Gittin 37b — the Talmud in English

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

(after the Sabbatical year has passed),

must

the creditor

say to him

the debtor:

I remit it!

And even though he himself wishes to pay him without his demanding it, the creditor is obligated to say this.

And if he said to him

the debtor:

Even so,

I wish to repay the debt! —

he shall accept

the creditor

from him

the repayment.

And that the creditor must say, “I remit it,” is because of

as it is stated

in the section concerning the remission of monetary debts: “

And this is the matter of the remission.”

And it implies: speech of remission. This teaches you that the creditor must say verbally, “I hereby remit the debt.”

Rabba said: And he hangs him

the creditor on a tree

until he says this!

That is to say, if the debtor retracted his agreement [after the creditor said to him, “I remit it”] and does not again offer him that he should take it, the creditor may compel him until he agrees and says to him, “Even so, I wish to repay.”

Abaye raised an objection to him

Rabba from a beraita in which we learned:

When he

the debtor

gives him

the repayment after the Sabbatical year,

he should not say to him: “I am giving you the money as my debt”

the money!

Rather, he should say to him: “It is mine”,

but

“I am giving you these monies as a gift”

these monies!

He said to him

Rabba: I too did not say that he should compel him concerning the repayment, but rather

he hangs him

the creditor compels him

also until he says this!

That he should compel him to say: “I am giving you [the money] as a gift”!

There was an incident involving

Abba bar Marta, who was Abba bar Manyumi,

that

Rabba had money outstanding against him

Rabba was a creditor of Abba bar Manyumi for money that Rabba had lent him!

He brought them to him

Abba bar Manyumi brought the money to Rabba

during the Sabbatical year,

after it had passed.

He said to him

Rabba:

I remit it!

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

He took them

Abba bar Manyumi took his money,

and went

Abba bar Manyumi took the money and went on his way.

Abaye came and found him

Rabba,

who was sad,

Abaye found Rabba, who was sad.

He said to him

Abaye said to Rabba:

Why is my master sad

why is my master sad?!

He said to him

Rabba said to Abaye:

This is how the incident occurred

this and this happened, and I am distressed because I lost my money.

Abaye went

Abaye

to him

to Abba bar Manyumi, and

said to him: Did you bring

did you indeed bring

money to my 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

to Rabba: “

Even so

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 “

Even so

take it,” then

he would have taken them

the monies

from you

if you had said this, he would have taken the money from you; and if so,

now at least, bring them to him and say to him

now, then, bring the money to Rabba and say to him: “

Even so

take it”!

And indeed

Abba bar Manyumi went, and

Abba bar Manyumi

brought them to him

Rabba’s money,

and said to him:

Although you said, “I remit it,”

even so

I wish to give it to you as a gift!

Rabba took them

the money

from him

Rabba took the money from him.

Rabba said

Rabba: Is it possible that

this Torah scholar had no sense —

Abba bar Manyumi —

from the outset

to say to me, “Even so,” and repay me the money!? For we learned in tractate Sheviit: One who repays his debt during the Sabbatical year, the spirit of the Sages is pleased with him!

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

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

“I had a prozbul in my possession, and it was lost from me!”

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

And

what is the reason

that he is believed concerning this?

Since the Sages instituted the prozbul

and he could have made one,

a person does not abandon

a person

a permitted thing and eat a prohibited thing

no person leaves a permitted thing and eats a prohibited thing!

Therefore we believe him that he indeed made a prozbul and lost it.

When they came,

when a creditor and debtor would come

before Rav,

and the debtor claimed that the Sabbatical year remitted it,

he would say to him,

Rav would customarily say to the creditor:

Is it not possible

that perhaps

you had a prozbul, and it was lost

from you! And if so, collect your debt.

And he acted so because

in a case such as

a case

this, “

Open your mouth for the mute”

it is!

The court must assist the litigant in presenting his claims if he does not know how to present them himself.

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

But

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

after the Sabbatical year

and he does not have with him

a

[prozbul document — these monies may not be collected!

It is thus proven that if the prozbul is not in his possession, he is not believed to say, “I had it and it was lost.”

And we answer: It is a dispute

of tannaim.

For it was taught: One who produces a promissory note

during the Sabbatical year,

must have a prozbul with him!

And otherwise he does not collect.

But the Sages say: He need not

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

And the tanna of the earlier Mishna followed 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 of an Israelite,

who was taken captive

by gentiles,

and they ransomed him

other Israelites from the hands of the captor:

If

they ransomed him

for the purpose of

the purpose of

a slave, he shall become enslaved!

That is, he shall remain a slave; and in the Gemara it will be explained: for whose enslavement they ransomed him, and to whom he becomes enslaved.

And

if

they ransomed him

for the purpose of a free man,

he

shall not become enslaved,

but he goes out to freedom.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In either case —

whether he was ransomed for the purpose of enslavement or whether he was ransomed for the purpose of freedom — he

shall become enslaved

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

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A slave who was taken captive and was ransomed: if for the purpose of a slave, he shall become enslaved; if for the purpose of a free man, he shall not become enslaved:

It entered our minds to explain what we learned: “For the purpose of a slave, he shall become enslaved,” namely, to his first master, and therefore we raise the following objection:

With what are we dealing

in the Mishna [in what circumstance does our Mishna deal]?!

If you say,

that they ransomed him from the captivity

before the despair

of the owners —

This cannot be said, for if so:

For the purpose of a free man, why shall he not become enslaved

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

Rather,

perhaps you will say: Since it teaches, concerning the purpose of a free man, “he shall not become enslaved,” let us explain our Mishna as referring to when they ransomed him

after the despair

of the owners; and a slave whose owner despaired of him goes out to freedom, because despair is like abandonment of ownership, and therefore when they ransomed him for the purpose of a free man, he shall not become enslaved.

This cannot be said, for the following difficulty arises:

For the purpose of a slave

which implies: even if they ransomed him for the purpose of the redeemer’s enslavement —

why shall he become enslaved

to his first master?! Does not the despair bring him out to freedom?

And if so, in what circumstance does our Mishna deal!?

He said,

Abaye

explained: In fact,

our Mishna deals

before the despair

of the owners.

And

as for that which it teaches: “

For the purpose of a slave, he shall become enslaved,”

that is

to his first master

[as entered our minds]. For whether the redeemer intended to ransom him for the purpose of enslavement to his owner, or whether he intended it for the purpose of enslavement to himself, he returns to the first master, since the owner did not despair of him.

And as for that which it teaches: “

For the purpose of a free man, he shall not become enslaved,”

that means that he goes out to freedom and is not a slave

neither to his

the

first master,

the

nor to his

second master [that is, to the redeemer].

And the reason is:

to his

the

second

master [the redeemer]

he does not

become enslaved as a matter of law,

for he ransomed him for the purpose of a free man

he ransomed him.

To his first master also not

does he become enslaved — by rabbinic enactment! For otherwise,

perhaps they will refrain

Israelites

and will not ransom

him [perhaps Israelites will refrain from ransoming the slaves]! For their entire purpose is to ransom him into freedom. But

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

to his first master — and he did not heed the aforementioned concern — 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 ransom free persons, so it is a mitzva to ransom slaves!

And even in order that they remain the slaves of Israelites, it is a mitzva to ransom them from the gentiles; and therefore, even if he remains a slave, they will not refrain from ransoming him, and there is no need to enact that he go out to freedom.

Rava said,

he explained our Mishna:

In fact,

the Mishna deals with when they ransomed him

after the despair.

And

as for that which it teaches: “

For the purpose of a slave, he shall become enslaved,”

that is

to his second master!

And “for the purpose of a slave” means to acquire him for himself as a slave; since the first despaired of him, the slave had already left his domain, and since the second intended to acquire him for himself, he becomes his slave.

And as for that which it teaches: “

For the purpose of a free man, he shall not become enslaved,”

that is,

not to his

the

first master, and not to his second master!

Rather, he goes out to freedom.

And the reason for the matter is:

to his second master he shall not

become enslaved —

for he ransomed him for the purpose of a free man!

And he did not intend to acquire him for himself.

To his first master also not

shall he become enslaved —

for it was after the despair

of the first

that it was,

and his acquisition of the slave had already been removed.

But

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

to his first master, for although by law the first master’s control had already been removed, since he had despaired of him, nevertheless the Sages enacted that he return and become enslaved to him; and the reason is

as [stated by] Hezekiah.

For Hezekiah said: Why did they say: In either case he shall become enslaved?

In order

that every single one

of the slaves who wish to be freed

go and throw

his

self into military units

and be taken captive by them, so that Israelites will ransom him from his captivity. And he will rely on the fact that his master will despair of him and he will go out to freedom once he is ransomed,

and

it will be found that he

removes

himself

from the hand of his master.

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

A meitivi

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

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to them

the Sages:

Just as it is a mitzva to ransom free persons, so it is a mitzva to ransom slaves.

But

granted, according to Abaye, who said they disputed before the despair,

and the reason of the Sages is because of the enactment, so that they would not refrain from ransoming him,

this is what he said

to them, and this is what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel answered them:

Just as

it is a mitzva to ransom free persons, so it is a mitzva to ransom slaves, and there is no need for an enactment.

But according to Rava, who said they disputed after the despair,

and the Sages said that by the basic law he does not become enslaved to his first master, because the first master’s control over him had been removed —

And is

this

that is to say, is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s answer to their words: “

Just as

it is a mitzva to ransom free persons, so it is a mitzva to ransom slaves”!?

But surely the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is not because of this; rather,

it is because of Hezekiah,

so that “every single one will not remove himself from the hand of his master”!

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

and he was uncertain about their intention: when they said, “For the purpose of a free man he shall not become enslaved” to his first master, did they mean after the despair, or did they say this even before the despair? Therefore he answered them according to the alternatives.

And this is what he said to them:

If you are saying before the despair

“he shall not become enslaved to his first master,” and your reason is because of an enactment, so that they will not refrain from ransoming him — there is no reason for this concern,

and this is

what he said to them: “

Just as

it is a mitzva to ransom free persons, so it is a mitzva to ransom slaves”!

And

if you are saying after the despair

“he shall not become enslaved,” and you said this according to the basic law, since the name of his owner had already been removed from him — my answer to this is:

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

as [stated by] Hezekiah:

“So that every single one will not go and throw himself into military units and remove himself from the hand of his master.”

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to Rava, who said

that the Mishna deals

after the despair, and he becomes enslaved to his second master

when he ransomed him for the purpose of enslavement, the following difficulty arises:

The second master —

from whom did he acquire him

that slave? For

from

the gentile

captor

he acquired him.

But

the captor himself

who is a gentile —

did he acquire him

the gentile slave, such that he could sell him to another?!

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed

he acquired him

the gentile captor acquired the gentile slave

for his labor

so that his labor would belong to his master [and although he does not acquire bodily ownership in him], and he sells this acquisition to the redeemer, with the money that he gives. As

Reish Lakish said: From where [do we know] that a gentile acquired a gentile for his labor?

As it is stated: “

And your male slave and your female slave who will be yours, from the gentiles who are around you [around the Land of Israel], from them you shall acquire a male slave and a female slave.

And also from the sons of the residents who dwell with you

[in the Land of Israel],

from them you shall acquire

[a male slave and a female slave]”!

And yet it should have written to say: “From the gentiles who are around you, from them you shall acquire a male slave and a female slave. And also from the sons of the residents who dwell with you,” and it was not necessary to repeat “from them you shall acquire”; rather, the verse repeated it in order to teach: