Pesachim 62

אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהרהינו אצלו וקמיפלגי בדר' יצחק דא"ר יצחק מנין לבעל חוב שקונה משכון שנאמר (דברים כד, יג) ולך תהיה צדקה אם אינו קונה משכון צדקה מנין מכאן לבעל חוב שקונה משכון

Rather the circumstances here [in both clauses] are that he [the borrower] deposited it [the leaven] with him, and they differ in R'Isaac['s dictum]. For R'Isaac said: Whence do we know that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That whilst in his possession it is his, and he is responsible for all accidents.');">¹</span> Because it is said, [Thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goeth down.] and it shall be righteousness unto thee:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 13.');">²</span>

ת"ק סבר הני מילי ישראל מישראל הוא דקרינא ביה ולך תהיה צדקה אבל ישראל מנכרי לא קני

if he has no title thereto, whence is his righteousness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no particular righteousness in returning what does not belong to one.');">³</span> Hence it follows that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge. Now the first Tanna holds, That<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dictum of R. Isaac.');">⁴</span>

ור"מ סבר קל וחומר ישראל מישראל קני ישראל מנכרי לא כל שכן אבל נכרי שהלוה את ישראל על חמצו אחר הפסח דברי הכל עובר התם ודאי נכרי מישראל לא קני

applies only to an Israelite [taking a pledge] from an Israelite, since we read in his case, 'and it shall be righteousness unto thee'; but an Israelite [taking a pledge] from a Gentile does not acquire a title.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore he does not transgress in respect of the leaven.');">⁵</span> While R'Meir holds, [It follows] a fortiori; if an Israelite acquires from an Israelite, how much the more an Israelite from a Gentile! But if a Gentile lent [money] to an Israelite on his leaven, after Passover all agree that he transgresses: ther the Gentile certainly does not acquire a title from the Israelite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the leaven stood in the ownership of the Israelite.');">⁶</span> We learned: IF A GENTILE LENT [MONEY] TO AN ISRAELITE ON HIS LEAVEN, AFTER PASSOVER IT IS PERMITTED FOR USE.

תנן נכרי שהלוה ישראל על חמצו אחר הפסח מותר בהנאה נהי נמי דהרהינו אצלו הא אמרת נכרי מישראל לא קני לא קשיא הא דאמר ליה מעכשיו הא דלא אמר ליה מעכשיו

Now even granted that he deposited it with him, surely you said that a Gentile does not acquire a title from an Israelite? There is no difficulty: there [in the Mishnah] it means that he said to him, 'From now';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he deposited the leaven with him he said to him, 'If I do not repay by the stipulated time, the leaven is yours from now'. Hence the leaven stands in the lender's ownership, whether Jew or Gentile.');">⁷</span> here [in the Baraitha] it means that he did not say to him, 'From now',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, where the Gentile lent to the Jew, all agree that even if the debt was not repaid, the leaven may not be used, because during Passover it was definitely in the Jew's ownership, notwithstanding that it was deposited with the Gentile, because he does not acquire a title from a Jew. But the dispute arises only where the Israelite lent to the Gentile.');">⁸</span>

ומנא תימרא דשני ליה בין היכא דאמר מעכשיו ובין היכא דלא אמר מעכשיו דתניא נכרי שהרהין פת פורני אצל ישראל אינו עובר ואם אמר לו הגעתיך עובר מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא אלא לאו שמע מינה שאני היכא דא"ל מעכשיו להיכא דלא אמר ליה מעכשיו שמע מינה

And whence do you assure that we draw a distinction between where he said 'from now and where he did not say 'from now'? - Because it was taught: If a Gentile deposited with an Israelite large loaves as a pledge,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Purni was a large oven in which large loaves were baked. 'Large loaves' are mentioned as a natural thing, since only such are sufficiently valuable to be a pledge.');">⁹</span> he [the Israelite] does not transgress; but if he said to him, 'I have made them yours,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From now, if I do not repay at the proper time.');">¹⁰</span> he transgresses.

ת"ר חנות של ישראל ומלאי של ישראל ופועלי נכרים נכנסין לשם חמץ שנמצא שם אחר הפסח אסור בהנאה ואין צריך לומר באכילה חנות של נכרי ומלאי של נכרי ופועלי ישראל נכנסין ויוצאין לשם חמץ שנמצא שם אחר הפסח מותר באכילה ואין צריך לומר בהנאה:

Why is the first clause different from the second? This surely proves that where he says to him, 'from now,' it is different from where he does not say, 'from now. This proves it.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חמץ שנפלה עליו מפולת הרי הוא כמבוער רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כל שאין הכלב יכול לחפש אחריו:

Our Rabbis taught: A shop belonging to an Israelite and its wares belong to an Israelite, while Gentile workers enter therein, leaven that is found there after Passover is forbidden for use, while it need not be stated for eating. A shop belonging to a Gentile and the wares belong to a Gentile, while Israelite workers go in and out, leaven that is found there after Passover may be eaten, while it is unnecessary to state [that] benefit [is permitted].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both cases we assume that the leaven was of the stock, and did not belong to one of the workers.');">¹¹</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF RUINS COLLAPSED ON LEAVEN, IT IS REGARDED AS REMOVED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is inaccessible.');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב חסדא וצריך שיבטל בלבו תנא כמה חפישת הכלב שלשה טפחים

R'SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: PROVIDED THAT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whatever'.');">¹³</span> A DOG CANNOT SEARCH IT OUT. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Hisda said: Yet he must annul it in his heart.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lest the debris be removed during the festival.');">¹⁴</span>

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:

A Tanna taught: How far is the searching of a dog? Three handbreadths.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The leaven must be covered by not less than three handbreadths of debris; otherwise a dog can search it out, and it would therefore be necessary to remove the debris and destroy the leaven.');">¹⁵</span> R'Aha the son of R'Joseph said to R'Ashi: As to what Samuel said, Money can only be guarded [by placing it] in the earth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is the only way in which a bailee can carry out his charge; otherwise he is guilty of negligence and liable for theft. - In ancient days there was probably no other place as safe, but nowadays it suffices if the bailee puts the money in the place where he keeps his own (Asheri, B.M. 42a) .');">¹⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האוכל תרומת חמץ בפסח בשוגג משלם קרן וחומש במזיד פטור מתשלומין ומדמי עצים:

- do we require [it to be covered by] three handbreadths or not? - Here, he replied, we require three hand breadths on account of the smell [of the leaven];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the leaven is covered by less, a dog can smell it.');">¹⁷</span> but there [it is put into the earth] in order to cover it from the eye; therefore three handbreadths are not required. And how much [is necessary]? - Said Rafram of Sikkara:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A town S. of Mahuza.');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנן התם האוכל תרומה בשוגג משלם קרן וחומש אחד האוכל ואחד השותה

one handbreadth. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>HE WHO EATS TERUMAH OF LEAVEN ON PASSOVER UNWITTINGLY, MUST REPAY [TO THE PRIEST] THE PRINCIPAL PLUS A FIFTH;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he did not know that it was terumah, even if he knew that it was leaven. Though leaven has no value during Passover, yet here he must make the usual restoration of the principal plus a fifth (v. Lev. XXII, 14) , not in money but in kind, the same as he ate, v. infra p. 147.');">¹⁹</span> IF DELIBERATELY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he knew that it was terumah, even if he did not know that it was leaven.');">²⁰</span> HE IS FREE FROM PAYMENT AND FROM [LIABILITY FOR] ITS VALUE AS FUEL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the terumah was unclean, when it has no other value, since unclean terumah may not be eaten. The reason is this: the law of restoring the principal plus a fifth, in kind, holds good only when the terumah is misappropriated unwittingly, the restoration being for the purpose of atonement. But when one appropriates it deliberately his act constitutes larceny, and he must return its value in money, not in kind, as in all cases of larceny. Leaven during Passover, however, has no monetary value, all benefit thereof being interdicted: hence he is free from payment.');">²¹</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>We learned elsewhere: He who eats terumah unwittingly must restore the principal plus a fifth; whether he eats, drinks,