## Pesachim Daf 31a

###### Pesachim 31a:1
[Pesachim 31a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/31a:1)

וְאָתֵי מַלְוֶה וּפָרֵיק. דִּתְנַן: מוֹסִיף עוֹד דִּינָר וּפוֹדֶה אֶת הַנְּכָסִים הָאֵלּוּ. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דְּזַבֵּין מַלְוֶה, וְקַדֵּישׁ מַלְוֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or** if the debtor consecrated the property, the creditor can **come and redeem** it through a symbolic payment to the Temple. **As we learned** in a mishna: The creditor may **add an additional dinar** to the amount of the loan **and redeem this property.** Although strictly speaking he need not redeem it, this payment was instituted so that it would not appear as though property were removed from the consecrated Temple jurisdiction without a payment. **When they disagree** is in a case **when the creditor sold or consecrated** the property in the interim between the giving of the collateral and the time the loan was due.


###### Pesachim 31a:2
[Pesachim 31a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/31a:2)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר, לְמַפְרֵעַ הוּא גּוֹבֶה: כֵּיוָן דִּמְטָא זִמְנֵיהּ וְלָא פַּרְעֵיהּ, אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא לְמַפְרֵעַ דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ הֲוָה קָאֵי, וְשַׁפִּיר אַקְדֵּישׁ, וְשַׁפִּיר זַבֵּין. וְרָבָא אָמַר, מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא הוּא גּוֹבֶה: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ הֲווֹ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי, הֲוָה מְסַלֵּיק לְהוּ בְּזוּזֵי — אִישְׁתְּכַח דְּהַשְׁתָּא קָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: He retroactively acquires** the collateral. **Since the time arrived and he did not repay** his loan, **it has become clear retroactively that it was in** the creditor’s **jurisdiction at the outset.** Therefore, **he did well to consecrate or sell** it. However, **Rava said: He collects it from that point forward, since if the** borrower **had money he would remove the** creditor’s lien **with** this **money** and the lender would not acquire the property. **It is found** that the creditor **acquires** the property **now,** at the time when the loan is due, and consequently he did not have the right to consecrate or sell it before this time.


###### Pesachim 31a:3
[Pesachim 31a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/31a:3)

וּמִי אָמַר רָבָא הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן בְּאַחְרָיוּת וּזְקָפָן עָלָיו בְּמִלְוֶה, וּמֵת רְאוּבֵן, וַאֲתָא בַּעַל חוֹב דִּרְאוּבֵן וְטָרֵיף לֵיהּ מִשִּׁמְעוֹן, וַאֲתָא שִׁמְעוֹן וּפַיְּיסֵיהּ בְּזוּזֵי —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Before bringing proofs for either side of this dispute, the Gemara attempts to clarify Rava’s position. **Did Rava** actually **say this?** A statement he makes in a different context appears to contradict the one made in his name here. **But didn’t Rami bar Ḥama say: Reuven sold a field to Shimon with a guarantee** that if the field is repossessed, Reuven will compensate Shimon for his loss. Shimon did not pay for the purchase, and instead **set up** the value of the field **as a loan.** In the meantime, **Reuven died and a creditor of Reuven’s came** to collect for a loan that Reuven had taken before he sold the field, as Reuven had no other land remaining, and he **seized** the land **from Shimon,** since it was mortgaged to this loan. **And Shimon went and appeased** the creditor **with money** so the creditor would allow him to keep this field.


###### Pesachim 31a:4
[Pesachim 31a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/31a:4)

דִּינָא הוּא דְּאָתוּ בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ לְשִׁמְעוֹן: אֲנַן, מִטַּלְטְלֵי שְׁבַק אֲבוּן גַּבָּךְ, וּמִטַּלְטְלֵי דְיַתְמֵי לְבַעַל חוֹב לָא מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**By right, Reuven’s sons** can **come and say to Shimon** that he must pay them the money that he owes for the field. And they are not required to pay Shimon if he demands compensation for the repossession of his field. They can say that **our father left us movable property in your hands,** i.e., the money you owe us for the field, **and,** as a general rule, **movable property that has been left to orphans is not mortgaged to a creditor.** The orphans can claim that the field belongs to Shimon, and as there is no land left for the orphans, there is no way for Shimon to recover the compensation that he is owed. The money he owes Reuven is considered movable property, and therefore he cannot recover his losses from these funds.


###### Pesachim 31a:5
[Pesachim 31a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/31a:5)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: אִי פִּיקֵּחַ שִׁמְעוֹן — מַגְבֵּי לְהוּ אַרְעָא, וַהֲדַר גָּבֵי לַהּ מִינַּיְיהוּ. דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: יְתוֹמִים שֶׁגָּבוּ קַרְקַע בְּחוֹבַת אֲבִיהֶם — בַּעַל חוֹב חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה אוֹתָהּ מֵהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said** with regard to this case: **If Shimon is clever he will pay them** what he owes with **real estate** and not with money. Since they now have real estate received from their father’s estate, Shimon **can then collect** the field **from them** as compensation for the original field that Reuven sold to Shimon. **As Rav Naḥman said:** When **orphans collect real estate for a debt owed to their father** from one person, another **creditor can come and seize this** land **from them** in order to repay the father’s debt.


###### Pesachim 31a:6
[Pesachim 31a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/31a:6)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא ״לְמַפְרֵעַ הוּא גּוֹבֶה״, אַמְּטוּ לְהָכִי חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה אוֹתָהּ מֵהֶן — דִּכְמַאן דְּגָבוּ מֵחַיִּים דַּאֲבוּהוֹן דָּמֵי. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא הוּא גּוֹבֶה״, אַמַּאי חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה אוֹתָהּ מֵהֶן? הָא הָוֵי כְּמַאן דִּזְבֵין יַתְמֵי נִכְסֵי דָּמֵי, וְאִילּוּ קָנֵי יַתְמֵי נִכְסֵי, מִי קָא מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדִי לְבַעַל חוֹב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara applies this discussion to our original case. **Granted, if you say** that a creditor **collects retroactively,** and the field is considered as though it belonged to the creditor from the time of the loan, **due to this** reason, **he can then collect** the money **from them, because it is considered as though he collected it during their father’s lifetime.** Because the field given by Shimon to repay his debt retroactively belonged to Reuven from the time that Shimon agreed to pay for the field, therefore Shimon can now claim this land from Reuven’s heirs. **However, if you say** that **he collects** it **from this point forward, why can he then collect** this land **from them? It is as though the orphans purchased this property. And if orphans buy property, does** it become **indebted to a creditor** of their father? Only property that belonged to the father can be seized in order to pay back his debt, and therefore Rava’s statement in the case appears to contradict his statement with regard to the transfer of ownership of collateral.


###### Pesachim 31a:7
[Pesachim 31a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/31a:7)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר לְהוּ: כִּי הֵיכִי דְּמִשְׁתַּעְבַּדְנָא לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּכוֹן, מִשְׁתַּעְבַּדְנָא נָמֵי לְבַעַל חוֹב דַּאֲבוּכוֹן — מִדְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לַנּוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ מָנֶה וַחֲבֵירוֹ בַּחֲבֵירוֹ, שֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין מִזֶּה וְנוֹתְנִין לָזֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנָתַן לַאֲשֶׁר אָשַׁם לוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resolves this contradiction: **It is different there,** in this case, **as** Shimon could have **said to** Reuven’s children that **just as I am indebted to your father, so too, I am indebted to your father’s creditor.** And this principle can be learned **from** the statement **of Rabbi Natan** that one who lends to one person and borrows from another can be considered as a middleman between his creditor and his borrower. **As it was taught** in a *baraita*, **Rabbi Natan says: From where** is it derived **that when one lends one hundred** dinar **[*maneh*] to his fellow, and that fellow** lends a similar sum **to** a third **fellow, that we take** the money **from this one,** the second debtor, **and give it to that one,** the first creditor, without going through the middleman, who is both the first debtor and the second creditor? **The verse states: “And he shall give it to him whom he has wronged”** (Numbers 5:7), which indicates that the loan should be repaid to the creditor to whom the money is ultimately owed. Therefore, payment is made to the original creditor regardless of the issue of retroactive acquisition of the collateral.


###### Pesachim 31a:8
[Pesachim 31a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/31a:8)

תְּנַן: גּוֹי שֶׁהִלְוָה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל חֲמֵצוֹ — אַחַר הַפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא ״לְמַפְרֵעַ הוּא גּוֹבֶה״ — אַמְּטוּ לְהָכִי מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to bring proofs for the two sides of the question of retroactive acquisition. **We learned** in the mishna: If **a gentile lent money to a Jew,** and the Jew gave him **leavened bread as** collateral during Passover, and **after Passover** the gentile attained this leavened bread in lieu of payment, then **one is permitted to** derive **benefit from** the leavened bread. The Gemara attempts to clarify this position: **Granted, if you say** that **he retroactively collects** this property, and the leavened bread was acquired retroactively by the gentile, **it is due to this** that **one is permitted to** derive **benefit from it** after Passover.


###### Pesachim 31a:9
[Pesachim 31a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/31a:9)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא הוּא גּוֹבֶה״, אַמַּאי מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה? בִּרְשׁוּתָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֲוָה קָאֵי! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּשֶׁהִרְהִינוֹ אֶצְלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** that **he collects it from this point forward,** then **why** should **one be permitted to** derive **benefit from** this leavened bread? The leavened bread **was in the possession of a Jew** during Passover, and therefore it should be forbidden. The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** With a case where **he deposited [*hirhin*]** the leavened bread **with** the gentile in his home, and since the leavened bread was in the gentile’s possession during Passover, it is considered as if it belonged to the gentile, provided the gentile ultimately retains ownership of the leavened bread when the Jew defaults on the loan.


###### Pesachim 31a:10
[Pesachim 31a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/31a:10)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִלְוָה לְגוֹי עַל חֲמֵצוֹ — לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר אָמְרוּ: עוֹבֵר. מַאי לָאו, בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר לְמַפְרֵעַ הוּא גּוֹבֶה, וּמָר סָבַר מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא הוּא גּוֹבֶה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this dispute is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** As it was taught: If **a Jew lends money to a gentile** and the gentile gives him **leavened bread as** collateral, **then** the Jew **does not commit any transgression after Passover. They said in the name of Rabbi Meir that he commits a transgression. What, isn’t it that they disagree about this, that one Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** that the Jew transgresses by owning leavened bread **because he retroactively collects** the leavened bread and has therefore owned it during Passover, **and one Sage,** who states that the Jew does not commit a transgression, **holds** that **he collects it from this point forward,** and therefore it was not considered to be in his possession during Passover?


###### Pesachim 31a:11
[Pesachim 31a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/31a:11)

וְתִסְבְּרָא? אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אֲבָל גּוֹי שֶׁהִלְוָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל חֲמֵצוֹ — לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל עוֹבֵר. וְהָא אִיפְּכָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָתָם ״אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר״ — הָכָא עוֹבֵר. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָתָם ״עוֹבֵר״ — הָכָא אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this explanation: **And** how can **you understand** it that way? **Say the latter clause** of that *baraita*: **However, if a gentile lends** money **to a Jew with leavened bread** as collateral, then **after Passover everyone agrees that he commits a transgression. However,** if the preceding explanation is correct, **it needed** to state **the opposite** of what it said in the first clause, as the case in the latter clause is the reverse of that in the first clause. Namely, **according to the one who said there,** in the first clause of the *baraita*, that **he does not commit a transgression,** he should say that **here,** in this case, **he does commit a transgression. And according to the one who said there,** in the first clause of the *baraita*, that **he does commit a transgression,** he should say that **here,** in the latter clause, **he does not commit a transgression.** For if the creditor retroactively acquires the collateral, then it is as though it belonged to a gentile during Passover, and therefore the Jew would not have committed a transgression by owning it.