Pesachim 31a, b

A mishna was introduced at the end of daf 29.  That mishna states that there may be a situation where a Gentile has lent money to a Jew with leavened bread as collateral. If the agreement is that the leavened bread will be transferred to the Gentile  from the time of the loan - and then the Jew does not pay the loan back on time - the Gentile is understood as the owner of the leaven from the time of the loan and thus the Jew does not transgress the commandment: "it shall not be seen".

All of daf (a) and much of daf (b) are devoted to a discussion of this mishna.  The rabbis begin with the  significance of exactly when the leaven transfers ownership.  Then they teach about debtors and creditors in other situation, including when Reuven sold a field to Shimon with the promise that the sale would be treated as a loan should the field be repossessed.  When Reuven died, his creditors repossessed the field.  If Reuven had sons, those orphans could claim the field as their own, for orphans have rights to 'movable property' without having to pay that to their deceased father's creditors.  The rabbis continue with this line of thought, looking to maximize Shimon's financial interests.

We learn that when A lends to B and B lends to C, C can repay directly back to A without using B as a 'middleman'.  This is based on Numbers 5:7, "And he shall give it to him whom he has wronged".  The ultimate creditor is the person who is owed payment.

The rabbis continue their debate about the use of leavened bread as collateral.  Steinsaltz's notes tell us that the halacha is that the Jew may derive benefit from the leaven after Pesach in the case of our mishna above.  However, if a Jew lends money to a Gentile with leavened bread as a collateral and similar conditions, the Jew cannot derive benefit from that leaven after Pesach.  The key point seems to be whether or not we can prove that the Jew was ever in ownership of leaven over Pesach, which of course is forbidden.

Daf (b) begins with the consideration of repayment of loans.  In Deuteronomy 24:13, we learn that "You shall surely return the pledge to him when the sun goes down, that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; and it shall be a righteousness for you before the Lord your G-d".  I love this particular verse, which reminds us of the importance of returning things promptly as we do not know how those things might be needed/used.  Collateral, however, complicates the understanding of this passage as there is not a clear transfer of anything, and thus "...where is the righteousness?"  The rabbis continue to debate this and related arguments.

The rabbis teach us that when a store is owned by a Jew and the workers are Gentiles, any leavened found after Pesach is forbidden.  However, in the reverse circumstance, the leaven is permitted.  Why?  The owner of the store is to be responsible for the leaven, thus the leaven found in a Jew's store likely belonged to the Jew over Pesach.  The Gentile's leaven would never have belonged to the Jewish workers.  One question, however - was it permitted to eat the leaven of a Gentile at any time?  The text states that we are allowed to eat this bread, and "needless to say, it is permitted to derive benefit from this leavened bread."

Another mishna: Leavened bread that has fallen under a rockslide is considered to be destroyed and we don't have to dig it up and burn it.  Rabban Shimon be Geamliel tells us that we do not need to search for leaven that cannot be found by a dog.  The rabbis clarify: dogs will dig for food and not for money. Dogs dig up to 3 handbreadths.  We must nullify this leaven in our hearts alone.  Rafram bar Pappa from Sikhra tells us that we bury money at one handbreadth below the surface of the ground, just out of view.  I think that instead of trusting the big banks, we may want to reconsider this method of storing our cash.

Finally, another mishna: If a person eats terumah unknowingly on Pesach, we must pay the principal plus 1/5 of the actual worth of the bread (not its value on Pesach, which is nothing).  A note tells us that there is some debate regarding whether we should pay this money to the priest himself or to the priests together.  If a person eats this terumah intentionally during Pesach, s/he is liable for karet.  Karet is a serious punishment that trumps the repayment of the terumah, and thus no recompense is required. 

Today's daf was slightly easier for me to follow than the past few dapim.  However, the system of loans, debts, collateral - all of these were challenging to understand.  That makes sense, I suppose, when I find those concepts quite bizarre in our own times.