Gemara

Had R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argued only about Lachmei Todah, one might have thought that all agree that "Lo Sizbach" applies even if the Chametz is far away, for wherever it is, one transgresses.

Pesachim 5b (Beraisa): "V'Lo Yera'eh Lecha" teaches that you may see Chametz of others (Nochrim).

Suggestion: Perhaps you may take deposits of Chametz from a Nochri!

Rejection: "Lo Yimatzei" forbids this. (It is found with you.)

Question: We expounded that you may see Chametz of others!

Answer: It is permitted only if the Yisrael does not accept Acharayus (responsibility to pay if it is lost or stolen):

Rava (to people of his city): Destroy Chametz that you (were compelled to) prepare(d) for the soldiers. Since if it would be stolen or lost you would have to replace it, it is like yours, and it is forbidden.

Question: This is like the opinion that Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon (something that one does not own, but it has value for him) k'Mamon Dami (is like his property). How can we answer for the opposing opinion?

Answer: Here is different, for it says "Lo Yimatzei" (in any case).

The Isurim Bal Yera'eh, Bal Yimatzei, and hiding and taking deposits of Chametz apply in your house. A Gezerah Shavah "Se'or-Se'or" teaches that they apply "b'Chol Gevulecha" (in all your property).

6a (Beraisa): If a Nochri entered a Yisrael's Chatzer holding Chametz, the Yisrael need not expel him. If he deposited it with the Yisrael, he must destroy it. If he fixed a place for it, he need not destroy it, for it says "Lo Yimatzei."

Question: What does this mean? (The verse forbids!)

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): The verse explains why he must destroy it in the Reisha.

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Really, it explains the Seifa. If he fixed a place for it, he need not destroy it, for it says "Lo Yimatzei b'Vateichem." It is as if the Nochri rented the place. It is not considered the Yisrael's house.

21a (Mishnah): As long as it is permitted to eat Chametz on Erev Pesach, one may sell it to a Nochri.

This is unlike the following Tana;

(Beraisa - Beis Shamai): One may sell Chametz to a Nochri only if he knows that the Nochri will finish it before Pesach;

Beis Hillel permit selling Chametz as long as it is permitted to eat it.

R. Yehudah says, one may not sell Kutach (a dip made with Chametz; it is consumed very slowly) 30 days before Pesach.

30b (Mishnah): If a Nochri lent (money) to a Yisrael (relying) 'on' the Yisrael's Chametz (it was security), it is permitted after Pesach;

If a Yisrael lent to a Nochri 'on' the Nochri's Chametz, it is Asur b'Hana'ah.

31a (Beraisa): If a Yisrael lent to a Nochri on the Nochri's Chametz, after Pesach one does not transgress (if he benefits from it);

R. Meir says, he transgresses.

Suggestion: R. Meir holds that a lender collects retroactively, and the first Tana disagree!

Rejection (Seifa): If a Nochri lent to a Yisrael on the Yisrael's Chametz, after Pesach all agree that one transgresses.

Each Tana should hold unlike he said in the Reisha. He transgresses here if and only if he does not transgress there!

Rather, the borrower put the Chametz in the lender's Reshus. They argue about R. Yitzchak's law, that a lender acquires a security.

The first Tana learns from "u'Lecha Tihyeh Tzedakah", i.e. a Yisrael acquires a security from a Yisrael, but not from a Nochri. R. Meir holds that a Yisrael acquires from a Yisrael, and all the more so from a Nochri!

If a Nochri lent to a Yisrael on the Yisrael's Chametz, after Pesach all agree that one transgresses. Surely, a Nochri does not acquire a security from a Yisrael!

(Mishnah): If a Nochri lent to a Yisrael on the Yisrael's Chametz, it is permitted after Pesach.

Question: Even if he put the Chametz in the lender's Reshus, all agree that a Nochri does not acquire a Yisrael's security!

Answer: When he put the Chametz in the lender's Reshus, he said '(if I do not pay you by the due date, it is yours) from now'. In the Seifa of the Beraisa he did not say 'from now.'

Bava Kama 76a (Beraisa): If one steals from a thief, or steals Hekdesh from its owner's house, he does not pay four or five.

We learn (the latter law) from "and it was stolen from the man's house", but not from the house of Hekdesh.

Rishonim

Rambam (Hilchos Chametz 4:4): If a Nochri extortionist deposited Chametz with a Yisrael, if he knows that if it is lost or stolen, the Nochri will force him to pay, even though he did not accept Acharayus, he must destroy it. It is considered like his, for the Nochri obligates him Acharayus.

Rambam (5): If a Yisrael deposited Chametz with a Nochri for security, if he said 'if I do not pay you by the due date, acquire the Chametz from now', it is in the Nochri's Reshus, and it is permitted after Pesach. If he did not say 'acquire from now', it was a deposit with the Nochri, and it is forbidden after Pesach.

Rebuttal (Ra'avad): Even if the loan was not due until after Pesach, he does not transgress. If it was due before Pesach, even if he did not say 'from now', the Nochri acquired. The law of Asmachta (exaggerated stipulations that one did not intend to fulfill are not binding) does not apply to Nochrim.

Rosh (Pesachim 1:4): Some say that only a Shomer Sachar (one who is paid to guard a deposit) is liable for a deposit of Chametz, since he is liable if it is lost or stolen. They learn from Rava, who said 'since if it would be stolen or lost you would have to replace it, it is forbidden.' Bahag obligates even a Shomer Chinam (one who guards for free). Rava meant that if it would be stolen or lost through negligence, they would have to replace it. Some Ge'onim say that if a Yisrael deposited his Chametz with a Yisrael or Nochri, if the Shomer accepted Acharayus, the Shomer must do Bi'ur, and not the owner, since it is not in his Reshus. They bring a proof from the Mechilta (Bo 19), which learns from "b'Vateichem" that one is liable only for (his) Chametz in his Reshus, but not for Chametz of a Nochri in his Reshus, and not for his Chametz in a Nochri's Reshus. R. Yonah says that it is always in the owner's Reshus, and the Torah commands him to do Bi'ur. He learns from Bava Kama, which says that a thief pays double for stealing "from the man's house", but not from Hekdesh. I did not understand his proof. Also, he did not explain the Mechilta from which he learned. I hold that obviously, even if the Shomer accepted Acharayus, the property belongs primarily to the owner, and since the Shomer lent place in his house for it, it is called Beiso (the owner's house). The Mechilta discusses a Nochri who lent to a Yisrael on the Yisrael's Chametz, like we say on 31a.

Ran (Pesachim 2b DH Garsinan): Rashi explains the Beraisa (6a) to say that if a Nochri entered a Yisrael's Chatzer holding Chametz, the Yisrael need not expel him, like we expounded, that you may see others' Chametz in your Reshus. If the Nochri deposited it Stam, he must destroy it. It is as if he accepted Acharayus. We find that if Ploni allows someone to bring his cow into Ploni's Reshus, Ploni is liable for it (Bava Kama 48b). If he fixed a place for it, he is exempt, for this is like the owner's Reshus. R. Tam exempts (in this case) even though Ploni accepted Acharayus. This is like accepting Acharayus for a Nochri's Chametz in the Nochri's Reshus. This is permitted. One does not even transgress for his own Chametz in a Nochri's Reshus, like the Mechilta says.

Ran (DH u'Mihu): This is all mid'Oraisa. Mid'Rabanan, a Yisrael must destroy his Chametz in a Nochri's Reshus, like a Nochri who lent to a Yisrael on the Yisrael's Chametz. The Gemara connotes that the Yisrael left it in the Nochri's Reshus, and even so it is forbidden. On 21a, , Beis Shamai and R. Yehudah forbid selling Chametz to a Nochri if he will not finish it before Pesach, even though it is in the Nochri's house. Beis Hillel permit a sale, but they would forbid a deposit. Mid'Rabanan, one must do Bi'ur. Even so, Chachamim did not require this when a Yisrael accepted a deposit from a Nochri and designated a place for it. What is the Rambam's source that one transgresses for a deposit with a Nochri in the Nochri's house? Perhaps he learned from the Beraisa 'if a Nochri lent to a Yisrael on the Yisrael's Chametz, after Pesach all agree that one transgresses.' However, if so why does it say 'after Pesach'? (He transgresses even during Pesach!)

Poskim

Shulchan Aruch (OC 440:4): If Reuven deposited his Chametz with a Yisrael or Nochri, even though the Shomer accepted Acharayus, (even) Reuven transgresses for it.

Taz (4): The Rosh says that the Mechilta discusses a Nochri who lent to a Yisrael on the Yisrael's Chametz. If so, we should say that also the Reisha of the Mechilta (a Yisrael guarding a Nochri's Chametz) discusses a loan. If so, why is he exempt from Bi'ur? Whenever a Yisrael has Acharayus, he must do Bi'ur! In a Stam loan, the lender has Acharayus for the security. Also, if when the Shomer lends his house (for the deposit) it is considered the owner's Reshus, why does we exempt the Yisrael (only) when he designated a place for the Nochri's Chametz? Stam, it suffices to lend his house for it! I say that R. Yonah learned from 5b, which says that the opinion that Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon is not like Mamon, agrees that Chametz is like Mamon, for it says "Lo Yimatzei." This verse discusses "b'Vateichem". We have no source for this Chidush in a Nochri's house. When the Yisrael truly owns the Chametz, it is no Chidush that he is liable for it even in a Nochri's house. R. Yonah rules like this opinion. The Tana of the Mechilta holds like R. Shimon, that Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon k'Mamon. The verse exempts a Yisrael's Chametz in a Nochri's house in every case. One is liable only for his own Chametz in his Reshus. The Ramban (Shmos 12:19) says so. R. Yonah proved from Bava Kama that Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon Lav k'Mamon Dami. A thief who steals Hekdesh does not pay double for (any) Hekdesh, even if the owner has Acharayus, i.e. it is Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon. This also answers the Ran's question against the Rambam. The Rambam (Hilchos Geneivah 2:1) rules that Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon Lav k'Mamon, therefore one is liable for his Chametz even in a Nochri's house.

Gra (12): Tosfos (31b DH she'Koneh) says that the Sugya discusses when the Yisrael did not accept Acharayus. He did not discuss when the Yisrael deposited (for then it does not matter whether the Nochri accepted Acharayus). Since the Reisha does not depend on Acharayus, also the Seifa does not. If a Nochri acquired a security, this would exempt the Yisrael. R. Yonah proved from Bava Kama is that R. Shimon obligates (double) for Kodshim with Acharayus, for this is called "from the owner's house", and the Halachah does not follow him.

Gra (13): A proof that he transgresses is the Mishnah of a Nochri who lent to a Yisrael. We permit the Chametz only if he said 'acquire from now.' We did not (simply) establish it when the Nochri accepted Acharayus! This shows that even with Acharayus, the Yisrael transgresses. The Ramban (on Chumash) says that the Isur is only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, one may take a deposit from a Nochri when he designated a place, even with Acharayus. Even though it is like his, it is permitted even mid'Rabanan. You cannot say that one transgresses for his Chametz anywhere, but not for a Nochri's even in the Yisrael's house. If so, what does "your houses" exclude?

Mishnah Berurah (19): Accepting Acharayus merely connects the Shomer to the deposit. It does not uproot the owner's ownership!

Kaf ha'Chayim (45): The Shulchan Aruch rules like the Rambam, Rosh and R. Yonah. The Ramban and other Poskim hold that he transgresses only mid'Rabanan.

Mishnah Berurah (20): The text of the Shulchan Aruch says even the owner transgresses. Also the Shomer (if he is a Yisrael) transgressed.

Kaf ha'Chayim (46): The Levush, Taz and Chak Yakov say that the Shomer transgresses only mid'Rabanan. Many say that both transgress.