אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהרהינו אצלו וקמיפלגי בדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק מנין לבעל חוב שקונה משכון שנאמר ולך תהיה צדקה אם אינו קונה משכון צדקה מנין מכאן לבעל חוב שקונה משכון
Rather, with what are we dealing here? With a situation where he, the gentile debtor, deposited the leavened bread that was serving as collateral with him, the Jewish creditor, and they disagree with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak. As Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where is it derived that a creditor acquires collateral given to him, and is considered its owner so long as the item is in his possession? As it is stated: “You shall surely return the pledge to him when the sun goes down, that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; and it shall be a righteousness for you before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 24:13). Rabbi Yitzḥak infers: If the creditor does not acquire the collateral, then from where is the righteousness involved in returning it? In this case, the creditor would not be giving up anything of his own. From here it is learned that a creditor acquires the collateral.
תנא קמא סבר הני מילי ישראל מישראל הוא דקרינא ביה ולך תהיה צדקה אבל ישראל מגוי לא קני
The Gemara applies this principle to the explanation of the baraita: The first tanna holds that this applies only when a Jew takes collateral from a fellow Jew, such that I would read and apply the verse “It shall be righteousness for you” and establish that the collateral becomes the property of the lender. However, the verse does not speak about the case where a Jew takes collateral from a gentile, and therefore he does not acquire the collateral; it still belongs to the gentile. Therefore, when a Jew has leavened bread as collateral from a gentile to whom he lent money on Passover, he does not violate any prohibition, as the collateral still belongs to the gentile.
ורבי מאיר סבר קל וחומר ישראל מישראל קני ישראל מגוי לא כל שכן אבל גוי שהלוה את ישראל על חמצו אחר הפסח דברי הכל עובר התם ודאי גוי מישראל לא קני
However, Rabbi Meir holds that one can derive an a fortiori inference: If a Jew acquires collateral from another Jew, all the more so is it not clear that he will he acquire collateral from a gentile? However, with regard to a gentile who lends money to a Jew with leavened bread as collateral, everyone agrees that he transgresses this prohibition after Passover. There, in that case, the gentile certainly does not acquire collateral from the Jew, and such a transaction could be completed only via the usual modes of acquisition.
תנן גוי שהלוה ישראל על חמצו אחר הפסח מותר בהנאה נהי נמי דהרהינו אצלו הא אמרת גוי מישראל לא קני לא קשיא הא דאמר ליה מעכשיו הא דלא אמר ליה מעכשיו
We learned in the mishna: If a gentile lent money to a Jew, and the Jew gave him leavened bread as collateral until after Passover, and after Passover he retains this leavened bread in lieu of payment, then one is permitted to derive benefit from this leavened bread. Even granted that this is referring to a case where he deposited the leavened bread with him, the gentile, didn’t you say that a gentile does not acquire collateral from a Jew, and if this is the case, then why is it permissible to derive benefit from this leavened bread? According to the previously stated principle, this leavened bread remains Jewish property. The Gemara resolves this question: This is not difficult, for this case, where the gentile acquires the leavened bread and therefore it is permitted to derive benefit from it, is when the gentile said to him that if he does not repay his loan, then the collateral will be acquired from now, i.e., from the time of the loan. And that case, where it is forbidden to derive benefit from the leavened bread, is when he did not say that it would be acquired from now by the gentile.
ומנא תימרא דשני ליה בין היכא דאמר מעכשיו ובין היכא דלא אמר מעכשיו דתניא גוי שהרהין פת פורני אצל ישראל אינו עובר ואם אמר לו הגעתיך עובר מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא אלא לאו שמע מינה שאני היכא דאמר ליה מעכשיו להיכא דלא אמר ליה מעכשיו שמע מינה
From where do you say that he distinguishes between a case where he said that the collateral would be acquired from now and a case where he did not say that it would be acquired from now? As it was taught in a baraita: If a gentile deposited with a Jew bread baked in an oven [purni] as collateral for a loan, then he, the Jew, does not transgress the prohibition it shall not be seen and the prohibition it shall not be found. However, if he said to him: I have made them yours from now if I do not repay my loan, then it is considered as though the bread belonged to the Jew, and he transgresses this prohibition. If one assumes that there is no difference between a case where the debtor says: From now, and a case where he doesn’t say: From now, then what is different in the first clause of the baraita and what is different in the latter clause? Rather, must one not conclude from it that there is a difference between a case where he says to him that it he will acquire it from now and a case where he does not say to him that he will acquire it from now? The Gemara concurs: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the case.
תנו רבנן חנות של ישראל ומלאי של ישראל ופועלי גוים נכנסין לשם חמץ שנמצא שם אחר הפסח אסור בהנאה ואין צריך לומר באכילה חנות של גוי ומלאי של גוי ופועלי ישראל נכנסין ויוצאין לשם חמץ שנמצא שם אחר הפסח מותר באכילה ואין צריך לומר בהנאה:
The Sages taught in the Tosefta: With regard to the case of a store owned by a Jew and whose contents belong to the Jew, and gentile workers would enter there periodically, then it is forbidden to derive benefit from the leavened bread that is found there after Passover, and needless to say, it is forbidden to eat this leavened bread, for it is presumed to belong to the Jewish owner. Conversely, if a store is owned by a gentile and its contents belong to the gentile, and Jewish workers enter and exit the store, then it can be presumed that the leavened bread that is found there after Passover belonged to the gentile, and therefore one is permitted to eat it after Passover. And needless to say, it is permitted to derive benefit from this leavened bread.
מתני׳ חמץ שנפלה עליו מפולת הרי הוא כמבוער רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כל שאין הכלב יכול לחפש אחריו:
MISHNA: Leavened bread upon which a rockslide has fallen is considered as though it has been eliminated, and it is not necessary to dig it up in order to burn it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any leavened bread that has been covered to such an extent that a dog cannot search after it is considered to have been eliminated.
גמ׳ אמר רב חסדא וצריך שיבטל בלבו תנא כמה חפישת הכלב שלשה טפחים
GEMARA: Rav Ḥisda said: Although it is not necessary to dig up the leavened bread, one is nevertheless required to nullify the leavened bread in his heart lest it become exposed during Passover. Although it may not be visible at the moment, this leavened bread may be uncovered during Passover, and he will transgress a prohibition by its being seen. It was taught in the Tosefta: How much, how deep, will a dog search? It will search three handbreadths deep.
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:
Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: With regard to that which Shmuel said, that deposited money is considered to be guarded securely by an unpaid bailee, who would nonetheless not be responsible if it were stolen, only when it is buried in the ground, is it necessary to bury this deposited money three handbreadths deep, comparable to leavened bread, or not? He said to him: Here, with regard to Passover, the concern is that the dog will find the food due to its smell, and therefore three handbreadths are required. There, in the case of money, it is necessary to bury the money in order to conceal it from view. Therefore it is not required to bury it three handbreadths deep, as animals will not search for it and people will not see it. The Gemara asks: If this is the case, then how deep is one required to bury it? Rafram bar Pappa from the city of Sikhra said: One handbreadth is sufficient for the money to be considered concealed.
מתני׳ האוכל תרומת חמץ בפסח בשוגג משלם קרן וחומש במזיד פטור מתשלומין ומדמי עצים:
MISHNA: If one unwittingly eats teruma of leavened bread on Passover, not realizing that the food was teruma, then he must pay the principal and an additional fifth. This is because one who unwittingly eats teruma must compensate the priest for the value of the teruma and add a fifth of the value, even though the teruma is considered to be valueless on Passover. If he intentionally ate the teruma then he is exempt from payment; as he is liable to receive the severe punishment of karet, he is therefore exempt from the lesser punishment of payment. If he ate impure teruma in this manner then he is not even required to pay its monetary value in wood, for one who derives benefit from impure teruma calculates its value by treating it as though it were fuel for burning. While impure teruma can be used in this manner during the rest of the year, one may not derive any benefit from leavened bread on Passover, and therefore such teruma is worthless.
גמ׳ תנן התם האוכל תרומה בשוגג משלם קרן וחומש אחד האוכל ואחד השותה
GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there, in Terumot: One who unwittingly eats teruma pays the principal and an additional fifth, both one who eats it, and one who drinks it.