Pesachim 31b (לא:) — the Talmud in English

And we conclude:

Rather:

everyone agrees that a creditor collects from this point onward. And

here, with what are we dealing? It is a case where he handed over

the leavened food to the lender as collateral [to the lender], and it is a pledge in his possession.

And they disagree

about the law

of Rabbi Yitzḥak.

For Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where is it derived that a creditor acquires a pledge,

and it is considered his property, and not merely a deposit in his possession? —

As it is stated

concerning a lender who took the borrower’s garment for the night as a pledge: “You shall return, yes, return the pledge to him when the sun sets, and he shall lie in his garment and bless you,

and it shall be charity for you

before the Lord your God.”

And since the return of the pledge is called “charity,” apparently the lender is considered to be giving the borrower something of his own. And

if

the lender

does not acquire

the

pledge,

“charity”

from where?

But it belongs to the borrower. Rather,

from here it is derived that a creditor acquires

the

pledge.

Therefore, when he returns the pledged garment to him so that he can sleep in it, he performs an act of charity for him by lending him something that belongs to him.

And for this reason, the law governing a lender is not like that governing an unpaid bailee or a paid bailee, who are exempt in cases of unavoidable circumstances. Rather, the pledge is entirely in his domain. And if it is lost through circumstances beyond his control, he is liable for it . And likewise, it is in his domain with regard to the prohibition of “bal yera’e” .

However,

the first tanna holds that this statement,

that a creditor acquires a pledge, applies specifically when a

Jew

who borrowed

from a Jew

of another, and left him a pledge. For in such a case we apply the verse, “and it shall be charity for you.” For this is the situation addressed by the verse concerning the return of the pledge.

But

the verse does not address a

Jewish lender

who took a pledge

from a

borrower who is a

gentile.

Therefore,

he does not acquire

the pledge from him, and it is not considered his property. And for this reason he holds that if he pledged leavened food for the duration of Passover, it is not prohibited as leavened food that remained in a Jew’s possession over Passover . For it is the gentile’s leavened food .

And Rabbi Meir holds,

that a Jew acquires even a gentile’s pledge. For it follows by

kal va-chomer

that if

a Jew acquires from a Jew

a pledge,

is it not all the more so that a Jew acquires from a gentile?!

For the Jew’s power is no weaker than the gentile’s power .

But

in the latter clause, which concerns a

gentile who lent to a Jew against his leavened food

and took it as a pledge, there

everyone agrees

that it is considered the Jew’s leavened food, and he

transgresses

because of it . For it is specifically a Jew who acquires a pledge. But

there, certainly,

a

gentile does not acquire from a Jew.

And we challenge this: We learned in the Mishna: If a gentile lent to a Jew against his leavened food, after Passover the leavened food is permitted for benefit! And it was explained above that this refers to a case in which the gentile took the leavened food as a pledge. Since a creditor acquires a pledge, it is considered like a gentile’s leavened food that remained over Passover, and it is permitted.

But according to what was explained in the beraita above, this is difficult. For

even if you say that he handed it over to him as a pledge, you have said

that a

gentile

who took a pledge

from a Jew,

according to everyone,

does not acquire

the pledge.

And we answer:

This is not difficult. This

case in the Mishna, in which the gentile acquires the pledge, refers to a case in which he

said to him—the Jew said to the gentile: If I do not repay you the debt by such-and-such a day, the pledge will belong to you

“If I do not repay you the debt by a certain date, the collateral will belong to you”

from now !

And he does not acquire it by virtue of the law of Rabbi Yitzḥak. Rather, the Jew transferred ownership of it to him by a complete act of acquisition from the time of the loan. And if in the end he did not repay him, it was certainly the gentile’s leavened food from the outset.

And

this beraita, which states that a gentile does not acquire from a Jew, refers to a case in which

in the beraita in which a gentile does not acquire collateral from a Jew concerns one who

he did not say to him “from now”!

Rather, he subjected it to a lien for him, so that if he did not repay him, he would collect the pledge from the time of repayment onward. Since he did not transfer ownership of it from the time of the loan, and the law that a creditor acquires a pledge does not apply to a gentile, it is the Jew’s leavened food. Therefore, he transgresses because of it .

We inquire about this:

And from where do you say

[where do you derive this]

that even when he handed it over to him as a pledge,

even when the Jew pledged it to the gentile,

that

is

I distinguish between a case in which the borrower said

to the lender that he should acquire the pledge

“from now,”

as opposed

and a case in which he did not say

to him

“from now”?!

For when he said “from now,” even a gentile acquires the pledge.

And we answer: We learn this from

that which was taught in a beraita: A gentile who pledged

[gave as a pledge]

a large loaf

[a large loaf of bread; the beraita mentions the usual case, since because of its importance he takes it as a pledge]

to a Jew,

and it remained with him during Passover,

the

Jew does not

transgress

because of it under the prohibition of “bal yera’e.” This is in accordance with the first tanna of the beraita, who holds that a Jewish creditor does not acquire a pledge from a gentile.

And if he said to him—the gentile said to him—

the gentile

“It has reached you,”

[meaning: If I do not repay you at the end, I am paying you from now with this pledge what is due to you for the debt],

the Jew transgresses

because of this leavened food ! We inquire about this:

What is different in the first clause,

in which he does not transgress,

and what is different in the latter clause,

in which he transgresses?

And we prove:

Rather, conclude from here

that

it is different when he said to him

“from now,” from

when

he did not say to him

“from now”! And in the latter clause, where the gentile said to him, “It has reached you,” meaning that he transfers ownership to him from now, the Jew acquires the pledge even from a gentile .

Although he acquires the leavened food only if he does not repay him from another source, and he still does not know whether he will repay him or not, nevertheless he may not leave the leavened food in his possession during Passover. Perhaps he will not repay him, and it will emerge that he retroactively transgressed “bal yera’e.”

And we conclude:

Conclude from here!

The Sages taught: If a Jewish store, and

also the

stock

[the wine and bread sold there], is

owned by a Jew,

and gentile laborers enter there—

leavened food found there

in the store

after Passover

is

forbidden for benefit. And it is unnecessary

to say that it is

forbidden to eat!

For one cannot attribute it to the gentile laborers; rather, presumably it came from the stock in the store. It is a Jew’s leavened food , which is forbidden after Passover .

A gentile store, and

even the

stock

is

owned by a gentile, and Jewish laborers enter and leave there—

leavened food found there after Passover

is

permitted to eat. And it is unnecessary to say

that it is permitted

for benefit!

For we attribute it to the gentile’s stock. Leavened food belonging to a gentile that remained over Passover is permitted for benefit .

Mishna:

Leavened food over which a landslide fell

is not subject to the prohibition of owning leavened food during Passover, because

it is considered as having been removed!

Therefore, one need not clear away the landslide from above it in order to destroy it.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

When is the leavened food considered as having been removed? —

Any

case in which a landslide fell over it

that a dog cannot

dig beneath it

and search for it

and find it.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Leavened food over which a landslide fell is considered as having been removed!

Rav Ḥisda said:

Although he does not transgress because of it under “bal yera’e,”

he must nullify it in his heart !

For we are concerned that perhaps he will clear away the landslide during the festival, and then transgress because of it under “bal yera’e” . For once he uncovers it, it is no longer considered removed.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any case in which a dog cannot search for it!

A tanna

taught:

How much

may the landslide be piled while still allowing

a dog’s search? —

Up to

three handbreadths!

For from this measure onward, a dog can no longer search for the leavened food and find it.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: As for that which Shmuel said,

“Money

of a deposit

can be safeguarded only in the ground,”

and if the bailee did not bury it in the ground and it was lost, he was negligent in guarding it and is liable to pay it—

do we require

there as well that it be buried to a depth of

three handbreadths

in the ground,

or not?

Rav Ashi said: It is not necessary to bury it three handbreadths deep, because it is not analogous to chametz.

Here

with chametz, is it not

because of its odor

that

we require

the collapse to be three handbreadths high,

three handbreadths!

For until this height, the dog can still smell the odor of the chametz, and it will dig after it and remove it. But

there

with regard to money, the requirement to bury it in the ground—is it not

because it must be concealed from sight

[so that it will be hidden from people’s eyes]? Therefore,

it is not necessary

to bury it to a depth of

three

handbreadths.

And we raised the question:

How much

is the depth required for burying money?

Rafram bar Pappa of Sikhraya

[a place-name] said: A depth of

one handbreadth!

Mishna:

A non-koen who unwittingly eats teruma pays the koen produce equivalent to the amount of produce that he ate, plus a fifth. As it is written: “And if a person eats consecrated food unwittingly, he shall add its fifth to it, and give the consecrated food to the koen.”

He is obligated to pay specifically with something fit to be teruma, such as produce. That produce becomes teruma in place of the produce that he ate. The basis of this obligation is atonement.

This law applies only to one who eats teruma unwittingly. But one who eats it intentionally pays only the principal, as an ordinary robber would.

A non-koen

who eats teruma of chametz on Passover,

if he ate it

unwittingly

[because he was unaware of the prohibition against a non-koen eating teruma], he

pays

the koen

the principal and a fifth!

For this is the law governing a non-koen who eats teruma .

Although teruma of chametz on Passover is forbidden for benefit and has no monetary value whatsoever, one who eats it is obligated to pay the koen its equivalent. This is because the Torah obligated him to pay not its monetary value, but the measure of produce that he ate.

But one who eats teruma of chametz on Passover

intentionally,

is

exempt from payment!

For his obligation is only because of robbery, as stated. Since chametz on Passover is fit for nothing and has no monetary value, he caused the koen no loss.

He is exempt not only from the value of the produce, but even

from the value of wood!

He is unlike one who intentionally eats impure teruma: although it is unfit to eat, he is obligated to pay the koen the value of wood [since it is fit to be used as fuel beneath his cooked food]. Teruma of chametz, however, is forbidden for benefit and is not even fit to be used as fuel. Therefore, one who eats it intentionally is entirely exempt.

This is one interpretation of the Mishna. Another interpretation of the Mishna’s words will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned there: One who unwittingly eats teruma pays

the koen produce equivalent to the

principal

of the produce that he ate,

and

he adds to it

a fifth.