Pesachim 31a (לא.) — the Talmud in English

And

therefore,

the creditor comes and redeems it

redeems] it from the hekdesh for a small amount, and afterward forecloses upon it.

And this is as we have established: if hekdesh worth one hundred maneh was redeemed for a peruta’s worth, it is redeemed.

Although, generally, it is forbidden to redeem hekdesh for less than its value, because this constitutes theft from hekdesh, here the matter is different. The creditor has the right to remove the land from the possession of hekdesh by virtue of his lien even without redeeming it, just as he forecloses upon land sold to purchasers. He is required to redeem it only so that people will not say: “Hekdesh has been removed without redemption.” Therefore, any redemption, however small, suffices for him.

And

as we learned:

If one who borrowed money consecrated all his property, which was worth ninety maneh, while his debt was worth one hundred maneh,

the creditor adds

and lends the borrower

another dinar,

with which he

redeems all this property,

and then collects it toward his debt! Although, according to the strict law, the creditor may collect it without any redemption at all, he may not do so, in order that people will not say: “Hekdesh has been removed without redemption!”

And this is the view of everyone; this law is not dependent upon the dispute between Abaye and Rava cited above.

They disagree

when

the creditor sells

or

consecrates

consecrates]

the creditor

the borrower’s land [to the extent of the debt] before collecting it by virtue of his lien, and ultimately the repayment date arrives and the borrower does not pay him. After the creditor collects the land from the borrower, he wishes to retract the consecration.

According to

Abaye,

who

said: “

A creditor

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

For

once its due date arrived

for repayment

and he did not pay him, it became clear

retroactively

that from the outset

from the time of the loan]

it had stood in his possession,

that of the creditor,

as

the land that he is now collecting toward his debt. It follows that when he sold or consecrated it, it was his;

and he consecrated it properly and sold it properly.

But

according to

Rava,

who

said: “

A creditor

collects from that point onward,”

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

Since, if the borrower had

had

money

at the time of repayment,

he could have removed it

by paying his debt to the creditor

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,

does the creditor acquire

the land, and not beforehand. Therefore, his sale or consecration has no effect.

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

And we raise an objection:

But did Rava really say this?

For Rami bar Ḥama said: If Reuben sold a field to Shimon with a guarantee

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

and

therefore

he converted it into a loan owed by him ,

and wrote him a promissory note for the amount and placed a lien on his property for this debt—there is here one debt against another debt. The seller owes the purchaser the guaranteed compensation, while the purchaser owes the seller the price of the land.

And

afterward

Reuben died. And

afterward

Reuben’s creditor came and foreclosed upon it

this land

from Shimon

for the debt.

And Shimon came and appeased him

appeased] the creditor

with money

so that he would return the land to him.

The law is that Reuben’s sons came

the seller’s sons, and collected from Shimon the debt consisting of the sale price that he had become obligated to pay their father. The purchaser cannot withhold this money on account of the guarantee debt that their father had incurred toward him. Nor can he say: “The money that I was obligated to pay your father, I gave to his creditor” [Tosafot].

Because

they say to him

Reuben’s sons say to the purchaser:

“We have movable property that our father left in your possession.”

For you owed him money, and he bequeathed to us the right to collect the movable property in your possession for this debt. By contrast, you do not have the right to collect this movable property toward the debt that our father owed you. For

the movable property of orphans is not subject to a creditor’s lien!

A creditor can foreclose only upon land that fell to the orphans as an inheritance from their father, the borrower, since a lien had already taken effect upon the land during the father’s lifetime. But with regard to movable property, which is not subject to a lien on property, the creditor can collect it only from the borrower himself, by virtue of the personal obligation .

And Rava said:

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

if

he is

a clever man,

Shimon, the purchaser, will say to them: “I have no money,”

and he will give them land

in repayment of the debt consisting of the purchase price.

And then he collects it

back, that same land,

from them,

for the debt that their father owed him. For land is properly subject to a creditor’s lien.

And this is

as Rav Naḥman said: If orphans collected land

from their father’s debtor

for

the sake of

their father’s debt,

and their father owed a debt to another person, that

creditor returns and collects the land from them

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

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

And we conclude the resolution of the objection:

Granted, if you say: “

A creditor

collects retroactively,” for this reason

[therefore] the creditor

returns and collects it

the land that the orphans collected from the debtor]

from them,

for their father’s debt.

For

this

is as though they collected it

from him

during their father’s lifetime.

Since it becomes clear retroactively that from the time their father lent the money, this land of the debtor had already belonged to him, it consequently became subject during his lifetime to a lien in favor of his creditor .

But if you say that anyone who collects land for his debt

that everyone who collects land through his debt

“collects from that point onward,” why

the father’s creditor

returns and collects it from them?

After all, this land never belonged to their father and never became subject to his creditor’s lien.

For this is as though

[they purchased]

the orphans purchased property,

rather than receiving it as an inheritance from their father.

And if orphans acquire property, does it become subject to a creditor’s lien?!

Obviously, only land that belonged to the borrower during his lifetime becomes subject to the lien.

If so, this is difficult: how could Rava maintain that “if orphans collected land for their father’s debt, the creditor returns and collects it from them,” when he holds that “a creditor collects from that point onward”?

And we answer:

There it is different,

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

the creditor says to them

the orphans:

“Just as

I

am subject to a lien in favor of your father,

I

am likewise subject to a lien in favor of your father’s creditor

who is I myself]

by virtue of

the law

of Rabbi Natan!”

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where do we know that

Reuben

who is owed

a debt

by

Shimon,

and

Shimon,

his fellow,

is owed a debt by Levi,

his fellow

for

Reuben lent money to Shimon, and Shimon lent money to Levi],

that they take it from this one

from Levi]

and give it to that one

to Reuben]?

As it is stated: “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 rather, “to the one to whom he is indebted,” this indicates that they give it to the one who owns the principal—that is, to the one whose money it originally was. “Indebted” refers to the principal. Since Levi is subject to a lien in favor of Shimon, and Shimon is subject to a lien in favor of Reuben, Levi’s property becomes subject directly to Reuben .

Therefore, the father’s creditor collects from the orphans the land that they collected from their father’s debtor. Although this land was never in the father’s possession, it becomes subject to his creditor’s lien even while it is still in the possession of the father’s debtor. Since the debtor became subject to a lien in favor of the father, and the father became subject to a lien in favor of his creditor, the second debtor becomes subject directly to the first creditor, as stated.

The same applies here to the purchaser and the seller. Since the purchaser’s land is subject to a lien in favor of the seller for payment of the purchase price, and the seller is subject to a lien in favor of the purchaser for payment of the guarantee, the purchaser says to the orphans: “Since I am owed a debt by your father, everyone who is subject to a lien in his favor is subject directly to me. And if I am the one who is obligated to your father, my property becomes subject to a lien in my own favor, even though it never entered your father’s possession. For what difference is there whether the debtor’s debtor is a third person or is the creditor himself?”

We further raise an objection against Rava:

We learned: If a gentile lent money to a Jew against his ḥametz, after Passover it is permitted

the ḥametz

for benefit!

And it entered our minds that the Jew did not hand the ḥametz over to him; rather, it remained in the Jew’s house. He placed the ḥametz under lien to the gentile, so that if he did not repay him by the appointed time, the gentile would come and collect it .

Granted, if you say: “

A creditor

collects retroactively,”

this ḥametz is considered ḥametz belonging to a gentile that remained over Passover . Since ultimately the Jew did not repay the debt with something else, it becomes clear retroactively that from the time of the loan the gentile acquired the ḥametz .

And for this reason

and therefore]

it is permitted

the ḥametz

for benefit .

But if you say

“the creditor collects from that point onward,” why

he

is it permitted to derive benefit from it?

It is, after all, a Jewish person’s leavened bread that remained in existence throughout Passover. For

it remained in the Jew’s possession

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

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here? With a case in which he pledged [

the Jew pledged the leavened bread as collateral ]

with him [

with the gentile ], and it had been lying in the gentile’s house from the time of the loan! And our present assumption is that he placed it with him as collateral. Although, if he repays him with something else, he will return the collateral to him, nevertheless, as long as it is in his possession, he is considered its owner. As explained below, a creditor acquires the collateral. Therefore, it is considered the gentile’s leavened bread.

And we ask:

Let us say

that the dispute between Abaye and Rava

as

the dispute of

the tannaim

is.

As it is taught in a beraita:

A Jew who lent money to a gentile

against

his leavened bread [

that he pledged to the Jew as security for the debt ], if the Jew derives benefit from it

after Passover, he does not transgress

the prohibition concerning leavened bread that remained in existence throughout Passover, because it is not a Jew’s leavened bread.

Rabbi Meir says:

If he derives benefit from it, he

transgresses

this prohibition .

Is it not

when the gentile did not pledge the leavened bread with the Jew, but it was lying in the gentile’s possession during Passover? And

in this they disagree. One [

Rabbi Meir ]

holds

that a creditor

collects retroactively!

Although it was in the gentile’s possession, once it ultimately came into the Jew’s collection, it had been acquired by him retroactively, from the time of the loan.

And the other [

the first tanna ]

holds

that a creditor

collects from that point onward!

Since, during Passover, it had not yet come into his collection, it is the gentile’s leavened bread, from which it is permitted to derive benefit.

And we reject this:

But can you understand it that way?

It cannot be said so, for

say the final clause: But in the case of a gentile who lent money to a Jew against his leavened bread—

if he derives benefit from it

after Passover, according to everyone

he

transgresses

the prohibition concerning leavened bread that remained in existence throughout Passover!

And if they disagree over whether the creditor collects retroactively or not,

the opposite

from the first clause

should have been required

to be stated in the final clause.

According to the one who says there [

in the first clause, concerning a Jew who lent money to a gentile ]

that he does not transgress

after Passover, he evidently holds that “the creditor collects from that point onward,” and therefore during the days of Passover it is considered the gentile’s leavened bread. If so,

here [

in the final clause, concerning a gentile who lent money to a Jew ] one should say that he

transgresses

concerning it after Passover, since during the days of Passover it still belonged to the Jew.

And

according to the one who says there [

in the case of a Jew who lent money to a gentile ] that he

transgresses,

he evidently holds that “the creditor collects retroactively.” If so,

here [

in the case of a gentile who lent money to a Jew ] one should say that he

does not transgress

concerning it after Passover, since it had been acquired by the gentile from the time of the loan.