Gittin 37a — the Talmud in English

And we explain: "

Buli"—

these are the wealthy,

as

as it is written

in the rebuke: "

And I shall break the pride of your strength,

and I shall make your heavens like iron [from bringing down rain], and your land like copper"!

And it was taught concerning this,

Rav Yosef: "

The pride of your strength"—

these are the governors

[wealthy]

of Judea!

It follows that “governors” means wealthy people. "

Butei"—

these are the poor,

because

it is written: "

When there will be among you a poor man, one of your brothers. For you shall surely open your hand to him and

you shall surely lend him

[lend to him and take collateral from him], according to his lack, which he lacks"! And therefore the poor who borrow are called “Butei”!

Rava said to the foreign-language speaker

[one who spoke a foreign language]:

What

is the meaning of the word

prosbul?

He said to him,

the foreign-language speaker: “Pros” is the expression

pursa de-milta

and “pursa” means enactment.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

Orphans,

minors whose father bequeathed to them a debt that he had against others,

do not

need

a prosbul!

Even without a prosbul, the seventh year does not cancel their debt, as the reason is explained below.

And likewise Rami bar Hama taught: Orphans do not need a prosbul!

And the reason for the matter is because

Rabban Gamaliel

[the Nasi of Israel] and

his court

[and likewise the Nesi'im of Israel in every generation]

are the fathers of orphans,

that is, they are appointed over them and over their property! It follows, then, that their documents are as though they had been delivered to the court; and whenever the debt is delivered to the court, we no longer apply to it “he shall not press his fellow.”

We learned there

in tractate Shevi'it:

A prosbul may be written only concerning land

of the borrower, that is, only if the borrower has land, even any amount; but if the borrower has no land, a prosbul may not be written.

And because the manner is not to lend unless the borrower has land, upon which the lender relies in order to collect his debt from it, whereas he does not rely upon movable property because the borrower can hide it, a loan made when the borrower has no land is consequently an uncommon matter; and for an uncommon matter the Sages did not enact enactments.

And

if he does not have

the borrower, land,

the lender grants him

land of his own

within his field,

in the measure of

any amount!

It is again considered that he has land, and a prosbul is written concerning it.

And how much

is the measure of

any amount?

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav:

Its measure is

even

like

the stalk of a cabbage!

And this is sufficient for writing a prosbul.

Rav Yehuda said:

Even if the lender

lent

the borrower

a place, to

put there

an oven

or

to

put

a stove

that is movable,

a prosbul may be written concerning it!

Even though the land is in his possession only by virtue of a loan, it is considered that he has land.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so?

But is the matter not so!?

For:

And Hillel taught

[the amora]:

A prosbul may be written only concerning a perforated flowerpot

through which its produce draws nourishment from the ground—

alone,

because the tree in it is considered attached, since it draws nourishment from the ground through the hole.

And we infer: concerning a flowerpot

that is perforated, yes,

indeed a prosbul may be written, but concerning a flowerpot

that is not perforated, no,

a prosbul may not be written! Because the tree in it does not draw nourishment from the ground, and it is not considered attached to the ground.

And we conclude our objection: If lending a place is sufficient,

why

may one not write concerning a flowerpot that is not perforated? Even if it is impossible to write concerning the flowerpot itself,

but there is its place

—the place of the flowerpot!? And even if the place does not belong to the borrower, the place has been lent to him.

And we answer:

It is necessary

that a prosbul may not be written concerning a flowerpot that is not perforated in a case where

it is placed

the flowerpot

upon stakes

[placed on pegs], and it does not touch the ground, while the ground beneath it does not belong to the owner of the flowerpot.

Rav Ashi transferred to him

to the borrower

a severed palm trunk

[a cut palm trunk attached to the ground],

and wrote concerning it

[on his behalf]

a prosbul.

The Sages of Rav Ashi’s academy

[the scholars of his academy] did not write this prosbul for one another; rather,

they delivered their matters

orally

to one another!

Each one would say orally to his colleagues: “You are my court, and my debts are delivered to you to collect them whenever I wish.”

Rabbi Yonatan delivered his words

[his statements]

to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba

alone!

He said,

Rabbi Yonatan asked

him,

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

Do I

need

[must I] do

anything else,

besides the words that I delivered orally?!

He said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba: This statement alone that you made before me is sufficient, so that the seventh year will not cancel your debt, and

you do not need

to write or to say them to anyone else!

The Sages taught:

Even if

he does not have

the borrower

land, but the guarantor has land—

a prosbul may be written concerning him!

And because this too is a manner of lending, for the lender relies upon the guarantor’s land, so that if the borrower has nothing with which to pay, he will collect from the guarantor.

And if

he

[the borrower]

and the guarantor have no land, but

if

another

person who

owes him

the borrower a debt

has land—

even in this case

a prosbul may be written concerning him!

And because this land too is pledged to the lender, the lender who writes the prosbul is the creditor of his creditor, and can collect it from him,

because of

the teaching of

Rabbi Natan.

For it was taught: Rabbi Natan says:

From where

[do we know] that Reuben

is owed by

Simeon

his fellow one hundred [zuz], and

Simeon

his fellow

[the borrower] is owed

by

Levi

his fellow

one hundred [zuz],

from where do we know that they take it from this one

[from Levi, who is the second borrower]

and give it to that one

[to Reuben, who is the first lender]?

The verse says

in the section of the oath of deposit—which concerns one who swears concerning a deposit in his possession or concerning a loan that they lent him, saying that he owes nothing, and then admits that it is indeed in his possession: “And he shall return his guilt-offering [this is the principal of the deposit or the loan]

and he shall give it to the one to whom he is guilty

[with a kamatzed alef and an open shin]

of it,”

that is, to the one to whom he became obligated.

And since it is not written, “And he shall give it to the one who lent it to him,” but rather, “to the one to whom he is guilty,” it implies the one whose principal it is, and not the one who is owed by him. This means that Levi, the second borrower, should repay the loan to Reuben, whose principal it is, for Simeon, who is owed by Levi, is obligated to Reuben, who lent to him. It follows that Levi’s land is pledged to Reuben’s debt, and therefore he writes a prosbul concerning it.

We learned there

in tractate Shevi'it:

The seventh year cancels a loan, whether

the loan was

in a document,

and

whether

the loan was

not in a document.

And the amoraim disagreed concerning the interpretation of this Mishna:

Rav and Shmuel both said

[they agreed upon one view]: “A loan

in a document,”

means

a document that contains responsibility for property!

That is, a document that includes the law of a lien upon property, so that even after the borrower sells his land to another, the lender will seize the land from him.

And a loan

not in a document

means a loan in a document

that does not contain responsibility for property!

And the borrower’s land is not pledged by means of it.

In both this case and that case, the seventh year cancels the debt, and it is not considered as already being pressed for collection;

all the more so,

that

an oral loan

is canceled in the seventh year.

And Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish both said: “A loan

in a document,”

means a loan written in a

document,

but

one that does not contain responsibility for property.

that contains no lien on property.

And a loan

not in a document

means

an oral loan

for which no document was written at all.

But

a loan in a

document that contains responsibility for property is not canceled

in the seventh year!

Since the borrower’s land is pledged to the lender, and the lender can collect it under every circumstance [even if the borrower sells it], it is considered to be in the lender’s possession, and it is regarded as though it had already been actually collected by him; it is as though there is no debt here, and therefore we no longer apply to it “he shall not press.”

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

A debt document is canceled, but if it contains responsibility for property, it is not canceled,

because it is considered as collected.

It was taught

in

another

beraita: If the borrower

designated for him

for the lender in the document

one field from his loan,

and marked it by its signs and boundaries in order to set it aside for him for collection of his debt, this debt

is not canceled

in the seventh year, because it is considered as actually collected.

And furthermore, even

if he did not designate a particular field for him for collection, but

wrote

to him: “

All my property is responsible and serves as security

[guarantors]

to you

for collection of your debt,” this debt too

is not canceled!

And although it is not as much like collected property as a particular field, nevertheless it is considered as collected.

And this is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish: a document containing a lien upon property is considered as collected, and the seventh year does not cancel it.

An incident occurred involving

a relative of Rabbi Asi,

who

had a certain document

[Rabbi Asi’s relative had a debt document against others]

in which responsibility for property was written,

and the Sabbatical year arrived.

He came,

the relative,

before Rabbi Asi and said to him,

asking him: Does this document

become canceled

in the seventh year,

or does it not become canceled?

He said to him,

Rabbi Asi:

It does not become canceled!

Because it contains a lien upon property, and it is considered as collected.

He left him

[the relative left him] and

came before Rabbi Yohanan,

and asked him this question:

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan: This document too

becomes canceled

in the seventh year!

The relative returned and told Rabbi Asi what had happened.

Rabbi Asi came

himself

before Rabbi Yohanan,

and

said to him

[asked him]: Does this document

become canceled, or does it not become canceled?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

It becomes canceled!

Rabbi Asi was astonished:

But the master

[you, Rabbi Yohanan]

is the one who said: A document that contains responsibility for property

is

not canceled!

Rabbi Yohanan said to him,

Rabbi Asi:

And merely because we reason

[merely because it appears to us and we suppose that this is so, but we have not heard it from our teachers] shall we go and

perform an act,

and rule as halakha that “it is not canceled”?!

Rabbi Asi said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

But a beraita was taught in accordance with the master

[for even in a beraita we learned like you], that it is not canceled!? For it was taught above: “And if it contains responsibility for property, it is not canceled”!

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed concerning a sota whose husband died before he managed to give her the sota waters, thereby determining whether or not she had committed adultery. After her husband died, she was no longer given the waters. The obligation of her ketuba thus remained uncertain: if she had committed adultery, she forfeited her ketuba, but if not, she receives her ketuba as prescribed. Beit Shammai say: They receive their ketubot and do not drink! For “a document standing for collection is considered as collected,” and the woman who possesses her ketuba document is considered to possess the property, while the orphans are considered to be the ones extracting it. And we hold: the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof!

And Beit Hillel say: Either they drink, or they receive their ketubot! That is, since they do not drink, they forfeit their ketubot, because a document standing for collection is not considered as collected. Therefore, the property is in the possession of the orphans, while the woman is the claimant of the ketuba, and the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

Rabbi Yohanan said to him,

Rabbi Asi:

Perhaps that

beraita

is in accordance with Beit Shammai, who say: “

A document standing for collection is considered as collected”!

And specifically according to their view, a loan that contains a lien upon property is not canceled; but Beit Hillel disagree with them and hold that it is not considered as collected. According to their view, it may be said that it is canceled like every ordinary debt.

We learned there

in tractate Shevi'it:

One who lends money to his fellow against collateral, and

likewise

one who delivers

his

documents to the court:

They do not

cancel

their debts

in the seventh year!

And we considered it:

Granted, “

“

one who delivers his documents to the court”

it is understandable that the debt is not canceled, because

the court has seized them

[the court has seized the documents]!

Rather, a loan secured by a pledge—what is the reason

does not release [the debt]?

Rava said: Because he has seized it

the lender who has taken the pledge no longer presses him, and does not demand anything from him, but merely retains the pledge for himself. Therefore, we do not apply to it “he shall not press him.”

He said

was astonished

Abaye at him

at Rava:

If so,

if

he lent him

to his fellow, on condition that the lender

reside in his courtyard

of the borrower, and the debt would be paid through the benefit of the rent—

and is it so that because

he has seized it

the lender has seized the courtyard, and he no longer needs to demand his debt and collect it,

also here

shall we say

that it does not release [the debt]

in the seventh year?! But surely we maintain that it does release [the debt].

Rava said to him

to Abaye:

A pledge is different, for he acquires it [

the pledge is acquired by the lender]

by virtue of Rabbi Isaac, [

and he proceeds to explain it], and if the pledge was lost, the lender is responsible for it; therefore, the debt is considered collected even with regard to the seventh year.

For Rabbi Isaac said: From where [do we know] that a creditor acquires a pledge?

As it is stated

concerning a lender who took the borrower’s night garment as a pledge: “You shall surely return the pledge to him when the sun sets, and he shall lie in his garment, and he shall bless you

and it shall be charity for you

before the Lord your God”! And

if

you say that the lender

does not acquire

the pledge,

“charity”

“charity from where?

What charity is this, that he returns it to the borrower, when it belongs to the borrower, and he gives him nothing of his own?

Rather,

from here [we learn] that a creditor acquires

the

pledge!

And since it is the lender’s property, it is properly considered charity when he returns it to the borrower when night comes.

We learned there

in tractate Sheviit: