Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור is going to be מסכת גיטין דף ל״ו עמוד א׳, 11 lines from the top of the עמוד, and we're going to start with the words: והעדים חותמין על הגט מפני תיקון העולם. The גמרא goes back to the משנה and is going to explain the meaning of these words. It said in the משנה that the עדים, the witnesses, sign the גט only because of a תיקון of the world. In other words, what the משנה is saying that originally the דין was that the עדים did not have to sign, and there was a תקנה that the עדים have to sign. But the גמרא asks: מפני תיקון העולם? The משנה was saying that they only sign because of a תיקון העולם, דאורייתא הוא, isn't it from the תורה? דכתיב, there's a פסוק in ירמיה that says וכתוב בספר וחתום, and that it was to be written in a ספר and signed. So we see that when you have a ספר, when you have a document written, it should be signed. And even though this is a פסוק in ירמיה ל״ב and it is not a פסוק in חומש, the גמרא refers to it with the word דאורייתא הוא. As

רבי יעקב עמדין on this גמרא points out that many times we find in the גמרא that דברי קבלה, which means words of נביאים וכתובים, are referred to in the גמרא as דאורייתא, as we find many times in the גמרא סנהדרין, in the גמרא כתובות, etc. But the גמרא's קשיא is, how could you tell me that only מפני תיקון העולם you sign when it says in the פסוק וכתוב בספר וחתום? אמר רבה, so רבה said: לא צריכא, it has to tell us this דין לרבי אלעזר, only according to רבי אלעזר, דאמר, that he says: עדי מסירה כרתי, that only the עדי מסירה, the עדים that watch the giving of the גט, they are the ones that make the גט take effect. They are the ones that are כורת בינו לבינה, they are the ones that cut off the husband from the wife, they are the ones that actually make the גירושין. Because there is a מחלוקת, as we learned before, between רבי אלעזר and רבי מאיר. רבי אלעזר says that this דין that we have that you must have עדים by a גט, the main thing is עדי מסירה, that you must have the עדים watch the giving of the גט. But you do not have to have עדי חתימה, that the עדים should sign the גט. רבי מאיר holds עדי חתימה כרתי, that the עדים that sign the גט, they are the ones that are כורת בינו לבינה, they are the ones that cut off the husband from the wife, they are the ones that cause the גירושין. So the גמרא says here that in the משנה where it says that the עדים only sign מפני תיקון העולם is only according to רבי אלעזר who holds that you must have עדי מסירה only. So

תקינו רבנן, the רבנן were מתקן עדי חתימה, that you should also have עדים sign the גט מפני תיקון העולם, as a תקנה for the world. Because זימנין דמייתי סהדי, because it could happen sometimes that the עדים that watched the giving of the גט died, אי נמי זימנין דאזלו למדינת הים, or sometimes the עדים that watched the giving of the גט went away to מדינת הים, to a faraway place, and when she wants to remarry, we will not have the עדים to testify that she was divorced, so therefore we were מתקן that you should have the עדים sign, and when you will have the עדים sign, this this will be sufficient that with that גט, by showing that document, that גט, she will be able to marry. רב יוסף אמר, רב יוסף says: אפילו תימא לרבי מאיר, that באמת you could say that this משנה also goes according to רבי מאיר that holds that עדי חתימה כרתי, that the עדי חתימה are the important ones. אי we ask, according to רבי מאיר, מדאורייתא the עדים have to sign. So how could the משנה say that עדים sign on the גט only מפני תיקון העולם? So the גמרא answers that according to רבי מאיר, פשט is התקינו, the חכמים were מתקן שיהו עדים מפרשים שמותיהם בגיטין, that the עדים should specify their names in the גט מפני תיקון העולם, as a תקנה for the world. Because כדתניא, like we learn in a ברייתא: בראשונה, in the beginning, היה כותב, he used to write אני פלוני חתמתי עד. The witness, when he signed, just used to write the words אני פלוני חתמתי עד, I, פלוני, and wouldn't use his name, signed as an עד. Or according to some, he would just write his own name and not write his father's name. So what would happen? אם כתב ידו יוצא ממקום אחר, if his handwriting was found someplace else, כשר, it was כשר. When the woman would come with the גט and they would see the signature of the עד, they wouldn't know whether it is a true signature or it's forged. And the

only way they could verify that was through comparing that to another שטר that was signed by the same people, and that שטר had already a הנפק on it, had a verification of the בית דין, and then they would know that this שטר was כשר. ואם לאו, but if they wouldn't find another שטר to compare to this one, פסול, this גט would be פסול, because they wouldn't know if the signature was right. And even though there is another way of verifying the signature of a שטר, by bringing in עדים that recognize the signature of the עדים, but because this עדים did not write their names, so it was very hard to find people to recognize their signatures, because we didn't know who were friends of the עדים that they should be the ones to recognize the signatures, because we didn't know who the עדים were. So, therefore, it was very hard, the way that it used to be, to be מקיים a גט, to verify the כשרות of a גט. אמר רבן גמליאל, and רבן גמליאל said, תקנה גדולה התקינו, they were מתקן a very great תקנה, שיהיו מפרשין שמותיהן בגיטין, that they should specify their names in the גיטין, מפני תיקון העולם, for the תקנה of the world. Now that they were מתקן that the עדים must write their names, so we know who the עדים are, so we know who the friends of the עדים are, so it was easy to find people to verify and testify on the signature of the עדים. And the גמרא asks, ובסימנא לא? And if he would just make a סימן, just make a mark, would that not be enough? והא רב צייר כוורא, רב, didn't he sign by making a picture of a fish? ורב חנינא צייר חרותא, רב חנינא used to sign by making a drawing of a palm branch. רב חסדא סמ״ך, רב חסדא used to sign by just writing a סמ״ך, which was one letter of his name. ורב הושעיא עי״ן, רב הושעיא used to sign by just writing an עי״ן, which is one of the letters of his name. רבה בר רב הונא צייר מכותא, רבה בר רב הונא used to sign by making a drawing of a sail of a boat. So, we see that when an עד signs by just making a mark without writing his name, it is also okay. And the גמרא answers, שאני רבנן, the רבנן are different, the חכמים were different, דבקיאין סימנייהו, that people were בקי in their סימנים. Their marks were known to everybody. So, there was no problem by them signing with only a mark, because people would recognize their mark, and it was easy for the בית דין to verify and to be מקיים a שטר with their signature. But the גמרא asks, מעיקרא במאי אסקינהו? How did they start making their marks known? And the גמרא answers, בדיסקי, in just plain letters, in שאלות ותשובות, where the signature was not important, because it was not an official document. And after they wrote many letters with this signature, everyone knew that this is the way they sign. So, later on, when they signed official documents, they were able to sign with their mark, because it was known already. תוספות wants to be מדייק from this גמרא that this was not a תקנה made by רבן גמליאל הזקן, because it says in the ברייתא that רבן גמליאל הזקן said, תקנה גדולה התקינו, they were מתקן a great תקנה. If he was the one himself that made this תקנה, so how was he able to say תקנה גדולה התקינו? And therefore תוספות learns that this was a תקנה made earlier, before the times of רבן גמליאל הזקן. And

תוספות is therefore not גורס in the משנה the word והעדים חותמין על הגט מפני תיקון העולם, that the word עדים starts with a ו', but תוספות says it's supposed to say העדים חותמין על הגט מפני תיקון העולם. And the difference is that if you're גורס in the משנה והעדים, then it's a continuation to before. So before, it said התקין רבן גמליאל הזקן שתהא נודרת ליתומים כל מה שירצו וגובה כתובתה, רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that the אלמנה should make a נדר and then she would collect her כתובה. Then if you're גורס והעדים חותמין על הגט מפני תיקון העולם, and that the עדים should sign in the גט מפני תיקון העולם, so the ו' would be showing that this is also one of the תקנות of רבן גמליאל הזקן. That התקין רבן גמליאל, רבן גמליאל was מתקן that she should make the נדר, and another תקנה he made that the עדים should sign the גט. But if you are not גורס והעדים, then it's a separate thing. First, the משנה says that רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that the אלמנה should make the נדר and collect her כתובה. Then the משנה says a new thing, העדים חותמין על הגט מפני תיקון העולם, that the עדים sign sign the גט as a תקנה for the world, but it is not one of the תקנות of רבן גמליאל הזקן, which is not the way רש״י learns. רש״י in the משנה says clearly, כל אלו מתקנות רבן גמליאל הזקן, that this was also included in the תקנות of רבן גמליאל הזקן. Concerning this תקנה that רבן גמליאל הזקן made, according to רבי אלעזר, according to the פשט in the גמרא that this goes according to רבי אלעזר that holds that עדי מסירה כרתי, that really מדאורייתא you don't have to have the עדים sign the גט, the main עדים are the ones that see the transfer of the גט, but רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that the עדים should sign the גט, there is a מחלוקת in the ראשונים whether it was a תקנה that must be done, that רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that a גט must have the signature of עדים, or was it just an עצה טובה, it was a good advice that רבן גמליאל הזקן gave that in order to prevent problems later, just in case the עדים died, or the עדי מסירה went away למדינת הים, so he gave a good advice that people should have the signature of עדים on the גט. And the שיטות are the רשב״א in this גמרא, and רש״י and תוספות earlier on דף ג עמוד ב learned that it was only an עצה טובה, but לכתחילה even you are allowed to give a גט without עדי חתימה. So when רבן גמליאל הזקן made this תקנה, it was only a תקנה of a good advice, but not a תקנה of a חיוב, of an obligation that the גט must have עדי חתימה. But the רי״ף learns that this was a real תקנה that you must have עדי חתימה on the גט. It is only בדיעבד that if the גט was given already, or according to some if there is a חשש עיגון, there is a סברא that if we do not allow that גט she's going to remain an עגונה, that's when we say that a גט without עדי חתימה is allowed after the תקנה of רבן גמליאל. But otherwise, a גט must have עדי חתימה. This is the שיטה of the רי״ף, and it's explained at length in the ים של שלמה פרק ד סימן מ״א. Another important ענין here is that this סוגיא happens to be the source to a famous מחלוקת in the ראשונים in the פשט of what רבי אלעזר meant when he said עדי מסירה כרתי. And it's all based on what the גמרא says here, that according to רבי אלעזר, the חכמים were מתקן that the עדים should sign the גט just in case the עדים will die, or the עדים will go away למדינת הים, so then at least they will have the עדי חתימה. Now the שאלה is, what is the פשט in that תקנה? Since according to רבי אלעזר עדי מסירה כרתי, that the עדי מסירה are the ones that make the גט take effect, they are the ones that make the גירושין, so what good will it be if you have only עדי חתימה? Let's say she will come with this גט and she will not have the עדי מסירה, and the בית דין will not know that the גט was given over to her in front of עדים. All the בית דין will have is a גט with signatures on it. So what good will that do? The בית דין cannot rely on that anyway לכאורה. Since the בית דין must know that it was given over in front of עדים, and we don't have a proof for that because by the fact that the גט has signatures on it does not prove that it was given over in front of עדים, so how can the בית דין rely and let her get married based on the גט with עדי חתימה if we do not know that there were עדי מסירה, and according to רבי אלעזר עדי מסירה כרתי, that the עדי מסירה are the most important ones? And therefore the רי״ף learns that according to רבי אלעזר too, עדי חתימה are enough. And פשט in the רי״ף, there are two דעות: the way the מאירי explains פשט in the רי״ף, and the way the בית יוסף explains the פשט in the רי״ף in סימן קל״ג, that the רי״ף actually meant that according to רבי אלעזר עדי חתימה are also enough for the גט. And he learns the פשט that when the גמרא says according to רבי אלעזר עדי מסירה כרתי, רבי אלעזר did not mean that only עדי מסירה are the ones that make the כריתות, but what he meant was that אף עדי מסירה כרתי, that עדי מסירה too are the ones that make the כריתות. In other words, רבי אלעזר admits to רבי מאיר that עדי חתימה כרתי, that if you have עדים sign the גט, that is enough to make the כריתות. רבי אלעזר argues and says that that is not the only way you could make the כריתות, but if you have עדי מסירה alone, it also could make the כריתות, while רבי מאיר holds that only עדי חתימה make the כריתות. And therefore the גמרא says here that רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that every גט should have עדי חתימה, because according to רבי אלעזר עדי חתימה are also enough. So just in case the עדי מסירה will not be here, so at least the עדי חתימה will be here. And according to רבי אלעזר, עדי חתימה are also enough. This is The way the מאירי on דף ג and the בית יוסף learned the פשט in the ריף. On the other hand, the רן learns the פשט in the ריף, that the ריף also did not mean that according to רבי אלעזר the עדי חתימה are enough. What he meant was that when you have a גט with עדי חתימה, this is a proof that the גט was given to her. Since it's a כשר גט, and it has signatures on it, how did it get to the woman? So obviously, it was given to her. So the עדי חתימה are the ones that prove that the גט was given to her. So he says the פשט in the ריף is that even though according to רבי אלעזר only עדי מסירה כרתי, but it doesn't mean that you actually have to have two people watching the מסירה. But if you have עדים that signed the גט, so that proves that the גט was given over. So it is as if we have עדי מסירה. The עדי חתימה become the עדי מסירה. The עדים that signed the גט are the ones that testify and prove to us that the גט was given over to the woman, so it's as if we have עדי מסירה. That's what the ריף means. But whichever way we learn the פשט in the ריף, the ריף definitely says that if you have עדי חתימה, according to רבי אלעזר it is good enough. The only מחלוקת is whether it is because he holds עדי חתימה are enough, or it is because the עדי חתימה become עדי מסירה. But nevertheless, לפועל עדי חתימה are enough. But תוספות earlier on דף ד עמוד א and the בעל המאור on the ריף here, and the ראש in פרק ט סימן ז, and many other ראשונים learn that according to רבי אלעזר only עדי מסירה כרתי. Only if you have עדי מסירה, the גט takes effect. But if you just have עדי חתימה, the גירושין is not a גירושין, there is no כריתות here. But then the question is, what did the גמרא mean here when it said that there was a תקנה that you should have עדים sign the גט just in case we will not have the עדי מסירה? So then at least you will have the עדי חתימה. But according to רבי אלעזר, עדי חתימה are not valid at all. So the פשט in the גמרא here according to that שיטה is that when she will come with a גט that will have עדי חתימה, that will prove that the גט was given to her in front of עדי מסירה. Not that the עדי חתימה are the עדי מסירה. The עדי חתימה just prove that probably the גט was given over to her in front of כשר עדים. So really, עדי מסירה כרתי. The עדי מסירה are the ones that make the כריתות. And if you don't have עדי מסירה, the גירושין is not a גירושין. It's just that how do we know that there was עדי מסירה if the עדי מסירה didn't come? By having עדי חתימה on the גט, and she is the one that's holding the גט, and it's a כשר גט with עדי חתימה, that proves that מסתמא or בודאי the גט was given over to her in front of עדי מסירה. And this is what the גמרא meant, that there was a תקנה מפני תיקון העולם that עדים should sign on the גט, that just in case we will not have the עדי מסירה here, she will be able to show the signed גט. The פשט is that if she will come to בית דין with a גט that has עדי חתימה, the בית דין will rely on that and say that this proves that when it was given over to her, it was given in front of עדי מסירה. ממילא the גירושין was done כדין, and based on that, the בית דין will let her marry. And now we

will continue with the גמרא, where the גמרא goes back to the משנה to explain the last words of the משנה. It said in the משנה, הלל התקין פרוזבול וכולי, הלל was מתקן a פרוזבול מפני תיקון העולם. And the גמרא will explain that. And the גמרא brings the משנה in שביעית, תנן התם, we learned in the משנה in שביעית, פרוזבול אינו משמט. If the מלוה writes a פרוזבול, then the חובות that are owed to him do not drop. Because like this the דין is when the year of שמיטה comes, there are two דינים: there is a דין of שמיטת קרקע, and a דין of שמיטת כספים. שמיטת קרקע refers to the דינים of שמיטה that apply to the land, that you're not allowed to work with the land. And שמיטת כספים applies to the money, to the loans, that when the year of שמיטה comes, all the loans, all the חובות that people owe automatically drop, and there is an איסור on the מלוה to even ask and claim those loans. So if you write a פרוזבול, that causes that the loans should not drop, and the מלוה is allowed to claim those loans even after שמיטה. And the משנה says, זה אחד מן הדברים שהתקין הלל הזקן. This is one of those things that הלל הזקן was מתקן, שראה, because he saw, את העם, the people, שנמנעו מלהלוות זה את זה, that they would hold themselves back from lending money one to another because they were afraid that שמיטה will come and they will lose their loan, they will lose the money. ועברו על מה שכתוב בתורה, and they were עובר by not lending money, they were עובר on the פסוק where the תורה says, השמר לך, be careful, פן יהיה דבר עם לבבך בליעל, that there could be a bad thought in your heart, וגומר, and the תורה continues, that you might not want to lend money, saying that since שמיטה is coming, I'm afraid I'm going to lose the money. So the תורה says that you're not allowed to do that. So הלל saw that people nevertheless acted that way, that before שמיטה they wouldn't lend any money. עמד, he got up, והתקין פרוזבול, so he was מתקן a פרוזבול. So therefore people would lend the money because they weren't afraid they would lose their money, because by writing the פרוזבול, the חוב was not משמט, the חוב did not drop. וזהו גופו של פרוזבול, and this is the גוף of the פרוזבול, this is what it says in the פרוזבול: מוסרני לכם פלוני ופלוני דיינים שבמקום פלוני, I'm giving over to you and to you, the judges of this and this place, שכל חוב שיש לי, that any loan that I have אצל פלוני, by this man, שאגבנו, I should be able to collect it, כל זמן שארצה, anytime I want. והדיינים חותמים מלמטה, או העדים, and the דיינים, the judges, would sign under the document, or the witnesses would sign. And this דין of פרוזבול is based on the concept that when the תורה says that when it comes שביעית, שמיטה, a person is not allowed to claim his loans, that is only if the person is an individual person. But if it is the בית דין that is claiming the loans, then it is allowed. But really that is only if you actually give over all the שטרות, all the documents that prove that people owe you money, if you give that over to the בית דין, then this דין would apply, that when בית דין claims, there is no דין of שמיטה. What הלל was מתקן was, that even though you did not give over the שטרות to בית דין, you just write a שטר saying that I'm giving over my שטרות to בית דין, and actually you do not give over the שטרות, so הלל was מתקן that that should be sufficient, and by just writing such a שטר, it is enough that שמיטה should not be משמט. And the גמרא asks: ומי איכא מידי, is there such a thing, דמדאורייתא משמטה שביעית, that מדאורייתא שמיטה is משמט, which means that the loans have to drop, והתקין הלל, and הלל was מתקן, דלא משמטה, it should not be משמט? If מדאורייתא the loan is משמט, so מדאורייתא the לוה does not owe the money to the מלוה. So how could הלל be מתקן that the money should be owed and the מלוה should be able to collect? It would seem as if הלל was מתקן that a person

should be able to take money that is not owed to him. And the גמרא answers: אמר אביי, אביי said: בשביעית בזמן הזה, that he was מתקן only in the case of שמיטה בזמן הזה, nowadays, ורבי היא, and this goes according to the opinion of רבי. דתניא, because we learned in a ברייתא: רבי אומר, רבי says: וזה דבר השמיטה שמוט. The תורה says: This is the matter of the שמיטה, שמוט, that all the מלוות, all the creditors should release their חובות. By the way the תורה puts it, it says the word שמיטה twice: דבר השמיטה שמוט. So רבי says: בשתי שמיטות הכתוב מדבר, the תורה talks about two שמיטות. אחת שמיטת קרקע ואחת שמיטת כספים. One שמיטה is the שמיטה that refers to the קרקע, the שמיטה concerning the work on the field, and the other one is the שמיטה concerning the money, that all the loans have to drop. And since the פסוק puts the two together, that teaches us: בזמן שאתה משמט קרקע, אתה משמט כספים, that in the time when there is a דין of שמיטה concerning the קרקע, then there is a דין of שמיטה concerning the money. בזמן שאי אתה משמט קרקע, in a time when there is no דין of שמיטה concerning the field, concerning the ground, אי אתה משמט כספים, so there is no דין of שמיטה concerning the money. And since בזמן הזה there is no דין of שמיטה concerning the קרקע, so automatically there is no דין of שמיטה מדאורייתא concerning the money. And the

reason why בזמן הזה there is no דין of שמיטה concerning the קרקע, so רש״י brings from ירושלמי, that it says in the ירושלמי that the דין of שמיטה depends on the דין of יובל. In a time when the דין of יובל applies, so automatically the דין of שמיטה applies. When there is no יובל, so there is no שמיטה. Since בזמן הזה we don't have the דין of יובל, which is the 50th year, so we also don't have the דין of שמיטה. Now the גמרא says that whenever we don't have the דין of שמיטה concerning קרקע, so we also don't have the דין of שמיטה concerning כספים. So it comes out that בזמן הזה, there is no דין of שמיטה concerning the money, concerning the loans. It is only that there was a תקנת רבנן. The רבנן were מתקן that תישמט, that there should be a דין of שמיטה concerning the money, זכר לשביעית, there should be a זכר to the way שמיטה used to be. So it comes out that בזמן הזה, שמיטת כספים is only מדרבנן. מדאורייתא, really, there is no דין of שמיטה. So מדאורייתא, the money is owed. It's only that the רבנן said that the money is not owed. So therefore, ראה הלל, when הלל saw שנמנעו העם מלהלוות זה את זה, that the people held themselves back from lending money to each other, עמד, he got up, והתקין פרוזבול, he was מתקן the פרוזבול. And this is the

answer to the קשיא of the גמרא. The קשיא was, how did הלל have a right to be מתקן a פרוזבול, which would mean that money that is not owed to the מלוה should be paid? So the גמרא answers that really the money is owed to the מלוה, because מדאורייתא there is no שמיטת כספים nowadays. The whole ענין that there is שמיטה is only מדרבנן. So when it's only מדרבנן, הלל had a right to say that that שמיטה מדרבנן should not be valid in a case where he wrote a פרוזבול. But now the גמרא is going to ask on the דין of רבי itself, that when רבי said that שמיטה בזמן הזה is מדרבנן, in other words, מדאורייתא there is no שמיטה, it is only מדרבנן that there is שמיטה, so the גמרא asks, ומי איכא מידי, is there such a thing, דמדאורייתא לא משמטא שביעית, that מדאורייתא there should be no שמיטה, in other words, the חובות, the loans, are owed to the מלוה, ותקינו רבנן דתישמט, and the רבנן should be מתקן that there should be שמיטה, that the לוה does not have to pay the loan to the מלוה? If מדאורייתא there is no שמיטה, so the money belongs to the מלוה, so what kind of right do the חכמים say have to say that there is שמיטה and the לוה does not have to pay? אמר אביי, אביי answered, שב ואל תעשה הוא, it is only sit back and don't do anything. In

other words, there is a כלל that the רבנן have a כח to be עוקר דבר מן התורה, to tear out, to destroy something that the תורה says, as long as it's only בשב ואל תעשה, by not doing anything. The חכמים have no right to tell a person do something against the תורה. If the תורה says do not do it, the חכמים could never say you should be able to do it. But they do have a כח to say that when the תורה says do something, to sit back and don't do it. יש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה בשב ואל תעשה. And this is what happened here. The חכמים did not say that a person has a right to take money that doesn't belong to him. The חכמים just said that money that you have to give מדאורייתא to the מלוה, we say don't give it. Just שב ואל תעשה, sit back and don't give the money that מדאורייתא you have to give. And for that, the חכמים have a right. Then the גמרא continues, רבא אמר, רבא says, הפקר בית דין היה הפקר.

According to רש"י, רבא comes to answer both questions. One question we had before was, how was הלל allowed to be מתקן a פרוזבול? If there is a דין of שמיטה, that means that מדאורייתא the לוה does not owe the מלוה the money, how did הלל have a right to be מתקן a פרוזבול that now the לוה must pay the money back to the מלוה? That was one question. Another question we asked, that when we brought the opinion of רבי that שמיטה בזמן הזה is מדרבנן, the גמרא just asked, how could the חכמים be מתקן שמיטה if מדאורייתא there is no דין of שמיטה? The גמרא before answered both questions with separate answers, but רבא answers one תירוץ for both questions. And his תירוץ is that הפקר בית דין is הפקר. When it comes to monetary things, the בית דין, the חכמים have a right to take away the ownership of a person over his possessions. And therefore the חכמים are allowed to say that money or an object or anything that belongs to one person should really belong to the other. And that is the reason why the חכמים had a right to be מתקן שמיטה, even if מדאורייתא there is no שמיטה, because even though מדאורייתא there is no שמיטה and the money is owed to the מלוה, the חכמים have a right to say that the money is not owed to the מלוה and the money belongs to the לוה. And the same with the שאלה of how הלל was able to be מתקן a פרוזבול if there was a דין שמיטה. So we don't have to answer as we did before that it's only by שמיטה מדרבנן. This could apply also to שמיטה מדאורייתא. But nevertheless, הלל had a a כח, had the power, the authority to be מתקן a פרוזבול, that even though מדאורייתא, the לוה does not owe the money to the מלוה, נחלו, these are the inheritance that made inherit אלעזר הכהן ויהושע בן נון וראשי האבות וגו׳. Who made them inherit? אלעזר הכהן and יהושע בן נון and the heads of the families. And the

שאלה is, וכי מאי ענין ראשי אצל אבות? What is the connection between the heads to the אבות? It should have said the heads of the tribes. Why does it mention the אבות, the fathers? And the answer is, לומר לך, to tell you, מה אבות מנחילין את בניהם כל מה שירצו, just like fathers make inherit their children whatever they want, אף ראשים, also the heads, which mean the חכמים, מנחילין העם כל מה שירצו, could make the nation, the people inherit whatever they want. So from here we see that the חכמים, the רבנן, the בית דין has a right to take property that belongs to a person and give it away to somebody else. So now that we know that הפקר בית דין הפקר, this is the reason why הלל was able to be מתקן a פרוזבול, and this is the reason why the חכמים were be able, able to be מתקן שמיטה בזמן הזה, even though מדאורייתא, it is not משמט בזמן הזה. But רש״י on this גמרא asks a very strong question. According to the first תירוץ of the גמרא that הלל was מתקן a פרוזבול only by שמיטה בזמן הזה, which is only שמיטה מדרבנן, so רש״י asks that how can we say that, when הלל lived in the time of the בית המקדש, he lived in the time of the בית שני. So how can the גמרא say that הלל was מתקן a פרוזבול for זמן הזה when שמיטה is only מדרבנן? And רש״י answers that אביי in this גמרא holds that even in the time of the בית שני, there was no שמיטה מדאורייתא, because שמיטה depends on יובל, and since there was no יובל in the time of the second בית המקדש, so therefore there was no שמיטה מדאורייתא in the time of the second בית המקדש either. And even though רש״י brings that in the תורת כהנים it says that you could have שמיטה even in a time when there is no יובל, nevertheless, רש״י has it's a מחלוקת between the תורת כהנים and the ירושלמי, because in ירושלמי it says that when there is no יובל, there is no שמיטה, and this גמרא holds like the ירושלמי, and therefore in the time of the בית שני, when there was no יובל, there was also no שמיטה מדאורייתא. There was only שמיטה מדרבנן. And that's what the גמרא means, that הלל was מתקן the דין of פרוזבול in the time of שמיטה בזמן הזה, it does not only mean בזמן הזה ממש after חורבן בית המקדש, but it means also in the time of the בית שני. Since then too, שמיטה was only מדרבנן, so then הלל was allowed to be מתקן the פרוזבול. But תוספות learns differently. תוספות learns that in the time of the second בית המקדש, there was יובל, and therefore תוספות learns there was שמיטה מדאורייתא. And when the גמרא said that הלל was מתקן פרוזבול for שמיטה בזמן הזה, it טאקע does not mean that he was מתקן it for his time. He knew that eventually the בית המקדש will be destroyed, and then there will be no יובל, and therefore there will be no שמיטה, so he was מתקן לכתחילה in his time that for the time right after חורבן בית המקדש, there should be a דין of פרוזבול. There is also a מחלוקת רש״י and תוספות in פשט of the words of the גמרא. When the גמרא quotes רבי, that he says וזה דבר השמיטה, בשתי שמיטות הכתוב מדבר, the תורה talks about two שמיטות, אחת שמיטת קרקע ואחת שמיטת כספים, and when there is שמיטת קרקע, there is שמיטת כספים, when there is no שמיטת קרקע, there is no שמיטת כספים. So we learned the פשט before as רש״י says, that שמיטת קרקע means the שמיטה concerning working in the field, and שמיטת כספים means שמיטה concerning the money. And what the גמרא is saying, that שמיטת כספים depends on שמיטת קרקע. And שמיטת קרקע itself, the גמרא doesn't mention it, but as רש״י said, שמיטת קרקע itself depends on יובל. But that the גמרא does not mention, the גמרא takes that for granted, that we know that when there is no יובל, there is no שמיטת קרקע. The גמרא just brings the second half, that when there is no שמיטת קרקע, there is no שמיטת כספים. But תוספות learns that לכתחילה when the גמרא says that בשתי שמיטות הכתוב מדבר, אחת שמיטת קרקע ואחת שמיטת כספים, שמיטת קרקע here does not mean שמיטה, and it means the דינים of שמיטה concerning the working in the field, but שמיטת קרקע means יובל, because יובל has the same דין as שמיטה concerning working in the fields. And in the 50th year, the דין is that you're not allowed to work in the fields the same way you're not allowed to work in שמיטה. But there is no דין of שמיטת כספים on יובל. On יובל, there is no such thing that a loan drops. So therefore, תוספות learns the גמרא calls יובל שמיטת קרקע. And that's what the גמרא means, בשתי שמיטות הכתוב מדבר, the תורה talks about two שמיטות, אחת שמיטת קרקע, one is שמיטה that only has to do with the קרקע, which means יובל, ואחת שמיטת כספים, one is a שמיטה that doesn't only have to do with the קרקע, it also has to do with כספים, which is the regular שמיטה. So the תורה compares שמיטה, the regular דין of שמיטה, with יובל. And what the תורה is telling us, בזמן שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט כספים, that when there is a דין of יובל, there is a דין of שמיטה. When there is no דין of יובל, there is no דין of שמיטה. And therefore, בזמן הזה, when there is no דין of יובל, there is no דין of שמיטה. So it comes out that in דין, there is no מחלוקת between רש״י and תוספות. רש״י learns when there is no יובל, there is no שמיטה, and תוספות learns when there is no יובל, there is no שמיטה. It's just that according to רש״י, this דין that שמיטה depends on יובל is not mentioned in the גמרא here. What the גמרא does mention is that within שמיטה itself, we have a פסוק to tell us that when there is no שמיטת קרקע, there is no שמיטת כספים. But according to תוספות, the גמרא tells us the דין that when there is no יובל, there is no שמיטה. On the other hand, we do not need a פסוק that when there is no שמיטת קרקע, there is no שמיטת כספים, because it goes together. The תורה tells us clearly that when there is no יובל, there is no שמיטה. And as soon as we know there is no שמיטה, automatically it means in both דינים, there is no שמיטה, not concerning the קרקע, and no שמיטה concerning the כספים. And now we will continue with the גמרא. איבעיא להו, they asked an איבעיא, in the ישיבה a question was asked: כי התקין הלל פרוזבול, when הלל was מתקן the פרוזבול, לדריה הוא דתקין, was he מתקן it just for his generation, או דילמא, or maybe, לדרי עלמא נמי תקין, he also was מתקן it for later generations? And the way תוספות learned before, that הלל לכתחילה was not מתקן it for his generation, so the גמרא here according to that פשט would mean, was he מתקן it for the generation right after the חורבן, the first generation, or was he מתקן it for later generations too? But the truth is that even if he was מתקן it only for his generation, automatically it would continue to later generations too, because a תקנה that the חכמים were מתקן, even if it was נתקן for a certain amount of time, it continues later on automatically. So the

גמרא asks, למאי נפקא מינה? So what difference does it make whether he was מתקן it for his own generation or also for later generations? And the גמרא answers, לבטוליה. The נפקא מינה is to be מבטל it, to nullify this תקנה. אי אמרת לדריה הוא דתקין, if he was only מתקן it for his generation, so the truth is if no one would be מבטל it, it would continue automatically, but מבטלינן ליה, we have a right to be מבטל it. If בית דין gets together later on, they have a right to be מבטל it, since לכתחילה he was מתקן it only for his generation. אלא אי אמרת, but if you're going to say, לדרי עלמא נמי תקין, he also was מתקן it for all later generations, so then הא אין בית דין יכול לבטל דברי בית דין חבירו אלא אם כן גדול הימנו בחכמה ובמנין. The כלל is that a בית דין has no right to be מבטל the words, the תקנה, the דינים of a previous בית דין unless this בית דין is greater than the previous בית דין in חכמה, in wisdom, and also in numbers, which means that if this בית דין is smarter than the בית דין before and has more people than the בית דין before, then this בית דין has a right to be מבטל the תקנה of the previous בית דין. But otherwise, a later בית דין has no right to be מבטל a תקנה from the previous בית דין. And since we assume that the בית דין after הלל were not greater than the בית דין of הלל, so if הלל was מתקן his תקנה for the later generations too, a later בית דין who is not as great as the בית דין of הלל has no right to be מבטל that תקנה. And that's the שאלה of the גמרא. If he was מתקן it only for his generation, then any בית דין later on could be מבטל it. But if he was מתקן it for later generations too, in order to be מבטל it, then you must have a greater בית דין in חכמה and in מנין than the בית דין of הלל. So the גמרא's שאלה is מאי, what is the דין? Was he מתקן it for his generation only or also for later generations? And the גמרא says, תא שמע, come here, I'll give you the answer.

דאמר שמואל, שמואל said, לא כתבינן פרוזבול, we cannot write a פרוזבול, אלא, only, אי בבי דינא דסורא, only in the בית דין of סורא, which was the בית דין of רב, אי בבי דינא דנהרדעא, or in the בית דין of נהרדעא, which is the בית דין of שמואל himself. And now, ואי סלקא דעתך, if you're going to think that דרי עלמא נמי תקין, that הלל was מתקן פרוזבול also for later generations, בשאר בי דינא נמי לכתבו, you should be able to write a פרוזבול in other בתי דין too. If it's a general תקנה from הלל that you should be able to write a פרוזבול, so then any בית דין should be able to write a פרוזבול. And since שמואל said that only his own בית דין or the בית דין of רב were the only ones that had the right to write a פרוזבול, obviously שמואל learned that הלל was not מתקן the פרוזבול for later generations. And the גמרא says, no, דילמא maybe כי תקין הלל לדרי עלמא, that when הלל really was מתקן for later generations too, but he was מתקן it לכתחילה כגון בי דינא דידיה, that the other בית דין of the later generations that will write the פרוזבול should be only a בית דין which is similar to his own בית דין, וכדרב אמי ורב אסי, or like the בית דין of רב אמי ורב אסי, were very great בתי דין, דאלימי, that they are strong, they have the authority לאפוקי ממונא to be מפקיע ממון to take money away from one person to the other. Because really this is what the פרוזבול is doing. The פרוזבול is taking the money away from the לוה, because really the לוה does not owe the money anymore, and through the פרוזבול the לוה owes the money to the מלוה. So only a great בית דין, like the בית דין of הלל or like the בית דין of רב אמי ורב אסי, they are the only ones that have the authority to take money away from the לוה and give it to the מלוה. אבל לכולי עלמא, but everyone else, a regular ordinary בית דין, לא, couldn't do it. So we have no proof that הלל was מתקן only for his generation. Could be he was מתקן it for later generations too, but he put a condition into his תקנה, that this פרוזבול should be written only by a very great בית דין similar to his. So we're back to the question: Was הלל מתקן the תקנה for his own generation only, or was he מתקן the תקנה for later generations too? And the גמרא says, תא שמע, come here, I'll answer your question. דאמר שמואל, cuz שמואל said, הא פרוזבולא, this פרוזבול, עולבנא דדייני הוא, it is an embarrassment for the דיינים. And therefore, אי איישר חילי, if I would have the authority, אבטליניה, I would be מבטל it. I would nullify the דין of פרוזבול. That's what שמואל said. And the גמרא asks, אבטליניה? He said, "I will be מבטל it, I will nullify it." How could he have thought to do it? והא אין בית דין יכול לבטל דברי בית דין חבירו אלא אם כן גדול הימנו בחכמה ובמנין, don't we have this

כלל that a בית דין has no right to be מבטל, to nullify the words of a previous בית דין, unless the second בית דין is greater than the first בחכמה ובמנין? And since definitely שמואל was not greater than the בית דין of הלל, so שמואל had no right to be מבטל it. So how could שמואל say, "If I would be able to, I would be מבטל the תקנה of פרוזבול"? So that proves that שמואל learned that הלל was מתקן the דין of פרוזבול only for his generation, and therefore he felt that he had a right to be מבטל it. As we said before, that a תקנה that was נתקן only for one generation, any בית דין later on has a right to be מבטל it. And the גמרא says, no, it's no ראיה from this that הלל was מתקן only for his generation. הכא קאמר, this is what שמואל meant: אי מאישר חילי, if I would have the authority יותר מהלל, more than הלל, אבטליניה, I would be מבטל it. This is exactly what he said. שמואל knew that he was מתקן the תקנה of פרוזבול for later generations too, and therefore, the only way you could be מבטל it is if the second בית דין is bigger than the first בחכמה ובמנין. And that's what he said, "If I would only have the authority, which means if my בית דין would be bigger than הלל בחכמה ובמנין, I would be מבטל it. But in truth," he said, "since I am not greater than הלל, my בית דין is not greater than הלל's בית דין, and therefore, I cannot be מבטל it, and therefore, the דין of פרוזבול remains." רב נחמן אמר, but רב נחמן said, אקיימנה, I will מקיים it, I will establish it, that he did think that the דין of פרוזבול was a good idea, and he said that if I would have the authority, then I would establish it. And the גמרא asks, אקיימנה, I will establish it, what did he mean by that? הא מקים וקאי, it is established already, it is standing, the דין of פרוזבול exists already. What did he mean that if I would have the power I would establish it? And the גמרא answers, הכא קאמר, this is what he meant: אימא בה מילתא, I would say something, I would add an additional detail to the דין of פרוזבול. And what would he have added? דאף על גב דלא כתוב, that even if the פרוזבול was not written, ככתוב דמי, it should be considered as if it's written. He would have been מתקן that anytime a person lends money, it's as if he wrote the פרוזבול, and automatically שמיטה

should never be משמט. Then the גמרא continues, איבעיא להו. There was an איבעיא asked, in the ישיבה a question was asked, when שמואל used the expression that a פרוזבול is an עולבנא דדייני, the גמרא wants to know exactly what this word עולבנא meant. האי עולבנא לישנא דחוצפה הוא? Is this word עולבנא a לשון, an expression of חוצפה? And what שמואל said was that since it is a חוצפה to have a פרוזבול, he would have been מבטל it. או לישנא דניחותא הוא? Or is it a לשון that means convenience? What he said was that to write a פרוזבול is only for the convenience of the בית דין. In order not to have the בית דין pressured to make people collect the חובות before שמיטה, so they found a way of making it convenient for them. By writing a פרוזבול, you don't have to pressure anybody to collect the חובות before שמיטה, and you could go on after שמיטה as it was before. And this is what he meant why he would have been מבטל the דין of פרוזבול. And the גמרא

says תא שמע, come and hear, I will answer you, I will prove to you what the word עולבנא means. דאמר עולא, עולא said: עלובה כלה שזינתה בקרב חופתה. This refers to the חטא העגל, the sin of the golden calf. It wasn't long after מתן תורה that the יידן made עבודה זרה. And it was still the time when the שכינה was still on הר סיני, because the תורה says that ויהי בשנה השנית בחדש השני ויסעו בני ישראל למסעיהם ממדבר סיני. It was only the second year, the second month when the שכינה left הר סיני. So when the יידן made the עגל, the שכינה was still on הר סיני. השם came to הר סיני to give the תורה. Giving of the תורה was considered the חופה of the יידן. The יידן were like the כלה, השם was like the חתן, and מתן תורה was considered the חופה of the יידן. As long as the שכינה was still on הר סיני, it was still considered the middle of the חופה. And while the חופה was still going on, the יידן sinned and found themselves another god. So this is what עולא said, that it was a shameless כלה that was מזנה in middle of her חופה. But here we see that the word עלובה means shameless. So therefore, when he said that the פרוזבול is עולבנא דדייני, it means the same thing, that it's a חוצפה, that it's an embarrassment, it's a shameless thing to have the פרוזבול. But now the גמרא is going to explain what עולא said.

אמר רב מרי בריה דבת שמואל, רב מרי the son of the daughter of שמואל said: מאי קרא? Which פסוק hints to what עולא had said? And he says it's a פסוק in שיר השירים. The פסוק says: עד שהמלך במסבו, while the king was still sitting around his table, נרדי נתן ריחו, the spices gave off its smell. And that's exactly what עולא said, that while they were still under the חופה, while they were still by מתן תורה, they gave off a smell, they did something wrong, they made the עגל. But אמר רבא, רבא said: עדיין חביבותא הוא גבן, it still shows the חביבות to us. That the way the פסוק in שיר השירים expresses this idea shows that השם still loves us. דכתיב, because the פסוק says נתן, that he gave off a smell, ולא כתיב הסריח, it doesn't say that he made foul. If the תורה would want to show really what happened, it should have used the לשון הסריח. Since the תורה does not use the לשון הסריח, the פסוק uses the לשון נתן ריחו, that is because השם still loves us and does not want to use a לשון which would not be that nice. Then the גמרא continues:

תנו רבנן, we learned in a ברייתא: הנעלבים ואינם עולבים, those people who allow themselves to get embarrassed, but they do not embarrass the other people back, שומעים חרפתם ואינם משיבים, they hear their insults and they do not answer, עושים מאהבה, those that do the מצוות out of love for השם, ושמחים ביסורים, and those that are happy with the suffering that is given to them by השם, עליהם הכתוב אומר, on them the פסוק says: ואוהביו, those that love Him, כצאת השמש בגבורתו, they will get their reward at the time when the sun will come out with its full strength, which means in the time when משיח will come. But from here too we see that the word עולב, עלובה, or עולבנא means embarrassment, because that's the לשון the חכמים used: הנעלבים ואינם עולבים, that they themselves get embarrassed and they don't embarrass others. So here we see that the word עולבנא דדייני that שמואל used also meant a לשון of, as he said before, of חוצפה, and not a לשון of ניחותא.

Concerning this כלל the גמרא mentioned before, that a בית דין cannot be מבטל the words of a previous בית דין unless it is greater than the previous בית דין בחכמה ובמנין, תוספות asks a קשיא: in which case is it that a greater בית דין is allowed to nullify the תקנה of a previous בית דין. And תוספות says ממה נפשך: If this תקנה was פשט ברוב ישראל, if it spread amongst the majority of יידן, then תוספות says it seems that even a greater בית דין cannot be מבטל, because we find in the גמרא in עבודה זרה concerning the י״ח דבר, there were 18 תקנות that at a certain time בית שמאי and בית הלל together made, and the גמרא says there that even if אליהו and his בית דין will come, they will not be able to be מבטל those י״ח תקנות. So, we see that being that those תקנות spread amongst the majority of יידן, not even a greater בית דין than the previous בית דין has a right to be מבטל it. So definitely, when the גמרא says here that a greater בית דין does have a right to be מבטל the תקנה of a previous בית דין, obviously it's in a case where it did not spread amongst רוב ישראל, the majority of יידן. But then

תוספות says, if it did not spread among the majority of יידן, then we find in the גמרא that even a smaller בית דין is able to be מבטל that תקנה. As the גמרא there says that even though one of the תקנות was that you're not allowed to eat שמן, oil, that was bought by a גוי, nevertheless רבי יהודה הנשיא and his בית דין were מבטל that תקנה, even though the the בית דין of רבי יהודה הנשיא was a smaller בית דין than the בית דין who made the תקנה. And the גמרא says the reason they were able to be מבטל it was because that was a תקנה that did not spread amongst the majority of יידן. So it seems like ממה נפשך, if it spread amongst the majority of יידן, then even a bigger בית דין cannot be מבטל it. If it did not spread amongst the majority of יידן, then even a smaller בית דין could be מבטל it. So when is this כלל apply that a bigger בית דין has a right to be מבטל the תקנה of a previous בית דין, and a smaller בית דין does not have a right to be מבטל that תקנה? And תוספות answers that really a bigger בית דין always has a right to be מבטל a תקנה of a previous בית דין that wasn't that great. And when we said before that it seems from the גמרא that if it's a תקנה that spread amongst כלל ישראל, then even a bigger בית דין cannot be מבטל it, as the גמרא said in עבודה זרה concerning the י״ח דבר, so תוספות says that the י״ח דבר were an exception. When they established that those י״ח דבר, it was done actually through מסירות נפש, and that has a special דין. And only concerning the י״ח דבר the גמרא says that even אליהו הנביא ובית דינו couldn't be מבטל that תקנה. But other תקנות a bigger בית דין than the previous בית דין is able to be מבטל. But in a case where it was not נתפשט ברוב ישראל, if it did not spread to the majority of יידן, so then even a smaller בית דין can be מבטל. And this applies even if it would have been one of the 18 things. And therefore the דין of שמן, which was also one of the 18 things, רבי יהודה הנשיא and his בית דין were able to be מבטל. Even though we said before that the י״ח דבר, not even a bigger בית דין is able to be מבטל, that's only if it spread amongst the majority of יידן. But if it did not spread amongst the majority of יידן, so then even a smaller בית דין can be מבטל, even if it's one of the 18 things. And that's what the גמרא says, that שמן, since it was not נתפשט ברוב ישראל, so therefore רבי יהודה הנשיא and his בית דין were able to be מבטל. But any other תקנה, not from the י״ח דבר and it was נתפשט ברוב ישראל, so there, if the second בית דין is greater בחכמה ובמנין, then it could be מבטל the תקנה of the previous בית דין, and if it's not greater בחכמה ובמנין, then it cannot be מבטל the תקנה of the previous בית דין. But then תוספות adds that this כלל that we said that if it was not נתפשט ברוב ישראל, so even a smaller בית דין could be מבטל it, this only applies concerning a תקנה that לכתחילה was intended to go for כלל ישראל, for all the יידן. But if it was a תקנה that לכתחילה was intended only for a certain place, so there, only a greater בית דין than the previous בית דין is able to be מבטל even if it did not spread amongst the majority of יידן, but the reason is because לכתחילה it was not intended that it should spread amongst the majority of יידן. As the example that תוספות gives that רב came to a certain city and he saw that they weren't careful in certain דינים, so he made for them אסר כחל. But this is an איסור that was only for them, so on איסור like that, even though it was not נתפשט for רוב ישראל, but since it was intended לכתחילה for the people of that city because they were not careful in certain דינים, so therefore, in order to be מבטל that, you must have a בית דין which is bigger than the previous בית דין בחכמה ובמנין.