Gittin 73

Chapter 73

א בולי אלו עשירים דכתיב (ויקרא כו, יט) ושברתי את גאון עוזכם ותני רב יוסף אלו בולאות שביהודה בוטי אלו העניים דכתיב (דברים טו, ח) העבט תעביטנו אמר ליה רבא ללעוזא מאי פרוסבול א"ל פורסא דמילתא
1 Buli means the rich, as it is written, And I will break the pride of your power,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVI, 19. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> and R. Joseph explained: These are the bula'oth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' City councils, [G]. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל יתומין אין צריכין פרוסבול וכן תני רמי בר חמא יתומין אין צריכין פרוסבול דר"ג ובית דינו אביהן של יתומין
2 in Judah. Buti means the poor, as it is written, Thou shalt surely lend him sufficient.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 8. The Hebrew root for lend is 'abat, which is somewhat fancifully connected with buti. The prosbul benefits the rich because it secures them their loans, and the poor because it enables them to borrow. [Goldschmidt suggests in this connection the derivation from [G] and [G] 'provision against loss']. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> Raba asked a certain foreigner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. la'oza, a man speaking a foreign languages. Possibly we should translate 'linguist'. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג תנן התם אין כותבין פרוסבול אלא על הקרקע אם אין לו מזכהו בתוך שדהו כל שהו וכמה כל שהו אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב אפילו קלח של כרוב אמר רב יהודה אפי' השאילו מקום לתנור ולכירים כותבין עליו פרוסבול
3 What is the meaning of <i>prosbul</i>? He replied: The porsa<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. [G] 'manner', 'order'. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> of the matter.
ד איני והתני הלל אין כותבין פרוסבול אלא על עציץ נקוב בלבד נקוב אין שאינו נקוב לא
4 Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Orphans do not require a <i>prosbul</i>. So too Rami b. Hama learnt: Orphans do not require a <i>prosbul</i>, because Rabban Gamaliel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was the supreme authority at the time when the Baraitha was first taught. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> and his <i>Beth din</i> are the parents of orphans.
ה אמאי והא איכא מקומו לא צריכא דמנח אסיכי
5 We have learnt elsewhere: A <i>prosbul</i> is not made out unless [the debtor has] some land. If he has none, the creditor can present him with a spot from his own.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In which case the debt is regarded as having been refunded to the court who virtually hold the land in payment of the debt on behalf of the creditor, v. p. 148, n. 4.]. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> How much is a 'spot'? — R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rab: Even a stalk of a carob [is enough]. Rab Judah said: Even if he only lends him a space sufficient for his stove and oven, a <i>prosbul</i> may be made out on the strength of it. Is this so? Has not Hillel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not the author of the prosbul. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ו רב אשי מקני ליה גידמא דדיקלא וכתב עליה פרוסבול רבנן דבי רב אשי מסרי מילייהו להדדי רבי יונתן מסר מילי לר' חייא בר אבא אמר ליה צריכנא מידי אחרינא אמר ליה לא צריכת
6 learnt: 'A <i>prosbul</i> may be made out only [if the debtor] has a flowerpot with a hole in it', that is, if it has a hole, a <i>prosbul</i> may be made out,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the earth-pot is then connected with the soil and so the debtor may be regarded as possessing land. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> but otherwise not. Now why should this be, seeing that the place it occupies [belongs to the debtor]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is therefore analogous to the stove, on which a prosbul may he made out. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ז ת"ר אין לו קרקע ולערב יש לו קרקע כותבין עליו פרוסבול לו ולערב אין להן קרקע ולחייב לו יש לו קרקע כותבין עליו פרוסבול מדרבי נתן
7 — This rule applies only where the pot rests on some sticks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It occupies no place on the ground, in which case unless it has a hole to connect it with the soil, it cannot serve as basis for a prosbul. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> R. Ashi would transfer to the debtor the trunk<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Al. 'branch'. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ח דתניא רבי נתן אומר מנין לנושה בחברו מנה וחברו בחברו מנין שמוציאין מזה ונותנין לזה ת"ל (במדבר ה, ז) ונתן לאשר אשם לו
8 of a date tree and then write a <i>prosbul</i> for the creditor. The Rabbis of the Academy of R. Ashi used to transfer their debts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'commit their words'; i.e., the verbal instructions relating to the recovery of their debts. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> to one another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., used to appoint one another a Beth din for the receiving of their debts without the formality of writing out a prosbul. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ט תנן התם השביעית משמטת את המלוה בין בשטר בין שלא בשטר רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו בשטר שטר שיש בו אחריות נכסים שלא בשטר שאין בו אחריות נכסים כל שכן מלוה על פה
9 R. Jonathan transferred his debt to R. Hiyya b. Abba. Do I require anything more? he asked him. You do not, he replied. Our Rabbis taught; If the debtor has no land but one who is security for him has land, a <i>prosbul</i> may be made out for him. If neither he nor his security has land but a man who owes him money has land, a <i>prosbul</i> may be made out for him. [This is based] on the ruling of R. Nathan, as it has been taught: R. Nathan says: If a man lends another a <i>maneh</i>, and this one lends to a third, how do we know that the <i>Beth din</i> can take from the last [named] and give to the first [creditor]? Because it says, And he shall give it unto him in respect of whom he has been guilty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 7. Hence the land of A's debtor can serve as the basis for a prosbul against A. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
י רבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו בשטר שטר שאין בו אחריות נכסים שלא בשטר מלוה על פה אבל שטר שיש בו אחריות נכסים אינו משמט
10 We have learnt elsewhere: The seventh year brings release from a debt, whether contracted with a bond or without a bond.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sheb. X, 1. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> Both Rab and Samuel explain that 'with a bond' here means that the debtor has given a lien on his property [for the debt] and 'without a bond' means that he has given no lien. <i>A fortiori</i> then does the seventh year release from a debt contracted verbally. R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish, however, explain that 'with a bond' means a bond that does not contain a lien clause,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a mortgage on his property. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יא תניא כותיה דר' יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש שטר חוב משמט ואם יש בו אחריות נכסים אינו משמט תניא אידך סיים לו שדה אחת בהלוואתו אינו משמט ולא עוד אלא אפילו כתב כל נכסיי אחראין וערבאין לך אינו משמט
11 and 'without a bond' means a debt contracted verbally. A bond which secures a lien, however, is not cancelled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is looked upon as having been already enforced, so that there really is no debt. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish: A bond for a debt is cancelled [by the seventh year], but if it contains a lien clause it is not cancelled. It has further been taught: If the debtor has specified a certain field to the lender [as security] for his loans, it is not cancelled. Nay more: Even if he writes [only] 'All my property is security and guarantee for you,' it is not cancelled.
יב קריביה דר' אסי הוה ליה ההוא שטרא דהוה כתיב ביה אחריות נכסים אתא לקמיה דר' אסי אמר ליה משמט או אינו משמט א"ל אינו משמט שבקיה ואתא לקמיה דר' יוחנן א"ל משמט
12 A relative of R. Assi had a bond containing a lien clause. He came before R. Assi and said to him: Is this cancelled [by the seventh year] or not? — He replied: It is not cancelled. He left him and went to R. Johanan [and asked the same question]. [R. Johanan] replied: It is cancelled. R. Assi went to R. Johanan and asked him: Is it cancelled or not cancelled? — He replied: It is cancelled. But you yourself [once] said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' supra. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> that such a bond is not cancelled? — He replied: Because we have an opinion of our own [different from what we have learnt], are we to act on it? Said R. Assi: But there is a Baraitha in support of your opinion? — He replied: perhaps that follows Beth Shammai, who said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sot. 25a. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יג אתא ר' אסי לקמיה דר' יוחנן א"ל משמט או אינו משמט אמר ליה משמט והא מר הוא דאמר אינו משמט א"ל וכי מפני שאנו מדמין נעשה מעשה א"ל והתני' כוותיה דמר א"ל דלמא ההיא בית. שמאי היא דאמרי שטר העומד לגבות כגבוי דמי
13 that a bond which is perfectly in order<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which is ready to be enforced.' ');"><sup>21</sup></span> is like one which has already been put into operation.
יד תנן התם המלוה את חבירו מעות על המשכון והמוסר שטרותיו לבית דין אין משמטין בשלמא מוסר שטרותיו לב"ד דתפסי להו בי דינא אלא מלוה על המשכון מאי טעמא
14 We have learnt elsewhere: If a man lends another money on a pledge or if he hands his bonds to the <i>Beth din</i>, the debts are not cancelled [by the seventh year].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sheb. X, 2. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> That this should be so in the latter case we understand, because it is the <i>Beth din</i> which seizes the debtor's property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Beth din have power to expropriate, and therefore the creditor is not guilty of 'exaction' in recovering after the seventh year. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
טו אמר רבא משום דתפס ליה אמר ליה אביי אלא מעתה הלוהו ודר בחצרו דתפיס ליה הכי נמי דלא משמט
15 But why should it be so in the case of a loan given on a pledge? — Raba replied: Because [the lender] is already in possession of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he does not 'exact' anything from the debtor. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> Said Abaye to him: If that is so, suppose a man lends another money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the security of his courtyard. V. Tosaf. [Evidently in the case where the debt was contracted verbally.] ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
טז אמר ליה שאני משכון דקני ליה מדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק מנין לבעל חוב שקונה משכון שנאמר (דברים כד, יג) ולך תהיה צדקה אם אינו קונה צדקה מנין מכאן לבעל חוב שקונה משכון
16 and lives in his courtyard, in which case he is also in possession, is the debt in this case too not cancelled?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Whereas in B.M. 67b it is stated that the debt in such a case is cancelled, (Tosaf.).] ');"><sup>26</sup></span> — He replied: A pledge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of movable property (Rashi). ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
יז תנן התם
17 is different, because the holder becomes also its owner, according to the dictum of R. Isaac, who said, How do we know that a creditor becomes the owner of a pledge [given for the debt]? Because it says, And it shall be righteousness unto thee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 13. The 'righteousness' is in restoring the pledge to the poor man at sunset. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> If he is not the owner, what righteousness is there [in restoring the pledge]? Hence we learn that a creditor becomes owner of the pledge. We have learnt elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sheb. X, 8. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>