ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 31
PESACHIM 31 - dedicated b'Ahavas ha'Torah by Rav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence,
(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
(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
(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".
(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).
If a small amount of Chametz is found after Pesach ...
(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
(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
(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.