Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit Chapter 10

הַשְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמֶּטֶת אֶת הַמִּלְוָה בִשְׁטָר וְשֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁטָר. הַקָּפַת הֶחָנוּת אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּטֶת. אִם עֲשָׂאָהּ מִלְוָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מְשַׁמֶּטֶת. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר הָרִאשׁוֹן הָרִאשׁוֹן מְשַׁמֵּיט. שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט וְאִם עֲשָׂאוֹ מִלְוָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מְשַׁמֵּיט. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר כָּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁהִיא פּוֹסֶקֶת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמֶּטֶת אֵינָהּ פּוֹסֶקֶת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּטֶת. הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפָּרָה וְחִילְּקָהּ בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אִם הָיָה הַחוֹדֶשׁ מְעוּבָּר מְשַׁמֵּיט וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּיט. הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְּפַתֶּה וְהַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע וְכָל מַעֲשֵֹה בֵית דִּין אֵינָן מַשְׁמִיטִין. הַמַּלְוֶה עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְהַמּוֹסֵר שְׁטָרוֹתָיו לְבֵית דִּין אֵין מַשְׁמִיטִין. הַשְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמֶּטֶת כו׳. נִיחָא שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁטָר. בִּשְׁטָר וְיֵעָשֶׂה כְמִלְוָה עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְלֹא יְהֵא מְשַׁמֵּט. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תִּיפְתָּר בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אֲחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִים וּכְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. אָתָא עוֹבְדָּא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אֲחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִים וְהוֹרֵי מְשַׁמֵּט. אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָנוּ לְמֵידִין מִן הַהֲלָכָה אָנוּ עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּשֶׁאֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע הָא אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע מְשַׁמֵּט. אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְרַב. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב יִיחַד לוֹ קַרְקַע מְשַׁמֵּט. לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא יִיחַד לוֹ הָא אִם לֹא יִיחַד לוֹ אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט. הַמְּשַׁעְבֵּד שָׂדֶה לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָלַךְ וּמְכָרָהּ אִם רָצָת לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ גּוֹבָה מִשְּׁאָר נְכָסִים גּוֹבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא הוֹרֵי רִבִּי לָעְזָר כָּהֵן תַּנַּיָיא. חֲבֵרַיָיא בְּעַיָין לֹא תִגְבֶּה אֶלָּא מִנְּכָסִין מְשׁוּעֲבָּדִין. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּנֵי חוֹרִין לְפָנֶיהָ וְאַתְּ אָמְרָת מְשׁוּעֲבָּדִין. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָהּ לֹא יְהֵא לָךְ פֵּירָעוֹן אֶלָּא מִזֶּה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לָהּ לֹא יְהֵא לָךְ פֵּירָעוֹן אֶלָּא מִזֶּה אֵינָהּ גּוֹבָה אֶלָּא מִמֶּנָּה. הַמְּשַׁעְבֵּד שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְהָלַךְ וּמְכָרָהּ. רִבִּי אָחָא אָמַר מְכוּרָה לְשָׁעָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה לְשָׁעָה. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִן הָדָא שׁוֹר מָצוּי הוּא לְהַבְרִיחוֹ. שָׂדֶה אֵינוֹ מָצוּי לְהַבְרִיחָהּ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְכוּרָה לְבַעַל זְרוֹעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה מְצוּיִן הֵן בַּעֲלֵי זְרוֹעַ לִיפּוֹל. תַּנֵּי הַכּוֹתֵב שָׂדֶה אֻפּוֹתֵיקֵי לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָתָהּ וּלְבַעַל חוֹב בְּחוֹבוֹ מְכָרָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְכוּרָה וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ יָחוּשׁ לְעַצְמוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁאָמַר לָהּ יְהֵא לָךְ פֵּירָעוֹן מִזּוֹ. מַה פְלִיגִין בִּשֶׁאָמַר לָהּ לֹא יְהֵא לָךְ פֵּירָעוֹן אֶלָּא מִזּוֹ. רַב אָמַר פְּגָמָהּ לֹא זְקָפָהּ זְקָפָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פְגָמָהּ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיא עַד שֶׁתִּפְגּוֹם וְתִזְקוֹף. וּמִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַקִּיף לוֹ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָיה נַעֲשֵׂית רִאשׁוֹנָה מִלְוָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה הִיא וְרָאוּי לְתוֹבְעוֹ בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּמָמוֹן שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַאֲמִינוֹ. וּמִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְתוֹבְעוֹ כְּמִי שֶהוּא רָאוּי לִיתֵּן לוֹ מָעוֹת. וְכָאן הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לִיתֵּן לוֹ מָעוֹת וְלֹא נָתַן נַעֲשֵׂית רִאשׁוֹנָה מִלְוָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בְּגִין חֲרִישָׁה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר בְּגִין בִּנְיָין. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כָּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁהִיא פּוֹסֶקֶת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כָּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁהִיא פּוֹסֶקֶת מֵאֵילֶיהָ. מַה רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה דְּרִבִּי [יוֹסֵי] אוֹמֵר כָּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁהִיא פּוֹסֶקֶת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמֶּטֶת וּשֶׁאֵינָהּ פּוֹסֶקֶת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּטֶת. וְלֹא רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְרִבִּי יוּדָה אַף עַל גַּב דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר אֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַשּׁוּלְחָנִי לִהְיוֹת נוֹתֵן אִיסָּר עַד שֶׁיִּטּוֹל דֵּינָר מוֹדֶי הוּא בִּשְׂכַר שָׂכִיר שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּסוֹף. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר נִיסָן לֹא נִתְעַבֵּר מִיָּמָיו וְהָא תַנִּינָן אִם בָּא חוֹדֶשׁ בִּזְמַנּוֹ. אִם בָּא לֹא בָּא. רַב אָמַר תִּשְׁרֵי לֹא נִתְעַבֵּר מִיָּמָיו וְהָתַנִּינָן אִם הָיָה חוֹדֶשׁ מְעוּבָּר. אִם הָיָה לֹא הָיָה. וּכְשֶׁקִּידְּשׁוּ אֶת הַשָּׁנָה בְּאוּשָׁא בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן עָמַד רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אָמַר כְּדִבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לֹא הָיִינוּ נוֹהֲגִין כֵּן בְּיַבְנֶה. בַּיּוֹם הַשֵׁינִי עָבַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי. אָמַר כְדִבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כֵּן הָיִינוּ נוֹהֲגִין בְּיַבְנֶה. וְהָתַנֵּי קִידְּשׁוּהוּ בָרִאשׁוֹן וּבַשֵּׁינִי. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא אוֹתָהּ הַשָּׁנָה נִתְקַלְקְלָה מַה בֵּין הָרִאשׁוֹן וּמַה בֵין הַשֵּׁינִי. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְשָׁנָה שְׁנִיָיה. וְהָתַנֵּי יוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן יוֹם הַשֵּׁינִי. קִידְּשׁוּהוּ קוֹדֶם לִזְמַנּוֹ אוֹ אַחַר עִיבּוּרוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד יָכוֹל יְהֵא מְעוּבָּר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אוֹתָם אַתֶּם אֵלֶּה הֵם מוֹעֲדָיי. לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ אֵין אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדָי. לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ עֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה יוֹם לְאַחַר עִיבּוּרוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם יוֹם. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁמְּעַבְּרִין אֶת הַשָּׁנָה עַל הַגָּלִיּוֹת שֶׁיָּצְאוּ וַעֲדַיִין לֹא הַגִּיעוּ תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹעֲדָי. עֲשֵׂה אֶת הַמּוֹעֲדוֹת שֶׁיַּעֲשׂוּ אוֹתָן כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן. וְהֵן שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לִנְהַר פְּרָת. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי קִידְּשׁוּהוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצְאוּ הָעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדָּשׁ. קָם רִבִּי יוֹסָה עִם רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַתְּ שָׁמַעַת מִן אָבוּךְ הָדָא מִילְתָא אָמַר לֵיהּ כֵּן. רִבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵין מְדַקְדְקִין בְּעֵידֵי הַחוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה הִיא וְרָאוּי לְתוֹבְעוֹ בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל רַב עַמְרָם רַב מַתָּנָה בְשֵׁם רַב הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא לְתוֹבְעוֹ שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמְּטָתוֹ. וְהָתַנֵּי הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַפָּרָה וְחִילְּקָהּ בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְאָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה הִיא וְרָאוּי הוּא לְתוֹבְעוֹ בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. כַּיי דְּאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְתוֹבְעוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַאֲמִינוֹ. וּמִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַאֲמִינוֹ כְּמִי שֶהוּא רָאוּי לִיתֵּן לוֹ מָעוֹת. וְכָאן הוֹאִיל וְהוּא רָאוּי לִיתֵּן לוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן נַעֲשֵׂית רִאשׁוֹנָה מִלְוָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן בְשֵׁם רַב הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תְּשַׁמְּטֶינּוּ שְׁבִיעִית אֵין הַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמְּטָתוֹ. וְהָתַנִּינָן בֵּין נוֹתְנִין מִיכָּן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּבֵין נוֹתְנִין מִיכָּן וְעַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים. וְיֵשׁ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים בְּלֹא שְׁמִיטָּה. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אִתְפַּלְּגוּן רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת חַד אָמַר בְּמַלְוֶה עַל הַמַּשְכּוֹן. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר בְּכוֹתֵב לֹו פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. תַּנֵּי שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לֹא אַיְתֵיי. מַהוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לֹא אַיְתֵיי שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר בְּמַלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ סְתָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְתוֹבְעוֹ עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. עָאַל רַב יְהוּדָה וְאָמַר טַעֲמָא קָרְבָה שְׁנַת הַשֶּׁבַע שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִיטָּה לֹא הִיא שְׁנַת שֶׁבַע וְלֹא הִיא שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִיטָּה. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר קָרְבָה שְׁנַת הַשֶּׁבַע שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִיטָּה. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר כָּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְתוֹבְעוֹ. לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם בְּהַשְׁמֵט כְּסָפִים וְהוּא לֹא יִגְבֵּינוֹ לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר קָרְבָה שְׁנַת הַשֶּׁבַע שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִיטָּה. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל רַב עַמְרָם רַב מַתָּנָה בְשֵׁם רַב הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא לְתוֹבְעוֹ הַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמְּטָתוֹ. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל קָרְבָה שְׁנַת הַשֶּׁבַע שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִיטָּה. לֹא הִיא שְׁנַת הַשֶּׁבַע שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִיטָּה. וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר קָרְבָה שְׁנַת הַשֶּׁבַע שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִיטָּה שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר כָּל שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים שָׂדֵהוּ לְפָנַיי כַּרְמוֹ לְפָנַיי וּלְאַחַר שֵׁשׁ שָׁנַים בְּהַשְׁמֵט כְּסָפִים וְהוּא לֹא יִגְבֵּינוֹ לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר קָרְבָה שְׁנַת הַשֶּׁבַע שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִיטָּה. הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְּפַתֶּה וְהַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר בְּמַלְוֶה הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. וְכָל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵית דִּין אֵילּוּ גִּיזְרֵי דִינִין. פְּשִׁיטָא דָא מִילְתָא מִלְוָה שֶׁהִיא נַעֲשֵׂית כַּפְרָנִית אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּטֶת. כַּפְרָנִית שֶׁהִיא נַעֲשֵׂית מִלְוָה מְשַׁמֶּטֶת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי אַף לְמִידַּת הַדִּין כֵּן לֹא צוֹרְכָה דְלֹא מִלְוָה שֶׁהִיא נַעֲשֵׂית כַּפְרָנִית גּוֹבֶה. [כַּפְרָנִית שֶׁהִיא נַעֲשֵׂית מִלְוָה] גּוֹבֶה בְּבֵינוֹנִית. הַמַּלְוֶה עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר אֲפִילוּ עַל הַמַּחַט. וַאֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֶת אָחִיךָ תַּשְׁמֵט יָדֶיךָ. פְּרָט לְמָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְאָחִיךָ תַּחַת יָדֶיךָ. וַאֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֶת אָחִיךָ תַּשְׁמֵט יָדֶיךָ וְלֹא הַמּוֹסֵר שְׁטָרוֹתָיו לְבֵית דִּין.

MISHNAH: The Sabbatical remits any loan, with or without a document. Store credit is not remitted; if it is transformed into a loan it is remitted. Rebbi Jehudah says, any preceding one is remitted. Wages of a hired hand are not remitted; if they are transformed into a loan they are remitted; Rebbi Yose says, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted; if it does not stop they are not remitted the Sabbatical or only during the Sabbatical. The hired hand cannot be a day-worker because the wages of a person hired for the day must be paid that same day. . If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day, if the month was long it is subject to remission, otherwise it is not subject to remission. The rapist, the seducer, the calumniator. 22:29 , the one for the seducer Ex . 22:16 , the one for the calumniator who accuses his bride of adultery between the preliminary and actual marriages, Deut . 22:19 . , and all court documents are not subject to remission. If somebody gives loans on pledge, or deposits his documents with the court, they are not subject to remission. HALAKHAH: “The Sabbatical remits any loan, etc.” 37a , Rav and Samuel explain the Mishnah that “with a document” means a document with the alienation clause, “without a document” means either a document without the alienation clause or an oral loan. R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish explain “with a document” as a loan with a document without the alienation clause, and “without a document” as a loan executed before witnesses but without any written document, but a loan on a correct document, with the alienation clause, is always like a loan on a pledge and never remitted. The opinion of Rav and Samuel is accepted as practice in the Babli; the reports there on the positions of Rav and R. Joḥanan are not totally in accordance with the Yerushalmi. We can understand if it is without a document. With a document it should be treated similar to a loan on a pledge and not be remitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, explain it for a document from which alienation of property is missing, following Rebbi Meïr 1:6 that a document without an alienation clause cannot be foreclosed in court. . A case came before Rebbi Joḥanan of a document without alienation of property and he instructed that it was remitted. Because we are interpreting the Mishnah, should we act on this37a , referring to a case brought by R. Assi before R. Joḥanan. ? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is only if he has no real estate. Hence, if he has real estate it is not remitted. Rebbi Yose said, even if he has real estate it is remitted. Rebbi Yose parallels Rav, since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav if he singled out real estate it is remitted in Babli Giṭṭin 37a and in content, but not in the formulation, a Tosephta (8:6 , speaking about a document of hypotheke , mortgage, cf. Note 22 ). {The treatment of mortgages in Yerushalmi and Babli cannot be directly compared since the Babli admits irrevocable mortgages for which the lender obtains the right to all yield of the land for a fixed period, usually 20 years, after which the parcel reverts to the original owner without repayment of the capital. In the Yerushalmi, all mortgages are redeemable.} . They said only “if he singled out”; therefore, if he did not single out it is not remitted. “If somebody established a lien on a field for his wife but then went and sold it, if she wishes she collects from this field or she collects from any other property. in the Babli ( Giṭṭin 41a ) gives the option both to the wife and to any lienholder, both of whom have the choice of either going after unincumbered property of the husband or debtor or to choose the more complicated procedure of foreclosing the property from the buyer, letting the buyer then sue the seller to recover his damages. In the Babli, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel declares the original sale invalid if the lienholder is the wife since women cannot be expected to be willing to go through lengthy and complicated court proceedings. ” Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Eleazar instructed following this baraita . The colleagues asked: Should she not collect only from the properties that are under the lien? Rebbi Yose said to them, there are unencumbered properties and you say, those under the lien? The baraita [applies] if he did not say you shall be paid only from this. But when he said, you shall be paid only from this, she may collect only from this. If somebody established a lien for another person on his field and then went and sold it; Rebbi Aḥa said, it is temporarily sold. Rebbi Yose said, even temporarily it is not sold. The strength of Rebbi Yose is from the following: He may induce his ox to flee; he cannot induce his field to flee 11b , Baba Batra 44b ), that a mortgage on cattle is not valid, since the disposition of animals is outside the control of the lienholder. This implies that a valid lien puts the mortgaged property at the disposal of the lienholder. . Think about it, if [the field] was sold to a violent person! Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said: Violent persons are apt to fall. It was stated: “If somebody mortgages a field to a woman for her ketubah Chapter 3, Note 155 . or a creditor for his claim and then sells it, that is sold and the buyer should beware for himself seems to support R. Aḥa only. In Yebamot 7:1 (fol. 8a), Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel disagress and decrees that in the case of a ketubah the sale is void since we cannot require a woman to sue a third party for her rights. ” This baraita if he said to her: you should be paid from this. They disagree if he says, you should only be paid from this. . Rav said, if she compromised [her ketubah ], even if she did not extend credit, if she extended credit even though she did not compromise. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Unless she would compromise it and extend credit, if she compromised it and extended credit, is subject to remission. If she compromised it but did not extend credit, if she extended credit but did not compromise, it is not subject to remission.” “Compromised” means that she obtained partial payment of the ketubah and now cannot use the original ketubah document for the remaining claim but must produce a new document from the husband (for a divorcee) or the heirs (for a widow) for the remainder. “Extending credit” means that she does not insist on immediate payment but on payment terms as if it were the repayment of a loan. The Tosephta text follows Rebbi Ḥiyya; Rav makes the ketubah subject to remission in the Sabbatical even if only one of the conditions is met. (In the Babli, Giṭṭin 18a , the position of R. Ḥiyya is ascribed to Rav and that of Rav to Samuel.) . Because he extends him credit a second time, is the first turned into a loan? Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah. But can he require payment on New Year’s Day? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: About money for which he can believe him. And since he could ask him for payment, he should be able to give him money. And here, because he should have been able to give him money and he did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan. Rebbi Joḥanan says, for ploughing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for building. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, any work that stops because of the Sabbatical. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, any work that stops in any way. Does Rebbi Yose hold with Rebbi Jehudah; does not Rebbi Yose say, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted, if it does not stop they are not remitted? But Rebbi Yose does not hold with Rebbi Jehudah 7:5, that a banker never can be believed if he claims to have given change before he received the large coin. ; while “Rebbi Jehudah says that it is not the way of a banker to give an as unless he has received a denar ,” he agrees that the wages of the hired man are due only at the end. 3:1 (fol. 58c). They are included here only because the two days of the New Year are mentioned in the Mishnah. Rebbi says, Nisan never was lengthened of Nisan (and Tishre) was never delayed when the New Moon was declared only after it had been observed. In these two months, messengers were sent to proclaim the exact dates of the holidays ( Roš Haššanah 1:5 ). [For the details of the Tannaitic calendar, see the author’s Seder Olam (Northvale, NJ, 1998), p. 268–269.] . But did we not state 4:5 : Incense was prepared in one batch for an entire year, starting with the first of Nisan. Then it is stated that on the first of Nisan, “if the New Moon appeared in time, incense was taken from the new batch; otherwise, it was taken from the incense prepared the previous year.” This Mishnah implies that the month of Adar preceding Nisan could have either 29 or 30 days. Rebbi implies that this Mishnah is purely hypothetical. : “If the New Moon appeared in time”? If it would appear, it did not appear. Rav said, Tishre was never lengthened 19b , also in the name of Rav, stating a tradition going back to the days of Ezra. The same statement is also in Yerushalmi Šeqalim 10:2 (fol. 39b), Sanhedrin 1:2 (fol. 18d). . But did we not state: “If the month was long”? If it would be, it never was. 3:11, also quoted in Yerushalmi Roš Haššanah 4:6 (59c), Nedarim 6:13 (40a), Sanhedrin 1:2 (18d); Babli Roš Haššanah 32a ; Sifra Emor Parašah 11(5 ). “When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Baroqa led prayer on New Year’s Day which consists of nine benedictions. The three first and the three last ones are those of everyday prayers; there are three additional ones proclaiming God’s Kingdom, מַלְכִיּוֹת, His remembering all living creatures, זִכְרוֹנוֹת, and the shofar blowing connected with the theophany on Mount Sinai, שׁוֹפָרוֹת, each one followed by blowing the shofar . R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa takes malkhiyot together with the third benediction, “sanctification of the Name”, and has as fourth benediction the usual holiday benediction, without shofar blowing. R. Aqiba takes the holiday benediction as part of malkhiyot ; this is the rule followed today as established by Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in the Tosephta. and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “the first, the second”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day? If they sanctified it before its time or after its lengthening, should I assume it was lengthened 2:8 ). ? The verse says ( Lev . 23:2 ) “them”, you, “these are My holidays. 25a and Sifra Behar Parashah 9(3 ). In Lev . 23:2 (Tell the Children of Israel and say to them, the holidays of the Eternal, you have to proclaim them as holy assemblies, these are My holidays ), Lev . 22:4 (These are the holidays of the Eternal, holy assemblies; you have to declare them at their times), and Lev . 22:37 (These are the holidays of the Eternal; you have to declare them as holy assemblies) the word “them” is written defective אֹתָם so that it could also be read as אַתֶּם “you”. This is taken to imply that no holiday is sacred that is not proclaimed by the Synhedrion. Since the Synhedrion is human, it is error prone. The three “them - you” are explained in the Babli as “you, even if unintended, you, even if intentionally wrong, you, even in error.” In the Sifra , the three cases are “even if forced by an act of God, unintended, or in error.” This interpretation is the basis of the Jewish computed calendar which, being based on a constant mean synodal month and a base line outside the Land of Israel, is necessarily in error if compared with astronomical computations of the motions of the moon. ” Before its time is not “My holidays.” Before its time, the 29 day, after its lengthening, the 32 day. From where that one intercalates the year because of the [men of the] diaspora that set out but did not yet arrive 9(1 ). Since both the Children of Israel and God’s holidays are mentioned in Lev . 23:2 , it is inferred that the holidays must be appropriate for all Children of Israel. {The rule itself, without Scriptural justification, is in Babli Sanhedrin 11a .} ? The verse says ( Lev . 23:2 ), “the Children of Israel, my holidays”. Make the holidays so they can be observed by all of Israel. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only if they had reached the river Euphrates. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi: If they sanctified it and afterwards the witnesses turned out to be perjured, it still is sanctified 2:9 ; they are not explicit in the Babli. The paragraph here is the source of Maimonides, Qidduš Haḥodeš 2:2 (not recognized by the commentators ad loc .) . Rebbi Assi stayed with Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi and asked him: Did you hear this from your father? He said, yes. Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not cross-examine the witnesses of the New Moon. Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah since he could ask him for payment on New Years’s Day. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it. 15:2 ). . We did state: “If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day,” and Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah. But can he require payment on New Year’s Day? As Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since he could ask him for payment, he can believe him. And since he could believe him, he could pay him. And here, because he could have given him but did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: If somebody gives a loan to a person on condition that the Sabbatical not remit it, the Sabbatical does not remit 3b ), Samuel is reported to have declared that the Sabbatical will remit. In the end, a fine distinction is made in the wording. If the contract reads that the debtor will not enforce the remission, that condition is valid. But if the contract reads that the Sabbatical should have no influence, that would mean abrogating a Torah law and the condition is invalid. , as we have stated 1:2 , dealing with witnesses who falsely testify that a debtor has promised to pay within 30 days when in fact he is obligated to pay after ten years, they are sentenced to pay the present value of the debt due in ten years. : “Whether he gives it after thirty days or after ten years.” Are there ten years without a Sabbatical? Rav Huna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rav Sheshet disagreed. One of them said, if the loan was given on a pledge, but the other said, if he writes him a prozbol . It was stated: “For thirty days he will not come.” What means “for thirty days he will not come”? Samuel said, if somebody gives a loan to a person without specifying details, he has no right to ask for payment until after 30 days 10:1 , where however the rule is qualified so that it is superseded by local usage if such usage is determined. This means that for the Tosephta, the 30 day rule is rabbinic in character. In the Babli ( Makkot 3b ), the rule is quoted by Samuel as a Tannaitic statement and the biblical proof given here by R. Jehudah is attributed there to Rav Mattanah. . Rav Jehudah came and explained ( Deut . 15:9 ): “The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.” Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say: “The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close”? That you should not say, I am not permitted to ask for payment until after 30 days; after 30 days the debt will be remitted and I will not collect; therefore, it must say that “the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.” Did not Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah say in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael ( Deut . 15:9 ): “The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.” Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does it have to say, “the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close”? That you should not say, all six years long his field is before me, his vineyard is before me, but after six years the debt is remitted and I cannot collect; therefore, it has to say “the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. goes as follows: If one gives a loan during a regular year, even if it is not a mortgage the lender might recover his loan from the crop of the borrower. But in the Sabbatical, there is no commercial crop, and when the next crop grows, the debt already is remitted. Hence, the verse speaks of any loan given in the sixth year, and nothing can be implied about the 30 day rule. {In Sifry Deut . #117, R. Yose the Galilean points out that the expression “the Seventh year, the remitting year” is needed to show that the Seventh year is not the seventh year after a loan has been granted but the seventh calendar year.} ” “The rapist, the seducer, the calumniator. 22:29 , the one for the seducer Ex . 22:16 , the one for the calumniator who accuses his bride of adultery between the preliminary and actual marriages, Deut . 22:19 . .” Rav Jehudah said, Rav [said]: This follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, it depends on the one extending credit 4:2 , R. Simeon says that the fines are paid as a consequence of a court document, the money goes to the woman, and the obligation is not remitted in the Sabbatical. The rabbis hold that the obligation is a civil one, a “loan”, the payment goes to the creditor of the loan, viz ., the father, and is remitted in the Sabbatical. The position ascribed to R. Meïr in this Mishnah is that the status of the obligation is that of a loan which is not remitted in the Sabbatical. {R. Simson holds that the position of R. Meïr is that of the rabbis, that the claims to fines are not remitted in the Sabbatical but that any judgment for fines not collected before the Sabbatical is remitted. If that were true, the position here should be described as that of the rabbis.} The main differences between loan and court decree is that in a forcible execution, loans are paid from the borrower’s real estate of average quality but court judgments covering torts from the best quality. . “And all court judgments,” these are court decisions. This is obvious: A loan that is disputed is not remitted. A loan that was disputed but is now a [confirmed] loan, is remitted. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is this also true for judgments? It is not necessary to say that a loan that was disputed can be collected. A disputed loan turned into a [confirmed] loan is collected from property of average quality. “If somebody makes a loan on a pledge”, Samuel says, even on a needle 43b : “If somebody gave a loan of 1000 tetradrachmas and took as pledge the handle of a sickle, if he lost the handle he lost the 1000 tetradrachmas.” The Babli disagrees in practice and rules that the sum not remitted in the Sabbatical is equal to the value of the pledge. . ( Deut . 15:3 ): “What you have on your brother you shall release;” that excludes your brother’s [property] in your hand. “What you have on your brother you shall release,” which excludes one who hands over his documents to the court. 113. .

פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט. זֶה אֶחָד מִן הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁהִתְקִין הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן כְּשֶׁרָאָה שֶׁנִּמְנְעוּ הָעָם מִלְּהַלְווֹת זֶה אֶת זֶה וְעוֹבְרִין עַל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן יִהְיֶה דָבָר בִּלְבָבְךָ בְּלִיַּעַל לֵאמוֹר וגו׳. הִתְקִין הִלֵּל פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. זֶהוּ גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל מוֹסֵר אֲנִי לָכֶם אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי הַדַּיָינִים שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁכָּל חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי שֶׁאַגְבֶּנּוּ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶרְצֶה וְהַדַּיָינִים חוֹתְמִין לְמַטָּן אוֹ הָעֵדִים. מִיכָּן סָמְכוּ לִפְרוֹזְבּוֹל שֶׁהוּא מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וּפְרוֹזְבּוֹל דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. כְּשֶׁהִתְקִין הִלֵּל סָמְכוּהוּ לִדְבַר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָא קַשִּׁיְיתָהּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר מַעְשְׂרוֹת [מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם נִיחָא שֶׁיְּתַקֵּן הִלֵּל פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל בְּרַם מָאן דְּאָמַר מַעְשְׂרוֹת] מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וְהִלֵּל מַתְקִין עַל דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְכִי מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁגָּלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְבָבֶל לֹא נִפְטְרוּ מִן הַמִּצְוֹת הַתְּלוּיוֹת בָּאָרֶץ וְהַשְׁמֵט כְּסָפִים נוֹהֵג בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה [מִשּׁוּם דְּחוֹבַת הַגּוּף הֵן]. חָזַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְאָמַר וְזֶה דְּבַר הַשְּׁמִיטָּה שָׁמוֹט בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַשְּׁמִיטָּה נוֹהֶגֶת דְּבַר תּוֹרָה הַשְׁמֵט כְּסָפִים נוֹהֵג בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהַשְּׁמִיטָּה נוֹהֶגֶת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן הַשְׁמֵט כְּסָפִים נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין אֲפִילוּ כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר מַעְשְׂרוֹת דְּבַר תּוֹרָה מוֹדֶה בִשְׁמִיטָּה שֶׁהִיא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. דְּתַנֵּי וְזֶה דְּבַר הַשְּׁמִיטָּה שָׁמוֹט. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר שְׁנֵי שְׁמִיטִּין הַלָּלוּ שְׁמִיטָּה וְיוֹבֵל. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג שְׁמִיטָה נוֹהֶגֶת דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. פָּסְקוּ הַיּוֹבֵילוֹת שְׁמִיטָּה נוֹהֶגֶּת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. אֶימָתַי פָּסְקוּ הַיּוֹבֵילוֹת [כָּל] יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ. בִּזְמַן שֶׁיּוֹשְבֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ לֹא בִזְמַן שֶׁגָּלוּ מִתּוֹכָהּ. הָיוּ עָלֶיהָ אֲבָל הָיוּ מְעוּרְבָבִין שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה בְבִנְיָמִן וְשֵׁבֶט בִּנְיָמִן בִּיהוּדָה יָכוֹל יְהוּ הַיּוֹבֵילוֹת נוֹהֲגִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ לְכָל יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר כִּיוָן שֶׁגָּלוּ שֵׁבֶט רְאוּבֵן וְגָד וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְּנַשֶּׁה בָּטְלוּ הַיּוֹבֵילוֹת. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וַאֲפִילוּ נְתוּנִּין בְּרוֹמֵי. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁדָּנוּ וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן חוֹתְמִין בִּשְׁנַיִם וְאָמַר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָתַמְנוּ בִשְׁנָיַם דָּנַנּוּ בִשְׁלֹשָׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי מַתְנִיתִין אָמַר כֵּן וְהַדַּיָינִין חוֹתְמִין מִלְּמַטָּה אוֹ הָעֵדִים. וּלְמֵידִין מִידַּת הַדִּין מִפְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי הוּא מִידַּת הַדִּין לָמַד מִפְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. אֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע וּלְחַיָיבִין לוֹ קַרְקַע כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא רְאוּבֵן חַיָיב לְשִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי חַיָיב לִרְאוּבֵן. רְאוּבֵן אֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע וְלֵוִי יֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע כּוֹתְבִין לְשִׁמְעוֹן עַל נְכָסָיו שֶׁל לֵוִי.

MISHNAH: A prozbol Chapter 3, Note 120 . By Mishnah 2, instruments of indebtedness delivered to the court for collection are not subject to remission. Hillel substituted for actual delivery a document declaring the intent of the creditor to transfer his documents to the authority of the court without actually delivering them. does not remit. This is one of the ordinances of Hillel the elder. When he saw that the people refrained from giving loans to one another and transgressed what is written in the Torah, as it is said ( Deut . 15:9 ): “Guard yourself, lest there be in your heart an unworthy thought saying, etc.”, he instituted the prozbol . This is the essence. of prozbol : I declare before you, judges X and Y at place Z, that I shall collect any debt due me any time I wish. The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses. HALAKHAH: From here they supported the notion that prozbol is from the Torah. But is prozbol from the Torah cannot be biblical. ? When Hillel instituted it, they supported it from words of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥuna said, I asked before Rebbi Jacob ben Aḥa: Following him who says tithes [are from their words, it is understandable that Hillel instituted prozbol . But following him who says tithes] are from the Torah, does Hillel institute anything against the words of the Torah? Rebbi Yose said, from the moment that Israel was exiled to Babylonia, did they not become free from all commandments connected with the Land, but the remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah [because it is an obligation of the person. 111, the reason given is not this logical argument but the verse ( Deut . 15:2 ): “this is the word of the remission: every creditor remit what is in his hand, what he loaned to his fellow; he shall not press his fellow because a remission was declared for the Eternal .” Since God is Lord over the universe, remission is applicable everywhere in the universe. ]? Rebbi Yose turned and said, ( Deut . 15:2 ) “this is the word of the abandonment, remit” as long as abandonment is followed as a word of the Torah, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah, but when abandonment is followed as their word, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from their word. There36a ) quotes only Rebbi’s statement below. The commentators of the Babli assume that the majority of rabbis oppose Rebbi. There seems to be no basis for that assumption. The sketchy treatment of the subject in the Babli is explained by Meïri ( Magen Avot , ed. Last, London 1909, Chap. 15.). , they say that even one who holds that tithes are from the Torah will hold that the Sabbatical is from their word. As we have stated ( Deut . 15:2 ): “this is the word of the remission, remit!” Rebbi says, these two remissions are the Sabbatical and the Jubilee. As long as the Jubilee is operative, the Sabbatical is from words of the Torah. If the Jubilees are abolished, the Sabbatical is operative from their words. When were the Jubilees abolished? ( Lev . 25:10 ) “[All its] inhabitants. 32b and Sifra Behar Pereq 2(3 ). The verse reads: “You shall sanctify the fiftieth year and call freedom for all its inhabitants, a Jubilee it shall be for you so that everybody return to his ancestral land, everybody return to his family.” “Ancestral land” is the plot given to the family in the original distribution after the conquest. It follows that there can be no Jubilee if the distribution of land by Joshua is no longer known. ” In the time when its inhabitants lived on it, not when they went into exile. If they lived on it but intermingled, the tribe of Judah in Benjamin, and the tribe of Benjamin in Judah, I could think that the Jubilee is operative. The verse mentions its inhabitants, “All its inhabitants;” you find that when the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh went into exile, the Jubilees were disestablished. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even if they are in Rome on the names of judges at another place (who probably will never know about the existence of this prozbol .) This implies that prozbol and the related documents do not have to be deposited with any court. . Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there 22a ), this is also a statement of Rebbi Abba (in Babylonian Aramaic). A court usually is composed of three judges ( Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:1 ); in the opinion of the majority of authorities, a court of two judges is incompetent. Now the Mishnah mentions only two judges and equates the signatures of judges and witnesses. Since witnesses must always be two, it follows that there is a situation in which the signature of two judges is valid even for those who disallow a court of two judges. : If three sat in judgment and one of them died, two sign and note: Even though we are two who sign, we were three in judging. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, our Mishnah implies this: “The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses.” Does one learn court documents from prozbol ? It was found stated: This about court documents was learned from the rules of prozbol . If he has no real estate but his debtors have real estate, one writes a prozbol for him 3:8 that prozbol can be written only on the basis of real estate; the possession of one square inch is enough. In Tosephta Ševi‘it 8:9 it is made clear that the debtor must have real estate (to give the prozbol a status similar to a mortgage which is not remitted.) In Tosephta 8:8 , the anonymous majority holds that in a chain of debtors, only the creditor of a debtor with real estate may write a prozbol but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel asserts that the real estate of one of the debtors is good for all. The Yerushalmi here and a similar Babli ( Giṭṭin 37a ) follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel without mentioning his name. . How is that done? Ruben owes Simeon and Levi owes Ruben. Ruben has no real estate, Levi has real estate. One writes for Simeon on the properties of Levi.

פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל הַמּוּקְדָּם כָּשֵׁר וְהַמְּאוּחָר פָּסוּל. שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמּוּקְדָּמִין פְסוּלִין וְהַמְּאוּחָרִין כְּשֵׁרִין. אֶחָד לֹוֶוה מֵחֲמִשָּׁה כּוֹתְבִין פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. חֲמִשָּׁה לֹוִוין מִן אֶחָד אֵינוֹ כוֹתֵב אֶלָּא פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן. אֵין כּוֹתְבִין פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל אֶלָּא עַל הַקַּרְקַע אִם אֵין לוֹ מְזַכֶּה הוּא בְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא. הָיְתָה לוֹ שָׂדֶה מְמוּשְׁכֶּנֶת בָּעִיר כּוֹתְבִין עָלֶיהָ פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. רִבִּי חוּצְפִּית אוֹמֵר כּוֹתְבִין לְאָדָם עַל נִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְלִיתוֹמִין עַל נִכְסֵי אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. כַּוֶורֶת דְּבוֹרִים. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הִיא כְקַרְקַע וְכוֹתְבִין עָלֶיהָ פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל וְאֵינָהּ מְקַבֶּלֶת טוּמְאָה בִמְקוֹמָהּ. וְהָרוֹדֶה מִמֶּנָּה בַּשַּׁבָּת חַיָיב. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִין אֵינָהּ כְקַרְקַע וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין עָלֶיהָ פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל וּמְקַבֶּלֶת טוּמְאָה בִמְקוֹמָהּ. וְהָרוֹדֶה מִמֶּנָּה בַּשַּׁבָּת פָּטוּר. הַמַּחֲזִיר חוֹב בַּשְּׁבִיעִית אוֹמֵר לוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט אָנִי. אם אָמַר לוֹ אַף עַל פִּי כֵּן יְקַבֵּל הִימֵּינוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְזֶה דְּבַר הַשְּׁמִיטָּה. כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁגָּלָה לְעִיר מִקְלָט וְרָצוּ אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר לְכַבְּדוֹ. יֹאמַר לָהֶן רוֹצֵחַ אָנִי אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַף עַל פִּי כֵּן יְקַבֵּל מֵהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְזֶה דְּבַר הָרוֹצֵחַ. פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל הַמּוּקְדָּם כָּשֵׁר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוֹרַע כּוֹחוֹ. וְהַמְּאוּחָר פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּיַיפֶּה כּוֹחוֹ. שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמּוּקְדָּמִין פְסוּלִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּיַיפֶּה כֹּחָן. וְהַמְּאוּחָרִין כְּשֵׁירִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מֵירַע כּוֹחָן. מִי מֵּידַע שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַחֲתוּמִין בַּשְּׁטָר. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ עָשׂוּ דִבְרֵי הַחֲתוּמִין כְּמִי שֶׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵידוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין. תַּמָּן אוֹתָן כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ לֹא חָתַמְנוּ כָּל עִיקָּר. בְּרַם הָכָא אָמְרֵי עַל זֶה חָתַמְנוּ וְלֹא חָתַמְנוּ עַל זֶה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר פְּסוּלִין מַמָּשׁ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֵינוֹ מוֹנֶה אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת הַכְּתָב. וְהָתַנֵּי פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל בֵּין מוּקְדָּם בֵּין מְאוּחָר כָּשֵׁר וְאֵינוֹ מוֹנֶה אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת הַכְּתָב. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן בִּשְׁטָרוֹת מַה בֵּין פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל מַה בֵּין שְׁטָר. שְׁטָר שֶׁזְּמַנּוֹ כָּתוּב בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ בַעֲשָׂרָה בְתִשְׁרֵי. רִבִּי יוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי פּוֹסֵל. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי יוּדָה מַעֲשֶׂה בָּא לְפָנֶיךָ בְצִיפּוֹרִי וְהֶכְשַׁרְתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ אֲנִי לֹא הֶכְשַׁרְתִּי וְאִם הֶכְשַׁרְתִּי הֶכְשַׁרְתִּי. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר מָאן דְּאָמַר פָּסוּל מִשּׁוּם מְאוּחָר. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר כָּשֵׁר מִשּׁוּם מוּקְדָּם אֶלָּא מָאן דְּאָמַר פָּסוּל מִשּׁוּם זִייוּף. רַב אָמַר וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא קַרְקַע לְמַלְוֶה וּלְלֹוֶה. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לְמַלְוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְלֹוֶה לְלֹוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְמַלְוֶה. אֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע וּלְחַיָיבִין קַרְקַע כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא קֶלַח אֶחָד בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. וְהָתַנֵּי הַשּׁוּתָפִין וְהָאָרִיסִין וְהָאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין אֵין לָהֶן פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. אָמְרִין תַּמָּן כָּל קֶלַח וְקֶלַח שֶׁל שׁוּתָפוּת הוּא בְּרַם הָכָא הוּא שֶׁלּוֹ. מָהוּ לִכְתּוֹב לָאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין עִל נִיכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין נִיִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא כּוֹתְבִין לְאִישׁ עַל נִיכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ. מָהוּ לִכְתּוֹב לְאִשָּׁה עַל נִיכְסֵי בַּעֲלָהּ נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא וְכֵן לִיתוֹמִין עַל נִיכְסֵי אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וַיָּבֹא הָעָם אֶל הַיַּעַר וְהִנֵּה הֵלֶךְ דְּבָשּׁ. מַה אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא חוֹרְשָׁא מַפִּיק דְּבָשׁ. וְאִילּוּ אָמַר וַיִּטְבּוֹל אוֹתָהּ בְּיַעֲרַת הַדְּבָשׁ יְאוּת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר שָׁמְעָה יַתָהּ כֵּן וַיִּטְבּוֹל אוֹתָהּ בְּיַעֲרַת הַדְּבָשׁ. מַה נָן קַיָימִין אִם בִּמְחוּבֶּרֶת לְקַרְקַע כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהִיא כְקַרְקַע אִם בִּנְתוּנָה עַל גַּבֵּי שְׁתֵּי יְתֵידוֹת כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁאֵינָן כְּקַרְקַע אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַיָימִין בְּמוּנַחַת עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע. וְאַתְיָיא כַּיי דָאמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה כּוֹתְבִין פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל עַל מְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל תַּנּוּר וְעַל מְקוֹמָהּ שֶׁל כִּירָה. רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אָדָא אָמַר אַף עַל מְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל נֵר. אַף בְּפַת כֵּן מַחְלוֹקֶת רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וַחֲכָמִים. דְּבַשׁ גִּידּוּלֵי כַּוֶורֶת. פַּת אֵינָהּ גִידּוּלֵי תַנּוּר. הַמַּחֲזִיר חוֹב בַּשְּׁבִיעִית וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ מְשַׁמֵּיט אָנִי רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר בְּשָׂפָה רָפָה. וְהַיָּמִין פְּשׁוּטָה לְקַבֵּל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא אָמְרָה בַּר נַשׁ דְּתַנֵּי חָדָא מֵיכְלָא וְהוּא אֲזַל לְאָתָר וְאִינּוּן מוֹקְרִין לֵיהּ בְּגִין תַּרְתֵּיי צָרִיךְ מֵימַר לוֹן אֲנָא חָדָא מֵיכְלָא אֲנָא חֲכַם.

MISHNAH: A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid. Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid, postdated they are valid. If one person borrows from five, one writes a prozbol for each single [creditor]. If five persons borrow from one, he writes only one prozbol for all of them. One writes prozbol only on the basis of real estate. If he. has none, [the other party] gives him the right to a minute area of their field. If he had a field mortgaged in town, one writes a prozbol on it. Rebbi Ḥuẓpit says, one writes for a man on his wife’s properties and for orphans on those of the guardians 37a ), documented claims of minor orphans are always under the supervision of the court, have the status of court documents, and do not need prozbol . The Babli is therefore obliged to interpret the Mishnah as speaking of debts incurred by the guardians for the living expenses of the orphans. This does not seem to be the position of the Yerushalmi. . A bee hive. Rebbi Eliezer says, it is like real estate: one may write a prozbol on it, it is not subject to impurity in its place, and somebody who takes honey from it on the Sabbath is guilty. But the Sages say, it is not like real estate, one may not write a prozbol on it, it is subject to impurity in its place, and somebody who takes honey from it on the Sabbath is not sanctionable 3:10. . If somebody returns a debt in the Sabbatical, he [the lender] says to him: “I am remitting.” If he [the borrower] says “anyway”, he [the lender] should accept it, for it is said ( Deut . 15:2 ): “This is the word of remission”. Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them: I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept it, for it is said ( Deut . 19:4 ): “This is the word of a homicide.” HALAKHAH: “A predated prozbol is valid” because he diminishes its power, but “postdated it is invalid” because he increases its power is a declaration that all documents in the hand of the creditor have to be considered as delivered to the court, predating the prozbol does not increase the number of documents covered, but postdating may increase their number. In the latter case, the testimony of the witnesses affixed to the document would be perjured. . “Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid” because he increases their power, but “postdated they are valid” because he diminishes their power. Who notifies or document is pre- or postdated? The Rome ms. reads מודע which might be the more correct form. ? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the signatories of the document. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, they treated the statement of the signatories of a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined by the court was predated or a financial document postdated can never be given by any witness to the document if genuinness of the signature of the witness is established from another source. [The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish is discussed, in the same sense, in Babli Ketubot 18b , Giṭṭin 3a .] ? There they could assert that they signed for the fact of the prozbol but not the date. , it is about those who would say: We did not sign at all. But here they say, on this we signed, on that we did not sign. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are really invalid. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he only counts from the time of writing. But did we not state: “A prozbol is valid, whether predated or postdated, but it only counts from the time of writing”? If you assert this for financial documents, what is the difference between a prozbol and a financial document and debt documents are opposites, it is impossible to accept R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position for debt documents and probably also the baraita quoted. ? “A document dated on a Sabbath or on the Tenth of Tishrē, Rebbi Jehudah declares it valid and Rebbi Yose invalid. Rebbi Jehudah said to him, a case came before you in Sepphoris and you declared it valid. He said to him, I did not declare it valid, but if I did it, I did it. 1:3 , a slightly different version Babli Baba Batra 171a . The date normally is written by the day of the month; if one checks one may find that the date given fell on a Sabbath. In the case of the Day of Atonement, one must assume that the date is given in terms of a Gentile calendar. ” They wanted to say that he who holds it invalid [does so] because it might be later, and he who holds it valid [does so] because it might be earlier; but he who holds it invalid [does so] because it might be forged evidence to declare the document forged, but he is open to proof that the document is genuine. This explains his equanimity when confronted with an apparent contradiction between his action and his formal statement. He will hold the document forged unless presented with evidence to the contrary. {The different interpretation of the Babli does not explain R. Yose’s agreement with the statement of R. Jehudah.} . Rav said, only if both lender and borrower have real estate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, if the creditor does but not the borrower. , or the borrower but not the lender. . If he has no real estate but one who owes him will be used, cf. Note 92 . has real estate then one writes him a prozbol . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Even if he has only one stalk in a field, one writes him a prozbol . But did we not state: Partners, sharecroppers, and guardians have no prozbol ? They say, there each single stalk is property of the partnership but here it is his. May one write for a guardian based on the orphans’ real estate? Let us hear it from the following: “One writes for a husband on his wife’s properties”. May one write for a woman on her husband’s properties purely on the basis of his being trustee for others as well as property owner for himself. Similarly, we should admit the possibility of prozbol simply by the marriage of the lender to a property owner. ? Let us hear it from the following: “And for orphans on those of the guardians”. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer ( 1S . 14:26 ): “The people came to the forest and behold, there was a flow of honey.” What do you understand from this? Rebbi Mana said, the thicket produced honey. If he had said from ( 1S . 14:27 ): “He dipped it into the forest of honey”, it would have been better. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He really understood it from ( 1S . 14:27 ): “He dipped it into the forest of honey.” Where do we hold? If it is connected to the ground, everybody agrees that it belongs to the ground. If it is on two bars, everybody agrees that it is not like ground. But where we hold is if it rests on the ground. It compares to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: One writes a prozbol on the space for an oven, also on the space for a hearth 37a ) notes that the statement is needed only if the ground on which the oven sits is rented, not owned. . Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, also on the space for a lamp. Is it also the same for the space for bread, is that the disagreement between Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages? Honey is a product of the bee hive, bread is not a product of the oven. If somebody repays a debt in the Sabbatical even though he [the lender] says to him: “I am remitting,” the Sages are pleased with him. Rav Huna said, he says it in a soft voice and his right hand is stretched out to receive. Rebbi Yose said, this means that if a person who knows one collection goes to a place and they honor him for two, he has to tell them: “I know one collection.”

הַמַּחֲזִיר חוֹב בַּשְּׁבִיעִית רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. הַלֹּוֶוה מִן הַגֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְירוּ בָנָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יַחֲזִיר לְבָנָיו וְאִם הֶחֱזִיר רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין נִקְנִין בִּמְשִׁיכָה וְכָל הַמְקַיֵים אֶת דְּבָרָיו רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. רִבִּי לָעְזָר אָמַר וּבִלְבַד לְבָנָיו. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּעֵי מַהוּ וּבִלְבַד לְבָנָיו. אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בָנִים יַחֲזִיר לְבָנָיו. אִם אֵין לוֹ בָנִים יַחֲזִיר לִבְנֹתָיו. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר הוֹאִיל וְאֵין יְרוּשַׁת הַגֵּר דְּבַר תּוֹרָה יַחֲזִיר לְבָנָיו כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ מִי שֶׁמֵּת סוֹף מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ אֶלָּא אִמּוֹ לֹא יַחֲזִיר וְאִם הֶחֱזִיר רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. הַגּוֹזֵל שֶׁעָשָׂה תְשׁוּבָה וּבִיקֵּשׁ לְהַחֲזִיר אֶת הַגְּזֵילָה הַמְּקַבֵּל הִימֶּנּוּ אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר הַנּוֹשֵׂא וְהַנּוֹתֵן בִּדְבָרִים זִמְנִיין דְּאַתְּ אָמַר אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. וְזִימְנִין דְּאַתְּ אָמַר אֵין מוֹסְרִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁפָּרַע. רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַנּוֹתֵן עֵירָבוֹן טַבַּעַת לַחֲבֵירוֹ וּבִיקֵּשׁ לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ זָהוּב אָמַר לֵיהּ טַבַּעַת. מַה בֵּין זָהוּב וּמַה בֵּין טַבַּעַת. זָהוּב דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת טַבַּעַת בְּעֵיינָהּ הוּא. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לִיתֵּן מַתָּנָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ וּבִיקֵּשׁ לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. קָם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עִם רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי אָמַר לֵיהּ הָהֵן לָאו צֶדֶק וְהִין צֶדֶק אָמַר בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר הִין שֶׁל צֶדֶק הָיָה. רַב פְּלִיג דְּרַב אָמַר כַּד אֲנָא אָמַר לִבְנֵי בֵיתִי לִיתֵּן מַתָּנָה לְבַר נַשׁ לֵינָה חָזַר בִּי. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב אֵימָתַי אָמְרוּ הַמְּטַלְטְלִין נִקְנִין בִּמְשִׁיכָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ בְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶן בִּרְשוּת הַלּוֹקֵחַ כֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו בִּרְשׁוּת הַמּוֹכֵר לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ וְיוֹצִא אֶת כֹּל מֵרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים בִּרְשׁוּת זֶה שֶׁהָיוּ מוּפְקָדִין אֶצְלוֹ לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיְּזַכֵּינוּ בָהֶן אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּשְׂכִּיר לוֹ אֶת מְקוֹמָן. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רַב כָּאן כְּשֶׁהֶעֱמִידוֹ עִמּוֹ כָּאן כְּשֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱמִידוֹ עִמּוֹ. רַב פְּלִיג דְּרַב אָמַר כַּד אֲנָא אָמַר לִבְנֵי בֵיתִי לִיתֵּן מַתָּנָה לְבַר נַשׁ לֵינָה חָזַר בִּי. תֵּדָע לָךְ חַד בַּר נַשׁ אַפְקִיד עֵירָבוֹן עַל מִילְחָא וְיָקְרָת. אָתָא לְגַבֵּי רַב אָמַר לֵיהּ אוֹ יִתֵּן לוֹ כָּל עֵירָבוֹנוֹ אוֹ יִמְסוֹר לוֹ לְמִי שֶׁפָּרַע. מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרַב. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר כַּד אֲנָא אָמַר לִבְנֵי בֵיתִי לִיתֵּן מִתָּנָה לְבַר נַשׁ לֵינָה חָזַר בִּי. וְכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. תַּמָּן לְמִידַּת הַדִּין הוּא וּמַה דְרַב נְהִיג לְמִידַּת חֲסִידוּת.

MISHNAH: If somebody repays a debt in the Sabbatical, the Sages are pleased with him. If somebody borrows from a convert whose sons converted with him, he does not have to repay the sons but if he repaid, the Sages are pleased with him 17b/18a ) quotes the Mishnah in the form “the Sages are displeased with him,” and the text here, “the Sages are pleased with him,” is given only as a baraita . The meaning of the distinctions made in the Babli is not clear; therefore, Maimonides omits the rule in his Code. The only coherent explanation of the Mishnah is that given by Rabbi Isaac in Tosaphot ( Qiddušin 18a, s. v. כאן ) and R. Nissim Gerondi in his commentary to Alfassi ( Qiddušin #596): Since a convert is like a newborn for Jewish law, the children converting with him are not legally his Jewish children and the law will not force the debtor to pay after the lender’s death. However, the children are his own children and not to pay the sons after their father’s death is reprehensible. If the convert has children after his conversion, they are his Jewish children and all laws of inheritance apply. The only problem arises if his pregnant wife converted with him. The Babli notes that in such a case, the Sages are displeased with any repayment to the child born after conversion. The reason given by the commentators is that the child is Jewish by birth; if the laws of inheritance did apply one would conclude that the child is legally a relative of his father and his older siblings. But the fact is that a Gentile father never can have a legal relationship with his child by a Jewish mother. For example, if a Jewish man marries his late father’s other wife, this relationship is incestuous and the marriage is non-existent; the woman can marry another man without a divorce. But if the child conceived as a Gentile would marry one of his late father’s wives other than his mother, while the marriage is not tolerated it is valid and would need a formal divorce. The Yerushalmi does not consider this unlikely case. {The Šulḥan Arukh , Ḥošen Mišpaṭ §127(2) decides otherwise, following what is reported in the name of Rashi.} . Movables are acquired only by being drawn close, but the Sages are pleased with everybody who keeps his word 1:5 . The rule is that by rabbinic decree, transfer of movable property can be accomplished only by actual or symbolic possession. This means that if the buyer pays before he takes possession, the seller is legally free to return the money and sell the goods to a higher bidder. However, doing so is morally reprehensible and the tricked buyer may ask the court to declare ( Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 4:2 ): “He Who made the generation of the Deluge and the generation of the Tower of Babylon pay, He will make him pay who does not stand by his word.” . HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, only to his sons. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “only to his sons?” If he has sons, one should return it to his sons. If he has no sons, one should return it to his daughters. That you should not say, since the inheritance of the convert is not settled in the Torah. 27:6–11 appoint the sons as heirs; daughters are to inherit only if there are no sons. [However, by rabbinic decree unmarried daughters may claim a dowry before the inheritance can be distributed.] In the absence of children, the father’s family inherits in ascending and descending order; the mother’s family never inherits. , he should return it to the children. Similarly, if somebody died who was the last of his family and he has no heir except his mother one does not have to repay, but if the debtor repaid the Sages are pleased with him. 94d, speaking of “the robber or one who lends on interest.” The Babli restricts the advice only to those robbers and lenders who have no income whatsoever except robbery and interest, and probably refers only to Rebbi’s time. The robber who repents and wants to return what he robbed, if somebody accepts it from him, the Sages are displeased with him. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody trades in promises 3:14 (quoted in Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 49a , where Rav disagrees and holds that one is free to change his mind) and Yerushalmi Baba Meẓi‘a 4:3 , 4 (fol. 9c-d). , there you say the Sages are displeased with him. But sometimes you say only that one gives him up to “Him who made pay 1:5 . The rule is that by rabbinic decree, transfer of movable property can be accomplished only by actual or symbolic possession. This means that if the buyer pays before he takes possession, the seller is legally free to return the money and sell the goods to a higher bidder. However, doing so is morally reprehensible and the tricked buyer may ask the court to declare ( Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 4:2 ): “He Who made the generation of the Deluge and the generation of the Tower of Babylon pay, He will make him pay who does not stand by his word.” ”. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who gives a ring as surety and wants to get out of the deal, may get out of the deal 48b ) disagrees and considers taking a pledge as an act of acquisition. . Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Abbahu: A gold coin? He said to him, a ring. What is the difference between a gold coin and a ring? Gold coins are exchanged, a ring remains as it is. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind 4:7 (fol. 55b), Baba Meẓi‘a 4:2 (fol. 9c-d), Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 49a . In the Babli, the statement is restricted to large gifts. . Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no ( Lev . 19:36 ) “and just yes? 8(7 ), Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 49a : “Why does the verse mention ‘a just epha and a just hin ’? Is not a hin a part of an epha , how can one have correct measures for one and not the other? One takes biblical hîn as rabbinic hēn ‘yes’. That your yes should be a yes and your no a no, the same in your mind and your mouth.” ” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “ 1:8 , Baba Batra 5:2; Yerushalmi Qiddušin 1:4 (fol. 60b), Giṭṭin 8:1 (fol. 49b); Babli Baba Batra 85a . Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this? One is if he was standing with him, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt 48b , the story is told of R. Ḥiyya bar Josef, who appeared before R. Joḥanan. ; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety. cit ., Rav holds that a surety gives a claim for the value of the surety while R. Joḥanan holds that a surety establishes a claim for the entire lot in question. The version of the story here implies that Rav was the judge. or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.