Gittin 36

דמדרינן ליה ברבים הניחא למאן דאמר נדר שהודר ברבים אין לו הפרה אלא למאן דאמר יש לו הפרה מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara answers that we administer the vow to the priest in public. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has no possibility of nullification by a halakhic authority, but according to the one who says it has the possibility of nullification, what can be said?

דמדרינן ליה על דעת רבים דאמר אמימר הלכתא אפילו למאן דאמר נדר שהודר ברבים יש לו הפרה על דעת רבים אין לו הפרה

The Gemara answers that we administer the vow to the priest based on the consent of the public, making it a type of vow that cannot be dissolved without their consent. As Ameimar said, the halakha is as follows: Even according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has the possibility of nullification, if it was taken based on the consent of the public, it has no possibility of nullification.

והני מילי לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה יש לו הפרה כי ההוא מקרי דרדקי דאדריה רב אחא על דעת רבים דהוה פשע בינוקי ואהדריה רבינא דלא אישתכח דדייק כוותיה

The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to when the nullification of a vow is in order to enable one to perform an optional matter, but to enable one to perform a matter of a mitzva, it has the possibility of nullification. This is like the incident involving a certain teacher of children, upon whom Rav Aḥa administered a vow based on the consent of the public to cease teaching, as he was negligent with regard to the children by hitting them too much. And Ravina had his vow nullified and reinstated him, as they did not find another teacher who was as meticulous as he was.

והעדים חותמין על הגט מפני תיקון העולם מפני תיקון העולם דאורייתא הוא דכתיב וכתוב בספר וחתום

§ The mishna taught: And the witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the betterment of the world. The Gemara asks: Is the reason that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the betterment of the world? It is by Torah law that they must sign, as it is written: “And subscribe the deeds, and sign them, and call witnesses” (Jeremiah 32:44).

אמר רבה לא צריכא לרבי אלעזר דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי תקינו רבנן עדי חתימה מפני תיקון העולם דזמנין דמייתי סהדי אי נמי זימנין דאזלי למדינת הים

Rabba said: No, it is necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and not the witnesses who sign the bill of divorce, and by Torah law it does not need to be signed. Nevertheless, the Sages instituted signatory witnesses for the betterment of the world, as sometimes it occurs that the witnesses who witnessed the transmission of the bill of divorce die, or sometimes it occurs that they go overseas, and the validity of the bill of divorce may be contested. Since they are not present, there are no witnesses who can ratify the bill of divorce. Once the Sages instituted that the witnesses’ signatures appear on the bill of divorce, then the bill of divorce can be ratified by authenticating their signatures.

רב יוסף אמר אפילו תימא לרבי מאיר התקינו שיהא עדים מפרשין שמותיהן בגיטין מפני תיקון העולם

Rav Yosef said: You can even say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and the mishna should be understood as follows: They instituted that the witnesses must specify their full names on bills of divorce and not merely sign the document, for the betterment of the world.

כדתניא בראשונה היה כותב אני פלוני חתמתי עד אם כתב ידו יוצא ממקום אחר כשר ואם לאו פסול

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:13): At first, the witness would write only: I, so-and-so, signed as a witness, but they did not state their full names. Therefore, the only way to identify the witness was to see if an identical signature could be found on a different document that had been ratified in court. Therefore, if another copy of a witness’s signature is produced from elsewhere, i.e., another court document, it is valid, but if not, then the bill of divorce is invalid even though it is possible that he was a valid witness, and as a result of this women were left unable to remarry.

אמר רבן גמליאל תקנה גדולה התקינו שיהיו מפרשין שמותיהן בגיטין מפני תיקון העולם

Rabban Gamliel said: They instituted a great ordinance that the witnesses must specify their full names on bills of divorce, stating that they are so-and-so, son of so-and-so, and other identifying features, for the betterment of the world. This made it possible to easily clarify who the witnesses were and to ratify the bill of divorce by finding acquaintances of the witnesses who recognized their signatures.

ובסימנא לא והא רב צייר כורא ורבי חנינא צייר חרותא רב חסדא סמך ורב הושעיא עין רבה בר רב הונא צייר מכותא שאני רבנן דבקיאין סימנייהו

The Gemara asks: But is it not sufficient to sign with a pictorial mark? But Rav drew a fish instead of a signature, and Rabbi Ḥanina drew a palm branch [ḥaruta]; Rav Ḥisda drew the letter samekh, and Rav Hoshaya drew the letter ayin; and Rabba bar Rav Huna drew a sail [makota]. None of these Sages would sign their actual names. The Gemara answers: The Sages are different, as everyone is well versed in their pictorial marks.

מעיקרא במאי אפקעינהו בדיסקי

The Gemara asks: Initially, with what did they publicize these marks, as they could not use them in place of signatures before people were well versed in them? The Gemara answers: They initially used their marks in letters, where there is no legal requirement to sign their names. Once it became known that they would use these marks as their signatures, they were able to use them as signatures even on legal documents.

הלל התקין פרוסבול וכו׳ תנן התם פרוסבול אינו משמט זה אחד מן הדברים שהתקין הלל הזקן שראה את העם שנמנעו מלהלוות זה את זה ועברו על מה שכתוב בתורה השמר לך פן יהיה דבר עם לבבך בליעל וגו׳ עמד והתקין פרוסבול

§ The mishna taught that Hillel the Elder instituted a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol]. We learned in a mishna there (Shevi’it 10:3): If one writes a prosbol, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate debt. This is one of the matters that Hillel the Elder instituted because he saw that the people of the nation were refraining from lending to one another around the time of the Sabbatical Year, as they were concerned that the debtor would not repay the loan, and they violated that which is written in the Torah: “Beware that there be not a base thought in your heart, saying: The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your needy brother, and you give him nothing” (Deuteronomy 15:9). He arose and instituted the prosbol so that it would also be possible to collect those debts in order to ensure that people would continue to give loans.

וזה הוא גופו של פרוסבול מוסרני לכם פלוני דיינין שבמקום פלוני שכל חוב שיש לי אצל פלוני שאגבנו כל זמן שארצה והדיינים חותמים למטה או העדים

And this is the essence of the text of the prosbol: I transfer to you, so-and-so the judges, who are in such and such a place, so that I will collect any debt that I am owed by so-and-so whenever I wish, as the court now has the right to collect the debts. And the judges or the witnesses sign below, and this is sufficient. The creditor will then be able to collect the debt on behalf of the court, and the court can give it to him.

ומי איכא מידי דמדאורייתא משמטא שביעית והתקין הלל דלא משמטא אמר אביי בשביעית בזמן הזה ורבי היא

The Gemara asks about the prosbol itself: But is there anything like this, where by Torah law the Sabbatical Year cancels the debt but Hillel instituted that it does not cancel the debt? Abaye said: The baraita is referring to the Sabbatical Year in the present, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

דתניא רבי אומר וזה דבר השמיטה שמוט בשתי שמיטות הכתוב מדבר אחת שמיטת קרקע ואחת שמיטת כספים בזמן שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט כספים בזמן שאי אתה משמט קרקע אי אתה משמט כספים

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states in the context of the cancellation of debts: “And this is the manner of the abrogation: He shall abrogate” (Deuteronomy 15:2). The verse speaks of two types of abrogation: One is the release of land and one is the abrogation of monetary debts. Since the two are equated, one can learn the following: At a time when you release land, when the Jubilee Year is practiced, you abrogate monetary debts; at a time when you do not release land, such as the present time, when the Jubilee Year is no longer practiced, you also do not abrogate monetary debts.

ותקינו רבנן דתשמט זכר לשביעית ראה הלל שנמנעו העם מלהלוות זה את זה עמד והתקין פרוסבול

And the Sages instituted that despite this, the Sabbatical Year still will abrogate debt in the present, in remembrance of the Torah-mandated Sabbatical Year. Hillel saw that the people of the nation refrained from lending to each other so he arose and instituted the prosbol. According to this explanation, the ordinance of Hillel did not conflict with a Torah law; rather, he added an ordinance to counter the effect of a rabbinic law.

ומי איכא מידי דמדאורייתא לא משמטא שביעית ותקינו רבנן דתשמט

According to this explanation, the Sages instituted that even in the present the Sabbatical Year would bring a cancellation of debt, despite the fact that by Torah law the debt still stands. The Gemara asks: But is there anything like this, where by Torah law the Sabbatical Year does not cancel the debt, and the Sages instituted that it will cancel? It is as though the Sages are instructing the debtors to steal from their creditors, as by Torah law they still owe the money.

אמר אביי שב ואל תעשה הוא רבא אמר הפקר בית דין היה הפקר דאמר רבי יצחק מנין שהפקר בית דין היה הפקר שנאמר וכל אשר לא יבוא לשלשת הימים כעצת השרים והזקנים יחרם כל רכושו והוא יבדל מקהל הגולה

Abaye says: This is not actual theft; it is an instruction to sit passively and not do anything. The Sages have the authority to instruct one to passively violate a Torah law, so long as no action is taken. Rava says: The Sages are able to institute this ordinance because property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless. As Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From where is it derived that property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless? As it is stated: “And whoever did not come within three days according to the counsel of the princes and the Elders, all of his property shall be forfeited, and he shall be separated from the congregation of the captivity” (Ezra 10:8).

רבי אליעזר אמר מהכא אלה הנחלות אשר נחלו אלעזר הכהן ויהושע בן נון וראשי האבות וגו׳ וכי מה ענין ראשים אצל אבות לומר לך מה אבות מנחילין את בניהם כל מה שירצו אף ראשים מנחילין העם כל מה שירצו

Rabbi Eliezer said: The halakha that property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless is derived from here: The verse states: “These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes of the children of Israel distributed for inheritance” (Joshua 19:51). The Gemara asks: What do the heads have to do with the fathers? It comes to tell you: Just as fathers transmit anything that they wish to their children, so too, heads of the nation transmit to the people anything that they wish. This demonstrates that the court has the authority to take property from one person and to give it to another; therefore, the Sages have the authority to decide that all debts are canceled.

איבעיא להו כי התקין הלל פרוסבול לדריה הוא דתקין או דלמא לדרי עלמא נמי תקין

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Hillel instituted the prosbol, was it for his generation alone that he instituted it, and the custom developed to continue using it, or did he perhaps institute it also for all generations?

למאי נפקא מינה לבטוליה אי אמרת לדריה הוא דתקין מבטלינן ליה אלא אי אמרת לדרי עלמא נמי תקין הא אין בית דין יכול לבטל דברי בית דין חברו אלא אם כן גדול הימנו בחכמה ובמנין מאי

The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether it was instituted for his generation only or for all generations when either way, it is still in use? The Gemara explains: The difference arises with regard to nullifying the institution of prosbol. If you say that it was for his generation alone that he instituted it, then we can nullify it if we desire. But if you say that he instituted it also for all generations, then there is a principle that a court can nullify the action of another court only if it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. Therefore, we would not be able to nullify the ordinance instituted by Hillel and his court. What, then, is the halakha?

תא שמע דאמר שמואל לא כתבינן פרוסבול אלא אי בבי דינא דסורא אי בבי דינא דנהרדעא ואי סלקא דעתך לדרי עלמא נמי תקין בשאר בי דינא נמי לכתבו

The Gemara suggests a resolution to the dilemma: Come and hear that which Shmuel said: We write a prosbol only in the court of Sura or in the court of Neharde’a, as they were the primary centers of Torah study, but not in any other court. And if it enters your mind to say that he instituted it also for all generations, then let them write a prosbol in the other courts as well.

דלמא כי תקין הלל לדרי עלמא כגון בי דינא דידיה וכרב אמי ורב אסי דאלימי לאפקועי ממונא אבל לכולי עלמא לא

The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps when Hillel instituted the prosbol, he did so for all generations, but only for courts such as his court, which was the primary court of his time, and courts like those of Rav Ami and Rav Asi, as they have the power to remove money from someone’s possession. However, for all other courts, which are not as authoritative, he did not institute this ordinance. Therefore, the statement of Shmuel cannot serve as a proof with regard to the manner in which the prosbol was instituted.

תא שמע דאמר שמואל הא פרוסבלא עולבנא דדייני הוא אי איישר חיל אבטליניה אבטליניה והא אין בית דין יכול לבטל דברי בית דין חברו אלא אם כן גדול הימנו בחכמה ובמנין הכי קאמר אם איישר חיל יותר מהלל אבטליניה

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear that which Shmuel said: This prosbol is an ulbena of the judges; if my strength increases I will nullify it. The Gemara challenges this statement: How could Shmuel say: I will nullify it? But isn’t it the case that a court can nullify the action of another court only if it is greater than it in wisdom and in number? It must be that Shmuel holds that Hillel did not establish the prosbol for all generations, and in his time it carried the force of a mere custom. The Gemara rejects this proof: It can be explained that this is what he said: If my strength increases so that I become greater than Hillel, then I will nullify the prosbol.

ורב נחמן אמר אקיימנה אקיימנה הא מיקיים וקאי הכי קאמר אימא ביה מילתא דאף על גב דלא כתוב ככתוב דמי

By contrast, Rav Naḥman said: If my strength increases, I will uphold the institution of the prosbol. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: I will uphold it? Isn’t it upheld and standing? Why does the prosbol require further support? The Gemara explains: This is what he said: If my strength increases, I will say something about it, and I will institute that even though the prosbol was not written, it is considered as though it was written. Then people would no longer need to write a prosbol, as it would be considered as if everyone wrote one.

איבעיא להו האי עולבנא לישנא דחוצפא הוא או לישנא דניחותא הוא תא שמע דאמר עולא עלובה כלה שזינתה בקרב חופתה

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: This ulbena of the judges that Shmuel speaks of, is it a term of insolence, in that the judges are, according to Shmuel, enabling lenders to insolently collect debts that are not due to them, or a term of convenience, in that the judges are saving themselves the inconvenience of having to actually collect the debts detailed in the promissory notes? The Gemara suggests a proof: Come and hear that which Ulla said in describing the Jewish people after they sinned with the Golden Calf immediately following the revelation at Sinai: Insolent [aluva] is the bride who is promiscuous under her wedding canopy.

אמר רב מרי ברה דבת שמואל מאי קרא עד שהמלך במסבו נרדי נתן ריחו אמר רבא עדיין חביבותא הוא גבן דכתיב נתן ולא כתיב הסריח

Rav Mari, son of Shmuel’s daughter, says: What is the verse from which it is derived? “While the king sat at his table, my spikenard sent forth its fragrance” (Song of Songs 1:12). He understands the verse in the following manner: While the king was still involved in his celebration, i.e., God had just given the Torah, the perfume of the Jewish people gave off an unpleasant odor, i.e., they sinned with the Golden Calf. Rava says: Nevertheless, it is apparent from the verse that the affection of God is still upon us, as it is written euphemistically as “sent forth its fragrance” and the verse is not written: It reeked.

תנו רבנן הנעלבין ואינן עולבים שומעין חרפתן ואין משיבין עושין מאהבה ושמחין ביסורין עליהן הכתוב אומר ואוהביו כצאת השמש בגבורתו

The Gemara continues discussing the meaning of the word ulbena. The Sages taught: Those who are insulted [ne’elavin] but do not insult others, who hear their shame but do not respond, who act out of love and are joyful in their suffering, about them the verse states: “And they that love Him are as the sun going forth in its might” (Judges 5:31).

מאי פרוסבול אמר רב חסדא פרוס בולי ובוטי

§ The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word prosbol? Rav Ḥisda said: An ordinance [pros] of bulei and butei.