Gittin 37b (לז:) — the Talmud in English

One who returns a debt to his fellow during the Sabbatical year

[after the Sabbatical year has passed],

must

the lender

say to him

the borrower:

“I remit it!”

Even though the borrower wishes on his own initiative to repay him, without his demanding payment, the lender is nevertheless obligated to say this.

And if he said to him

the borrower:

“Nevertheless,”

I wish to repay the debt! —

the lender should accept

the lender

from him

the repayment.

The reason the lender must say, “I remit it,” is

as it is stated

in the passage concerning the remission of monetary debts:

“And this is the matter of the remission.”

This implies: a declaration of remission. This teaches that the lender must say explicitly: “I hereby remit the debt.”

Rabba said: And hang him

the lender on a tree

until he says this!

That is, if the borrower retracts his consent [after the lender has said to him, “I remit it”] and no longer offers to take the money, the lender may compel him until he agrees and says to him: “Nevertheless, I wish to repay.”

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba

from a beraita that we learned:

When he

[the borrower]

gives him

the repayment after the Sabbatical year,

he should not say to him: “I am giving you these coins as payment of my debt,”

the money!

Rather, he should say to him: “They are mine,”

but

“I am giving you these coins as a gift.”

These coins!

He said to him

Rabba said to him: I too did not say that he should compel him to make the repayment; rather,

he should hang him

[the lender compels him]

also until he says this!

He should compel him to say: “I am giving it to you as a gift.”

There was an incident involving

Abba bar Marta, who was Abba bar Minyumi,

for

Rabba had money outstanding from him

[Rabba was Abba bar Minyumi’s creditor for money that Rabba had lent him]!

He brought it to him

[Abba bar Minyumi brought the money to Rabba]

during the Sabbatical year,

after it had passed.

He said to him,

Rabba

“I remit it!”

For this is the mitzva of the Sabbatical year, as stated.

He took

Abba bar Minyumi took his money

and went away

[Abba bar Minyumi took the money and went on his way].

Abaye came and found him

Rabba

distressed,

[Abaye found Rabba distressed].

He said to him,

Abaye said to Rabba:

“Why is the Master distressed”

[why is the Master distressed]?!

He said to him,

Rabba said to Abaye:

“This is what happened”

[this is what happened], and I am distressed because I lost my money.

Abaye went

Abaye

to

Abba bar Minyumi, and

said to him: “Did you bring

[did you indeed bring]

the money to the Master”

[to Rabba]?

He said to him,

Abba

“Yes,”

indeed I brought money to Rabba!

He said to him,

Abaye

“And what did he say to you,”

Rabba?

He said to him,

Abba said to Abaye: This is what Rabba said to me:

“I remit it!”

He said to him,

Abaye:

“And

did you

say to him

Rabba:

‘Nevertheless,

take it’”?

He said to him,

Abba:

“No,”

I did not say this to him!

He said to him,

Abaye:

“And

did you not

say to him:

‘Nevertheless,

take it’? If so,

he would have taken it

the money

from you

[had you said this, he would have taken the money from you]. Therefore,

now, at any rate, bring it to him and say to him

[now, therefore, bring the money to Rabba and say to him]:

“Nevertheless,

take it.”

And indeed,

Abba bar Minyumi went

Abba bar Minyumi, and

brought it to him

Rabba’s money,

and said to him:

Although you said, “I remit it,”

“nevertheless,”

I wish to give it to you as a gift!

Rabba took

the money

from him

[Rabba took the money from him].

Rabba said:

Rabba said: Surely

this Torah scholar did not have the sense

—Abba bar Minyumi—

from the outset

to say to me, “Nevertheless,” and repay me the money!? For we learned in tractate Shevi’it: One who repays his debt during the Sabbatical year earns the approval of the Sages!

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Naḥman: A person is believed to say,

when he comes to collect his debt from the borrower after the Sabbatical year:

“I had a prosbul in my possession, but it was lost!”

Therefore, the Sabbatical year does not remit my debt, and you must repay me.

And

what is the reason

he is believed concerning this?

Since the Sages instituted the prosbul

and he could have made one,

a person would not abandon

a person

what is permitted and partake of what is prohibited

[a person does not leave something permitted and partake of something prohibited]!

Accordingly, we accept his claim that he indeed made a prosbul and lost it.

When they came,

when a lender and borrower would come

before Rav,

and the borrower claimed that the Sabbatical year had remitted the debt,

he would say to him,

Rav would say to the lender:

“Perhaps

it is possible that

you had a prosbul, and it was lost

by you! If so, collect your debt.”

He acted in this manner because

in a case such as

a case

this,

“open your mouth for the mute”

applies!

The court should assist a litigant in presenting his claims if he does not know how to present them on his own.

And we raise a difficulty: How could you say that the lender is believed to claim, “I had a prosbul and it was lost”?

But

we learned: And similarly, a creditor who produces a promissory note

after the Sabbatical year,

and does not have with him

a

prosbul document—these debts may not be collected!

This proves that if the prosbul is not in his possession, he is not believed to say, “I had one, but it was lost.”

And we answer: This is a dispute

between tannaim.

As it was taught: One who produces a promissory note

during the Sabbatical year

must have a prosbul with him!

Otherwise, he may not collect the debt.

But the Sages say: He need not

show it! Rather, he is believed to say that he had one and it was lost.

The tanna of the earlier Mishna follows the view of the first tanna of the beraita, whereas Rav Naḥman ruled in accordance with the Sages of the beraita.

Mishna:

A slave

a Canaanite slave belonging to a Jew

who was taken captive

by gentiles

and whom

other Jews redeemed from the captor:

If

they redeemed him

for the purpose of

[for the purpose of]

a slave, he shall remain enslaved!

That is, he remains a slave; the Gemara will explain whose slave they redeemed him to be and to whom he becomes enslaved.

And

if

they redeemed him

for the purpose of making him a free man,

he

shall not remain enslaved,

but he goes free.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In either case

—whether he was redeemed for the purpose of slavery or for the purpose of freedom—he

shall remain enslaved

to his first master; their dispute will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A slave who was taken captive and whom others redeemed: If they redeemed him for the purpose of slavery, he shall remain enslaved; if they redeemed him for the purpose of making him a free man, he shall not remain enslaved.

It initially enters our minds to explain what we learned, “If they redeemed him for the purpose of slavery, he shall remain enslaved,” as referring to his first master. Therefore, we ask:

With what are we dealing

in the Mishna [what circumstances does our Mishna address]?!

If you say

that they redeemed him from captivity

before the owner’s despair

of recovering him—

This cannot be said, for if so:

“For the purpose of making him a free man—why shall he not remain enslaved”

to his first master?! He is still the first master’s slave, and ownership of the slave was never terminated.

Rather,

perhaps, since it teaches, “For the purpose of making him a free man—he shall not remain enslaved,” we should explain our Mishna as referring to a case in which they redeemed him

after the owner’s despair

of recovering him. A slave whose owner has despaired of him goes free, because despair is equivalent to abandonment of ownership; therefore, when they redeem him for the purpose of making him a free man, he does not remain enslaved.

This cannot be said, for the following difficulty arises:

“For the purpose of slavery”

—which implies that even if they redeemed him for the purpose of the redeemer’s owning him as a slave—

why shall he remain enslaved

to his first master?! Despair has made him free.

If so, under what circumstances does our Mishna deal?!

He said:

Abaye

explained: In fact,

our Mishna deals with a case in which they redeemed him

before the owner’s despair

of recovering him.

And

that which it teaches:

“For the purpose of slavery, he shall remain enslaved,”

means

to his first master

[as it initially entered our minds]. Whether the redeemer intended to redeem him for the purpose of his being a slave to his owner, or intended to acquire him as his own slave, he returns to the first master, since the first master had not despaired of recovering him.

And that which it teaches:

“For the purpose of making him a free man, he shall not remain enslaved,”

means that he goes free and is not a slave

neither to his

first

master nor to his

second

master

[that is, the redeemer].

The reason is:

to his

second

master

[the redeemer]

he does not

become enslaved as a matter of law,

for he redeemed him for the purpose of making him a free man

[he redeemed him].

Nor does he become enslaved to his first master

as a result of the Sages’ ordinance! Otherwise,

perhaps they will refrain

the Jews

and not redeem

him [perhaps the Jews will refrain from redeeming the slaves]! For their entire purpose is to redeem him for freedom. But

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In either case he shall remain enslaved

to his first master—and he was not concerned about the concern stated—because

he holds:

The Tosafot explained that nevertheless, if he redeemed him in order to enslave him, we do not say that he becomes enslaved to the second master, even before the owner’s despair, because of “perhaps they will refrain and not redeem.” This reason does not allow us to deprive the first master of his slave; this reasoning is invoked only when the redeemer intended to redeem him for the purpose of a mitzva. See their further explanation in Penei Yehoshua.

Just as it is a mitzva to redeem free Jews, so it is a mitzva to redeem slaves!

Even with the intention that they remain Jewish slaves, it is a mitzva to redeem them from the gentiles. Therefore, even if the slave remains enslaved, people will not refrain from redeeming him, and it is unnecessary to enact that he go free.

Rava said,

explaining our Mishna:

In fact,

the Mishna is discussing a case in which they redeemed him

after the owner’s despair.

And

that which it teaches:

“For the purpose of slavery, he shall remain enslaved,”

means

to his second master!

“For the purpose of slavery” means that the redeemer intended to acquire him for himself as a slave. Since the first master had despaired of recovering him, the slave had already left his possession; and since the second intended to acquire him for himself, he becomes his slave.

And that which it teaches:

“For the purpose of making him a free man, he shall not remain enslaved,”

means

neither to his

first

master nor to his second master!

Rather, he goes free.

The reason for the matter is:

to his second master he shall not

become enslaved—

for he redeemed him for the purpose of making him a free man!

He did not intend to acquire him for himself.

Nor shall he become enslaved to his first master

—

for it was after the despair

of the first master that it

was,

and his acquisition of the slave had already lapsed.

But

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In either case he shall remain enslaved

to his first master. Although as a matter of law the first master’s ownership had already lapsed, since he had despaired of recovering him, nevertheless the Sages enacted that he return and become enslaved to him. The reason is

as stated by Hezekiah.

For Hezekiah said: Why did they say, “In either case he shall remain enslaved”?

In order

that every single one

of the slaves who wish to free themselves

not go and throw

himself

into military forces

and be captured by them, so that Jews would redeem him from captivity. He would rely on the fact that his master would despair of recovering him and that he would go free when redeemed,

and

would thereby

remove

himself

from his master’s authority.

For this reason the Sages enacted that he return and become enslaved to him.

The objection is raised

to Rava from that which was taught: A slave who was taken captive and whom they redeemed for the purpose of making him a free man shall not remain enslaved—these are the words of the Sages.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to the Sages

to the Sages:

Just as it is a mitzva to redeem free Jews, so it is a mitzva to redeem slaves.

But

granted, according to Abaye, who said that they disagree before the owner’s despair,

and that the reason of the Sages is the ordinance, so that people would not refrain from redeeming him,

this is why he said

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to them and answered them:

“Just as

it is a mitzva to redeem free Jews, so it is a mitzva to redeem slaves,” and no ordinance is necessary.

But according to Rava, who said that they disagree after the owner’s despair,

and that the Sages said that as a matter of law he does not become enslaved to his first master, because the first master’s ownership had lapsed from him—

But

is this

—that is, is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s answer to their position:

“Just as

it is a mitzva to redeem free Jews, so it is a mitzva to redeem slaves”?!

But the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is not that; rather, it is

because of Hezekiah,

so that “every single one would not remove himself from his master’s authority”!

Rava could say to you: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel did not know what the Sages were saying,

and he was uncertain about their intent: When they said, “For the purpose of making him a free man, he shall not remain enslaved” to his first master, did they mean after the owner’s despair, or did they say this even before the owner’s despair? Therefore, he answered them with reference to both possibilities.

And this is what he said to them:

If you are saying

“He shall not remain enslaved to his first master” before the owner’s despair, and your reason is an ordinance so that people will not refrain from redeeming him, there is no reason for such concern.

That is why

he said to them:

“Just as

it is a mitzva to redeem free Jews, so it is a mitzva to redeem slaves”!

And

if you are saying

“He shall not remain enslaved” after the owner’s despair, and you said this as a matter of law, because his master’s ownership had already lapsed—this is my response:

Because of the ordinance, he returns and becomes enslaved to the first master,

as stated by Hezekiah:

“So that every single one would not go and throw himself into military forces and remove himself from his master’s authority.”

And we ask:

But according to Rava, who said

that our Mishna is discussing

after the owner’s despair, and that he becomes enslaved to the second master

when he redeemed him for the purpose of slavery, the following difficulty arises:

The second master—

from whom did he acquire him

that slave? He acquired him

from

the gentile

captor,

who acquired him.

But

the captor himself

—who is a gentile—

can he acquire him

as a gentile slave, so that he is able to sell him to another?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed

he acquires him

the gentile captor acquires the gentile slave

for his labor,

which belongs to his master [although he does not acquire the slave’s physical person], and he sells this acquisition to the redeemer in exchange for the money he gives. As

Reish Lakish said: From where is it derived that a gentile can acquire another gentile for his labor?

As it is stated: “

And your male slave and your female slave whom you shall have, from the nations that surround you [around the Land of Israel], from them you shall purchase a male slave and a female slave.

And also from the sons of the resident aliens who dwell with you [

in the Land of Israel],

from them you shall purchase [

a male slave and a female slave]”!

Yet it should have written: “From the nations that surround you, from them you shall purchase a male slave and a female slave. And also from the sons of the resident aliens who dwell with you”; there would have been no need to repeat “from them you shall purchase.” Rather, the verse repeated it in order to teach: