משנה: חָמֵץ שֶׁל נָכְרִי שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ׃ נָכְרִי שֶׁהִלְוָה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל חֲמֵיצוֹ לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִלְוָה אֶת הַנָּכְרִי עַל חֲמֵיצוֹ לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. חָמֵץ שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה עָלָיו מַפּוֹלֶת הֲרֵי הוּא כִמְבוֹעָר. רַבָּן שִׂמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כָּל־שֶׁאֵין הַכֶּלֶב יָכוֹל לְחַפֵּשׂ אַחֲרָיו׃ MISHNAH: A Non-Jew’s leavened matter which existed during Passover is permitted for usufruct but a Jew’s is forbidden for usufruct since it is said92Ex. 13:7., it should not be seen in your possession. If a Non-Jew gave a loan to a Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is permitted for usufruct93If the leavened matter is mortgaged, the Jew may not sell or destroy it; therefore it is considered the creditor’s property. The Babli disagrees and restricts the Mishnah to the case that the Non-Jew has custody of the material. but if a Jew gave a loan to a Non-Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is forbidden for usufruct. Leavened matter on which debris fell94When a wall or a house collapsed. is as if eliminated; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only one which cannot be dug out by a dog.
הלכה: הָא בָאֲכִילָה אָסוּר. מַתְנִיתָא בְמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא נָהֲגוּ לוֹכַל פַּת גּוֹיִם. [אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לֶאֱכֹל פַּת גּוֹיִם] מוּתָּר אֲפִילוּ בַּאֲכִילָה. HALAKHAH: Therefore it is forbidden for eating95Since the Mishnah is formulated “is permitted for usufruct” and not simply “is permitted”, it appears that the addition “for usufruct” is a restriction, excluding the use as kosher food.? The Mishnah refers to a place where they are used not to eat Gentile bread; [but at a place where they used to eat Gentile bread] it is permitted even for eating.
בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח מָהוּ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָמַר. אָסוּר. הָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְהָתַנֵּי. לֹא יַשְׂכִּיר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לְגוֹי לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ חָמֵץ. פָּתַר לָהּ. בְּבָא עִמּוֹ. וְהָתַנֵּי. לֹא יַשְׂכִּיר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת סְפִינָתוֹ לְגוֹי לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ חָמֵץ. פָּתַר לָהּ. בְּבָא עִמּוֹ. וְהָא תַנֵּי. לֹא יַשְׂכִּיר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת בֵּיתוֹ לְגוֹי לִיתֵּן בְּתוֹכוֹ חָמֵץ. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. בְּדָר עִמּוֹ. What is it during Passover96May the Jew use the Gentile’s leavened matter for industrial purposes on Passover?? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose objected: but was it not stated: An Israel may not lease his animal to a Gentile to use it to transport leavened matter? He97R. Jeremiah. explains it, if he comes with him. But was it not stated: An Israel may not lease his ship to a Gentile to use it to transport leavened matter? He explains it, if he comes with him. But was it not stated: An Israel may not lease his house to a Gentile to store leavened matter in it. Can you say, if he dwells with him98Therefore practice has to follow R. Yose. However, since the Tosephta 2:14 states: “An Israel may lease his animal to a Gentile to transport leavened matter from place to place”, Raviah (§449) reads the quotes as declarative sentences supporting R. Jeremiah, that leasing animal or ship to a Gentile is forbidden only if the Jew drives the animal or steers the ship. Then the last question is not rhetorical and is left without answer.?
גַּגּוֹ שֶׁלְגּוֹי שֶׁהָיָה סָמוּךְ לְגַגּוֹ שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְנִתְגַּלְגֵּל חָמֵץ מִגַּגּוֹ שֶׁלְגּוֹי לְגַגּוֹ שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל. הֲרֵי זֶה דוֹחְפוֹ בְקָנֶה. אִם הָֽיְתָה שַׁבָּת אוֹ יוֹם טוֹב. רַב אָמַר. כּוֹפֶה עָלֶיהָ כֶּלִי. If the roof of a Gentile was adjacent to a Jew’s roof and leavened matter rolled from the Gentile’s roof to the Jew’s roof, he pushes it away with a stick99But he may not touch leavened matter on Passover.. If it was Sabbath or holiday100Since leavened matter is forbidden, it is muqṣeh on Sabbath or holiday and may not be moved. A similar statement appears in the Babli 6a., Rav said, he covers it with a vessel.
רַב אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. כָּל־חָמֵץ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְתוֹךְ בֵּיתִי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ בוֹ יִבָּטֵל. Rav said, one has to say “any leavened matter which I have in my house unknown to me shall be nullified.101Babli 6b. While the Babli does not mention “unknown to me”, the discussion there implies that this is understood.”
רַב אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. אֲשֶׁר קִידְּשָׁנוּ בְמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִיוָּנוּ עַל מִצְוַת בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ. Rav said, one has to say “Who sanctified us by His Commandments and commanded us about the precept of eliminating leavened matter.102Babli 7a (bottom) in the name of later Amoraim. The benediction has to be introduced by the formula: “Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the universe”. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale 1995, p.194.”
רַב אָמַר. הַטָּח בֵּיתוֹ חָמֵץ צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׂמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. בָּצֵק שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ כּוּפָת בָּטֵל. פָּתַר לָהּ. אוֹ חֲלוּקִין עַל רִבִּי שִׂמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. אוֹ אָהֵן כּוּפָת מָאִיס הִיא. Rav said, he who affixes leavened matter to his house has to eliminate103Ravan (ed. S. Albeck, Warsaw 1904) §7: “For what is customary to rub off walls which were touched by leavened matter before Passover and also to wash the chairs, I found support in the Yerushalmi: Rav said, he who affixes leavened matter to his house has to eliminate.” Copied by Raviah (§451) and later authors.. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if one turns dough into a clump, it is nullified104Babli 45b, Ḥulin 129a. In the Babli: “A clump used to sit on it.” The leavened matter no longer is food. He105Rav, who requires that leavened matter on walls be eliminated. explains it, either that one disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or that this clump is repugnant.
יִשְׂרָאֶל וְגוֹי שֶׁהָיוּ בָאִין בִּסְפִינָה וְחָמֵץ בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל. הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹכְרוֹ לְגוֹי אוֹ נוֹתְנוֹ לוֹ מַתָּנָה. וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקְחוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּתְּנוֹ לוֹ מַתָּנָה גְמוּרָה. אוֹמֵר הוּא יִשְׂרָאֵל לְגוֹי. עַד שֶׁאַתְּ לוֹקֵחַ בִּמְנָה. בּוֹא וְקַח לָךְ בְמָאתַיִם. עַד שֶׁאַתְּ לוֹקֵחַ לָךְ מִגּוֹי. בּוֹא וְקַח לָךְ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁמָּא אֶצְטָרֵךְ וְאֶקַּח מִמָּךְ אַחַר הַפֶּסַח. 106Tosephta 2:13–14.“If a Jew and a Gentile were travelling by ship107On the 14th of Nisan. and leavened matter was in the Jew’s hand, he sells it to the Gentile or gives it to him as a gift; then he reverts and buys it from him after Passover108Since the leavened matter was the Gentile’s property on Passover, it is permitted for the Jew after the holiday, as stated in the Mishnah., on condition that it was an unconditional gift109It may not be given on condition that the Gentile return it after the holiday. It is necessary that the entire transaction result in some monetary reward for the Gentile.. The Jew may say to the Gentile, instead of buying it for a mina, come and buy it for 200 [denar]110While this cannot refer to dough (except in times of hyperinflation), it is common practice at the least to double the price in the sale for Passover of valuable enterprises engaged in processing leavened matter (e. g., a beer brewery), in order to guard against the Gentile selling the enterprise to an outsider.. Instead that you buy from a Gentile, come and buy it from a Jew, maybe I shall have need, then I shall buy from you after Passover111While the Jew cannot sign a contract requiring him to buy back the items after Passover, he can use language which the Gentile will interpret to that effect..”
הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ. עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנֵס לְתוֹכוֹ. הַמַּשְׂכּיר צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. מִשֶּׁיִּכָּנֵס לְתוֹכוֹ. הַשּׂוֹכֵר צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֵימָתַי. בִּזְמַן שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ אֶת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא מָסַר לוֹ אֶת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. If somebody rents out his house to another, as long as this one does not enter into it112As the following remark of R. Simeon shows, this cannot mean that the lessee actually started using the house, but it must mean that the contract entered into effect on the 13th of Nisan. Babli 4a., the lessor has to eliminate; after this one entered into it, the lessee has to eliminate. Rebbi Simeon said, when? If he handed him the key, but as long as he did not hand him the key, he does not have to eliminate113As long as the lessor controls the access to the house, even though the lessee has the right of use, the lessor is required to eliminate..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְּעִי. מָסַר לֹו אֶת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְכַרְיָה חַתְנֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי לֵוִי. מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וַחֲכָמִים. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הַמּוֹסֵר מַפְתֵּיחוֹ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר. שֶׁלֹּא מָסַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמִירַת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ׃ תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַמֵּא. 114Qiddušin 1:4, Notes 435–438. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I asked: What if he handed him the key115S. Liebermann points out that this cannot mean that the key was handed over after a contract for lease or sale was signed, since for a lease the matter was settled in the preceding paragraph and for a sale it is stated that transfer of the key is transfer of the property (Bava batra 3:1, Note 12). Nevertheless Sefer Haˋittur (vol. 2, p. 121a, Note 17) reads the question as complement of the preceding statement.? Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi said, this is the disagreement between Rebbi Simeon and the Sages, as we have stated there116Mishnah Tahorot 7:1. The vulgar person is one who does not observe the rules of purity. He is considered a source of original impurity; cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay.: “If somebody hands over his key to a vulgar person, the house remains pure since he only entrusted him with safekeeping the key.” It was stated: Rebbi Simeon declares it impure117Tosephta Tahorot 8:1. He holds that handing over the key implies authorization for unlimited entry into the premises..
גּוֹי שֶׁבָּא אֶצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְיָדוֹ חָמֵץ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. יִיחַד לוֹ בַּיִת אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. לֹא בִיעֵר לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח מָהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר. מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֶה אָמַר. אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֶה. חֲמֵיצוֹ שֶׁלָּגוֹי הוּא. יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו וְלֹא בִיעֲרוֹ. 118Babli 6a; Tosephta 2:11; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay Ba (p. 23 1.16).“If a Gentile comes to a Jew with leavened matter in his hand, one does not need to eliminate. If he deposited with him, he has to eliminate119If the Jew is responsible for loss.. If he gave him a separate room120Which is not used for the Jew’s property during Passover. he does not need to eliminate.” If he did not eliminate121The Gentile’s leavened matter for which the Jew is responsible., what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Jonah said, it is permitted; Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, it is the Gentile’s leavened matter [but] the Jew acted wrongly and did not eliminate122While it is not the Jew’s property, it is his responsibility. Rabbinically one forces the Jew to destroy the leavened matter and to indemnify the Gentile. There is no need to emend the text..
מָאן תַּנָּא לֹא יֵֽרָאֶ֨ה לְךָ֜. רִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּתַנֵּי. הָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָה. וְכֵן חָמֵץ שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח. הֲרֵי זֶה בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. כָּל־שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת אֵין בּוֹ בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאִסּוּר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר. אִיסּוּרוֹ מָהוּ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. אִיסּוּרוֹ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי יּוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. אִיסּוּרוֹ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. מַה טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. לֹא יֵֽאָכֵל֭ חָמֵֽץ. הַיּ֖וֹם. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד. כְּבָר כָּתוּב [לֹֽא־תֹאכַ֤ל עָלָיו֙ חָמֵ֔ץ]. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְייָן בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד תְּנֵיהוּ לְאַחַר הַמּוֹעֵד. מַה מְקַייֵם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. לֹא יֵֽאָכֵל֭ חָמֵֽץ. הַיּ֖וֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי. דְּתַנֵּי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר. אוֹמֵר אֲנִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה פֶסַח בְּמִצְרַיִם אֶלָא יוֹם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא יֵֽאָכֵל֭ חָמֵֽץ. הַיּ֖וֹם. Who is the Tanna of it should not be seen in your possession123The first part of Mishnah 2, which requires elimination of the Gentile’s leavened matter for which the Jew is responsible.? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated124Somewhat differently quoted in the Babli, 28a/b.: He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour125On the 14th of Nisan., as well as leavened matter which was in existence during Passover violates a biblical prohibition but there is no extirpation, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, anything for which there is no extirpation there is no biblical prohibition. Rebbi Simeon agrees about the prohibition that it is prohibited. What is its prohibition126This is asked for R. Simeon. It is clear that R. Jehudah holds that the prohibition is biblical since he forbids leavened matter one hour before it becomes biblically forbidden.? Rebbi Jeremiah said, its prohibition is a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, its prohibition is from their words. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? No leavened matter may be eaten, today127Ex. 13:4–5. “Today” belongs to the next sentence.. Where do we hold? If during the holiday, it already is written, you may not eat leavened matter with it128Deut 16:3.. But if it does not refer to the time during the holiday, transfer it to the time after the holiday. How does Rebbi Simeon explain Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, no leavened matter may be eaten, today? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he will explain if following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: 129Tosephta 8:21, cf. Mishnah 9:4. Babli 28b; Tanḥuma Bo 11; Mekhilta dR. IsmaelBo 16 (p. 62), dR. Simeon Bar Yohay, Bo (p. 38 1. 15). Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, I am saying that in Egypt the Passover was only one day as it was said, no leavened matter may be eaten, today.
לֹא יֵרָֽאֶ֨ה לְךָ֜. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. לֹא יֵרָאֶ֨ה לְךָ֜. לְךָ אֵין אַתְּ רוֹאֶה. [אֲבָל] רוֹאֶה אַתְּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ. מָאן דְּאָמַר. לְךָ אֵין אַתְּ רוֹאֶה רוֹאֶה אַתְּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ. בְּשֶׁהֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ קוֹדֵם לְבִיעוּרוֹ. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֲפִילוּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ. כְּשֶׁהֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ לְאַחַר בִּיעוּרוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. תִּיפְתָּר בַּקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא חַייָב בַּאֲחֵרָיוּתָן כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. It should not be seen in your possession92Ex. 13:7.. There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see, [but]130Corrector’s addition. As the sentence after the next shows, the addition is unnecessary. you may see Heaven’s. There are Tannaim who state, not even Heaven’s. He who said, yours you may not see, you may see Heaven’s, if its dedication precedes its elimination131Everybody agrees that Temple property is exempt from elimination. A person may dedicate his leavened matter to the Temple, to be sold and the proceeds used for the service. If he did this before noon-time on the 14th, the dedication is valid. But if it was done on or after noontime, the matter already is (rabbinically) forbidden for usufruct, it is worthless, and nothing worthless can be dedicated to the Temple. The dedication is invalid and he is guilty of disregarding the obligation to eliminate leavened matter in a timely fashion.. He who said, not even Heaven’s, if its dedication is after its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain it about sancta for which he is responsible in case of alienation following Rebbi Simeon132It seems that here also one refers to matters dedicated to the Temple, which are sancta as long as they are not redeemed for the benefit of the Temple. It is assumed that the dedication was not “this is given to the Temple” but “I will give a certain value to the Temple”. In the latter case only actual delivery fulfills the vow and according to R. Simeon [Mishnah Bava qamma 7:5 (Note 56)] even after dedication it remains the votary’s personal property until delivered..
לֹא יֵֽרָאֶ֨ה לְךָ֜. [אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי.] לְךָ אֵין אַתְּ רוֹאֶה. רוֹאֶה אַתְּ בִּפְלַטֵיָא. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ בִּפְלַטֵייָא. מָאן דְּאָמַר. לְךָ אֵין אַתְּ רוֹאֶה רוֹאֶה אַתְּ בִּפְלַטֵייָא. בְּשֶׁהֶבְקֵירוֹ קוֹדֵם לְבִיעוּרוֹ. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֲפִילוּ בִּפְלַטֵיָא. בְּשֶׁהֶבְקֵירוֹ לְאַחַר בִּיעוּרוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה. תִּיפְתָּר בַּקֳּדָשִׁים וגו׳. It should not be seen in your possession. There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see; you may see it in the street133Greek πλατεῖα (sc., ὁδός) “a wide (road)”, equivalent of Hebrew רחוֹב.; there are Tannaim who state, not even if in the street;. He who says, yours you may not see, you may see it in the street, if his renunciation of ownership precedes its elimination134If the leavened matter was abandoned in the street and declared ownerless before noontime of the 14th. However, this statement has to be qualified, cf. Note 139.; he who said, not even in the street, if his renunciation of ownership follows its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it for sancta135This sentence is a mindless copy from the preceding paragraph and is to be deleted., etc.
הִבְקִיר חֶמְצוֹ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח מָהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אָסוּר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מוּתָּר. מָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. אֵין אַתְּ מוֹדֶה לִי מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָן שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תַּמָּן אִיסּוּרוֹ גָרַם לוֹ. הָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ [לְמֵימַר]. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה לְרִבִּי פִּנְחָס. נְהִיר אַתְּ כַּד הֲוִינָן אָֽמְרִין. אַתְייָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וּדְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. אֵינָהּ כֵּן. אֶלָּא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן חֲשַׁשׁ לְהַעֲרָמָה. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לֹא חֲשַׁשׁ לְהַעֲרָמָה. מַה נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. נָֽפְלָה עָלָיו מַפּוֹלֶת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. הַעֲרָמָה. לֵית כָּאן הַעֲרָמָה. וְהוּא מוּתָּר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. זְכִייָה. לֵית כָּאן זְכִייָה. וְהוּא אָסוּר. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּגֵר שֶׁמֵּת וּבִיזְבְּזוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת נְכָסָיו. מָאן דְּאָמַר. הַעֲרָמָה. מוּתָּר. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. זְכִייָה. מוּתָּר. If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover136It is clear that it is forbidden during Passover (unless picked up by a Gentile before the holiday). May the original owner go back and pick it up again after the holiday?? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Do you not agree with me that it is forbidden after noontime137How can the prohibition be removed automatically?? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say138Even on the afternoon of the 14th it only is forbidden if no Gentile picked it up; it never was intrinsically forbidden; if the outside cause disappeared, the prohibition disappeared.? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr139The disagreement of RR. Yose (ben Halaphta) and Meïr is in Peah 6:1 (Notes 18,19) where R. Meïr holds that an object becomes ownerless as soon as it is abandoned in a public place and declared to be ownerless, whereas for R. Yose it remains the original owner’s property until picked up by another person.? It is not so. Only Rebbi Joḥanan is concerned about cunning140The owner might circumvent the obligation of elimination by declaring it ownerless but from the start intend to take it back after the holiday., but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is not concerned about cunning. What is the difference? If debris fell on it. He who says cunning, there is no cunning and it is permitted. He who said acquisition141For R. Yose the leavened matter remains the owner’s property. He does not have to dig it out to burn since it is neither visible nor can it be used, but it remains permanently prohibited if it would be dug out afterwards., there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died142If he failed to contract a Jewish marriage and start a Jewish family, his estate has no heirs and has the status of abandoned property. Cf. Bava qamma 9:15 Notes 111,121. and the Jews plundered his property. For him who says cunning, it is permitted, and for him who says acquisition, it is permitted142*If the proselyte died before Passover and Jews took possession of his estate with leavened matter after Passover, the estate became ownerless by itself. The suspicion of cunning does not apply. Since a dead person cannot own anything, even R. Yose must agree that it was not property of a Jew during Passover; it is permitted..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. עֶבֶד שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ רַבּוֹ אֻפּוֹתֵיקִי לַאֲחֵרִים וְשִׁיחְרְרוֹ. [מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין אֵין הָעֶבֶד חַייָב כְּלוּם. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל דָּמָיו. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ כוֹתֵב אֶלָּא מְשַׁחְרֵר׃] מִי מְשַׁחְרֵר. רַב אָמַר. בֵּין רַבּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין רַבּוֹ אַחֲרוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין לָךְ מְשַׁחְרֵר אֶלָּא רַבּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד. הָתִיב רִבִּי חַגַּי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִלְוָה אֶת הַנָּכְרִי עַל חֲמֵיצוֹ לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָייָה. אִין תֵּימַר. בִּרְשׁוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא. יְהֵא אָסוּר. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רַב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. קַל הוּא בְשִׁיחְרוּר. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. הְעוֹשֶׂה עַבְדּוֹ אֻפּוֹתֵיקִי. מְכָרוֹ אֵינוֹ מָכוּר. שִׁיחְרְרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּחְרָר. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִן הָדָא. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ כוֹתֵב אֶלָּא מְשַׁחְרֵר׃ אִילּוּ הַמְשַׁעְבֵּד שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְהָלַךְ וּמְכָרָהּ. שֶׁמָּא אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב בָּא וְטוֹרֵף. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. פָּתַח לָנוּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פֶּתַח מֵאִיר כְּאוֹרָה. לֹא מָצָאנוּ עֶבֶד מִשְׁתַּחְרֵר וְחוֹזֵר וּמִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יִכְתּוֹב שְׁטָר עַל דָּמָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. מוּטָּב שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ. תֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדָךְ. וְאַל יֹאמַר לוֹ. עַבְדִּי אַתָּה. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיסָרִין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נַסָּא. אַתְיָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. כְּמַה דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר קוֹנֵס בִּדְבָרִים. כֵּן רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל קוֹנֵס בִּדְבָרִים. דְּתַנֵּי. [שְׁטָר] יֵשׁ בּוֹ רִבִּית קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה לֹא אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הָרִיבִּית. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה אֶת הָרִיבִּית. There, we have stated: 143This paragraph is from Giṭtin 4:4 where the few differences in spelling are noted and which is explained there in Notes 75–78, 120–130.“A slave whom his master gave as mortgage144Greek ὑποθήκη. to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage144Greek ὑποθήκη., if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כָּל־שֶׁאֵין הַכֶּלֶב יָכוֹל לְחַפֵּשׂ אַחֲרָיו׃ עַד אֵיכָן. רִבִּי אָבוּן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק. עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים. “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only one which cannot be dug out by a dog..” How far145How far must one presume that a dog may dig?? Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Up to three hand-breadths.