and Shimon is liened to Reuven, Levi’s property becomes liened directly to Reuven.

Therefore, the father’s creditor collects from the orphans the land that they collected from their father’s borrower. And although this land was never in the father’s possession, it becomes liened to the father’s creditor even while it is still in the possession of the father’s borrower. For because the borrower became liened to the father, and the father became liened to the creditor, the second borrower becomes liened directly to the first creditor, as we said.

And likewise with a purchaser and a seller. Since the purchaser’s land is liened to the seller for payment of the purchase price, and the seller is liened to the purchaser for payment of the guarantee, the purchaser says to the orphans: Since I am owed by your father, everyone who is liened to him becomes liened directly to me. And if I am the one who is obligated to your father, my property becomes liened to myself, although it never entered your father’s possession. For what difference is there whether the borrower’s borrower is a third person or whether he is the creditor himself?

And we further challenge Rava:

We learned: A gentile who lent money to a Jew against his hametz—after Passover it is permitted

the hametz

for benefit!

And it entered our minds that the Jew did not deliver the hametz to him, but it was still in the Jew’s house. And he made the hametz collateral for the gentile, so that if he did not repay him by the appointed time, he would come and collect it.

Granted if you say, “A

debtor’s creditor

collects retroactively,”

this hametz is considered gentile hametz over which Passover passed. Since in the end the Jew did not repay him the debt with something else, it becomes clear retroactively that from the time of the loan the gentile acquired the hametz.

And for this reason

[and therefore]

it is permitted

the hametz

for benefit.

But if you say

“from this point onward he collects,” why

he

is it permitted for benefit?

For it is Israelite hametz over which Passover has passed. For

it stood in the domain of the Israelite

until the time of collection. And it is acquired by the gentile only from the time that he collects it, after Passover.

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here? When he pledged it

the Israelite pledged the hametz as collateral

to him

[to the gentile], and it was lying in the gentile’s house from the time of the loan! And it now enters our mind that he placed it with him as collateral. And although if he repays him with another thing, he will return the collateral to him, nevertheless, as long as it is in his possession, he is considered its owner. And as explained below, a creditor acquires the collateral. And for this reason it is considered gentile hametz.

And we inquire:

Let us say

the dispute of Abaye and Rava

as

the dispute of

the tannaim

it is.

For it was taught:

An Israelite who lent money to a gentile

money

against his hametz

[who made his hametz collateral to the Israelite for the debt], if the Israelite benefits from it

after Passover, he does not transgress

the prohibition of hametz over which Passover has passed. For it is not Israelite hametz.

In the name of Rabbi Meir they say:

if he benefits from it, he

transgresses

this prohibition.

Is it not

when the gentile did not pledge the hametz to the Israelite, but it was lying in the gentile’s domain during Passover. And

in this they disagree. One

[Rabbi Meir]

holds

that a creditor

collects retroactively!

And although it was in the gentile’s domain, since in the end it came into the possession of the Israelite for collection, it was acquired by him retroactively, already from the time of the loan.

And the other

[the first tanna]

holds

that a creditor

collects from this point onward!

And since at the time of Passover it had not yet come into his possession for collection, this is gentile hametz, which is permitted for benefit.

And we reject this:

And can you understand it so?

It cannot be said in this manner. For

say the latter clause: But a gentile who lent to an Israelite against his hametz—

if he benefits from it

after Passover, according to everyone

he

transgresses

the prohibition of hametz over which Passover has passed!

And if they disagree over whether he collects retroactively or not,

the opposite

from the first clause

should have been required

to be stated in the latter clause.

According to the one who says there

[in the first clause, in the case of an Israelite who lent to a gentile]

that he does not transgress

after Passover, he holds “from this point onward he collects,” and for this reason during the days of Passover it is considered gentile hametz. And if so,

here

[in the latter clause, in the case of a gentile who lent to an Israelite] one should say that he

transgresses

concerning it after Passover! For during the days of Passover it was still the Israelite’s.

And

according to the one who says there

[in the case of an Israelite who lent to a gentile] that he

transgresses, he holds “he collects retroactively.” And if so,

he holds that “he collects retroactively.” If so,

here

[in the case of a gentile who lent to an Israelite] one should say that he

does not transgress

after Passover. For it was acquired by the gentile from the time of the loan.