Gittin 72

ותקינו רבנן דתשמט זכר לשביעית ראה הלל שנמנעו העם מלהלוות זה את זה עמד והתקין פרוסבול

The Rabbis, however, ordained that it should be operative, in order to keep alive the memory of the Sabbatical year, and when Hillel saw that people refrained from lending money to one another, he decided to institute the <i>prosbul</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which therefore meant rescinding only a regulation of the Rabbis, not a precept of the Torah. ');">¹</span>

ומי איכא מידי דמדאורייתא לא משמטא שביעית ותקינו רבנן דתשמט

But is it possible that where according to the Torah the seventh year does not release, the Rabbis should ordain that it does release?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For by so doing they rob creditors of their just due. ');">²</span>

אמר אביי שב ואל תעשה הוא רבא אמר הפקר ב"ד היה הפקר דאמר ר' יצחק מנין שהפקר ב"ד היה הפקר שנאמר (עזרא י, ח) וכל אשר לא יבוא לשלשת הימים כעצת השרים והזקנים יחרם כל רכושו והוא יבדל מקהל הגולה

— Abaye replied: It is a case of 'sit still and do nothing'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They do not tell the debtors to commit an actual trespass hut merely to refrain from paying debts. ');">³</span>

רבי אליעזר אמר מהכא (יהושע יט, נא) אלה הנחלות אשר נחלו אלעזר הכהן ויהושע בן נון וראשי האבות וגו' וכי מה ענין ראשים אצל אבות לומר לך מה אבות מנחילין את בניהם כל מה שירצו אף ראשים מנחילין העם כל מה שירצו

Raba, however, replied: The Rabbis have power to expropriate [for the benefit of the public]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., '(Anything declared) hefker (ownerless) by the Beth din is hefker'. ');">⁴</span>

איבעיא להו כי התקין הלל פרוסבול לדריה הוא דתקין או דלמא לדרי עלמא נמי תקין

For R. Isaac has said: How do we know that the Rabbis have power to expropriate? Because it says, And that whosoever came not within three days according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezra, X, 8. ');">⁵</span>

למאי נפקא מינה לבטוליה אי אמרת לדריה הוא דתקין מבטלינן ליה אלא אי אמרת לדרי עלמא נמי תקין הא אין בית דין יכול לבטל דברי בית דין חברו אלא א"כ גדול הימנו בחכמה ובמנין מאי

R. Eleazar said: We derive it from here: These are the inheritances which Eleazar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun and the heads of the fathers' houses etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. XX, 51. ');">⁶</span>

ת"ש דאמר שמואל לא כתבינן פרוסבול אלא אי בבי דינא דסורא אי בבי דינא דנהרדעא ואי סלקא דעתך לדרי עלמא נמי תקין בשאר בי דינא נמי לכתבו

Now why is the word 'fathers' [here] put next to 'heads'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It would have been sufficient to say, 'heads of the tribes'. ');">⁷</span>

דלמא כי תקין הלל לדרי עלמא כגון בי דינא דידיה וכרב אמי ורב אסי דאלימי לאפקועי ממונא אבל לכולי עלמא לא

To show that just as fathers transmit to their children whatever property they wish, so the heads transmit to the public whatever they wish.

ת"ש דאמר שמואל הא פרוסבלא עולבנא דדייני הוא אי איישר חיל אבטליניה אבטליניה והא אין ב"ד יכול לבטל דברי ב"ד חברו אלא א"כ גדול הימנו בחכמה ובמנין הכי קאמר אם איישר חיל יותר מהלל אבטליניה

The question was raised: When Hillel instituted the <i>prosbul</i>, did he institute it for his own generation only or for future generations also? What is the practical bearing of this question?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In any case the regulation goes in till it is rescinded. ');">⁸</span>

ורב נחמן אמר אקיימנה אקיימנה הא מיקיים וקאי הכי קאמר אימא ביה מילתא דאע"ג דלא כתוב ככתוב דמי

— [In case we should desire] to abolish it. If you say that Hillel instituted the <i>prosbul</i> only for his own generation, then we may abolish it, but if for future generations also, [this would not be easy] since one <i>Beth din</i> cannot annul the decisions of another unless it surpasses it in wisdom and in numbers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A.Z. 36a. ');">⁹</span>

איבעיא להו האי עולבנא לישנא דחוצפא הוא או לישנא דניחותא הוא ת"ש דאמר עולא עלובה כלה שזינתה בקרב חופתה

What [then is the answer]? — Come and hear, [since] Samuel has said: We do not make out a <i>prosbul</i> save either in the <i>Beth din</i> of Sura<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Beth din of Rab. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב מרי ברה דבת שמואל מאי קרא (שיר השירים א, יב) עד שהמלך במסבו נרדי נתן ריחו אמר רבא עדיין חביבותא הוא גבן דכתיב נתן ולא כתיב הסריח

or in the <i>Beth din</i> of Nehardea.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His own Beth din. ');">¹¹</span>

תנו רבנן הנעלבין ואינן עולבים שומעין חרפתן ואין משיבין עושין מאהבה ושמחין ביסורין עליהן הכתוב אומר (שופטים ה, לא) ואוהביו כצאת השמש בגבורתו

Now if you assume that Hillel instituted the <i>prosbul</i> for all generations, then it should be made out in any <i>Beth din</i>? — perhaps when Hillel instituted it for all generations, he meant it to be issued by a <i>Beth din</i> like his [Samuel's] or like that of R. Ammi and R. Assi, which are strong enough to enforce payment [where necessary], but not for the ordinary <i>Beth din</i>.

מאי פרוסבול אמר רב חסדא פרוס בולי ובוטי

Come and hear: Samuel said: This <i>prosbul</i> is an assumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. 'ulbana. The meaning of this word is discussed later. ');">¹²</span> on the part of the judges; if I am ever in a position, I will abolish it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that Hillel ordained it only for his own generation. ');">¹³</span> He abolish it? How so, seeing that one <i>Beth din</i> cannot annul the decision of another unless it is superior to it in wisdom and numbers? — What he meant was: If ever I am in a stronger position than Hillel, I will abolish it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even without a superior Beth din. ');">¹⁴</span> R. Nahman, however, said: I would confirm it. Confirm it? Is it not already firmly established? — What he meant was: I will add a rule that even if it [the <i>prosbul</i>] is not actually written it shall be regarded as written. The question was raised [in the Academy]: Does this word 'ulbana mean 'assumption' or 'convenience'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., did Samuel mean that it was an assumption on the part of the judges to seize money wrongfully, or that it was a convenience for the judges that creditors did not ask them to secure payment of their debts for them before the seventh year. ');">¹⁵</span> — Come and hear, for 'Ulla once exclaimed:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reference to the making of the Golden Calf. ');">¹⁶</span> O shameless ['alubah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that the root 'alab means 'to be shameless' or 'arrogant'. ');">¹⁷</span> bride, to be false under the very bridal canopy!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., shameless Israel, to be false to God while the Shechinah still hovered over them at Mount Sinai. ');">¹⁸</span> Said R. Mari the son of Samuel's daughter [in reference to this]: What scriptural verse indicates this? The verse, While the king sat at his table my spikenard sent forth its fragrance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cant. I, 12. ');">¹⁹</span> Rab said: The [sacred author] still shows his love for us by writing 'sent forth' and not 'made foul'. Our Rabbis taught: 'They who suffer insults [ne'elabin]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A further proof that the root 'alab means 'to insult'. ');">²⁰</span> but do not inflict them, who hear themselves reviled and do not answer back, who perform [religious precepts] from love and rejoice in chastisement, of such the Scripture says, And they that love him are like the sun when he goeth forth in his might.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judg. V, 31. ');">²¹</span> What is the meaning of the word '<i>prosbul</i>'? — R. Hisda says: Pruz buli u-buti.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This seems to conceal the Greek [G] (before the Council). ');">²²</span>