Being above suspicion TB Pesakhim 31

The vast majority of today’s daf TB Pesakhim 31 deals with the issue surrounding security of hametz for a loan before Passover. As long as the loan hasn’t been paid, does the security belong to the lender or does it still belong to the borrower? The location of the security also plays an important role in deciding whether to consider this hametz as hametz she’avar alav hapesakh.

“MISHNA: If a gentile lent money to a Jew, and the Jew gave him leavened bread as collateral until after Passover, and after Passover the gentile retains this leavened bread in lieu of payment, then one is permitted to derive benefit from this leavened bread. Since the leavened bread was retained by the gentile based on the transfer that took place prior to Passover, the leavened bread is considered to have belonged to the gentile during Passover. Whereas if a Jew lent money to a gentile, and leavened bread was given as collateral during Passover in the same manner as in the previous case, then after Passover it is forbidden to derive benefit from this leavened bread. Since this leavened bread was considered to be in the Jew’s property during Passover, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it afterward.” (Tb Pesakhim 30b, Sefaria.org translation)

Rava and Abaye argue when the transaction of the security takes place. “Abaye said: He retroactively collects the property. In a case where the creditor had a lien on the property of the debtor and the debtor defaults on the loan, it is considered as if the creditor acquired rights to the collateral at the time of the loan and not at the time of collection. And Rava said: This is not the case, but rather, he acquires the collateral from that point forward, and has rights to the collateral only from the time that the loan was due.

“The Gemara sets several limitations on the scope of this dispute: Anywhere that the debtor consecrated or sold the field that was serving as collateral, everyone agrees that the creditor can come and seize this property and override the sale, because its status as collateral preceded its sale. Or if the debtor consecrated the property, the creditor can come and redeem it through a symbolic payment to the Temple. As we learned in a mishna: The creditor may add an additional dinar to the amount of the loan and redeem this property” (TB Pesakhim 30b-31a, Sefaria.org translation)

The borrower had no right to sell the security of hametz to another person or consecrate it to the Temple. Because lender has first claim to it, he can seize it from the purchaser since the lender had no right to sell it. Even though the lender had no right to consecrate the security to the Temple and the lender may reclaim it as well, simply removing what appears to be consecrated property from the Temple, didn’t look right. The rabbis were afraid that people would say consecrated property was removed from the Temple without being redeemed. Consequently, the lender “redeems” the consecrated hametz with a symbolic payment.

This comes to teach us that a person should always try to be scrupulous in all his transactions so nobody will accuse him of a wrongdoing.