Gemara Clarity

Pesachim 31a

פסחים ל״א ע״א

Learn Pesachim 31a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Pesachim 31a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

When does a creditor acquire pledged property: retroactively (אביי) or from the due date on (רבא)? Challenges and proofs from רמי בר חמא's case, our משנה about חמץ, and a ברייתא of תנאים

Overview

This amud asks when a lender (מלוה) acquires property pledged for a loan. First, the גמרא finishes a case everyone agrees on: if the borrower consecrated the property, the lender redeems it with one extra דינר. The real argument is when the lender himself sold or consecrated it before the due date. אביי says the lender acquires למפרע (retroactively), so his act works. רבא says he acquires only מכאן ולהבא (from the due date on), so it does not. The גמרא challenges רבא from his own advice in a case of רמי בר חמא. There, רבא lets שמעון pay ראובן's orphans with land and then take it back, which seems to require למפרע. It answers that this works for a different reason: רבי נתן's rule that a debtor's debtor pays the original creditor directly. Next, the גמרא tries to prove למפרע from our משנה about a גוי who lent against a Jew's חמץ. It deflects the proof: the חמץ was deposited with the גוי. Finally, it suggests that תנאים argue about this question, but rejects the idea from the end clause of the same ברייתא.

Opening lines

וְאָתֵי מַלְוֶה וּפָרֵיק.

and the lender comes and redeems it.

דִּתְנַן: מוֹסִיף עוֹד דִּינָר

As we learned: he adds one more dinar

וּפוֹדֶה אֶת הַנְּכָסִים הָאֵלּוּ.

and redeems these properties.

כִּי פְּלִיגִי

Where they argue

The steps (15)

  1. ProofEven when the borrower consecrates the property, the lender can redeem it
  2. StatementThe real argument: the lender sold or consecrated it
  3. Statementאביי: the lender acquires retroactively
  4. Statementרבא: the lender acquires only from now on
  5. ChallengeDid רבא really say this? The case of רמי בר חמא begins
  6. StatementThe ruling: ראובן's orphans can demand payment from שמעון
  7. Statementרבא's advice: שמעון should pay with land and take it back
  8. Challengeרבא's advice only seems to work if collection is retroactive
  9. ResolutionThat case is different because of רבי נתן's rule
  10. Proofרבי נתן's source from the פסוק
  11. ProofProof attempt from the משנה about a גוי's loan on חמץ
  12. ProofThe other side of the proof: the from-now-on view cannot explain the משנה
  13. RejectionThe case is where the חמץ was deposited with the גוי
  14. ProofSuggestion that תנאים argue about this question
  15. RejectionThe second half of the ברייתא disproves that explanation