Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 19, 2016 | 讟壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 37

There is a desire on the part of the rabbis to make sure that loans are collected despite the cancellation of the loans at the end of the shmita year. 聽Since one can only write a pruzbol if the borrower has land, they come up with ways to give people a minimum amount of land or allow other things to qualify as land in order to insure a pruzbol can be written, 聽others allow pruzbol to be just said, without needing a document. 聽Others allow one to claim he has a pruzbol but lost it. 聽Others insist that a “game” be played (in the event there was not a pruzbol) in which the one creditor says the shmita has cancelled the loan, then the borrower says he want to give him back the money anyway as a gift.

Study Guide Gittin 37


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘讜诇讬 讗诇讜 注砖讬专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讘专转讬 讗转 讙讗讜谉 注讜讝讻诐 讜转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讜 讘讜诇讗讜转 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘讜讟讬 讗诇讜 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讛注讘讟 转注讘讬讟谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇诇注讜讝讗 诪讗讬 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜专住讗 讚诪讬诇转讗

Bulei, these are the wealthy, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I will break the pride of your power鈥 (Leviticus 26:19), and Rav Yosef taught with regard to this verse: These are the bula鈥檕t, the wealthy people, of Judea. Butei, these are the poor, who are in need of a loan, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not shut your hand from your needy brother; but you shall open your hand to him, and you shall lend him [ha鈥檃vet ta鈥檃vitenu] sufficient for his need鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:7鈥8). Therefore, the prosbol was instituted both for the sake of the wealthy, so that the loans they would give to the poor person would not be canceled, and for the sake of the poor, so that they would continue to find those willing to lend them money. Rava said to a foreigner who spoke Greek: What is the meaning of the word prosbol? He said to him: It means the institution [pursa] of a matter.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬转讜诪讬谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讬转讜诪讬谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 讗讘讬讛谉 砖诇 讬转讜诪讬谉

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Orphans do not require a prosbol in order to collect payment of debts owed to them. And similarly, Rami bar 岣ma taught in a baraita: Orphans do not require a prosbol, as Rabban Gamliel and his court, i.e., any rabbinic court, are considered the fathers of orphans, meaning that all matters that relate to orphans are already managed by the court, including their promissory notes.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讗诇讗 注诇 讛拽专拽注 讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讝讻讛讜 讘转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讻诇 砖讛讜 讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 拽诇讞 砖诇 讻专讜讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛砖讗讬诇讜 诪拽讜诐 诇转谞讜专 讜诇讻讬专讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 驻专讜住讘讜诇

We learned in a mishna there (Shevi鈥檌t 10:6): One may write a prosbol only on the basis of the debtor owning land. If the debtor has no land, then the creditor transfers any amount of his own field to him so that he can write a prosbol. The Gemara asks: And how much is sufficient to be classified as any amount? Rav 岣yya bar Ashi says that Rav says: Even the amount of land sufficient to grow a stalk of cabbage is sufficient. Rav Yehuda says: Even if he lent him a place sufficient for an oven and a stove, one may write a prosbol on this basis.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛转谞讬 讛诇诇 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讗诇讗 注诇 注爪讬抓 谞拽讜讘 讘诇讘讚 谞拽讜讘 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 诇讗

The Gemara challenges this statement: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Hillel teach (Tosefta, Shevi鈥檌t 8:10): One writes a prosbol only on the basis of the debtor owning merely a perforated pot placed on the ground. This demonstrates that a perforated pot can serve as the basis for the writing of a prosbol, as it is considered to be part of the ground due to the perforation; however, a pot that is not perforated cannot serve as the basis for the writing of a prosbol.

讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪谞讞 讗住讬讻讬

The Gemara continues the question: Since Rav Yehuda stated that possession of the place occupied by the oven is also considered possession of the land underneath with regard to this issue, why can鈥檛 a non-perforated pot serve as the basis for a prosbol; but isn鈥檛 there the place where the pot is resting? The Gemara answers: No, one cannot compare the case of Rav Yehuda to this case, as it is necessary for Hillel to state his halakha in a case where the pot is resting on stakes and the borrower has no possession of any land at all. Hillel teaches that even so, if the pot is perforated it is considered to be land and may serve as the basis for the writing of a prosbol.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讙讬讚诪讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 讜讻转讘 注诇讬讛 驻专讜住讘讜诇 专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 诪住专讬 诪讬诇讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪住专 诪讬诇讬 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪专讬讻谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻转

The Gemara recounts a related incident: When Rav Ashi would lend money and wish to write a prosbol he would transfer to the borrower a stump of a palm tree that was still attached to the ground, and he wrote a prosbol based on this. The Sages of the school of Rav Ashi would transfer their matters, i.e., their debts, to each other without writing a prosbol, by stating: You are hereby a court, and the debt is given over to you. Rabbi Yonatan transferred a matter by means of such a statement to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba. Rabbi Yonatan said to him: Do I need anything else? He said to him: You do not need anything else, as this statement alone is sufficient.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 拽专拽注 讜诇注专讘 讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 驻专讜住讘讜诇 诇讜 讜诇注专讘 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 拽专拽注 讜诇讞讬讬讘 诇讜 讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 驻专讜住讘讜诇 诪讚专讘讬 谞转谉

The Gemara discusses the requirement for the debtor to have land. The Sages taught: If the debtor has no land but the guarantor has land then one writes a prosbol on the basis of the land of the guarantor. If both he and the guarantor have no land, but another person who is obligated to pay money to the debtor has land, then one writes a prosbol on the basis of this land. This halakha is derived from a statement of Rabbi Natan.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘专讜 诪谞讛 讜讞讘专讜 讘讞讘专讜 诪谞讬谉 砖诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讝讛 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 诇讗砖专 讗砖诐 诇讜

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that when one lends one hundred dinars to his friend, and that friend lends an identical sum to his own friend, that the court appropriates the money from this one, the second debtor, and gives it to that one, the first creditor, without going through the middleman, who is both the first debtor and the second creditor? The verse states with regard to returning stolen property: 鈥淎nd gives it to him in respect of whom he has been guilty鈥 (Numbers 5:7). The fact that the verse explains that the money is given to one: 鈥淚n respect of whom he has been guilty,鈥 indicates that the money should be given directly to the one to whom the money is ultimately owed. In this case as well, the second debtor possesses land, and as he owes money to the first debtor, it is considered as if the second debtor owes money to the first creditor, enabling the first creditor to write a prosbol.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转 讗转 讛诪诇讜讛 讘讬谉 讘砖讟专 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖讟专 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘砖讟专 砖讟专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 砖诇讗 讘砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讻诇 砖讻谉 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛

We learned in a mishna there (Shevi鈥檌t 10:1): The Sabbatical Year abrogates debt both for loans that were contracted with a promissory note and for loans that were contracted without a promissory note. The amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to the interpretation of the mishna: It is Rav and Shmuel who both say: Loans that were contracted with a promissory note, is referring to loans that were contracted with a promissory note that contains a property guarantee; loans that were contracted without a promissory note, is referring even to loans that were contracted with a promissory note that does not contain a property guarantee. All the more so, a loan by oral agreement is canceled by the Sabbatical Year.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘砖讟专 砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 砖诇讗 讘砖讟专 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讘诇 砖讟专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟

By contrast, it is Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who both say: Loans that were contracted with a promissory note is referring to loans that were contracted with a promissory note that does not contain a property guarantee, whereas loans that were contracted without a promissory note is referring to a loan by oral agreement. However, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate a loan contracted with a promissory note that contains a property guarantee, as it is as though the creditor had already taken possession of the debtor鈥檚 land.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诪砖诪讟 讜讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 住讬讬诐 诇讜 砖讚讛 讗讞转 讘讛诇讜讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讬 讗讞专讗讬谉 讜注专讘讗讬谉 诇讱 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The Sabbatical Year abrogates a promissory note, but if the promissory note contains a property guarantee the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate it. Similarly, it is taught in another baraita: If the debtor specified one field for the repayment of his loan, then it is not canceled. And not only that, but even if he wrote: All of my property is pledged and guaranteed to you, then the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate it, even if he does not specify a field for the repayment of the loan.

拽专讬讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 砖讘拽讬讛 讜讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟

The Gemara relates: The relative of Rabbi Asi had a certain promissory note that had a property guarantee written in it. He came before Rabbi Asi and said to him: Does the Sabbatical Year abrogate this loan, or does it not abrogate it? He said to him: It does not abrogate it. He left Rabbi Asi and came before Rabbi Yo岣nan and asked him the same question. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: It does abrogate it.

讗转讗 专讘讬 讗住讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讜讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗谞讜 诪讚诪讬谉 谞注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖讟专 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讘讜转 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬

Rabbi Asi came before Rabbi Yo岣nan and said to him: Does the Sabbatical Year abrogate this loan, or does it not abrogate it? He said to him: It does abrogate it. Rabbi Asi challenged him: But wasn鈥檛 it the Master himself who said that the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate a promissory note that contains a property guarantee? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Because we think that this should be the halakha should we perform an action based on this? Rabbi Asi said to him: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of the Master? He said to him: Perhaps that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say more generally: A promissory note that stands to be collected is considered as though it has been collected, and this is why the loan is not abrogated, as it is considered as though the loan had already been repaid. And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai in that issue.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诪注讜转 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讜讛诪讜住专 砖讟专讜转讬讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诪砖诪讟讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讜住专 砖讟专讜转讬讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚转驻住讬 诇讛讜 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪诇讜讛 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

We learned in a mishna there (Shevi鈥檌t 10:2): With regard to one who lends money to another based on collateral, and one who transfers his promissory notes to a court, the debt owed to them is not canceled. The Gemara asks: Granted, the debt is not canceled when one transfers his promissory notes to a court, as the court seizes the promissory notes, and they are able to collect this debt. But what is the reason that the debt is not canceled for one who lends money based on collateral?

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讚转驻住 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛诇讜讛讜 讜讚专 讘讞爪专讜 讚转驻讬住 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪砖诪讟

Rava said: Due to the fact that the creditor has seized an item that belongs to the debtor, it is considered as though the debt has already been collected. Abaye said to him: If that is so, then if a creditor loaned money to someone and lives in his courtyard as a collateral for the loan, since he seizes the courtyard, which belongs to the debtor, would you also say that the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the debt? That would contradict the accepted halakha that in this case the debt is canceled.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 诪砖讻讜谉 讚拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖拽讜谞讛 诪砖讻讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讱 转讛讬讛 爪讚拽讛 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 爪讚拽讛 诪谞讬谉 诪讻讗谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖拽讜谞讛 诪砖讻讜谉

Rava said to him: Collateral is different, as the creditor acquires it for himself, as learned from the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says: From where is it derived that a creditor acquires collateral given to him and is considered its owner so long as the item is in his possession? As it is stated in the verse with regard to the obligation of a creditor to return collateral at night: 鈥淎nd it shall be righteousness for you鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:13). Rabbi Yitz岣k infers: If the creditor does not acquire the collateral, then from where is the righteousness involved in returning it? He would be simply returning an item to its rightful owner. From here it is learned that a creditor acquires the collateral. Therefore, when he returns the collateral to the debtor he is performing an act of charity.

转谞谉 讛转诐

We learned in a mishna there (Shevi鈥檌t 10:8):

讛诪讞讝讬专 讞讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘砖讘讬注讬转 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖诪讟 讗谞讬 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讬拽讘诇 讛讬诪谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讝讛 讚讘专 讛砖诪讟讛

In the case of one who repays a debt to his friend during the Sabbatical Year, the creditor must say to him: I abrogate the debt, but if the debtor then said to him: Nevertheless, I want to repay you, he may accept it from him, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd this is the manner [devar] of the abrogation鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:2). From the fact that the verse employed a term, devar, that can also mean: This is the statement of the cancellation, the Sages derived that the creditor must state that he cancels the debt, but he is allowed to accept the payment if the debtor insists on repaying.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讜转诇讬 诇讬讛 注讚 讚讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讻砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗诇 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讘讞讜讘讬 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讗诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 砖诇讬 讛谉 讜讘诪转谞讛 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转诇讬 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 注讚 讚讗诪专 讛讻讬

Rabba said: And the creditor is permitted to lift up his eyes to him hopefully, demonstrating that he wishes to accept the payment, until the debtor says this, that he nevertheless wishes to repay him. Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 statement from a baraita: When the debtor gives the creditor payment for a debt that has been canceled he should not say to him: I give this to you in payment of my debt; rather, he should say to him: This is my money and I give it to you as a gift. This indicates that the debt is repaid only by the initiative of the debtor. Rabba said to him: The creditor is permitted to lift up his eyes to him hopefully as well, until the debtor says this, that he gives it as a gift, but the initiative may come from the creditor.

讗讘讗 讘专 诪专转讗 讚讛讜讗 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讛讜讛 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 专讘讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讗谞讬 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 讜讗讝诇 讗转讗 讗讘讬讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讛讜讛 注爪讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 注爪讬讘 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara relates: There was a man by the name of Abba bar Marta, who is also known as Abba bar Minyumi, from whom Rabba was attempting to collect a debt. He brought it to him in the Sabbatical Year. Rabba said to him: I abrogate this debt. Abba bar Marta took the money and left. Abaye came before Rabba and found that he was sad. Abaye said to him: Why is the Master sad? Rabba said to him: This was the incident that occurred, explaining that Abba bar Marta understood his statement literally and did not repay the debt.

讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讟转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讗谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专转 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讛讜讛 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讱 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 讗诪讟讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讗讝诇 讗诪讟讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讛 讚注转讗 讘讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗

Abaye went to Abba bar Marta, and said to him: Did you bring the money to the Master? He said to him: Yes. Abaye said to him: And what did he say to you? He said to him that Rabba had responded: I abrogate this debt. Abaye said to him: And did you say to him: Nevertheless, I want to repay you? Abba bar Marta said to him: No. Abaye said to him: But if you had said to him: Nevertheless, I want to repay you, he would have taken it from you. Now, in any event, bring it to him and say to him: Nevertheless, I want to repay you. Abba bar Marta went and brought the money to Rabba and said to him: Nevertheless, I want to repay you, and Rabba took it from him. In the end, Rabba said: This Torah scholar was not knowledgeable from the beginning, as it was necessary to teach him how to react.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讛讬讛 讘讬讚讬 讜讗讘讚 诪诪谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讛讬转讬专讗 讜讗讻讬诇 讗讬住讜专讗

Rav Yehuda says that Rav Na岣an says: A person is deemed credible to say: I had a prosbol and I lost it, and collect payment of his debt. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? Since the Sages instituted the prosbol in a manner that allows anyone to write one without difficulty, in a situation such as this one does not leave aside a permitted item, i.e., collecting a debt after having written a prosbol, and eat a forbidden item, i.e., collecting a debt without having written a prosbol.

讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讛讬讛 诇讱 讜讗讘讚 讻讙讜谉 讝讛 驻转讞 驻讬讱 诇讗诇诐 讛讜讗

When they would come before Rav with a case where a creditor who did not have a prosbol was demanding payment of a debt after the Sabbatical Year, he would say to the creditor: Did you have any prosbol and it was lost? The Gemara explains that this is a case where the directive of the verse: 鈥淥pen your mouth for the mute鈥 (Proverbs 31:8) is applicable; this is not considered an intervention on behalf of one party, as it is only providing assistance for someone who was unaware of a claim that he should make.

转谞谉 讜讻谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖诪讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讜讗讬谉 注诪讜 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬驻专注讜

The Gemara challenges: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Ketubot 89a): And similarly, a creditor who presents a promissory note unaccompanied by a prosbol, these debts may not be collected. This demonstrates that even if a creditor himself claims that he had written a prosbol but it was lost, his claim is not accepted and the debt is canceled.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 注诪讜 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

The Gemara answers: It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who presents a promissory note after the Sabbatical Year, he must present a prosbol along with it in order to collect payment, and the Rabbis say: He does not need to present a prosbol, as it is assumed that he wrote one.

诪转谞讬壮 注讘讚 砖谞砖讘讛 讜驻讚讗讜讛讜 讗诐 诇砖讜诐 注讘讚 讬砖转注讘讚 讗诐 诇砖讜诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转注讘讚 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬砖转注讘讚

MISHNA: In the case of a Canaanite slave that was captured, and Jews who had not owned him redeemed him, if he was redeemed to be a slave then he will be a slave. If he was redeemed to be a freeman then he will not be a slave. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Both in this case and in that case he will be a slave.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 诇砖讜诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬砖转注讘讚 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 诇砖讜诐 注讘讚 讗诪讗讬 讬砖转注讘讚

GEMARA: With what are we dealing? If we say that the slave was redeemed before the first owner reached a state of despairing with regard to recovering the slave, then even if he was redeemed to be a freeman, he should still belong to his first owner; why would the mishna state that he will not be a slave? Rather, we might say that the slave was redeemed after the despairing of the first owner. Then, even if he was redeemed to be a slave, why will he be a slave? After his owner despairs of recovering him, he becomes ownerless property and consequently acquires his own freedom.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 讜诇砖讜诐 注讘讚 讬砖转注讘讚 诇专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖讜诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转注讘讚 诇讗 诇专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诇专讘讜 砖谞讬 诇专讘讜 砖谞讬 诇讗 讚讛讗 诇砖讜诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 驻专拽讬讛 诇专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪诪谞注讬 讜诇讗 驻专拽讬

Abaye said: Actually, the mishna is referring to a case where the slave was redeemed before the despairing of the owner. Therefore, according to the unattributed opinion of the mishna, if he was redeemed to be a slave, he will be a slave to his first master. If he was redeemed to be a freeman, he will not be a slave, neither to his first master nor to his second master, i.e., the one who redeemed him. He will not be a slave to his second master because he redeemed him as a freeman and cannot now demand that he become a slave. He will also not be a slave to his first master lest people refrain from redeeming slaves. If they know that a redeemed slave remains a slave of his original owner, they will not see any reason to redeem them from captivity.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬砖转注讘讚 拽住讘专 讻砖诐 砖诪爪讜讛 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讻讱 诪爪讜讛 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐

Abaye continues his explication of the mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Both in this case and in that case he will be a slave to his first master. The Gemara explains: He holds that just as it is a mitzva to redeem freemen, so too, it is a mitzva to redeem slaves, and there is no concern that people will refrain from redeeming captured slaves.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 讜诇砖讜诐 注讘讚 讬砖转注讘讚 诇专讘讜 砖谞讬 诇砖讜诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转注讘讚 诇讗 诇专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诇专讘讜 砖谞讬 诇专讘讜 砖谞讬 诇讗 讚讛讗 诇砖讜诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 驻专拽讬讛 诇专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讛讗 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 讛讜讛

Rava said: The mishna should be understood differently. Actually, the mishna is referring to a case where the slave was redeemed after the despairing of the owner. And therefore, according to the unattributed opinion in the mishna, if he was redeemed to be a slave then he will be a slave to his second master, as his original owner had despaired of recovering him. If he was redeemed to be a freeman then he will not be a slave, neither to his first master nor to his second master. He will not be a slave to his second master as he redeemed him as a freeman. He will also not be a slave to his first master, as he was freed after the despairing of the first master.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬砖转注讘讚 讻讚讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬砖转注讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛讜诇讱 讜诪驻讬诇 注爪诪讜 诇讙讬讬住讜转 讜诪驻拽讬注 注爪诪讜 诪讬讚 专讘讜

Rava continues his explication of the mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Both in this case and in that case he will be a slave. This should be understood in accordance with the statement of 岣zkiyya, as 岣zkiyya said: For what reason did they say that both in this case and in that case he will be a slave? They said it so that each and every slave should not go and hand himself over to gentile troops, and in this manner release himself from the possession of his master.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻砖诐 砖诪爪讜讛 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讻讱 诪爪讜讛 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讻砖诐

The Gemara raises an objection to Rava鈥檚 explanation from a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to them: Just as it is a mitzva to redeem freemen, so too, it is a mitzva to redeem slaves. Granted, according to Abaye this works out well as he said that the mishna is referring to a slave that was redeemed before the despairing of his owner, and the unattributed opinion of the mishna rules that he will not be a slave to his original owner due to a concern that people will refrain from redeeming slaves. This is the reason that he said: Just as, since he was explaining that this concern does not exist.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 讛讗讬 讻砖诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讛讜讗

However, according to Rava, who said that the mishna is referring to a slave that was redeemed after the owner鈥檚 despairing, and the unattributed opinion of the mishna is not concerned that people will refrain from redeeming slaves, is this the rationale of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that just as it is a mitzva to redeem freemen, so too, it is a mitzva to redeem slaves? His reason is because of the statement of 岣zkiyya.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讗 讛讜讬 讬讚注 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 拽讗诪专讬转讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讻砖诐 讗讬 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 拽讗诪专讬转讜 讻讚讞讝拽讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rava could have said to you: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel did not know what exactly the Rabbis said, and this is what he said to them: If you say this ruling with regard to a slave who was redeemed before his owner鈥檚 despairing, this is my response, that just as it is a mitzva to redeem freemen, so too, it is a mitzva to redeem slaves. If you say that this case was after his owner鈥檚 despairing, then the reason that I disagree is in accordance with the statement of 岣zkiyya.

讜诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 讜诇专讘讜 砖谞讬 专讘讜 砖谞讬 诪诪讗谉 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪砖讘讗讬 砖讘讗讬 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讬 拽谞讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rava, who said that the mishna is referring to where the slave was redeemed after the despairing of the owner, and he will be a slave to his second master, one can ask: With regard to the second master, from whom did he acquire the slave? If you say that he acquired him from the captor, did the gentile captor himself acquire the slave? The ownership of the second master is contingent on his acquiring the slave from someone who himself had ownership over the slave.

讗讬谉 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 砖拽谞讛 讗转 讛讙讜讬 诇诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讙诐 诪讘谞讬 讛转讜砖讘讬诐 讛讙专讬诐 注诪讻诐 诪讛诐 转拽谞讜 讗转诐 拽讜谞讬诐 诪讛诐

The Gemara answers: Yes, he acquired ownership with regard to his labor, as Reish Lakish says: From where is it derived that a gentile can acquire another gentile as a slave with regard to his labor? As it is stated: 鈥淢oreover, of the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you may acquire鈥 (Leviticus 25:45). This indicates that you, Jews, can acquire slaves from them,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 37

讘讜诇讬 讗诇讜 注砖讬专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讘专转讬 讗转 讙讗讜谉 注讜讝讻诐 讜转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讜 讘讜诇讗讜转 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘讜讟讬 讗诇讜 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讛注讘讟 转注讘讬讟谞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇诇注讜讝讗 诪讗讬 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜专住讗 讚诪讬诇转讗

Bulei, these are the wealthy, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I will break the pride of your power鈥 (Leviticus 26:19), and Rav Yosef taught with regard to this verse: These are the bula鈥檕t, the wealthy people, of Judea. Butei, these are the poor, who are in need of a loan, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not shut your hand from your needy brother; but you shall open your hand to him, and you shall lend him [ha鈥檃vet ta鈥檃vitenu] sufficient for his need鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:7鈥8). Therefore, the prosbol was instituted both for the sake of the wealthy, so that the loans they would give to the poor person would not be canceled, and for the sake of the poor, so that they would continue to find those willing to lend them money. Rava said to a foreigner who spoke Greek: What is the meaning of the word prosbol? He said to him: It means the institution [pursa] of a matter.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬转讜诪讬谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讬转讜诪讬谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讚专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 讗讘讬讛谉 砖诇 讬转讜诪讬谉

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Orphans do not require a prosbol in order to collect payment of debts owed to them. And similarly, Rami bar 岣ma taught in a baraita: Orphans do not require a prosbol, as Rabban Gamliel and his court, i.e., any rabbinic court, are considered the fathers of orphans, meaning that all matters that relate to orphans are already managed by the court, including their promissory notes.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讗诇讗 注诇 讛拽专拽注 讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讝讻讛讜 讘转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讻诇 砖讛讜 讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 拽诇讞 砖诇 讻专讜讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛砖讗讬诇讜 诪拽讜诐 诇转谞讜专 讜诇讻讬专讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 驻专讜住讘讜诇

We learned in a mishna there (Shevi鈥檌t 10:6): One may write a prosbol only on the basis of the debtor owning land. If the debtor has no land, then the creditor transfers any amount of his own field to him so that he can write a prosbol. The Gemara asks: And how much is sufficient to be classified as any amount? Rav 岣yya bar Ashi says that Rav says: Even the amount of land sufficient to grow a stalk of cabbage is sufficient. Rav Yehuda says: Even if he lent him a place sufficient for an oven and a stove, one may write a prosbol on this basis.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛转谞讬 讛诇诇 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讗诇讗 注诇 注爪讬抓 谞拽讜讘 讘诇讘讚 谞拽讜讘 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘 诇讗

The Gemara challenges this statement: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Hillel teach (Tosefta, Shevi鈥檌t 8:10): One writes a prosbol only on the basis of the debtor owning merely a perforated pot placed on the ground. This demonstrates that a perforated pot can serve as the basis for the writing of a prosbol, as it is considered to be part of the ground due to the perforation; however, a pot that is not perforated cannot serve as the basis for the writing of a prosbol.

讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪谞讞 讗住讬讻讬

The Gemara continues the question: Since Rav Yehuda stated that possession of the place occupied by the oven is also considered possession of the land underneath with regard to this issue, why can鈥檛 a non-perforated pot serve as the basis for a prosbol; but isn鈥檛 there the place where the pot is resting? The Gemara answers: No, one cannot compare the case of Rav Yehuda to this case, as it is necessary for Hillel to state his halakha in a case where the pot is resting on stakes and the borrower has no possession of any land at all. Hillel teaches that even so, if the pot is perforated it is considered to be land and may serve as the basis for the writing of a prosbol.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讙讬讚诪讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 讜讻转讘 注诇讬讛 驻专讜住讘讜诇 专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 诪住专讬 诪讬诇讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪住专 诪讬诇讬 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪专讬讻谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻转

The Gemara recounts a related incident: When Rav Ashi would lend money and wish to write a prosbol he would transfer to the borrower a stump of a palm tree that was still attached to the ground, and he wrote a prosbol based on this. The Sages of the school of Rav Ashi would transfer their matters, i.e., their debts, to each other without writing a prosbol, by stating: You are hereby a court, and the debt is given over to you. Rabbi Yonatan transferred a matter by means of such a statement to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba. Rabbi Yonatan said to him: Do I need anything else? He said to him: You do not need anything else, as this statement alone is sufficient.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 拽专拽注 讜诇注专讘 讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 驻专讜住讘讜诇 诇讜 讜诇注专讘 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 拽专拽注 讜诇讞讬讬讘 诇讜 讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 驻专讜住讘讜诇 诪讚专讘讬 谞转谉

The Gemara discusses the requirement for the debtor to have land. The Sages taught: If the debtor has no land but the guarantor has land then one writes a prosbol on the basis of the land of the guarantor. If both he and the guarantor have no land, but another person who is obligated to pay money to the debtor has land, then one writes a prosbol on the basis of this land. This halakha is derived from a statement of Rabbi Natan.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘专讜 诪谞讛 讜讞讘专讜 讘讞讘专讜 诪谞讬谉 砖诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讝讛 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 诇讗砖专 讗砖诐 诇讜

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that when one lends one hundred dinars to his friend, and that friend lends an identical sum to his own friend, that the court appropriates the money from this one, the second debtor, and gives it to that one, the first creditor, without going through the middleman, who is both the first debtor and the second creditor? The verse states with regard to returning stolen property: 鈥淎nd gives it to him in respect of whom he has been guilty鈥 (Numbers 5:7). The fact that the verse explains that the money is given to one: 鈥淚n respect of whom he has been guilty,鈥 indicates that the money should be given directly to the one to whom the money is ultimately owed. In this case as well, the second debtor possesses land, and as he owes money to the first debtor, it is considered as if the second debtor owes money to the first creditor, enabling the first creditor to write a prosbol.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转 讗转 讛诪诇讜讛 讘讬谉 讘砖讟专 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖讟专 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘砖讟专 砖讟专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 砖诇讗 讘砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讻诇 砖讻谉 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛

We learned in a mishna there (Shevi鈥檌t 10:1): The Sabbatical Year abrogates debt both for loans that were contracted with a promissory note and for loans that were contracted without a promissory note. The amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to the interpretation of the mishna: It is Rav and Shmuel who both say: Loans that were contracted with a promissory note, is referring to loans that were contracted with a promissory note that contains a property guarantee; loans that were contracted without a promissory note, is referring even to loans that were contracted with a promissory note that does not contain a property guarantee. All the more so, a loan by oral agreement is canceled by the Sabbatical Year.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘砖讟专 砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 砖诇讗 讘砖讟专 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讘诇 砖讟专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟

By contrast, it is Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who both say: Loans that were contracted with a promissory note is referring to loans that were contracted with a promissory note that does not contain a property guarantee, whereas loans that were contracted without a promissory note is referring to a loan by oral agreement. However, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate a loan contracted with a promissory note that contains a property guarantee, as it is as though the creditor had already taken possession of the debtor鈥檚 land.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诪砖诪讟 讜讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 住讬讬诐 诇讜 砖讚讛 讗讞转 讘讛诇讜讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讬 讗讞专讗讬谉 讜注专讘讗讬谉 诇讱 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The Sabbatical Year abrogates a promissory note, but if the promissory note contains a property guarantee the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate it. Similarly, it is taught in another baraita: If the debtor specified one field for the repayment of his loan, then it is not canceled. And not only that, but even if he wrote: All of my property is pledged and guaranteed to you, then the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate it, even if he does not specify a field for the repayment of the loan.

拽专讬讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 砖讘拽讬讛 讜讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟

The Gemara relates: The relative of Rabbi Asi had a certain promissory note that had a property guarantee written in it. He came before Rabbi Asi and said to him: Does the Sabbatical Year abrogate this loan, or does it not abrogate it? He said to him: It does not abrogate it. He left Rabbi Asi and came before Rabbi Yo岣nan and asked him the same question. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: It does abrogate it.

讗转讗 专讘讬 讗住讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讜讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗谞讜 诪讚诪讬谉 谞注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖讟专 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙讘讜转 讻讙讘讜讬 讚诪讬

Rabbi Asi came before Rabbi Yo岣nan and said to him: Does the Sabbatical Year abrogate this loan, or does it not abrogate it? He said to him: It does abrogate it. Rabbi Asi challenged him: But wasn鈥檛 it the Master himself who said that the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate a promissory note that contains a property guarantee? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Because we think that this should be the halakha should we perform an action based on this? Rabbi Asi said to him: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of the Master? He said to him: Perhaps that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say more generally: A promissory note that stands to be collected is considered as though it has been collected, and this is why the loan is not abrogated, as it is considered as though the loan had already been repaid. And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai in that issue.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诪注讜转 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讜讛诪讜住专 砖讟专讜转讬讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诪砖诪讟讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讜住专 砖讟专讜转讬讜 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚转驻住讬 诇讛讜 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪诇讜讛 注诇 讛诪砖讻讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

We learned in a mishna there (Shevi鈥檌t 10:2): With regard to one who lends money to another based on collateral, and one who transfers his promissory notes to a court, the debt owed to them is not canceled. The Gemara asks: Granted, the debt is not canceled when one transfers his promissory notes to a court, as the court seizes the promissory notes, and they are able to collect this debt. But what is the reason that the debt is not canceled for one who lends money based on collateral?

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讚转驻住 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛诇讜讛讜 讜讚专 讘讞爪专讜 讚转驻讬住 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪砖诪讟

Rava said: Due to the fact that the creditor has seized an item that belongs to the debtor, it is considered as though the debt has already been collected. Abaye said to him: If that is so, then if a creditor loaned money to someone and lives in his courtyard as a collateral for the loan, since he seizes the courtyard, which belongs to the debtor, would you also say that the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the debt? That would contradict the accepted halakha that in this case the debt is canceled.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 诪砖讻讜谉 讚拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖拽讜谞讛 诪砖讻讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讱 转讛讬讛 爪讚拽讛 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讜谞讛 爪讚拽讛 诪谞讬谉 诪讻讗谉 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖拽讜谞讛 诪砖讻讜谉

Rava said to him: Collateral is different, as the creditor acquires it for himself, as learned from the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says: From where is it derived that a creditor acquires collateral given to him and is considered its owner so long as the item is in his possession? As it is stated in the verse with regard to the obligation of a creditor to return collateral at night: 鈥淎nd it shall be righteousness for you鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:13). Rabbi Yitz岣k infers: If the creditor does not acquire the collateral, then from where is the righteousness involved in returning it? He would be simply returning an item to its rightful owner. From here it is learned that a creditor acquires the collateral. Therefore, when he returns the collateral to the debtor he is performing an act of charity.

转谞谉 讛转诐

We learned in a mishna there (Shevi鈥檌t 10:8):

讛诪讞讝讬专 讞讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘砖讘讬注讬转 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 诇讜 诪砖诪讟 讗谞讬 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讬拽讘诇 讛讬诪谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讝讛 讚讘专 讛砖诪讟讛

In the case of one who repays a debt to his friend during the Sabbatical Year, the creditor must say to him: I abrogate the debt, but if the debtor then said to him: Nevertheless, I want to repay you, he may accept it from him, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd this is the manner [devar] of the abrogation鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:2). From the fact that the verse employed a term, devar, that can also mean: This is the statement of the cancellation, the Sages derived that the creditor must state that he cancels the debt, but he is allowed to accept the payment if the debtor insists on repaying.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讜转诇讬 诇讬讛 注讚 讚讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讻砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗诇 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讘讞讜讘讬 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讗诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 砖诇讬 讛谉 讜讘诪转谞讛 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转诇讬 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 注讚 讚讗诪专 讛讻讬

Rabba said: And the creditor is permitted to lift up his eyes to him hopefully, demonstrating that he wishes to accept the payment, until the debtor says this, that he nevertheless wishes to repay him. Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 statement from a baraita: When the debtor gives the creditor payment for a debt that has been canceled he should not say to him: I give this to you in payment of my debt; rather, he should say to him: This is my money and I give it to you as a gift. This indicates that the debt is repaid only by the initiative of the debtor. Rabba said to him: The creditor is permitted to lift up his eyes to him hopefully as well, until the debtor says this, that he gives it as a gift, but the initiative may come from the creditor.

讗讘讗 讘专 诪专转讗 讚讛讜讗 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讛讜讛 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 专讘讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讗谞讬 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 讜讗讝诇 讗转讗 讗讘讬讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讛讜讛 注爪讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 注爪讬讘 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara relates: There was a man by the name of Abba bar Marta, who is also known as Abba bar Minyumi, from whom Rabba was attempting to collect a debt. He brought it to him in the Sabbatical Year. Rabba said to him: I abrogate this debt. Abba bar Marta took the money and left. Abaye came before Rabba and found that he was sad. Abaye said to him: Why is the Master sad? Rabba said to him: This was the incident that occurred, explaining that Abba bar Marta understood his statement literally and did not repay the debt.

讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讟转 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讟 讗谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专转 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讛讜讛 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讱 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 讗诪讟讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 讗讝诇 讗诪讟讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讻谉 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讛 讚注转讗 讘讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗

Abaye went to Abba bar Marta, and said to him: Did you bring the money to the Master? He said to him: Yes. Abaye said to him: And what did he say to you? He said to him that Rabba had responded: I abrogate this debt. Abaye said to him: And did you say to him: Nevertheless, I want to repay you? Abba bar Marta said to him: No. Abaye said to him: But if you had said to him: Nevertheless, I want to repay you, he would have taken it from you. Now, in any event, bring it to him and say to him: Nevertheless, I want to repay you. Abba bar Marta went and brought the money to Rabba and said to him: Nevertheless, I want to repay you, and Rabba took it from him. In the end, Rabba said: This Torah scholar was not knowledgeable from the beginning, as it was necessary to teach him how to react.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讛讬讛 讘讬讚讬 讜讗讘讚 诪诪谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讛讬转讬专讗 讜讗讻讬诇 讗讬住讜专讗

Rav Yehuda says that Rav Na岣an says: A person is deemed credible to say: I had a prosbol and I lost it, and collect payment of his debt. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? Since the Sages instituted the prosbol in a manner that allows anyone to write one without difficulty, in a situation such as this one does not leave aside a permitted item, i.e., collecting a debt after having written a prosbol, and eat a forbidden item, i.e., collecting a debt without having written a prosbol.

讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讛讬讛 诇讱 讜讗讘讚 讻讙讜谉 讝讛 驻转讞 驻讬讱 诇讗诇诐 讛讜讗

When they would come before Rav with a case where a creditor who did not have a prosbol was demanding payment of a debt after the Sabbatical Year, he would say to the creditor: Did you have any prosbol and it was lost? The Gemara explains that this is a case where the directive of the verse: 鈥淥pen your mouth for the mute鈥 (Proverbs 31:8) is applicable; this is not considered an intervention on behalf of one party, as it is only providing assistance for someone who was unaware of a claim that he should make.

转谞谉 讜讻谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖诪讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讜讗讬谉 注诪讜 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬驻专注讜

The Gemara challenges: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Ketubot 89a): And similarly, a creditor who presents a promissory note unaccompanied by a prosbol, these debts may not be collected. This demonstrates that even if a creditor himself claims that he had written a prosbol but it was lost, his claim is not accepted and the debt is canceled.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 注诪讜 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

The Gemara answers: It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who presents a promissory note after the Sabbatical Year, he must present a prosbol along with it in order to collect payment, and the Rabbis say: He does not need to present a prosbol, as it is assumed that he wrote one.

诪转谞讬壮 注讘讚 砖谞砖讘讛 讜驻讚讗讜讛讜 讗诐 诇砖讜诐 注讘讚 讬砖转注讘讚 讗诐 诇砖讜诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转注讘讚 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬砖转注讘讚

MISHNA: In the case of a Canaanite slave that was captured, and Jews who had not owned him redeemed him, if he was redeemed to be a slave then he will be a slave. If he was redeemed to be a freeman then he will not be a slave. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Both in this case and in that case he will be a slave.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 诇砖讜诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬砖转注讘讚 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 诇砖讜诐 注讘讚 讗诪讗讬 讬砖转注讘讚

GEMARA: With what are we dealing? If we say that the slave was redeemed before the first owner reached a state of despairing with regard to recovering the slave, then even if he was redeemed to be a freeman, he should still belong to his first owner; why would the mishna state that he will not be a slave? Rather, we might say that the slave was redeemed after the despairing of the first owner. Then, even if he was redeemed to be a slave, why will he be a slave? After his owner despairs of recovering him, he becomes ownerless property and consequently acquires his own freedom.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 讜诇砖讜诐 注讘讚 讬砖转注讘讚 诇专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖讜诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转注讘讚 诇讗 诇专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诇专讘讜 砖谞讬 诇专讘讜 砖谞讬 诇讗 讚讛讗 诇砖讜诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 驻专拽讬讛 诇专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪诪谞注讬 讜诇讗 驻专拽讬

Abaye said: Actually, the mishna is referring to a case where the slave was redeemed before the despairing of the owner. Therefore, according to the unattributed opinion of the mishna, if he was redeemed to be a slave, he will be a slave to his first master. If he was redeemed to be a freeman, he will not be a slave, neither to his first master nor to his second master, i.e., the one who redeemed him. He will not be a slave to his second master because he redeemed him as a freeman and cannot now demand that he become a slave. He will also not be a slave to his first master lest people refrain from redeeming slaves. If they know that a redeemed slave remains a slave of his original owner, they will not see any reason to redeem them from captivity.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬砖转注讘讚 拽住讘专 讻砖诐 砖诪爪讜讛 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讻讱 诪爪讜讛 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐

Abaye continues his explication of the mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Both in this case and in that case he will be a slave to his first master. The Gemara explains: He holds that just as it is a mitzva to redeem freemen, so too, it is a mitzva to redeem slaves, and there is no concern that people will refrain from redeeming captured slaves.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 讜诇砖讜诐 注讘讚 讬砖转注讘讚 诇专讘讜 砖谞讬 诇砖讜诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬砖转注讘讚 诇讗 诇专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诇专讘讜 砖谞讬 诇专讘讜 砖谞讬 诇讗 讚讛讗 诇砖讜诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 驻专拽讬讛 诇专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讛讗 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 讛讜讛

Rava said: The mishna should be understood differently. Actually, the mishna is referring to a case where the slave was redeemed after the despairing of the owner. And therefore, according to the unattributed opinion in the mishna, if he was redeemed to be a slave then he will be a slave to his second master, as his original owner had despaired of recovering him. If he was redeemed to be a freeman then he will not be a slave, neither to his first master nor to his second master. He will not be a slave to his second master as he redeemed him as a freeman. He will also not be a slave to his first master, as he was freed after the despairing of the first master.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬砖转注讘讚 讻讚讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬砖转注讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛讜诇讱 讜诪驻讬诇 注爪诪讜 诇讙讬讬住讜转 讜诪驻拽讬注 注爪诪讜 诪讬讚 专讘讜

Rava continues his explication of the mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Both in this case and in that case he will be a slave. This should be understood in accordance with the statement of 岣zkiyya, as 岣zkiyya said: For what reason did they say that both in this case and in that case he will be a slave? They said it so that each and every slave should not go and hand himself over to gentile troops, and in this manner release himself from the possession of his master.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻砖诐 砖诪爪讜讛 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讻讱 诪爪讜讛 诇驻讚讜转 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讻砖诐

The Gemara raises an objection to Rava鈥檚 explanation from a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to them: Just as it is a mitzva to redeem freemen, so too, it is a mitzva to redeem slaves. Granted, according to Abaye this works out well as he said that the mishna is referring to a slave that was redeemed before the despairing of his owner, and the unattributed opinion of the mishna rules that he will not be a slave to his original owner due to a concern that people will refrain from redeeming slaves. This is the reason that he said: Just as, since he was explaining that this concern does not exist.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 讛讗讬 讻砖诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讝拽讬讛 讛讜讗

However, according to Rava, who said that the mishna is referring to a slave that was redeemed after the owner鈥檚 despairing, and the unattributed opinion of the mishna is not concerned that people will refrain from redeeming slaves, is this the rationale of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that just as it is a mitzva to redeem freemen, so too, it is a mitzva to redeem slaves? His reason is because of the statement of 岣zkiyya.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讗 讛讜讬 讬讚注 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 拽讗诪专讬转讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讻砖诐 讗讬 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 拽讗诪专讬转讜 讻讚讞讝拽讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rava could have said to you: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel did not know what exactly the Rabbis said, and this is what he said to them: If you say this ruling with regard to a slave who was redeemed before his owner鈥檚 despairing, this is my response, that just as it is a mitzva to redeem freemen, so too, it is a mitzva to redeem slaves. If you say that this case was after his owner鈥檚 despairing, then the reason that I disagree is in accordance with the statement of 岣zkiyya.

讜诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 讜诇专讘讜 砖谞讬 专讘讜 砖谞讬 诪诪讗谉 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诪砖讘讗讬 砖讘讗讬 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讬 拽谞讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rava, who said that the mishna is referring to where the slave was redeemed after the despairing of the owner, and he will be a slave to his second master, one can ask: With regard to the second master, from whom did he acquire the slave? If you say that he acquired him from the captor, did the gentile captor himself acquire the slave? The ownership of the second master is contingent on his acquiring the slave from someone who himself had ownership over the slave.

讗讬谉 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 砖拽谞讛 讗转 讛讙讜讬 诇诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讙诐 诪讘谞讬 讛转讜砖讘讬诐 讛讙专讬诐 注诪讻诐 诪讛诐 转拽谞讜 讗转诐 拽讜谞讬诐 诪讛诐

The Gemara answers: Yes, he acquired ownership with regard to his labor, as Reish Lakish says: From where is it derived that a gentile can acquire another gentile as a slave with regard to his labor? As it is stated: 鈥淢oreover, of the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you may acquire鈥 (Leviticus 25:45). This indicates that you, Jews, can acquire slaves from them,

Scroll To Top