## Pesachim Daf 31b

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

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִרְהִינוֹ אֶצְלוֹ, וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁקּוֹנֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְךָ תִּהְיֶה צְדָקָה״. אִם אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן — צְדָקָה מִנַּיִן? מִכָּאן לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁקּוֹנֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


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

תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: הָנֵי מִילֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הוּא, דְּקָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וּלְךָ תִּהְיֶה צְדָקָה״, אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִגּוֹי — לָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל קָנֵי, יִשְׂרָאֵל מִגּוֹי לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?! אֲבָל גּוֹי שֶׁהִלְוָה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל חֲמֵצוֹ — אַחַר הַפֶּסַח דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל עוֹבֵר. הָתָם וַדַּאי גּוֹי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל לָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

תְּנַן: גּוֹי שֶׁהִלְוָה יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל חֲמֵצוֹ — אַחַר הַפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. נְהִי נָמֵי דְּהִרְהִינוֹ אֶצְלוֹ, הָא אָמְרַתְּ גּוֹי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל לָא קָנֵי? לָא קַשְׁיָא הָא — דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״, הָא — דְּלָא אָמַר לֵיהּ ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

ומְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁנֵי לֵיהּ בֵּין הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ וּבֵין הֵיכָא דְּלָא אָמַר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״, דְּתַנְיָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהִרְהִין פַּת פּוּרְנִי אֵצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל — אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר, וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ ״הִגַּעְתִּיךָ״ — עוֹבֵר. מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שָׁאנֵי הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ לְהֵיכָא דְּלָא אָמַר לֵיהּ ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 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.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲנוּת שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמְלַאי שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּפוֹעֲלֵי גוֹיִם נִכְנָסִין לְשָׁם — חָמֵץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא שָׁם אַחַר הַפֶּסַח אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בַּאֲכִילָה. חֲנוּת שֶׁל גּוֹי וּמְלַאי שֶׁל גּוֹי וּפוֹעֲלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִכְנָסִין וְיוֹצְאִין לְשָׁם — חָמֵץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא שָׁם אַחַר הַפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בַּהֲנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** חָמֵץ שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלָיו מַפּוֹלֶת הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוֹעָר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁאֵין הַכֶּלֶב יָכוֹל לְחַפֵּשׂ אַחֲרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל בְּלִבּוֹ. תָּנָא: כַּמָּה חֲפִישַׂת הַכֶּלֶב — שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל כְּסָפִים אֵין לָהֶם שְׁמִירָה אֶלָּא בַּקַּרְקַע, מִי בָּעֵינַן שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים אוֹ לָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָכָא מִשּׁוּם רֵיחָא בָּעֵינַן שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים. הָתָם מִשּׁוּם אִיכַּסּוֹיֵי מֵעֵינָא הוּא, וְלָא בָּעֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַפְרָם בַּר פָּפָּא מִסִּיכְרָא: טֶפַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ, בְּמֵזִיד — פָּטוּר מִתַּשְׁלוּמִין וּמִדְּמֵי עֵצִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

**גְּמָ׳** תְּנַן הָתָם: הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה בְּשׁוֹגֵג — מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ, אֶחָד הָאוֹכֵל וְאֶחָד הַשּׁוֹתֶה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.