Jewish audio on Chabad.org. The שיעור will be in מסכת גיטין דף ל"ז. But we will start on דף ל"ו עמוד ב' two lines from the bottom of the עמוד. The גמרא here still discusses the דין of פרוזבול. פרוזבול is the שטר, the document that was instituted by הלל הזקן. The purpose of this שטר is because when שמיטה comes, automatically, all the debts are cancelled. שמיטה is משמט all the חובות. And when הלל הזקן saw that because of that people would not lend money, because they were afraid that their debts would be cancelled, and they wouldn't lose their money, so הלל instituted a פרוזבול, that by the מלוה, the creditor writing this document before the שמיטה comes, where it would say that he gives over all his חובות, all his debts to בית דין, that the בית דין should be the ones to collect it, so then שמיטה is not משמט. These loans are not released. So people would not be afraid to lend money. And now the גמרא will explain what the meaning of the word פרוזבול is, and the גמרא starts מאי פרוזבול? What does the word פרוזבול mean?

אמר רב חסדא, so רב חסדא said, פרוז בולי ובוטי. פרוז means a תקנה. בולי ובוטי, בולי means the rich people, ובוטי means the poor people. That the פרוזבול was a תקנה for the benefit of the rich and for the benefit of the poor. It was for the benefit of the rich, because otherwise they would not get paid for the loan. It is for the benefit of the poor, because if not for the פרוזבול, the rich people would be afraid to lend the money. So the poor people wouldn't have anybody to lend from. So for the benefit of the poor, the חכמים, הלל הזקן made a פרוזבול. And the גמרא is going to explain the meaning of the words בולי and בוטי. בולי, אלו עשירים, בולי means the rich people, דכתיב as it says in a פסוק in חומש ויקרא in פרשת בחוקותי, ושברתי את גאון עוזכם, השם was saying that if the אידן do not keep the תורה ומצוות, I will break the pride of your power. ותני רב יוסף, and רב יוסף learned, אלו בולאות שביהודה, that this refers to the בולאות of יהודה, and that meant the rich people of יהודה. השם said, if you don't keep the תורה ומצוות, השם will break the pride of your strength, which means he will break the rich people. So he used the word בולאות, so we see that בולאות mean rich people.

בוטי, אלו העניים. בוטי means the poor people, דכתיב because there is a פסוק in דברים, העבט תעביטנו, which means you should lend money, and who do you lend money to? To poor people. And since the word העבט and the word בוטי are from the same root, so we see that בוטי means the poor people. The גמרא continues, אמר ליה רבא ללועזא, רבא said to this person who spoke a foreign language, he could not speak לשון הקודש, and he spoke the language from where the word פרוזבול comes from. Because the word פרוזבול is not really a word in לשון הקודש, and that's why the גמרא before wanted to know what the word פרוזבול means. So רבא asked a person who spoke a different language from where the word פרוזבול comes from, and he asked him מאי פרוזבול, what does the word פרוזבול mean? אמר ליה, he said to him, it means פורסא דמילתא, the תקנה of the matter. That the word פרוזבול meant, it was a תקנה concerning a certain matter. And now the גמרא will continue with the הלכות of פרוזבול.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, יתומים אין צריכין פרוזבול. יתומים, orphans do not need a פרוזבול. If a man died, and there are certain debts owed to him, and now his possessions were inherited by his children, the יתומים, the orphans, so they don't have to write a פרוזבול in order for all those debts owed to their father not to be released, and without a פרוזבול the חובות are still there, because שביעית is not משמט the חובות owed to the יתומים. וכן תני רמי בר חמא, and רמי בר חמא also learned that way, that יתומים אין צריכין פרוזבול, that the debts owed to the יתומים are not released even if there is no פרוזבול, they don't have to write the פרוזבול. And the reason for that is, דרבן גמליאל ובית דינו אביהן של יתומים, because רבן גמליאל and his בית דין are the fathers of the יתומים. The whole idea of the פרוזבול is that you give over over the debts to the בית דין. In the case of יתומים, you don't have to give it over to the בית דין, because לכתחילה the בית דין are like the father of the יתומים. So לכתחילה it is in the hands of the בית דין. And when the גמרא mentions רבן גמליאל and his בית דין, it doesn't mean דווקא רבן גמליאל, it means any בית דין in any generation, but since at the time that this ברייתא was learned, רבן גמליאל and his בית דין was still around, so they gave the example of רבן גמליאל and his בית דין. Then the גמרא continues,

תנן התם, we learned in the משנה in שביעית, אין כותבין פרוזבול אלא על קרקע, that you cannot write a פרוזבול unless the לוה, the debtor, has some קרקע, has some land. And the reason for that is because when the חכמים were מתקן פרוזבול, they were only מתקן this תקנה in the case of a common loan. And normally, a person would not lend money unless the debtor has some קרקע from where the מלוה will be able to collect his חוב. And the only time a מלוה is secure with his חוב is if the לוה has קרקע. If he only has מטלטלין, movable objects, then we're not sure that by the time he's going to collect his חוב, those objects will still be around. But if the לוה has קרקע, so then the מלוה is secure that he has from where to collect his חוב. And therefore, people would only lend money if a לוה has קרקע. And that's when the חכמים were מתקן the דין of פרוזבול, that if the לוה has קרקע, so then the מלוה is able to write a פרוזבול, and then שמיטה would not be משמט. אם אין לו, if the לוה doesn't have קרקע, מזכהו בתוך שדהו כל שהוא, so then the מלוה could be מזכה, could give over to, could present to the לוה a little bit of קרקע in his own field. So now the לוה has some קרקע, and the מלוה is able to write a פרוזבול. וכמה כל שהוא? How much is a little bit? We said that he could present him with a little bit of קרקע, how much is a small piece of קרקע? אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב, so

רב חייא בר אשי said in the name of רב, אפילו קלח של כרוב, even if he is מזכה him with just a stalk of carob, that is enough. אמר רב יהודה, רב יהודה said, אפילו השאילו מקום לתנור ולכירה כותבין עליו פרוזבול, even if the מלוה just lent the לוה the space to put his oven or to put his stove down, so that is enough that the מלוה is able to write a פרוזבול on that land that that the לוה borrowed from the מלוה. And the גמרא asks, איני, is it not so? והתני הילל, didn't הילל learn, and this is not הלל הזקן, the one that was מתקן the פרוזבול, but this הילל was an אמורא. And he said, אין כותבין פרוזבול אלא על עציץ נקוב בלבד, you cannot write a פרוזבול unless the לוה owns at least an עציץ נקוב. If it is a flowerpot that has a hole in the bottom, so that is considered מחובר לקרקע, connected to the ground, since the flowerpot draws nourishment through that hole from the ground. So if the לוה owns an עציץ נקוב, so you're able to write a פרוזבול on that עציץ נקוב. So we see from there, נקוב אין, only if the עציץ, the flowerpot, has a hole, that's when you could do it, שאינו נקוב לא, but if the עציץ does not have the hole, you cannot write a פרוזבול on that עציץ. And the question is אמאי, why? והא איכא מקומו, don't you have its place? The עציץ is laying on the ground, so even though the עציץ itself cannot be considered מחובר לקרקע because it has no hole, but doesn't it take up space on that ground? And that space definitely belongs to the לוה, since he has his עציץ on that space, so obviously he had a right to do it. So or the עציץ' space is לכתחילה his, and even if it's not his, he must have borrowed the space to put his עציץ on it. So, we said before that if the לוה just borrows space to put his oven on it, that space is considered his קרקע, and the מלוה can write a פרוזבול, so how come here if he has a עציץ שאינו נקוב, he cannot write a פרוזבול? After all, he does have the space where the עציץ is on, and that space should be sufficient that the מלוה should be able to write an a פרוזבול on that space. And the גמרא says לא, no, צריכא, you have to tell us the case דמנח אסיכי, that it's not laying on the ground, that it's laying on sticks, so then it does not take up any space from the ground, and the ground is not his, he has no right to put it on the ground, so the לוה does not own any land. The only possibility would be if we would consider the עציץ itself as land, and that's what he said, that if it has a hole, then it's considered as מחובר לקרקע, and the עציץ itself is sufficient for the מלוה to write a פרוזבול. But if it does not have a hole, it is not considered מחובר לקרקע, and then the מלוה cannot write a פרוזבול on that עציץ.

רב אשי מקני ליה גידמא דדיקלא. רב אשי used to be מקנה to the לוה a trunk of a דיקלא, of a date tree, וכתב עליה פרוזבול, and he would write a פרוזבול on that קרקע. This was considered that the לוה owns קרקע, and the מלוה, רב אשי, was able to write a פרוזבול. And the גמרא continues, רבנן דבי רב אשי, the רבנן in the ישיבה of רב אשי, מסרי מלייהו להדדי, they used to give over the words one to another. What it really means is they did not write a פרוזבול. What they used to do was they used to say it בעל פה, orally. They would get together, some of the תלמידים, and each one would say to the others orally the לשון of the פרוזבול. He would say, "I give over to you all the חובות that are owed to me, that I should be able to collect it whenever I desire," but they did not write it down on a document and have it signed. רבי יונתן מסר מיליה לרבי חייא בר אבא. רבי יונתן once gave over his words, said the לשון, the expression of the פרוזבול to רבי חייא בר אבא, ואמר ליה, and he said to him, צריכנא מידי אחרינא, do I need anything else? אמר ליה, he said to him, לא צריכת, you don't need, that this is sufficient. Just to say it to a בית דין is enough. The גמרא continues,

תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, אין לו קרקע, if the לוה, the debtor himself doesn't own any קרקע, ולערב יש לו קרקע, but the ערב, the one that guarantees the loan does own קרקע, כותבין עליו פרוזבול, so you could write a פרוזבול on the קרקע that the ערב had. לו ולערב אין להם קרקע, let's say the לוה, the debtor and the ערב, the guarantor doesn't have קרקע, ולחייב לו יש לו קרקע, but another person who owes this לוה money, he has קרקע, כותבין עליו פרוזבול, so you can write a פרוזבול. The מלוה of this חוב could write a פרוזבול for the לוה on the קרקע that the other לוה that owes the money to this לוה, on the קרקע that he has. And this is מדי דרב נתן. This is based on the דין that רב נתן said, דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, רב נתן אומר, רב נתן says, מניין, how do we know, דנושה בחבירו מנה, that if one person claims from another person a מנה, וחבירו בחבירו, and that other person claims the money from another person, in other words, let's say ראובן owes שמעון a מנה, and שמעון owes לוי a מנה, מניין, how do we know, שמוציאין מזה ונותנין לזה, that you could take out from one and give to the other, that you don't have to have ראובן pay שמעון the money, and שמעון will pay לוי the money, but you're allowed to take the money from ראובן and pay directly to לוי? תלמוד לומר, how do we know that? Because the תורה says, ונתן, you should give, לאשר אשם לו, to the one it is owed to. And since ראובן owes שמעון and שמעון owes לוי, so really, the one that is owed is לוי. So you could take the money from ראובן and give it to שמעון. So just like you could do it by a חוב, the same thing here concerning פרוזבול. That since ראובן has קרקע, and ראובן owes the money to שמעון, and שמעון owes the money to לוי, so לוי is allowed to write a פרוזבול on the חוב that שמעון owes him because ראובן, who owes money to שמעון, has קרקע. And the גמרא continues,

תנן התם, we learn the משנה in שביעית, השביעית משמטת את המלוה בין בשטר בין שלא בשטר, that שמיטה releases the מלוה, the debt, whether the debt was written in a שטר, in a document, בין שלא בשטר, or if it was not written in a שטר. And now the גמרא is going to explain the פשט in this משנה. רב ושמואל דאמרי תרווייהו, רב and שמואל both hold that when the משנה said that שמיטה is משמט if it is בשטר, in a שטר, that means שטר שיש בו אחריות נכסים. A שטר, in it it says that the לוה says that his his נכסים, his property will be responsible for this חוב. In other words, he put a lien on the property of the לוה for this חוב. And a שטר like that, still שמיטה is משמט. When the משנה said שלא בשטר, that שמיטה is משמט a חוב that was not written as a שטר, it means שאין בו אחריות נכסים. It does not mean that it was not written in a שטר at all, it means a שטר that did not have this guarantee of the נכסים. It did not say in the שטר that the loan has the backing of the property of the לוה. And still שמיטה is משמט. So what the משנה really was telling us that שמיטה is משמט in all cases, whether the שטר has אחריות נכסים, whether there is a mortgage on the property of the לוה, or there is no mortgage. כל שכן מלוה על פה, certainly that if it was was a loan that was not written in a שטר at all, it was an oral loan, certainly שמיטה is משמט, because there is more סברא that שמיטה should not be משמט if it was written in a שטר. Certainly there is more סברא to say that שמיטה should not be משמט if it's a שטר which has a mortgage, a lien, on the property of the לווה, because all these cases are closer to being paid. And the more we could consider as if the loan is already paid, the more סברא it is that שביעית should not be משמט. Because שביעית is משמט only if it was not paid, it's still a loan. But if it's considered somehow as if it is paid, שמיטה cannot be משמט. Still, רב and שמואל say that what the משנה was telling us that in all cases, שמיטה is משמט. Even if it was written in a שטר with אחריות נכסים, nevertheless, שמיטה is משמט. Certainly if it was in a שטר without אחריות נכסים, and certainly if it was not written in a שטר at all. But

רבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש דאמרי תרווייהו, but רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש both hold that when the משנה said בשטר, it means שטר שאין בו אחריות נכסים, a שטר that does not have the lien. When it said in the משנה ושלא בשטר that שמיטה is משמט a loan that was not written in a שטר, it actually means a מלוה על פה, an oral loan that was not written in a document. So according to that, אבל שטר שיש בו אחריות נכסים, but if it is a שטר that does have the אחריות נכסים, that does have a lien in it, אינו משמט, it's not משמט. The משנה just told us that if it's a מלוה על פה, it's משמט, if it's even a מלוה written in the שטר, but it has no אחריות נכסים, there are no properties of the לווה that are responsible for this loan, so then also שמיטה is משמט. But the משנה did not mention anything if it was written in a שטר with אחריות נכסים. So therefore, רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש hold that if it was written in a שטר with אחריות נכסים, שמיטה is not משמט, the loans are not released when שמיטה comes. And the גמרא

says, תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש, we learn in a ברייתא like the opinion of רבי יוחנן and רבי שמעון בן לקיש. It says in the ברייתא, שטר חוב משמט. If you have a document where it says that someone owes you money, שמיטה is משמט. ואם יש בו אחריות נכסים, but if in the שטר it says that the לווה's property are responsible for the loan, אינו משמט, it is not משמט. And this is exactly like the opinion of רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש. תניא אידך, we learn in another ברייתא even more: סיים לו שדה אחת בהלוואתו, if he showed him, they pointed out a specific field that should be responsible for the loan, אינו משמט. So that loan is not משמט, because it's as if he already collected it, because there is a specific field that is standing there waiting to be collected by the מלוה. ולא עוד, and more than that, ואפילו כתב, even if he wrote, כל נכסי אחראין וערבאין לך, he didn't write a specific field should be responsible for the loan, he just wrote that all my property, all my possessions are responsible and guarantee the loan, still אינו משמט, it is not משמט, because since there is אחריות נכסים there, so then we consider it as if the loan was already collected, and therefore it is not משמט. So this is all like רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש. And the גמרא tells a story:

קריביה דרב אסי, a relative of רב אסי, הוה ליה ההוא שטרא, he had a שטר, דהוה כתיב ביה אחריות נכסים, and in it it said that a certain person owes him money, and that person's property is responsible for the חוב. אתא לקמיה דרב אסי, so he came to רב אסי, אמר ליה, and he said to him, משמט או אינו משמט, is it משמט? Is that loan released and I cannot collect it, or is it not released and I still could collect it? אמר ליה, so רב אסי said to him, אינו משמט, it's not משמט. Since it has אחריות נכסים, even though שמיטה passed, you still could collect that חוב. שבקיה, he left him, ואתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן, he went to רבי יוחנן to ask the same שאלה. אמר ליה, רבי יוחנן said to him, משמט, it is משמט. אתא רב אסי לקמיה דרבי יוחנן, so later רב אסי himself came to רבי יוחנן, אמר ליה, and he asked רבי יוחנן, משמט או אינו משמט, is it משמט or not משמט? אמר ליה, משמט, he said it is משמט. That even though it has אחריות נכסים in the שטר, it still is משמט. So רב אסי asked him, והא מר הוא דאמר, aren't you the one that said אינו משמט, that if it has אחריות נכסים it's not משמט, as we learned before that רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש both hold that if it has אחריות נכסים it is not משמט? אמר ליה, so he said to him, וכי מפני שאנו מדמין, because we think so, נעשה מעשה, we should actually do a מעשה? This is the way I think that the הלכה should be, that אינו משמט. But how can I do a מעשה, and actually make the person pay the money based on my assumption that the הלכה should be that אינו משמט? אמר ליה, so he said to him, ותניא כוותיה דמר, but we learned a ברייתא like you. It's not just your assumption. Didn't we learn in a ברייתא where it says clearly, that if it has אחריות נכסים it is not משמט? אמר ליה, so רבי יוחנן said to him, from that ברייתא, it's not a real ראיה, because דילמא, maybe, ההיא בית שמאי היא, maybe that ברייתא only goes according to בית שמאי, דאמרי בית שמאי hold, שטר העומד לגבות כגבוי דמי, that a שטר that is ready to be collected, is as if it's collected. If it's a כשר שטר, so it is as if it's collected. So, according to בית שמאי, when you have a שטר, so it's like it's collected, and therefore שמיטה is not משמט, because the דין by שמיטה is, as we said before, that you're not allowed to claim a loan, but if it's as if you collected the loan already, then שמיטה is not משמט. So, maybe that ברייתא where it says that a שטר that has אחריות נכסים is not משמט, maybe it goes according to בית שמאי, but בית הלל argue on בית שמאי, and they hold that it's not considered as if it's collected, so according to בית הלל, even if it has אחריות נכסים, שמיטה still should be משמט. And therefore, we don't have a ראיה from that ברייתא, because maybe that ברייתא is only according to בית שמאי, not according to the הלכה. So, therefore, I have no proof to my opinion, and just by my assumption, I don't want to take away money from the לוה to pay the מלוה, and therefore, I פסקנ'ד that it is משמט. The מחלוקת between בית שמאי and בית הלל that the גמרא mentions here, is in the גמרא סוטה, as רש״י points out. There, the משנה says that if a סוטה, a סוטה who is a woman that her husband warned her not to hide with a certain man, and then she went along and she hid with that man, and we don't know what she did, whether she was עובר on an עבירה or not, so the דין is she has to go to the בית המקדש, and she has to drink the מים המאררים. And the משנה says what happened if her husband died before she drank? So, then בית שמאי says that she collects her כתובה, and בית הלל says that she cannot collect her כתובה. And the גמרא on דף כ״ו in סוטה explains that the מחלוקת is based on who is the מוחזק and who is the מוציא. The דין is that whenever there is a ספק who money belongs to, so the כלל is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, that the one that's the מוציא, the one that's trying to collect, to take the money from the other one who is מוחזק, who's holding on to the money, so it belongs to the one that is holding on to the money, and the other one who's trying to take it

away has to prove that he is right, and as long as he doesn't prove it, then it stays with the person who has the money from before. The שאלה in this case is, when she claims that she did not sin, is she considered the מוחזק in the money of the כתובה, and the יורשים of the husband that are trying not to give her the כתובה, they claim that they don't owe her the כתובה because they claim she did sin, and therefore she lost her כתובה, so the שאלה is, is she considered the מוחזק, that she as if is holding on to the money, and they are the מוציאים, they're trying to take it away from her, and therefore they would be the one that would have to prove that she doesn't get the כתובה, and as long as they didn't prove, she gets the כתובה, or are they considered the מוחזקים, that they have the money, and she is the one that is trying to be מוציא the money from them, so she would have to prove that she did not do any עבירה and she's supposed to get the כתובה, and as long as she doesn't prove that, she does not get the כתובה? And the גמרא says that is the מחלוקת between בית שמאי and בית הלל. בית שמאי hold that since the כתובה is a שטר, a מלוה that is written in the שטר, and property of the לוה is responsible for this חוב, so it's as if that שטר was collected already. So, therefore, we consider it as if the woman already collected her כתובה. Now, the יורשים are trying to take it away from her. So, we tell the יורשים, they are the מוציאים, so they have to prove that she should not get the כתובה, and as long as they don't prove, she gets the כתובה. And therefore, בית שמאי holds that if the husband died before she drank the water, she cannot drink anymore, but on the other hand, she does get the כתובה, because as long as they don't prove that she doesn't deserve it, she keeps it. On the other hand, בית הלל holds that even if it's a שטר with אחריות נכסים, still it is not considered as if it's collected yet. So, who is the one that is מוחזק, who holds on to the money of the כתובה? It is the יורשים. She is the one that's trying to collect the כתובה, so she is called the מוציא. So, the כלל is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, so she has to prove that she deserves the כתובה, And as long as she doesn't prove that, she doesn't get the כתובה. And that מחלוקת the גמרא wants to apply here too, that when that ברייתא says that if it's a שטר with אחריות נכסים, it is not משמט, maybe that goes according to בית שמאי who hold that if it has אחריות נכסים in the שטר, it's as if it's collected, and therefore שמיטה is not משמט because it's not a חוב that you have to collect, it's a חוב that was collected already. While according to בית הלל, maybe the דין is that even if it has אחריות נכסים, then still it is משמט because it's not considered as if it's collected. And

that's what רבי יוחנן said, that since it's possible that that ברייתא is according to בית שמאי, he has no proof from a ברייתא to his words, so on his own assumption, he would not פסקן and do a מעשה, and therefore he said that it is משמט. Now the גמרא continues, תנן התם, we learned in a משנה in שביעית, המלוה את חבירו מעות על המשכון, if a person lends another person money on a משכון, on collateral, והמוסר שטרותיו לבית דין, or if a מלוה gives over all his שטרות, all his documents to בית דין, אין משמטין, so these loans are not משמט, they're not released on שמיטה. And the גמרא asks, בשלמא מוסר שטרותיו לבית דין, we understand why if you give over your שטרות to בית דין why is שמיטה not משמט, דתפסי להו בי דינא, because now בית דין is holding onto it. And since it's in the possession of בית דין, בית דין could do with it what they want, because הפקר בית דין הפקר, that בית דין has a right to take away the ownership of any money or any object from its owner. So בית דין has a right to say that a person should pay the חוב. So therefore, if it's in the hands of בית דין, then it is not משמט. אלא מלוה על המשכון מאי טעמא? What is the reason why if you lent money on a משכון, then it is also not משמט?

אמר רבא, so רבא answered, משום דתפיס ליה, because since the מלוה is holding onto the משכון, so really he is not claiming the חוב. It's as if he was paid the חוב because he has the משכון as payment. And the איסור is only that you're not allowed to claim, ask for the חוב back, but if he's holding onto it already, so then when שמיטה comes, it is not משמט. אמר ליה אביי, so אביי told him, אלא מעתה, but if so, הלוהו, if he lent him money, ודר בחצירו, and he lives in his yard, in his house, let's say the מלוה lives in the house of the לוה, דתפיס ליה, that he is also holding onto it, since he lives in his house, so he is holding onto his house, הכא נמי will you also tell me דלא משמט, that it's not משמט? And תוספות points out that the גמרא here means that that חצר, that house was a משכון. It doesn't mean that he lent him money and then he lived in his house, and the house was not a משכון, and the גמרא's שאלה is that just because he lives in the house it should be considered as if he's holding onto the house, he's already paid. תוספות says that's not the פשט. The פשט is that he lent him money and the house was a משכון, and he happened to be living in the house. So here, since he has a משכון the house, שמיטה should not be משמט based on the סברא that he said before that since you're holding onto the משכון, then the דין is it's not משמט. And תוספות says that the גמרא's קושיא is based on the גמרא in איזהו נשך, that there in בבא מציעא the גמרא says clearly that if you have a משכון, so still שמיטה is משמט. And that's the גמרא's קושיא here, that the דין should be, if you told me that when you hold onto a משכון, the דין is that that חוב שמיטה is not משמט, so if you have a house as a משכון and you live in the house, שמיטה should also not be משמט, and the דין is, as the גמרא says in איזהו נשך, that a משכון, a house, still שמיטה is משמט. And the גמרא answers,

אמר ליה, he said to him, שאני משכון, a משכון which is מטלטלין, a משכון which is a movable object is different, דקני ליה, because the מלוה who holds onto the משכון is actually קונה, acquires ownership over that object, מידי דרבי יצחק, based on the דין that רבי יצחק said. דאמר רבי יצחק, רבי יצחק said, מניין לבעל חוב שקונה משכון, from where do we know that a בעל חוב, a creditor that has a משכון, is actually קונה the משכון, he acquires ownership over the משכון? שנאמר, the תורה says the מלוה is allowed to take the money from the לוה, שנאמר, because the תורה says, וזה דבר השמטה, this is the thing of שמיטה, and the word דבר has another meaning from the word דיבור, speech, that you have to say the words of שמיטה, that when the לוה comes to the מלוה, the מלוה has to use the words of שמיטה, he has to say to him, משמט אני, that I drop my claim over this חוב. But if the לוה insists and says, "Still I want you to take it," after he did his דבר השמיטה, he said what שמיטה requires him to say, then he is allowed to take the חוב. אמר רבא, רבא said: ותליה ליה עד דאמר הכי. He could even hang him, he could even force him to say that, that the מלוה could even pressure the לוה to say אף על פי כן, that he wants the מלוה to take the חוב. איתיביה אביי, אביי asked a קושיא to רבא: How could you say that the מלוה is able to force the לוה to say אף על פי כן, "I still want you to take the money"? We learned: כשהוא נותן לו, that when the לוה gives the money to the מלוה, אל יאמר לו, he should not tell him, "בחובִי אני נותן לך, I'm giving it to you because I owe it to you," אלא יאמר לו, but he should tell him, "שלי הן, really it's mine, because after שמיטה the money is mine, I don't owe it to you anymore, ובמתנה אני נותן לך, and I give it to you as a present." So here we see that it must be given completely as a present. So how can you say that the מלוה could force the לוה to say אף על פי כן and he wants to give him the money? אמר ליה, so רבא answered אביי: אין הכי נמי, it's true, תלי ליה נמי עד דאמר הכי. He could hang him, he could force him, pressure him until he says that. In other words, he must say, "I'm giving it to you as a present," but the מלוה has a right to pressure the לוה into giving him this present. The גמרא continues: אבא בר מרתא, דהוא אבא בר מניומי. אבא בר מרתא, who really was אבא בר מניומי—his mother's name was מרתא, and sometimes he was referred to by his mother's name because she once cured him from a certain sickness, as the גמרא says in יומא, דף פ״ד. But the גמרא tells the story that this אבא בר מרתא, who was really אבא בר מניומי, הוה מסיק ביה רבא זוזי. רבא claimed money from him. He owed רבא money. רבא was the מלוה, and he was the לוה. אייתינהו ניהליה בשביעית, so he brought it to רבא after שמיטה. אמר ליה, and רבא said to him: משמט אני, "I drop the claim," as the דין is, as we said before, that you must say משמט אני. שקלינהו, he took it, ואזל, and he went away. אתא אביי, אביי came, אשכחיה, he found, דהוה עציב, he saw that רבא was sad. אמר ליה, אביי said to him: אמאי עציב מר? Why is my רבי sad? אמר ליה, so he said to him: הכי הוה מעשה, this is the story. He told him the whole story, that his תלמיד wanted to return the חוב, and he said, "משמט אני," and his תלמיד took the money and left. אזל לגביה, so אביי came to that תלמיד, אמר ליה, and he said to him: אמטית ליה זוזי למר? Did you bring the money to our רבי? Did you bring the money to pay רבא? אמר ליה, he said to him: אין, yes. אמר ליה, so he said to him: ומאי אמר לך? And what did he tell you? אמר ליה, he said to him: משמט אני. He said to me that he releases the claim. אמר ליה, so אביי said to him: ואמרת ליה, did you tell him אף על פי כן, nevertheless, that you still want him to take the money? אמר ליה, he said to him: לא, I did not say that. אמר ליה, so אביי said to him: דאי אמרת ליה אף על פי כן, if you would have said to him אף על פי כן, הוה שקלינהו מינך, he would have taken it from you. השתא מיהת אמטינהו ניהליה, now at least take it to him, ואימא ליה אף על פי כן, and tell him אף על פי כן. אזל, he went, אמטינהו ניהליה, he brought it to him, ואמר ליה אף על פי כן, and this תלמיד said to רבא אף על פי כן, nevertheless he wants him to take the money, שקלינהו מיניה, he took it from him, ואמר, he said: לא הוה בדעתיה דהאי צורבא מרבנן יקרא, that this צורבא מרבנן, this תלמיד חכם, this scholar, did not realize לכתחילה that he should have said אף על פי כן, and then רבא would have taken the money. And the גמרא continues: אמר רב יהודה אמר רב נחמן, רב יהודה said in the name of רב נחמן: נאמן אדם לומר, a person is believed to say: פרוזבול היה בידי, "I had a פרוזבול, ואבד ממני, and I lost it." After שמיטה, when a מלוה comes to collect the money from the לוה, and the לוה would say to the מלוה, "I don't owe it to you because שמיטה passed," so if the מלוה answers, "I had a פרוזבול and I lost it," we would believe him and he could collect the חוב. And the גמרא says: מאי טעמא? What is the reason? Why do we believe him? כיון דתקינו רבנן פרוזבול, since the חכמים were מתקן a פרוזבול, לא שביק היתירא ואכיל איסורא. A person would not leave כשר food and eat non-כשר food. And here too, since he was able to write a פרוזבול, and then he would be able to collect his חוב without any problems, בהיתר, so why should we assume that he did not write a פרוזבול, and now he is trying to collect his חוב against the דין? In a case where he had no choice, the only way he could collect his money is by lying, then we suspect maybe he is lying. In a case where he has the ability to collect his money rightfully על פי הלכה, so we don't suspect that he did not do it על פי הלכה, and he's trying to collect his חוב שלא כדין. כי אתא לקמיה דרב, once happened that someone came to רב and wanted to collect his חוב, and it was after שמיטה, and the לוה claimed that he doesn't owe it to him because of שמיטה. So אמר ליה, so רב, who was the רב, said to the מלוה, מידי פרוזבול הוה לך ואבד, maybe you had a פרוזבול and you lost it? In most cases, we only listen to the claims and the טענות that the מלוה and the לוה and the people say. But the בית דין would not put words into the mouths of the two בעלי דין. But in this case, the רב put the words into the מלוה's mouth, asking him, maybe you had a פרוזבול and you lost it? And he says כגון זה, in a case like this, פתח פיך לאלם הוא. It is a case where we say we open the mouth of somebody who can't talk. That we ask him questions to bring him up to a claim that he would think that he cannot claim. Because it's very possible that he really wrote a פרוזבול. And the reason he doesn't mention it, because he thought, how would they believe him? And therefore, we ask him the question, maybe he had a פרוזבול, and if he says, "Yes, I had a פרוזבול and I lost it," we believe him, and he's able to collect his חוב. Then the גמרא asks a קשיא: תנן, we learn in the משנה, וכן בעל חוב שמוציא שטר חוב, if a בעל חוב, a creditor, takes out a שטר חוב, ואין עמו פרוזבול, and he doesn't have the פרוזבול with him to show that שמיטה is not משמט, הרי אלו לא יפרעו, so they don't have to pay. If שמיטה passed, you don't have to pay, because שמיטה And definitely this משנה is talking in a case where he said, "I had a פרוזבול and I lost it," because if he doesn't claim that, then definitely he cannot collect. The משנה wouldn't have to tell us that if שמיטה passed, and he didn't write a פרוזבול, that it is משמט and they don't have to pay. If the משנה tells us that if he doesn't have the פרוזבול with him, then the לוה doesn't have to pay, obviously it is in a case where he claims, "I had a פרוזבול," and nevertheless, since he doesn't have it with him, we don't trust him, and they don't have to pay. So here we see that we don't believe the person when he says, "I had a פרוזבול and I lost it." The גמרא answers, תנאי היא. Really there is a מחלוקת between תנאים in this דין. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, המוציא שטר חוב, if someone takes out a שטר חוב, צריך שיהא עמו פרוזבול, so he must have the פרוזבול with him, and if he doesn't have the פרוזבול, then the לוה does not have to pay. וחכמים אומרים, the חכמים say, אינו צריך, he doesn't have to have the פרוזבול. And what do the חכמים mean? They don't mean that you don't have to write a פרוזבול. You must write a פרוזבול. What they say is that you don't have to have it with you. If you say you had one, that is sufficient, and you get paid. So here we see בפירוש in a ברייתא that it's a מחלוקת between תנאים. And therefore, when the גמרא said before that you are believed when you say, "I had a פרוזבול and I lost it," that goes according to the חכמים of this ברייתא. But the משנה that we brought before where it says that if he doesn't have the פרוזבול with him, he cannot get paid, that goes according to תנא קמא of this ברייתא that says that if you don't have a פרוזבול, you are not believed, and you cannot collect your חוב. And now we will continue with the משנה. משנה says, עבד שנשבה, an עבד כנעני, a גויישע slave that was captured, he originally belonged to a ייד, and he was captured by גוים, ופדאוהו, and other people, other Jews redeemed him, אם לשם עבד, if they redeemed him on the condition that he should remain an עבד, ישתעבד, so then he has to work, he remains an עבד. אם לשם בן חורין, if they redeemed him on the condition that he will be a free person, לא ישתעבד, he does not work. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, בין כך ובין כך, in whichever way, whether he was redeemed to stay an עבד, or he was redeemed to be a בן חורין, ישתעבד, he works. And the גמרא will explain who he works for, whether he works for his original owner, or he works for the person that redeemed him. And now the גמרא explains the details. במאי עסקינן, what does the משנה talk about, in which case? אילימא, if you'll tell me it's לפני יאוש, before the original owner gave up hope, so then the שאלה is, לשם בן חורין אמאי לא ישתעבד? So why if the person redeemed him in order to be a בן חורין, he does not work? Since the original owner did not give up hope, so the עבד is still his. Only after a person is מייאש, gives up hope, then he loses the ownership over the object that belongs to him. But as long as he was not מייאש, it still is his. So here, too, as long as the owner was not מייאש from his עבד, the עבד is still his. So when the other person redeemed the עבד, he should go back to his original owner! So why did the משנה To say that if the person redeemed him in order to be a בן חורין, he does not go back to his original owner. אלא you'll tell me לאחר יאוש, that it's speaking in a case where the original owner was מתיאש, so the שאלה is לשום עבד, if a second person redeemed him in order to remain an עבד, אמאי ישתעבד? Why should he work, why should he remain an עבד, if the original owner gave up hope, so he doesn't belong to him anymore? And the whole basis of this קשיא is because the גמרא thought that when the משנה says ישתעבד, that he remains an עבד, it means that he works for his first owner. And therefore the גמרא asks that if the first owner was already מתיאש, so then why should he go back to his owner? אמר אביי, אביי said, לעולם לפני יאוש, באמת the משנה is talking in a case where he was not מתיאש, and the פשט is דלשום עבד ישתעבד לרבו ראשון. If he redeems him in order to remain an עבד, so then he works for his original owner. And the reason for that is very simple: since the original owner was not מתיאש, so he still belongs to him, and when the person redeemed him, he redeemed him on condition that he should remain an עבד, so therefore he goes back to his original owner. But if he redeemed him לשום בן חורין, in order to be free, so then לא ישתעבד, לא לרבו ראשון ולא לרבו שני. So then he does not work, not for his original owner and not for his second owner, for the person who redeemed him. לרבו שני לא, he doesn't work for the second owner, why? דהא לשום בן חורין פרקיה, because the one that redeemed him redeemed him that he should remain a בן חורין. So he has no right to have him work for him, because he redeemed him not as an עבד, he redeemed him to become a בן חורין. But לרבו ראשון נמי לא, he also does not work for the first owner, even though we said it's talking in a case where it's before יאוש, so really he should work for the first owner. The reason is דילמא ממנעי ולא פרקי, because we're afraid that people will hold themselves back and not redeem him. If the דין would be that he goes back to his original owner, so this person who redeemed him would not have redeemed him, because he redeemed him that he should become a בן חורין. And if the דין would be that he goes back to his original owner, so the person would say, "Let his original owner redeem him, I don't have to redeem him and then he should go back to his original owner." So people would not redeem this עבד. So in order for the עבד to be redeemed, the חכמים made a תקנה that he should not go back to his original owner, even though he really belongs to him. And this original owner would really have to give him a שטר שחרור, would have to write him the document that frees him, because באמת he's still his his עבד, but the חכמים would force him to give this document, because otherwise people wouldn't redeem him. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, but רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said, בין כך ובין כך ישתעבד, that in both cases, whether he redeemed him in order to be an עבד or he redeemed him in order to be a בן חורין, he still has to work. Why? He does go back to his original owner, since it's talking in the case of לפני יאוש. I, we said before, that because of that, people maybe would not redeem him. קסבר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds, כשם שמצוה לפדות את בני חורין, just like there's a מצוה to redeem free people, which means a regular ייד, there's a מצוה to redeem him, there is a מצוה of פדיון שבויים, כך מצוה לפדות את העבדים, there is also a מצוה to free עבדים. Since an עבד כנעני is מחוייב, is obligated to do certain מצות, he's מחוייב במצות כאשה, he's מחוייב to do those מצות that a woman is obligated to do, so therefore it is a מצוה to redeem him, that he shouldn't stay amongst the גוים and he would lose his identity as an עבד כנעני. And therefore רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says there is nothing to be afraid of. We shouldn't be afraid that people won't

redeem him, since there's a מצוה to redeem an עבד, so even if the דין would be that he goes back to his original master, still people would redeem him, because people would fulfill the מצוה of פדיון שבויים. רבא אמר, but רבא says, he learns a different פשט in the משנה than אביי: לעולם לאחר יאוש, that really the משנה is talking in a case where the original master was already מתיאש, so he lost his ownership over this עבד. And the reason we said in the משנה that if the person who redeemed him redeemed him לשום עבד, in order to stay an עבד, ישתעבד, he does remain an עבד, he does work, that does not mean like אביי said that he works for his first master. He does not work for his first master, because the first master gave up hope. But what does ישתעבד mean? ישתעבד לרבו שני, he works for the second master. Since the person who redeemed him, it's as if he bought him, and he bought him on condition that he stays an עבד, so that's why he works for the second person, he works as an עבד for the one that redeemed him. But if he redeemed him לשום בן חורין, חורין, for the sake of being a בן חורין, so לא ישתעבד, לא לרבו ראשון ולא לרבו שני. He does not work, not for the first master, not for the second master. לרבו שני, to the second master, the second owner, he לא, he doesn't work, דהא לשם בן חורין פרקיה, because when he redeemed him, he redeemed him so he should be a free person. He didn't redeem him in order to be an עבד, he redeemed him in order to be a בן חורין. So therefore, he is not an עבד of the second master. לרבו ראשון נמי לא, he is also not an עבד of the first master, דהא לאחר יאוש הוה, because it was already after he was מתיאש, so the first owner lost his ownership over this עבד, so he doesn't go back to him either.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, but רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, בין כך ובין כך ישתעבד. In both cases, he still remains an עבד. And as רש''י and the רבנו תם say, it means he stays an עבד to his first master. And the reason for רבן שמעון בן גמליאל's opinion, so the גמרא says כדיחזקיה, it is based on what חזקיה said. דאמר חזקיה, חזקיה said, מפני מה אמרו, why did the חכמים say בין כך ובין כך ישתעבד, that in both cases, whether he redeemed him to stay an עבד, or he redeemed him to be a בן חורין, still he remains an עבד? Why? שלא יהא כל אחד ואחד הולך ומפיל עצמו לגייסות. That an עבד who wants to be free, what would he do? He would לכתחילה go and make himself fall into the hands of the robbers, ומפקיע עצמו מיד רבו, and he would redeem himself from his master. Because if the דין would be that if the second person redeems him to remain a בן חורין, the דין is he would be a בן חורין, so every עבד would take a chance, would let himself be caught, hoping that he would be redeemed לשם בן חורין, and then he would be a בן חורין, he would be free. So therefore the חכמים said, no, that whichever way the person redeems him, he still remains the עבד of his first owner. So this will prevent the עבדים from letting themselves be caught by the robbers. Then the

גמרא says, מיתיבי, come, I'll ask you a קשיא. The גמרא is going to ask a קשיא on רבא's פשט of the משנה. We learn in a ברייתא, אמר להן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said to the חכמים when he wanted to explain the reason for his opinion, that בין כך ובין כך he has to work. So he said to the חכמים, כשם שמצוה לפדות את בני חורין, just like there is a מצוה to redeem free people, to redeem regular יידן, כך מצוה לפדות את העבדים, the same, there is a מצוה to redeem the עבדים. So בשלמא לאביי, it's very good according to אביי דאמר that he says לפני יאוש, that the משנה the מחלוקת is in a case of לפני יאוש, and the reason for the תנא קמא that if he redeemed him לשם בן חורין he goes out a בן חורין was because otherwise people would not redeem him. So היינו דקאמר, so we understand what רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said to them, that כשם, that just like there's a מצוה to redeem regular יידן, there's a מצוה to redeem עבדים, so what you're afraid of, that people will not redeem him, is not valid, and therefore I feel that he should be a משועבד.

אלא לרבא, but according to רבא דאמר, that he said the פשט in the משנה is לאחר יאוש, that it's talking in a case where the original owner was מתיאש, and the reason the תנא קמא says that if he redeemed him לשם בן חורין, he does not go back to his original owner is because his original owner was already מתיאש, and then רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said that still he goes back to his original owner because if not, every עבד would have himself caught by robbers. So if so, האי כשם, why? Why did the ברייתא say that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל told the חכמים that his reason is because כשם שמצוה לפדות את בני חורין כך מצוה לפדות את העבדים, משום דחזקיה הוא? His reason is because of what חזקיה said, that עבדים shouldn't have themselves caught by robbers! So what the ברייתא should have said was, according to רבא, that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said to them that the reason I say that בין כך ובין כך ישתעבד is because of what חזקיה said. אמר לך רבא, so רבא will answer you, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל לא הוה ידע מאי קאמרי רבנן. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל didn't know exactly what the רבנן meant. He didn't know that when they said that if you redeem him לשם עבד, ישתעבד, לשם בן חורין he remain, he stays a בן חורין. So רבן שמעון בן גמליאל did not know whether they are talking in a case of לפני יאוש or in the case of לאחר יאוש, והכי קאמר להו, and this is what he said to them: אי לפני יאוש קאמריתו, if you were talking in a case of לפני יאוש, and the reason why if he takes him out לשם בן חורין, he does not go back to the original owner was because people should not hold themselves back from redeeming him, so for that, היינו כשם. For that I have an answer, that there is a מצוה to redeem עבדים too. אי לאחר יאוש קאמריתו, if you were talking in the case of after יאוש, so then the reason why you said that if he redeems him לשם בן חורין he doesn't go back to his original owner is because it is לאחר יאוש. So for that I have the answer כדי חזקיה, what חזקיה said, that I feel that he should go back to his original owner, even though it's לאחר יאוש, and על פי דין the original owner lost his ownership over this עבד, but just to prevent עבדים from making themselves be caught by robbers, so therefore I feel the דין should be that he should go back to his original owner. Going back a little bit earlier in the גמרא, there are a few important points to mention. The גמרא before spoke about the דין of רב יצחק, that a בעל חוב is קונה the משכון. So it's important to mention that

there is a great מחלוקת between רש״י and תוספות, and many other ראשונים of how far the קנין of the בעל חוב goes over the משכון. And the main מחלוקת is in the גמרא בבא מציעא, as תוספות mentions on דף פ״ב עמוד א׳. רש״י learns that a בעל חוב is קונה the משכון even לחייב באונסין, that he is חייב even if an אונס happens to that משכון, he is חייב for it because he is קונה the משכון completely. But תוספות learns that he is only חייב בגניבה ואבידה, he is only חייב if the משכון was stolen or lost. He has a דין like a שומר שכר. Just like when you hire a person to watch something for you and you pay him for it, so then that person is חייב בגניבה ואבידה, he is חייב if it gets lost or it gets stolen. But if an אונס happens, something out of the ordinary happens and it gets lost or it gets destroyed, then he is פטור. So תוספות learns that a בעל חוב who is קונה the משכון is פטור from אונסין. And in the ש״ך, in חושן משפט סימן ע״ב, סעיף קטן ט״ז, he has a very long discussion trying to defend the שיטה of רש״י, and he's trying to prove that really a בעל חוב is קונה the משכון completely, even to be חייב באונסין. Another interesting thing to mention in the גמרא before is concerning the דין that it says that if someone returns a חוב after שמיטה, the first thing the מלוה is supposed to do is say, משמט אני. But if the לוה says, אף על פי כן, the מלוה is allowed to take the חוב. And the truth is that the משנה says in שביעית, not only that he's allowed to do that, but המחזיר חוב בשביעית, רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו, that when someone returns a חוב after שמיטה, the חכמים are very happy about it. And the ליובאוויטשער רבי, in his ספר חידושים וביאורים בש״ס, סימן ג׳, explains at length what is the גדר of a חוב after שמיטה. And he has many, many ראיות to prove that it's not the פשט that when שמיטה comes around the חוב is not a חוב anymore, he doesn't owe him the money anymore. He explains that the חוב still remains a חוב, but there is a דין on the מלוה that the מלוה is supposed to drop the claim of that חוב. And because there is a דין that the מלוה is supposed to drop the claim, therefore there is a דין on the לוה that the לוה does not have to pay that חוב, but there still remains a שיעבוד between the לוה and the מלוה. And therefore the משנה refers to it as המחזיר חוב בשביעית, that when you return a חוב in שביעית, because it's still considered his חוב, because otherwise it's not called his חוב. It's like you would be giving somebody money that you don't owe him. So the משנה refers to it as המחזיר חוב בשביעית because it's still a חוב, and that is the reason why רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו, why the חכמים are happy, because really the money still belongs to the מלוה, there is a שיעבוד on the לוה to the מלוה. There is only a דין that the לוה does not have to pay that חוב. And he says that even though the גמרא here in גיטין says that when he returns the money he has to tell him clearly that I'm not giving it to you as a חוב, אלא יאמר לו שלי הן ובמתנה אני נותן לך, really it's mine and I'm just giving it to you as a present, so it seems like the גמרא is telling us that it's a present and there is no שיעבוד, so he quotes the יראים in סימן רע״ח where he writes that בתיקון לשון דיבור הוא שתיקנו, it is only a תיקון לשון that the חכמים were מתקן to say שתיקנו לומר במתנה, that they were מתקן that he should use the term מתנה, שיהא הדבר ניכר ונראה, that it should be seen and people should know שלא על ידי נגישה נותן לו, that he's not giving to him because he claimed the חוב. But really it does not mean that it was given to him as a מתנה. And even though the יראים says this only according to his own שיטה, because he holds that there is a מצוה on the לוה to return the חוב after שמיטה, just that the מלוה has to say משמט אני, but the לוה himself has a מצוה, and that's why he explains that when the גמרא says מתנה it doesn't really mean מתנה, but we could use the same סברא of the יראים even according to the other שיטות. That even according to the other שיטות, that even though he does not owe him the money, there is still a שיעבוד there, and when the גמרא calls it מתנה, it is only a תיקון לשון as the יראים says. And לכאורה we could add, even though he doesn't say this in the חידושים וביאורים בש״ס, that this gives an explanation in when the גמרא says here that he is able to force him to say אף על פי כן, that לכאורה it's not understood. If it's up to the לווה whether he wants to give it back or not, there is no חיוב here whatsoever, so how could the גמרא say that the מלוה is able to force and pressure the לווה into saying, "I want you to take the money back"? But according to the way he explains in the ספר חידושים וביאורים בש״ס, that really there is a שיעבוד, just there is a דין that he doesn't have to return it, we could understand that that still could be a דין that the מלוה has a right to pressure the לווה into saying אף על פי כן.