(Mishnah): A slave that was made an aputiki on a loan (that if the loan is not returned in any other way, the slave will be the payment) and he was then freed, strictly speaking the slave is not in any way liable. However, for the good of society, we force the master to free him and the slave should write a document to his value. R' Shimon B''G says that it is not the slave but rather the owner who writes the document.

Question: Who freed him (in the first statement of the Mishnah "and then he was freed''?

(Rav): It can be the first master or the second master (since the slave had been made security on the loan, it is considered that the debtor owns him).

(R' Yochanan): It refers only to the first master (since he presently owns the slave - but the debtor simply has a lean on the slave).

Question (R' Chaggai to R' Yosa - Mishnah): If a gentile loaned money to a Jew and took Chametz as his collateral, it is permitted to derive benefit from it after Pesach. But if you say that the Chametz was in the possession of the Jew, it would be prohibited!

Answer (R' Yudan): It is leniency found in the case of emancipation, as the Beraisa teaches, 'A slave that was made an aputiki on a loan', if he is sold it is invalid, but if he is freed it is valid.

Support for R' Yochanan - (Mishnah): R' Shimon B''G says that it is not the slave but rather the owner who writes the document. If one placed a lean on a field for his debtor, but then sold the field, could the debtor not go and take it from the buyer?

(R' Abahu): R' Yochanan enlightened us - we do not find that a slave who is freed can be enslaved again!

Question: If so, why should the slave write the document at all (if he was freed by the first master)?

Answer: It is better that the 2nd master ask him for 200 zuz rather than call him his slave.

(Rabanan of Kisarin quoting R' Nasa): R' Shimon B''G agrees with R' Meir - just as R' Meir penalizes for words (not only for actions), so R''SBG penalizes for words.

Source (Beraisa): R' Meir says that if there is a loan document that requires the payment of interest, we penalize the lender that he may not even collect the principal. Chachamim say that he may collect the principal but not the interest.

(The Mishnah stated earlier 1(c)): R''SBG requires that a dog be unable to retrieve it.

Question: How deep must it be?

Answer (R' Yochanan quoting R' Shimon ben Yutzedek): Three tefachim (handbreadths).

(Mishnah): One who ate Chametz of Terumah on Pesach - if he was Shogeg (inadvertent) he must pay the principal and the chomesh (additional fifth of the value). If it was Mezid (intentional) he is exempt from payment and from the value of the firewood (if it was Terumah temeyah) (since he is liable the more severe punishment of death for eating it.)

(Gemara) - Beraisa) (R' Shimon ben Elazar quoting R' Shimon ben Yutzedek): The Mishnah refers to when he separated it as Terumah when it was matzah and afterwards it became Chametz; but if he separated it when it was Chametz, it is not Terumah.

Query: What would be the din if he separated matzah as Terumah for Chametz that he owns?

Answer (R' Zeira): Any Terumah that does not cause what remains to become permitted to eat, is not Terumah.

Question: (Even) If he separated Chametz as Terumah for matzah, what is the din?

Answer (R' Zeira): Since separating Chametz as Terumah for Chametz does not work, certainly this case does not work.

If one made a dough of four quarter logs (which is less than the minimum quantity of flour that requires the separation of challah) and allowed it to become Chametz and then did the same thing again and mixed the two doughs -

If he was warned against eating the mixture since it was tevel (as the challah had not been taken), he does not receive lashes for it (as the prohibition of eating Chametz had already fallen upon it).

If he was warned against eating the mixture since it was Chametz, he receives lashes. A stringent prohibition can take effect upon a lighter prohibition but not vice-versa.

But if he first mixed the two doughs and then allowed them to become Chametz -

If he was warned against eating it since it was tevel, he receives lashes.

If he was warned because of the prohibition of Chametz on Pesach, he receives lashes. A stringent prohibition can take effect upon a lighter prohibition but not vice-versa.