All agree that if the borrower sold or was Makdish, the lender takes [the property from the buyer] or redeems it [from Hekdesh for a token amount. Really, it is not Hekdesh at all - one cannot sell or Makdish something not under his jurisdiction - just we do not want it to look like Hekdesh becomes Chulin without redemption.]

(Mishnah): He (the lender) 'lends' another Dinar, uses it to redeem the property, and keeps the property.

They argue about when the lender sold or was Makdish:

Abaye says that a lender collects retroactively - when the due date comes and payment was not made, this shows that retroactively the property belonged to the lender - it was a proper sale or Hekdesh;

Rava says that he collects from now - since the borrower could have paid money and kept his property, it is as if the lender buys the property now [so his prior sale or Hekdesh is invalid].

Question: Rava contradicts himself!

(Rami Bar Chama): Reuven sold a field to Shimon with Acharayos (responsibility to compensate him if it is taken by a creditor), and Shimon [could not pay and] wrote a document for what he owes. Reuven died, and Reuven's creditor Levi took the field from Shimon; Shimon persuaded Levi to take money in place of the field.

Reuven's children can say to Shimon, you owed [money, i.e.] Metaltelim (movable property, i.e. not land) to our father, and a creditor has no lien on Metaltelim of orphans (Levi had no rights to collect the money you owe us, so you still must pay us. We did not inherit land, therefore we need not pay you on account of the Acharayos of our father's sale.)

(Rava): If Shimon is clever, he will pay the orphans with land, and he can collect compensation from it, like Rav Nachman taught:

(Rav Nachman): If orphans collected land for their father's debt, a creditor of their father can collect from it.

Summation of question: If a lender collects retroactively, we understand why the creditor can collect from it - it is as if the orphans collected it in their father's lifetime;

But if a lender collects from now, why can he collect from it - it is as if the orphans bought property after their father died - their father's creditor cannot collect such property!

Answer: Rami's case is different, because Shimon can say, just like I owed your father, I owed his creditor, on account of R. Noson's law:

(R. Noson): "V'Nosan la'Asher Asham Lo" - this teaches that if Levi owes David and David owes Moshe, we take from Levi to pay Moshe.

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

If a lender collects retroactively, we understand why it is permitted (it is as if the Nochri owned it during Pesach);

But if a lender collects from now, why it is permitted - the Yisrael owned it during Pesach!

Answer: The case is, the Chametz was deposited in the Nochri's residence during Pesach (R. Chananel - payment was due before Pesach; Rashi does not require this).

Suggestion: Tana'im argue as Abaye and Rava do:

(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: The first Tana holds that a lender collects from now, and R. Meir holds that he collects retroactively!

Rejection: This cannot be!

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

Each Tana should say the opposite from the Reisha - if he does not transgress there, he should transgress here, and vice-versa!

Rather, the case is, the borrower put the Chametz in the lender's Reshus - they argue about R. Yitzchak's law:

(R. Yitzchak): A lender acquires a security - "U'Lecha Tihyeh Tzedakah";

If he did not acquire it, returning it would not be called Tzedakah (since it belongs to the borrower)!

The first Tana holds that this is only when "U'Lecha Tihyeh Tzedakah" applies, i.e. to a Yisrael who lent to a Yisrael - but a Yisrael does not acquire a security from a Nochri;

R. Meir learns a Kal va'Chomer - if a Yisrael acquires a security of a Yisrael, all the more so he acquires a security from a Nochri!

But 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: Granted, we can say that the borrower put the Chametz in the lender's Reshus - but all agree that a Nochri does not acquire a Yisrael's security!

Answer: In the Mishnah, 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'.

Question: How do we know that it makes a difference whether or not he said 'from now'?

Answer (Beraisa): If a Nochri borrowed from a Yisrael and put a big bread in the Yisrael's Reshus [for collateral], the Yisrael does not transgress on account of it;

If he said 'it is yours', the Yisrael transgresses.

Question: What is the difference between the Reisha and Seifa?

Answer: We must say that in the Seifa he said 'from now', but in the Reisha he did not say 'from now' - this makes a difference!

(Beraisa): If Reuven's bread and wine are sold in Shimon's store, and Nochri workers bring Chametz there, Chametz found there after Pesach is Asur b'Hana'ah; there is no need to say that one may not eat it (we do not say that it was the workers');

If a Nochri's bread and wine are sold in a Nochri's store, and Yisrael workers bring Chametz there, Chametz found there after Pesach may be eaten, there is no need to say that one may benefit from it (we assume that it was the Nochri's);

(Mishnah): If a house collapsed on top of Chametz, it is as if Bi'ur was done.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, this is when a dog could not find the Chametz.

(Gemara - Rav Chisda): One must Mevatel it [lest it be unearthed and he would transgress Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei].

(Beraisa): A dog can find [buried Chametz] up to three Tefachim [deep].

Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Yosef): Shmuel taught that the only proper place to guard money is in the ground - must one bury it at least three Tefachim?

Answer (Rav Ashi): A dog can smell Chametz, therefore three Tefachim are required - but we bury money so it will not be visible, so three Tefachim are not required.

Question: How deeply must money be buried?

Answer (Rafram bar Papa): One Tefach is required.

(Mishnah): If a Zar (non-Kohen) ate Chametz of Terumah on Pesach b'Shogeg, he pays Keren (principal, the amount he ate) and Chomesh (and an added fifth - see note 18 in Appendix).

If he ate b'Mezid he is exempt from payment, even from its value as [fuel in place of] wood.

(Gemara -Mishnah): If a Zar ate Terumah b'Shogeg, he pays Keren v'Chomesh; this applies to one who eats, drinks or anoints, whether the Terumah was Tahor or Tamei;

He pays the Chomesh and [if he eats the Chomesh b'Shogeg after giving it to the Kohen, which makes it Terumah] a Chomesh of the Chomesh.