Previous daf

1)

(a) 'Mosif Od Dinar, u'Podeh es ha'Nechasim ha'Elu' - is only mi'de'Rabbanan, so as not convey the impression that Hekdesh can go out to Chulin without being redeemed (strictly speaking, the creditor's declaration is anyway invalid).

(b) When Rava said '*Hekdesh*, Chametz ve'Shichrur Mafki'in mi'Yedei Shi'bud' - he was referring to Kedushas ha'Guf (an intrinsic Kedushah, such as Kesushas Mizbei'ach), but not to Kedushas Damim (such as Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis, when the article becomes Kadosh only for its value).

(c) Abaye says 'Lemafrei'a Hu Govah' - meaning that if the debtor failed to pay by the allotted time, then the security not only becomes the creditor's, but it becomes his retroactively.

(d) Rava says 'Mi'kahn u'Lehaba Hu Govah' - because the debtor had the option of paying him money right up to the last moment. It therefore transpires that the property only became his then.

(a) Reuven sold a field to Shimon with Acherayos. However, because Shimon had no money, he transferred payment of the field into a loan, which he duly documented. Then Reuven died - after which his creditor came and claimed the field from Shimon. Shimon however, managed to convince him to accept money instead. Even though Reuven had accepted Acherayos - his children nevertheless now had the right to withhold payment of that Acherayos, because they could take Shimon to task for paying the creditor in the first place. Why is that? Because they can say to him that (since he had transferred payment of the field into a loan) their father had left by him, not a field, but money (which is Metaltelin - movables), and the Metaltelin of the orphans are not mortgaged to the creditor.

(b) But if Shimon was smart, argued Rava, he would nevertheless pay the orphans the field, which he will then be able to reclaim as the Acherayos that he had been promised. And why is that? Because now that the orphans accepted the field, Shimon can point out that, by accepting the field, they had revealed that it was indeed *land* that their father had left by him, and not Metaltelin.

(c) The source of Rava's Din is a statement by Rav Nachman - who said that if orphans claim land from their father's creditor, their creditor is permitted to claim it from them.

(d) But if Rava holds 'Mi'kahn u'Lehaba Hu Govah' - as he said earlier, then what would the fact that the orphans accepted the field from Shimon achieve, since their claim is only valid from that moment, and cannot be considered to be part of their father's claim. Consequently, it is like orphans who claim land on their own behalf after their father's death, which their father's creditor certainly has no claim.

(a) 'Shibuda de'Rav Nasan' - means that if Reuven owes Shimon money, and Shimon owes Levi, that even though Levi has no direct claim on Reuven, he may nevertheless claim directly from him. This is because Levi can say that whatever is Meshubad to Shimon is Meshubad to him.

(b) The source of Rebbi Nasan's Din - is the Pasuk in Naso "ve'Nasan La'asher Asham Lo", implying that the debtor must pay his debt, not to the person to whom he owes, but to the ultimate owner of the debt (i.e. the person to whom his creditor is obligated to pay).

(c) In our case too, Shimon can say to Reuven's orphans that (irrespective of whether the creditor claims from now or retroactively) any property that is claimed on behalf of their father (who had promised to reimburse him) was due directly to him, because of 'Shibuda de'Rav Nasan'. Consequently, when the orphans received the field, albeit from Shimon, it was automatically due to be paid back to Shimon.

(a) According to Rava, asks the Gemara, how can our Mishnah permit deriving benefit after Pesach from Chametz that a Jew mortgaged to a non-Jew against a loan - seeing as it only became the non-Jew's property from the time that he claimed it after Pesach. In other words, the Chametz was in the possession of the Jew throughout Pesach?

(b) The Gemara answers that our Mishnah speaks when the Jew deposited it in the non-Jew's house already before Pesach, in which case the non-Jew has acquired the security (or so the Gemara thinks at this stage).

(a) The Tana Kama, who rules that if a Jew lends money to a gentile against the gentile's Chametz, he will *not* transgress after Pesach - holds that the creditor only acquires the Mashkon from the time that he claims it (like Rava), and the Jew only claimed it after Pesach, the Gemara suggests; whereas Rebbi Meir holds that he acquires the Mashkon retroactively, in which case the Chametz will have been in the Jew's possession throughout Pesach.

(b) In that case, why does the Seifa of the Beraisa say that in the reverse case, when the non-Jew lent the Jew against his Chametz, both Tana'im will agree that the Jew will transgress - But why should that be? They should simply reverse their rulings: The Tana Kama should say that he *does* transgress, and Rebbi Meir, that he does *not*?

(c) So the Gemara establishes the Beraisa when the debtor placed the Chametz in the creditor's possession - In the Reisha, when the Jew received the Mashkon from the non-Jew, the Tana Kama holds that it is from a *Jew* that a Jew acquires a Mashkon, but not from a *non-Jew*; whereas Rebbi Meir holds that if a Jew acquires a Mashkon from a Jew, then how much more so will he acquire it from a non-Jew. In the Seifa, when it is the non-Jew who received the Mashkon from the Jew, even Rebbi Meir will agree that a non-Jew does acquire a Mashkon, even from a Jew, in which case, the Jew will have transgressed.

(d) Rebbi Yitzchak learns 'Ba'al Chov Koneh Mashkon' - from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei, which says to the creditor who returns the Mashkon (of a cushion, for example) each night "u'Lecha Tihye Tzedakah" - Now why would the Torah call this Tzedakah, if the creditor was merely returning to the debtor each night was was rightfully his? It must therefore be that the creditor has acquired it, and when he returns it each night, he is doing him a favor, and the Torah is justified in writing "u'Lecha Tihye Tzedakah".

6)

(a) Having established that a gentile does not acquire a Mashkon even from a Jew, we will have to establish the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Nochri she'Hilveh es Yisrael Al Chemtzo, Achar ha'Pesach Mutar be'Hana'ah' - when he specifically stipulated at the time when he placed the Mashkon in his possession (before Pesach) that the non-Jew should acquire it retroactively (and the Beraisa that we quoted at the foot of the previous Amud, which rules that the gentile is Chayav, speaks when he did not do so).

(b) Pas Purni is large bread baked in a large oven.

(c) The Beraisa renders a Jew who received a security of Pas Purni from a gentile (for which he did not take Acherayos) Patur, but renders him Chayav if he said 'Higatich'. Now why should 'Higatich' render him Chayav - unless 'Higatich was another way of saying 'Me'achshav', meaning it is yours retroactively, from now, proving the point that we made in a. (Note: According to Abaye, the Reisha of the Beraisa must speak when the non-Jew redeemed the Mashkon - i.e. paid him cash. See Tosfos DH 've'Im'.)

1. ... in a shop which belongs to a Jew and where the salesmen are gentiles - the Chametz is forbidden even be'Hana'ah, how much more so ba'Achilah.
2. ... in a shop which belongs to a gentile and the salesmen are Jews - the Chametz is even permitted ba'Achilah, how much more so be'Hana'ah.

(a) On principle, the Mishnah considers Chametz on which a pile of rubble fell, destroyed, and there is no further obligation to destroy it.

(b) 'Harei Zeh ki'Mevu'ar - means that a dog will not dig it up, which is the equivalent of three Tefachim deep.

(c) Even though the Chametz is considered to be destroyed, it nevertheless requires Bitul.

(d) According to Shmuel, the only way to guard money effectively is by burying it - one Tefach underground. The reason that Chamezt requires a depth of three Tefachim is because, up to three Tefachim, a dog can still smell it, whereas money, which only needs to be covered to the point that it is invisible, one Tefach will suffice.

(a) 'ha'Ochel Terumas Chametz ba'Pesach be'Shogeg, Meshalem Keren ve'Chomesh' means that he was 'Shogeg' in Terumah, even though he was Meizid by Chametz.

(b) Even though Chametz on Pesach has no value, he is nevertheless Chayav to pay - because for eating Terumah be'Shogeg, one pays not according to the value, but according to the volume (which Chazal learn from the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Nasan la'Kohen es ha'Kodesh" - 'es ha'Ra'uy Lihyos Kodesh').

(a) 'be'Mezid Patur mi'Tashlumin u'mi'Demei Eitzim' - means that he was Meizid in Terumah, even if he was Shogeg in Chametz.

(b) The Torah only writes "es ha'Kodesh" by Shogeg, but not by 'Mezid' - Consequently, by Mezid, one pays according to the value, and Chametz on Pesach has no value.

(c) 'Demei Eitzim' in this context means the value of fuel i.e. for which Terumah Temei'ah would have been fit to be used had it not been Pesach.