Gittin 74

המחזיר חוב לחבירו בשביעית צריך שיאמר לו משמט אני ואם אמר לו אע"פ כן יקבל הימנו שנאמר (דברים טו, ב) וזה דבר השמטה

If a man repays another money which he owes him in the seventh year, the other should say to him, I remit it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The release of the seventh year, according to the Rabbis, took place only at the end. Hence the word 'seventh year' here is explained to mean 'in the period when the rule of the seventh year is in force,' and the repayment is supposed to be offered after the seventh year (Rashi). ');">¹</span>

אמר רבה ותלי לי' עד דאמר הכי איתיביה אביי כשהוא נותן לו אל יאמר לו בחובי אני נותן לך אלא יאמר לו שלי הן ובמתנה אני נותן לך אמר ליה תלי ליה נמי עד דאמר הכי

If the debtor then says, 'All the same [take it]', he may take it from him. [This rule is based on] the text, Now this is the word<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. dabar (E.V. 'manner'). ');">²</span>

אבא בר מרתא דהוא אבא בר מניומי הוה מסיק ביה רבה זוזי אייתינהו ניהליה בשביעית אמר ליה משמט אני שקלינהו ואזל אתא אביי אשכחיה דהוה עציב אמר ליה אמאי עציב מר אמר ליה הכי הוה מעשה

of the release.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 2. ');">³</span>

אזל לגביה אמר ליה אמטת ליה זוזי למר אמר ליה אין אמר ליה ומאי אמר לך אמר ליה משמט אני אמר ליה ואמרת ליה אף על פי כן אמר ליה לא אמר ליה ואי אמרת ליה אף על פי כן הוה שקלינהו מינך השתא מיהת אמטינהו ניהליה ואימא ליה אע"פ כן אזל אמטינהו ניהליה ואמר ליה אף על פי כן שקלינהו מיניה אמר לא הוה ביה דעתא בהאי צורבא מרבנן מעיקרא

Rabbah said: The creditor may tie him up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hang him'. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב נחמן נאמן אדם לומר פרוסבול היה בידי ואבד ממני מאי טעמא כיון דתקינו רבנן פרוסבול לא שביק היתירא ואכיל איסורא

till he says so. Abaye raised an objection [from the following]: When [the debtor] offers him the money he should not say, This is in payment of my debt, but, 'It is my [money] and I make you a present of it'? — Rabbah replied: Yes; he ties him up until he says so.

כי אתו לקמיה דרב אמר ליה מידי פרוסבול היה לך ואבד כגון זה פתח פיך לאלם הוא

Abba b. Martha, who was the same as Abba b. Manyumi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Martha was the name of his mother by whose name he was designated, because she it was who once cured him from the bite of a mad dog, v. Yoma 84a]. ');">⁵</span>

תנן וכן בעל חוב שמוציא שטר חוב ואין עמו פרוסבול הרי אלו לא יפרעו

was pressed by Rabbah for repayment of money he had lent him. He brought it to him in the seventh year.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, n. 4. ');">⁶</span>

תנאי היא דתניא המוציא שטר חוב צריך שיהא עמו פרוסבול וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך:

Rabbah said, I remit it. So he took it and went away. Abaye afterwards found Rabbah looking sad. He said to him, Why are you sad? He told him what had happened. So Abaye went [to Abba] and said to him, Did you offer money to Rabbah? I did, he said. And what did he say to you? — I remit it. And did you say to him, Even so take it? — He replied, I did not. Abaye thereupon said to him: If you had said to him, All the same take it, he would have taken it. Now at any rate go and offer it to him and say, All the same take it. He went and offered it to him, saying, All the same take it. He took it from him and said, This rabbinical student did have the sense to see this from the beginning!

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> עבד שנשבה ופדאוהו אם לשום עבד ישתעבד אם לשום בן חורין לא ישתעבד רשב"ג אומר בין כך ובין כך ישתעבד:

Rab Judah said in the name of R. Nahman: We take a man's word if he says, I had a <i>prosbul</i> and lost it. What is the reason? Since the Rabbis have instituted a <i>prosbul</i>, a man would not [as we say] 'leave on one side permitted [food] and eat forbidden.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he would not have neglected in the first instance to obtain a prosbul, and then afterwards come and claimed the money wrongfully. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> במאי עסקינן אילימא לפני יאוש לשום בן חורין אמאי לא ישתעבד אלא לאחר יאוש לשום עבד אמאי ישתעבד

When such a man came before Rab, he said to him, Have you had a <i>prosbul</i> and lost it? This is a case for opening thy mouth for the dumb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the judges suggest a plea to one of the parties. The expression is taken from Prov, XXXI, 8. ');">⁸</span>

אמר אביי לעולם לפני יאוש ולשום עבד ישתעבד לרבו ראשון לשום בן חורין לא ישתעבד לא לרבו ראשון ולא לרבו שני לרבו שני לא דהא לשום בן חורין פרקיה לרבו ראשון נמי לא דילמא ממנעי ולא פרקי

We have learnt [in opposition to this]: 'Similarly if a creditor produces a bond for a debt without a <i>prosbul</i>, he cannot recover payment'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he pleads that he lost the prosbul. ');">⁹</span>

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר בין כך ובין כך ישתעבד קסבר כשם שמצוה לפדות את בני חורין כך מצוה לפדות את העבדים

— There is a difference on this point between Tannaim, since it has been taught: If a man produces a bond for a debt [after the seventh year] he must show a <i>prosbul</i> with it. The Sages, however, say that this is not necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But he can plead that he lost it. ');">¹⁰</span>

רבא אמר לעולם לאחר יאוש ולשום עבד ישתעבד לרבו שני לשום בן חורין לא ישתעבד לא לרבו ראשון ולא לרבו שני לרבו שני לא דהא לשום בן חורין פרקיה לרבו ראשון נמי לא דהא לאחר יאוש הוה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. SHOULD A [NON-JEWISH] SLAVE [OF A JEW] BE CARRIED OFF BY ROBBERS AND RANSOMED [BY A THIRD PARTY],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jews. ');">¹¹</span>

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר בין כך ובין כך ישתעבד כדחזקיה דאמר חזקיה מפני מה אמרו בין כך ובין כך ישתעבד שלא יהא כל אחד ואחד הולך ומפיל עצמו לגייסות ומפקיע עצמו מיד רבו

IF [HE IS RANSOMED] AS A SLAVE HE GOES BACK TO SLAVERY, BUT IF [HE IS RANSOMED] AS A FREE MAN HE DOES NOT GO BACK TO SLAVERY. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS THAT IN EITHER CASE HE GOES BACK TO SLAVERY.

מיתיבי אמר להן רשב"ג כשם שמצוה לפדות את בני חורין כך מצוה לפדות את העבדים בשלמא לאביי דאמר לפני יאוש היינו דקאמר כשם

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. With what case are we here dealing? Shall we say that the ransom was effected before [the owner of the slave] had given up hopes [of recovering him]? If so, even if [he is ransomed] as a free man, why should he not go back to slavery?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because whatever the ransomer may stipulate with the captor, the slave is still the property of his master. ');">¹²</span>

אלא לרבא דאמר לאחר יאוש האי כשם משום דחזקיה הוא

Shall we say then it was after the owner had given up hopes of recovering him? Then even if [he is ransomed] as a slave, why should he go back to slavery?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to his first master, seeing that he has ceased to be his property. ');">¹³</span>

אמר לך רבא רשב"ג לא הוי ידע מאי קאמרי רבנן והכי קאמר להו אי לפני יאוש קאמריתו היינו כשם אי לאחר יאוש קאמריתו כדחזקיה

— Abaye said: The case indeed is one in which [the master] has not yet given up hopes. If then [he is ransomed] as a slave he goes back to slavery to his first master. If [he is ransomed] as a free man, he is no longer enslaved either to the first master or to the second; to the second, because he ransomed him as a free man, to the first because [if people know that he is to go back to slavery] perhaps they will refrain from ransoming him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The implication is that there is some merit in restoring the slave to freedom. ');">¹⁴</span>

ולרבא דאמר לאחר יאוש ולרבו שני רבו שני ממאן קני ליה משבאי שבאי גופיה מי קני ליה

RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS, IN EITHER CASE HE GOES BACK TO SLAVERY, [since] he holds that, as it is a religious duty to ransom free men, so it is a religious duty to ransom slaves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from heathen masters, so that they may resume the performance of certain precepts in the service of their Jewish masters. Hence since it is a religious duty, there is no fear that people will refrain from ransoming him. ');">¹⁵</span>

אין קני ליה למעשה ידיו דאמר ריש לקיש מנין לעובד כוכבים שקנה את העובד כוכבים למעשה ידיו שנאמר (ויקרא כה, מה) וגם מבני התושבים הגרים עמכם מהם תקנו אתם קונים מהם

Raba said that the case dealt with is indeed where [the owner] has given up hopes of recovery. If then [he is ransomed] as a slave, he becomes enslaved to the second master. If he [is ransomed] as a free man, he becomes enslaved neither to the first master nor to the second; not to the second, because he ransomed him as a free man, and not to the first either, because he has given up hopes of recovering him. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS, IN EITHER CASE HE GOES BACK TO SLAVERY, adopting in this the view [also] held by Hezekiah, who said: Why was it laid down that in either case he should go back to slavery? So that slaves should not go and throw themselves into the hands of robber bands and so liberate themselves from their masters. An objection was raised [against Raba from the following]: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said to them, Just as it is a religious duty to redeem free men, so it is a religious duty to redeem slaves. Now if we adopt the view of Abaye that the case dealt with is where [the owner] has not yet given up hope of recovery — we understand why Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, 'Just as etc.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it was necessary for R. Simeon to adduce this reason. ');">¹⁶</span> But on the view of Raba, that the case is one where [the owner] has given up hope, why, 'just as'? [Rabban Simeon's reason] is the dictum of Hezekiah! — To which Raba can reply; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel was not certain to what the Rabbis were referring, and he argued with them thus: If you are speaking of the case where [the owner] has not yet given up hope, then I say 'just as [etc.]': and if you speak of the case where he has given up hope, then I apply the dictum of Hezekiah. Now on the view of Raba that the case referred to is where [the owner] has given up hope and that the slave [if ransomed as a slave becomes enslaved] to the second master, [we have to ask], from whom does the second master acquire him? [You must say], From the brigands. Is the brigand himself his rightful owner? — Yes; he was his owner in respect of his labour. For Resh Lakish has said; How do we know that one heathen can own another in respect of his labour? — It says, Moreover of the strangers that shall sojourn among you, of them shall ye acquire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 45. ');">¹⁷</span> [This indicates that] you may acquire from them,