Gittin 37a (לז.) — the Talmud in English

And we interpret it: “

Buli” —

these are the wealthy,

as

it is written in the rebuke: “

in the rebuke:

And I shall break the pride of your might,

and I shall make your heavens like iron [so that they do not bring down rain], and your land like copper”!

And

Rav Yosef taught concerning it: “

The pride of your might” —

these are the governors

[the wealthy]

of Judea!

Thus, “governors” means the wealthy. “

Butei” —

these are the poor,

because

it is written: “

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

you shall surely lend him

[lend to him and take collateral from him] sufficient for his need, whatever he lacks.” And therefore the poor who borrow are called “Butei”!

Rava said to the speaker of a foreign language

[to one who spoke a foreign language]:

What

is the language of

prosbul?

He said to him,

the speaker of the foreign language: “Pros” is the language of

the ordinance of the matter,

and “pursa” means an ordinance.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

Orphans,

minor children whose father left them a debt owed to him by others,

do not

need

a prosbul!

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

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

The reason for the matter is because

Rabban Gamliel

[the Nasi of Israel]

and his court

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

are the fathers of the orphans,

that is, they are appointed over them and their property. It follows that their documents are considered as though they had been entrusted to the court; and whenever a debt is entrusted to the court, we no longer apply to it the verse, “he shall not exact it from his fellow.”

We learned there,

in tractate Shevi’it:

A prosbul may be written only on land

belonging to the borrower; that is, only if the borrower owns land, even the smallest amount. But if the borrower owns no land, a prosbul may not be written.

The reason is that one ordinarily lends only when the borrower owns land, upon which the lender relies in order to collect his debt. He does not rely on movable property, because the borrower can conceal it. Thus, a loan made when the borrower owns no land is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not enact ordinances for an uncommon matter.

And

if he does not own

land,

the lender grants him

some land of his own

within his field,

of a measure of

even the smallest amount!

He is then considered to own land, and a prosbul is written concerning it.

And how much

is the measure of

the smallest amount?

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav:

Its measure is

even

as much as

a cabbage stalk!

That is sufficient for writing a prosbul.

Rav Yehuda said:

Even if the lender

lent

the borrower

a place in which

to put a

stove

or

to

put

a portable range,

which is movable property,

a prosbul may be written concerning it!

Even though he possesses the land only as a borrower, he is considered to own land.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

But the matter is not so!?

For

Hillel taught

[the amora]:

A prosbul may be written only on a perforated flowerpot

from which the plants draw nourishment from the ground

alone,

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

And we infer: On a

perforated flowerpot,

indeed, a prosbul may be written; but on a flowerpot

that is not perforated, it may not

be written, because the tree in it does not draw nourishment from the ground and is not considered attached to the ground.

We conclude the challenge: If lending a place is sufficient,

why

may a prosbul not be written on a flowerpot that is not perforated? Even if it is impossible to write concerning the flowerpot itself,

does it not have a place

where the flowerpot stands? And even if the place does not belong to the borrower, the place has been lent to him.

And we answer:

No, it is necessary

to say that a prosbul may not be written concerning a flowerpot that is not perforated when

it is placed

on

supports

[set on stakes], so that it does not touch the ground, and the ground beneath it does not belong to the owner of the flowerpot.

Rav Ashi would transfer to him

the borrower

a cut-off date-palm trunk

[a cut palm trunk that remained attached to the ground],

and would write concerning it

[on his behalf]

a prosbul.

The scholars of Rav Ashi’s academy

[the scholars of his yeshiva] did not write prosbul documents for one another. Rather,

they entrusted their matters

verbally

to one another!

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

Rabbi Yonatan entrusted his statement

[his words]

to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba

alone!

He said

asked

him,

Rabbi Yonatan asked Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

Do I

need

[must I] do

anything else,

besides the statement that I entrusted verbally?!

He said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said to him: This statement alone that you made before me is sufficient, so that the Sabbatical year will not cancel your debts, and

you do not need

to write or to say it to anyone else!

The Sages taught:

Even if

he does not own

land, and

the guarantor owns land —

a prosbul may be written concerning him!

This is because this too is a manner of lending, since the lender relies on the guarantor’s land: if the borrower has nothing with which to pay, the lender will collect from the guarantor.

And if

he

[the borrower]

and the guarantor own no land, but

there is

another

person who

owes him

the borrower a debt, and

he owns land —

even in this case

a prosbul may be written concerning him!

This is because this land too is liened to the lender, who writes the prosbul as the creditor of his debtor’s creditor and can collect it from him,

by

reason

of Rabbi Natan.

As it was taught: Rabbi Natan says:

From where

do we know that Reuven who

is owed by

Shimon

one hundred dinars by his fellow, and

Shimon,

his fellow

[the borrower],

is owed by

Levi,

his fellow,

one hundred dinars,

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

[from Levi, who is the second borrower]

and give it to that one

[to Reuven, who is the first lender]?

The verse states

in the passage concerning the oath of deposit—which concerns one who swore concerning a deposit in his possession or a loan that had been lent to him that he owed nothing, and then admitted that it was indeed in his possession: “He shall restore his guilt-offering [the principal of the deposit or loan]

and give it to the one to whom he is liable

[with the first letter pronounced with a kamatz and the second with a patah]

to him,”

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

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 liable,” this indicates that it is given to the one who owns the principal, and not to the one who is his creditor. Thus, Levi, the second borrower, must repay the loan to Reuven, who owns the principal, because Shimon, who is Levi’s creditor, is himself liable to Reuven, who lent to him. It follows that Levi’s land is liened to Reuven’s debt, and therefore Reuven may write a prosbul concerning it.

We learned there,

in tractate Shevi’it:

The Sabbatical year cancels a loan, whether

the loan was

documented,

or

whether

the loan was

undocumented.

The amora’im disagreed concerning the interpretation of this Mishna:

Rav and Shmuel both said

[they agreed on one view]: A “loan

documented”

means

a document that includes a lien on property!

That is, a document that contains the law of a lien on property, so that even after the borrower sells his land to another person, the lender can seize the land from the purchaser.

And a loan “

undocumented”

means a loan recorded in a document

that contains no lien on property!

The borrower’s land is not liened by virtue of it.

In both cases, the Sabbatical year cancels the debt, and it is not considered as though the debt were already exacted;

all the more so,

if a

verbal loan

is cancelled by the Sabbatical year.

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

in a document,”

documented”

means a loan recorded in a

document, but

a document

that contains no lien on property.

And a loan “

undocumented”

means a

verbal loan

for which no document was written at all.

But

a loan recorded in a

document that contains a lien on property is not cancelled

by the Sabbatical year!

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

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

A promissory note is cancelled, but if it contains a lien on property, it is not cancelled,

because it is considered as though it had been collected.

It was taught

in

another

beraita: If the borrower

designated for him

the lender in the document

one particular field as security for the loan,

marking it by its identifying features and boundaries in order to designate it for collection of the debt, this debt

is not cancelled

by the Sabbatical year, because it is considered as though it had actually been collected.

Moreover, even

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

wrote

to him: “

All my property is responsible and serves as security

[as guarantors]

to you

for collection of your debt,” this debt too

is not cancelled!

Although it is not as much like a collected debt as when a particular field was designated, it is nevertheless considered as though it had been collected.

And this is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish: a document containing a lien on property is considered as though the debt had been collected, and the Sabbatical year does not cancel it.

There was an incident involving

a relative of Rabbi Asi,

who

had a certain document

[Rabbi Asi’s relative had a promissory note against others]

in which a lien on 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 cancelled

in the Sabbatical year,

or does it not become cancelled?

He said to him,

Rabbi Asi said to him:

It does not become cancelled!

Because it contains a lien on property and is considered as though it had been collected.

He left him

[the relative left him] and

came before Rabbi Yohanan,

asking him the same question.

Rabbi Yohanan said to him: Even this document

Rabbi Yohanan: This document too

is cancelled

in the Sabbatical year!

The relative returned and told Rabbi Asi what had happened.

Rabbi Asi himself came

before

Rabbi Yohanan,

and

said to him

[he asked him]: Is this document

cancelled, or is it not cancelled?

Rabbi Yohanan said to him:

Rabbi Yohanan:

It is cancelled!

Rabbi Asi was astonished:

But, master,

[you, Rabbi Yohanan],

are the one who said that a document containing a lien on property

is

is not cancelled!

Rabbi Yohanan said to him,

to Rabbi Asi:

Should we, merely because we infer

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

put it into practice,

and rule in practice that “it is not cancelled”?

Rabbi Asi said to him,

to Rabbi Yohanan:

But a beraita was taught in accordance with your opinion

[for we likewise learned in a beraita as you say]—that it is not cancelled! For it was taught above: If it contains a lien on property, it is not cancelled!

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed concerning a sota whose husband died before he could have her drink the sota waters, through which it would be clarified whether or not she had been unfaithful. After her husband’s death, she is no longer made to drink. Thus, her entitlement to her ketuba is uncertain: if she had been unfaithful, she forfeited her ketuba, but if not, she receives her ketuba as prescribed. Beit Shammai say: She receives her ketuba and does not drink, because “a document that stands to be collected is considered as though it had been collected.” The woman, who possesses her ketuba document, is considered to possess the property, while the orphans are considered to be seeking to extract it. And the halakha is: The one who seeks to extract from another bears the burden of proof!

And Beit Hillel say: Either she drinks, or she receives her ketuba. That is, since she does not drink, she forfeits her ketuba, because a document that stands to be collected is not considered as though it had been collected. Therefore, the property is considered to be in the possession of the orphans, while the woman is the claimant demanding her ketuba, and the one who seeks to extract from another bears the burden of proof.

Rabbi Yohanan said to him,

to Rabbi Asi:

Perhaps that

beraita

follows the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: “

A document that stands to be collected is considered as though it had been collected”!

It is specifically according to their view that a loan containing a lien on property is not cancelled. But Beit Hillel disagree with them and hold that it is not considered as though it had been collected. According to their view, one can say that it is cancelled like any ordinary debt.

We learned there,

in tractate Shevi’it:

One who lends money to his fellow against collateral, and

likewise

one who hands

his

documents to the court:

These

do

not become cancelled

with regard to their debt in the Sabbatical year!

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Granted,

“

one who hands his documents to the court”

—it is understandable that the debt is not cancelled, because

the court has taken possession of them

[the court has taken possession of the documents]!

But a loan secured by collateral—what is the reason

is it not released?

Rava said: Because he has taken hold of it,

the lender who holds the collateral no longer presses him, nor demands anything from him; rather, he merely retains the collateral for himself. Therefore, the verse “he shall not press him” does not apply to it.

He said

Abaye

challenged

Rava:

But if that is so,

if

he lent

to his fellow on the condition that the lender

reside in his courtyard

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

would it then be that merely

because he has taken hold of it,

the lender has taken possession of the courtyard and no longer needs to demand and collect his debt,

so too

we should say

that it is not released

in the seventh year? Yet we have established that it is released.

Rava said to him,

to Abaye:

The case of collateral is different, for he acquires it

[the collateral is acquired by the lender]

by virtue of Rabbi Yitzḥak’s teaching,

[and he proceeds to explain it], and if the collateral is lost, the lender bears responsibility for it. Therefore, the debt is considered collected even with regard to the seventh year.

As Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where is it derived that a creditor acquires collateral?

As it is stated

with regard to a lender who took the borrower’s night garment as collateral: “You shall restore the pledge to him when the sun sets, and he shall lie down in his garment and 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 collateral, “

charity”

from where?

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

Rather,

from here it is derived that a creditor acquires

the

collateral!

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

We learned there

in tractate Sheviit: