Pesachim 61

ואתי מלוה ופריק דתנן מוסיף עוד דינר ופודה את הנכסים האלו כי פליגי דזבין מלוה וקדיש מלוה

and the creditor can come and redeem it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From hekdesh, at a mere trifle, not at its full value, so that some form of redemption may be observed.');">¹</span> for we learned: He adds another denar and redeems this property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Er. 23b. If the debtor dedicates to hekdesh property worth ninety manehs, while his debt is one hundred manehs, the creditor adds (i.e., gives) just one denar as a formal redemption and seizes it. Thus in both cases they agree that the pledge belonged retrospectively to the creditor.');">²</span>

אביי אמר למפרע הוא גובה כיון דמטא זמניה ולא פרעיה איגלאי מילתא למפרע דמעיקרא ברשותיה הוה קאי ושפיר אקדיש ושפיר זבין ורבא אמר מכאן ולהבא הוא גובה כיון דאילו הוו ליה זוזי הוה מסליק להו בזוזי אישתכח דהשתא קא קני

They differ where the creditor sold or dedicated [it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before he actually foreclosed.');">³</span> Abaye said: 'He collects retrospectively'; since the time [for payment] came and he did not repay him, the matter was retrospectively revealed that from the [very] beginning it stood in his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The creditor's.');">⁴</span>

ומי אמר רבא הכי והאמר רמי בר חמא ראובן שמכר שדה לשמעון באחריות וזקפן עליו במלוה ומת ראובן ואתא בעל חוב דראובן וטריף ליה משמעון ואתא שמעון ופייסיה בזוזי

possession, and he rightly dedicated or sold [it]. But Raba ruled: 'He collects from now and onwards'; since if he [the debtor] had money, he could have quitted him with money, it is found that he [the creditor] acquires it only now.

דינא הוא דאתו בני ראובן ואמרי ליה לשמעון אנן מטלטלי שבק אבון גבך ומטלטלי דיתמי לבעל חוב לא משתעבדי

Yet did Raba say thus? Surely Rami B'Hama said: if Reuben sold his estate to Simeon with security,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A guarantee to indemnify S. against loss if a creditor of R. should seize it for debt.');">⁵</span>

ואמר רבא אי פיקח שמעון מגבי להו ארעא והדר גבי לה מינייהו דאמר רב נחמן יתומים שגבו קרקע בחובת אביהם בעל חוב חוזר וגובה אותה מהן

and he [Simeon] set it [the money] up as a loan against himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' S. could not pay for the field, so he gave him an IOU for the sum, pledging his own property as security.');">⁶</span> then Reuben died, and Reuben's creditor came and seized [the estate] from Simeon, whereupon Simeon went and satisfied him with money, it is by right that the children of Reuben can go and say to Simeon, 'As for us, we [maintain that] our father left [us] movables in your possession, and the movables of orphans are not under lien to a creditor.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although their father had given security for this transaction, yet the orphans can plead, we inherited movables from our father which were in your possession, I.e., you merely owed him money, the field actually being yours; hence you should not have given that money to the creditor, because movables inherited by orphans are not subject to any lien; nor had you the right to withhold payment. Hence you still owe us the money.');">⁷</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא למפרע הוא גובה אמטו להכי חוזר וגובה אותה מהן דכמאן דגבו מחיים דאבוהון דמי אלא אי אמרת מכאן ולהבא הוא גובה אמאי חוזר וגובה אותה מהן הא הוי כמאן דזבין יתמי נכסי דמי ואילו קני יתמי נכסי מי קא משתעבדי לבעל חוב

Now Raba said: If Simeon is wise, he lets them seize the land, and then he reclaims it from them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he pleads that he has no money; hence they must take the field in payment. This will prove retrospectively that they had inherited land, not movables. Then he can demand its return, since their father had indemnified him against loss.');">⁸</span> For R'Nahman said: If orphans seize land for their father's debt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for a debt owing to their father.');">⁹</span>

שאני התם דאמר להו כי היכי דמשתעבדנא ליה לאבוכון משתעבדנא נמי לבעל חוב דאבוכון מדר' נתן דתניא רבי נתן אומר מנין לנושה בחבירו מנה וחבירו בחבירו שמוציאין מזה ונותנין לזה ת"ל (במדבר ה, ז) ונתן לאשר אשם לו

a creditor [of their father] can in turn seize it from them. Now, you agree that he [a creditor] collects retrospectively, it is right: for that reason he in turn can seize it fr them, because it is just as though they had seized it in their father's lifetime.

תנן נכרי שהלוה את ישראל על חמצו אחר הפסח מותר בהנאה אי אמרת בשלמא למפרע הוא גובה אמטו להכי מותר בהנאה

But if you say that he collect from now and henceforth, why can he in turn seize it from them: surely it is as though the orphans had bought [immovable] property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with the money owing to them they now purchased this estate.');">¹⁰</span> and if orphans buy [immovable] property, is it then under a lien to [their father's] creditor? - There it is different, because he can say to them, just as I was indebted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'pledged'.');">¹¹</span>

אלא אי אמרת מכאן ולהבא הוא גובה אמאי מותר בהנאה ברשותא דישראל הוה קאי הכא במאי עסקינן כשהרהינו אצלו

to your father, so I was indebted to your father's creditor. [This follows] from R'Nathan['s dictum].

לימא כתנאי ישראל שהלוה לנכרי על חמצו לאחר הפסח אינו עובר משום רבי מאיר אמרו עובר מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר למפרע הוא גובה ומר סבר מכאן ולהבא הוא גובה

For it was taught, R'Nathan said: How do we know that if one man [claims a maneh from his neighbour, and his neighbor [claims a like sum] from another neighbour, that we collect from the one [the last] and give to the other [the first]? From the verse, and he shall give it unto him to whom he is indebted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V. 7, translating: and he (the third) shall give it unto him (the first) to whom he (the second) is indebted.');">¹²</span>

ותסברא אימא סיפא אבל נכרי שהלוה לישראל על חמצו לאחר הפסח דברי הכל עובר והא איפכא מיבעי ליה למאן דאמר התם אינו עובר הכא עובר למאן דאמר התם עובר הכא אינו עובר

We learned: IF A GENTILE LENT [MONEY] TO AN ISRAELITE ON HIS LEAVEN, AFTER PASSOVER IT IS PERMITTED FOR USE. It is right if you say that he collects retrospectively: therefore it is permitted for use. But if you say that he collects from now and henceforth, why is it permitted for use? [Surely] it stood in the possession of the Israelite! - The circumstances here are that he deposited it with him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that he deposited it with the Gentile as a pledge, and the Gentile acquires a title to it as such.');">¹³</span> Shall we say that it is dependent on Tannaim: If an Israelite lent [money] to a Gentile on his leaven, after Passover he does not transgress.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he takes the leaven for the debt and uses it.');">¹⁴</span> In R'Meir's name it was said: he does transgress. Now do they not differ in this, viz. , one Master holds [that] he collects retrospectively, while the other Master holds [that] he colle from now and onwards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being now assumed that he did not deposit his leaven with the Gentile.');">¹⁵</span> - Now is that logical! Consider the second clause: But if a Gentile lent [money] to an Israelite on his leaven, after Passover he transgresses on all views. But surely the reverse [of the rulings the first clause] is required: according to the view there [in the first clause] that he does not transgress, he he does transgress; [while] according to the view there that he does transgress, here he does not transgress!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the case is reversed, the Gentile having lent money to the Jew, obviously the rulings too should be reversed, if they are dependent on whether the creditor collects retrospectively or from now and onwards.');">¹⁶</span>