'tuto pis nuown n'jrawn
119(371 n^i no^a rn>»n tin Ji>y>nyjn (foi. 39b) npiN niin^ rn .nopw? it nn ni>p jw'yi» ON jiuqd i* HD rn>p 0N"| -p'y iWN-in iwion ro>N rpyuyji n^piQ N>n\£i rDNbrp-bs >ai
PD>N rijppia
Mishnah 1: The Sabbatical remits any loan1, with or without a document2. Store credit is not remitted; if it is transformed into a loan it is remitted. Rebbi Jehudah says, any preceding one is remitted3. Wages of a hired hand are not remitted; if they are transformed into a loan they are remitted; Rebbi Yose says, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted; if it does not stop they are not remitted4.
1 The end of the Sabbatical year. document is an error of the scribe; the
2 In Talmudic tradition, there are existence of a lien may always be three kinds of loan by document. If assumed.) Since the lien (known as there is no surety given in the "alienation of property") is not document, the status of the loan is the specified, the lender can foreclose on same as that of a loan given in front of such a loan only by lengthy court two witnesses, without a written proceedings. If the loan is documented document. The standard loan contract and given as a mortgage on a specific establishes a lien by the creditor on all parcel of real estate, in the theory of real estate the borrower may have. the Yerushalmi it is a loan on a pledge
(Some tannaitic authorities hold that and not remitted, as stated in Mishnah the absence of such a lien from a 2. HALAKHAH1 631
3 R. Jehudah holds that any new work has to stop because of the Sab- credit given by a store to a customer batical or only during the Sabbatical. automatically transforms any previous The hired hand cannot be a day-worker credit into a loan. because the wages of a person hired 4 It is to be discussed whether the for the day must be paid that same day.
by niboD ">\?y;i .'ID JIO^J? rpy>i\pn :N nsbn
JMnriN: ia irapn nioN .ojtp^iip Nn> n>i listen
JiinnN ia l?nv >nip hrniy Nm -pn» >a-pi d>cdd
.iniN v^iV wn riD^nn in "pin?!? UN^ >;>?>? NO^P niro o'P?}
Halakhah 1: "The Sabbatical remits any loan, etc." 5We can
understand if it is without a document. With a document it should be
treated similar to a loan on a pledge6 and not be remitted. Rebbi Johanan
said, explain it for a document from which alienation of property is
missing, following Rebbi Meir7. A case came before Rebbi Johanan of a document without alienation of property and he instructed that it was
remitted. Because we are interpreting the Mishnah, should we act on this8?
5 In the Babli, Gittin 37a, Rav and witnesses but without any written Samuel explain the Mishnah that "with document, but a loan on a correct a document" means a document with document, with the alienation clause, is the alienation clause, "without a always like a loan on a pledge and document" means either a document never remitted. The opinion of Rav without the alienation clause or an oral and Samuel is accepted as practice in loan. R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben the Babli; the reports there on the Laqish explain "with a document" as a positions of Rav and R. Johanan are not loan with a document without the totally in accordance with the alienation clause, and "without a docu- Yerushalmi. ment" as a loan executed before 6 A loan on a pledge is not 632 SHEVI'IT CHAPTER TEN remitted in the Sabbatical, as stated in proven by a valid document, and will Mishnah 2. even allow the lender to foreclose real 7 He states in Mishnah Baba estate if the borrower does not pay, we Mezi'a 1:6 that a document without an cannot consider the Mishnah here alienation clause cannot be foreclosed practice to be followed. The same in court. argument is quoted in the Babli, Gittin 8 Since we reject R. Meir's opin- 37a, referring to a case brought by R. ion and hold that the court will force Assi before R. Johanan. the borrower to pay for every loan
>-n vnyr? ù>n yp->i? to nh yp-ip to iw? an dw? Na ion^ .2-0 >3*17 njtin x>ipt)i? yjrjj? to to>3K
.optfjp ì3>n in" un to irv? Hfy mm vj?")?? to td»?
Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is only if he has no real estate9. Hence, if he has real estate it is not remitted. Rebbi Yose said, even if he has real estate it is remitted10. Rebbi Yose parallels Rav, since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav if he singled out real estate it is remitted11. They said only
"if he singled out"; therefore, if he did not single out it is not remitted.
9 Since the alienation of property expressions "singled out" and "did not clause refers only to real estate, such a single out" must be switched: "Rebbi clause in a contract with a landless Yose parallels Rav, since Rebbi Abba borrower is devoid of meaning and said in the name of Rav if he did not without legal consequences. single out real estate it is remitted. 10 He takes the Mishnah to apply They said only 'if he did not single out'; to all borrowings (except mortgaging a therefore, if he singled out it is not well-defined piece of real estate), remitted." Everybody agrees that a following Samuel and Rav in the Babli; mortgage written on a well-defined cf. Note 5. piece of real estate is no longer a debt 11 While this text appears in both owed by the borrower but a lien on the mss., in this and the next sentences the land. HALAKHAH1 633
The statement ascribed to Rav here admits irrevocable mortgages for parallels a baraita in Babli Gittin 37a which the lender obtains the right to and in content, but not in the form- all yield of the land for a fixed period, ulation, a Tosephta (8:6, speaking about usually 20 years, after which the parcel a document of hypotheke, mortgage, cf. reverts to the original owner without Note 22). {The treatment of mortgages repayment of the capital. In the Yeru- in Yerushalmi and Babli cannot be shalmi, all mortgages are redeemable.) directly compared since the Babli
->Nyj>? 12naia wpo run DN irpoi ^bij") rny "ny^D
Njnnr) .N»ari in? n^b nin N^n -»on .naia o>pa?
AN"! n^a!? iniri ipv >a-> yto -»joy ."imywia o>pD?o N£N n|}ri
.71^0 NlJN liv*)>3 n1? Nn> N> Tti "HON N>V>a NJJ>)n)0 .VTa}>WO JTJPN
.rooo n^n naia ro>N mo n!?n liy-pa -p ntv n^ rb -»on on i?aN T 7 • TT T T V • T ? ' T •• T " X T "T T "I
"If somebody established a lien on a field for his wife but then went
and sold it, if she wishes she collects from this field or she collects from
any other property.13" Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Eleazar instructed following
this baraita. The colleagues asked: Should she not collect only from the
properties that are under the lien? Rebbi Yose said to them, there are unencumbered properties14 and you say, those under the lien? The baraita [applies] if he did not say15 you shall be paid only from this. But when he said, you shall be paid only from this, she may collect only from this16.
12 Reading of the Rome ms., contract and covers the payments due missing in the Leyden ms. The word the wife in case of dissolution of the makes the text much clearer but it marriage either by divorce or by the might be an intrusion of Babylonian husband's death. A parallel baraita in style. the Babli (Gittin 41a) gives the option 13 The lien is part of the marriage both to the wife and to any lienholder, 634 SHEVI'IT CHAPTER TEN both of whom have the choice of either cannot be expected to be willing to go going after unincumbered property of through lengthy and complicated court the husband or debtor or to choose the proceedings. more complicated procedure of 14 Which the wife can take with a foreclosing the property from the minimum of legal steps. buyer, letting the buyer then sue the 15 In all these statements, "to say" seller to recover his damages. In the means "to write into the appropriate Babli, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel document." declares the original sale invalid if the 16 The piece of real estate on lienholder is the wife since women which she holds the lien.
»an ttyd>? NHN .mTD>?n r^m Vvnrfc rrjty laywjpn
.inn?n> ion niw Kin i>? >pi> >a*n ri>>"n rm:»p nj>N ion
>31 DON .^h*^ niiDjp van ,nnnin> ii>N ni^»
,!?i3>!? yi*^ ID V^P rpjrin >117 >i2N yjv
If somebody established a lien for another person on his field and then went and sold it; Rebbi Aha said, it is temporarily sold17. Rebbi Yose said, even temporarily it is not sold18. The strength of Rebbi Yose is from the following: He may induce his ox to flee; he cannot induce his field to flee19. Think about it, if [the field] was sold to a violent person20! Rebbi
Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said: Violent persons are apt to fall21.
17 In the time between the sale and lienholder is concerned. The lien- the lienholder's foreclosure, the buyer holder has only to enforce his rights is the rightful owner in all respects. vis-à-vis the debtor but does not have This is the unquestioned position of the to sue the buyer of the land. Babli. 19 This refers to the rule, not 18 Since the sale does not break otherwise quoted in the Yerushalmi, the lien, the sale is invalid as far as the and brought as a statement of fifth- HALAKHAH 1 635
generation Amora Rava (Rav Abba bar holder. Joseph bar Hama) in the Babli (Baba 20 The lienholder might be afraid Qama lib, Baba Batra 44b), that a of the consequences if he brings the mortgage on cattle is not valid, since buyer into court. the disposition of animals is outside the 21 Even if the lien is temporarily control of the lienholder. This implies unenforceable, nobody will give up his that a valid lien puts the mortgaged claim because of this. property at the disposal of the lien-
it nr) mrD)p iain? nin rmainDi >i?>rh9N nfy irton >?ri
njo .no ifc nti> wrv npi^n-) rniop
•it)? H'jti. t> Nn? rt}
It was stated: "If somebody mortgages22 a field to a woman for her
ketubah23 or a creditor for his claim and then sells it, that is sold and the
buyer should beware for himself.24" This baraita if he said to her: you
should be paid from this. They disagree if he says, you should only be
paid from this25.
22 Greek uito9f|KTi "mortgage". ketubah the sale is void since we 23 Cf. Peah Chapter 3, Note 155. cannot require a woman to sue a third 24 This baraita seems to support R. party for her rights. Aha only. In Yebamot 7:1 (fol. 8a), 25 In this case, R. Yose declares the Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel disagrees sale invalid, which does not contradict and decrees that in the case of a the baraita.
TV >5-1 >35 ^ IN njpia n&N an
•lip^l oiapj^
Rav said, if she compromised [her ketubah], even if she did not extend credit, if she extended credit even though she did not compromise. Rebbi
Hiyya stated: Unless she would compromise it and extend credit26. 636 SHEVI'IT CHAPTER TEN
26 This refers to Tosephta 8:4: "A divorcee) or the heirs (for a widow) for woman's ketubah, if she compromised it the remainder. "Extending credit" and extended credit, is subject to means that she does not insist on remission. If she compromised it but immediate payment but on payment did not extend credit, if she extended terms as if it were the repayment of a credit but did not compromise, it is not loan. The Tosephta text follows Rebbi subject to remission." "Compromised" Hiyya; Rav makes the ketubah subject means that she obtained partial pay- to remission in the Sabbatical even if ment of the ketubah and now cannot only one of the conditions is met. (In use the original ketubah document for the Babli, Gittin 18a, the position of R. the remaining claim but must produce a Hiyya is ascribed to Rav and that of new document from the husband (for a Rav to Samuel.)
-rtyj? >a~! ion ,rn>» nmfio n>vyv? oy? it? i>i?o nìdv» >1201
Nìny "lino? >1"! OW? N3 >3*1 .TlJ^TJ WNÌ3 ÌV3ÌJ1> WV) N>H TTTV
.niyjo 1ii>> >ìn*i Niny >«:? iyiinip >ììo Niny wi
.rnbp rowN-i irò iOi niyn ib in»!? >1101 b>Nin indi
Because he extends him credit a second time, is the first turned into a loan?27 Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah28. But can he require payment on New Year's Day29? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi
Zeira: About money for which he can believe him30. And since he could ask him for payment, he should be able to give him money. And here, because he should have been able to give him money and he did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan31.
27 This refers to the Mishnah, 28 This statement seems to be where R. Jehudah declares that the obvious since R. Jehudah only restricts exemption of store credit from the the exemption of store credit. But the laws of the Sabbatical only covers the reference here is to Mishnah 2, where last credit extended. it is stated that store debt incurred on HALAKHAH 1 637
New Year's Day may be subject to If the customer is creditworthy, ex- remission. While this Mishnah is tending credit is tantamount to asking anonymous, it is stated here (and in for payment and extending credit is Halakhah 2) that it also is R. Jehudah's permitted on the holiday. and refers to a customer who took food 31 The storekeeper is implicitly from the store on both days of the New asking for payment by providing the Year. For R. Jehudah this implies that food; cf. Note 36. Hence, non-payment the debt incurred the first day is automatically turns the credit into a subject to remission (at the end of the loan and the farmer has a great Sabbatical year.) incentive to ask for his money during 29 Since handling money is for- the Sabbatical. The same argument bidden on a holiday, payment cannot applies to the butcher mentioned in be asked for. Mishnah 2. 30 The prior argument is rejected.
rprivi .-I»}? is liypw >3-» .n\$>np ijni> > -n
•pvjpv >31'7 rPJiyi .rpynyn n^oia nDN^p-^s ionv >3TT
>311 •n^ >3"! no .n>>>N>a n^pis WW nsNbn-^? \y>p!?
n>y>3yja n^oia Jiogvp n>y>3vi3 Jij?pi£> nDN^rba -ijpiN
I'll n-|i> >317 13 ty in n-jv >3"!? »31 N^I .nos^js ni>N
wri iTjio -on TV "»V'N Jivn>
32Rebbi Johanan says, for ploughing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for
building. In the opinion of Rebbi Johanan, any work that stops because of
the Sabbatical. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, any work that stops in any way. Does Rebbi Yose hold with Rebbi Jehudah33; does not
Rebbi Yose say, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted, if it does not stop they are not remitted? But Rebbi Yose does not hold with Rebbi Jehudah34; while "Rebbi Jehudah says that it is not the 638 SHEVI'IT CHAPTER TEN way of a banker to give an as unless he has received a denar," he agrees that the wages of the hired man are due only at the end35.
32 This refers to the last sentence 34 This probably should read: R. in the Mishnah, where R. Yose declares Jehudah does not hold with R. Yose. that wages for an unfinished job are The statement of R. Jehudah is in remitted if not paid during the Mishnah Sebu'ot 7:5, that a banker Sabbatical. R. Johanan holds that this never can be believed if he claims to applies only if the Sabbatical is the have given change before he received cause of the interruption; R. Simeon the large coin. ben Laqish disagrees. 35 The payment is due only during 33 Does R. Yose hold that payment the Sabbatical and not subject to for work done is turned into a loan the remission since only debts incurred moment the work is finished and was before the Sabbatical must be remitted. not paid? This would parallel the The argument about store credit is not opinion of R. Jehudah about store appropriate here. credit.
-owT o \smnn_ n>T nT on mwT T n• wàa np!?>' T 5 •m S maT T n_ jin oniwn— mon nwvE'ïo! VI ow N>iri»ri"! nflapn] o?wn WN on"!
VM m rpi> nçi»rn liswçn !?*» ni>»n .vv'ovpn in Tin
Mishnah 2: If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New
Year's Day36, if the month was long it is subject to remission37, otherwise it is not subject to remission. The rapist, the seducer, the calumniator38, and all court documents are not subject to remission. If somebody gives loans on pledge39, or deposits his documents40 with the court, they are not subject to remission. HALAKHAH 2 639
36 The butcher gives away meat not subject to remission. both days of the New Year of the 38 These are all fines, and fines Sabbatical. It is forbidden to transact are never remitted. The fine for the business on the holiday; therefore, the rapist is spelled out in Deut. 22:29, the Mishnah avoids speaking about selling one for the seducer Ex. 22:16, the one meat; the meat is distributed on the for the calumniator who accuses his holiday, billed later by estimate. bride of adultery between the prelim- 37 If the month of Elul was 30 inary and actual marriages, Deut. 22:19. days, the first day of the New Year 39 The pledge is in the hand of the really was the 30th of Elul, the second lender; the loan is not a claim on day the first of Tishre. The debt another person but the borrower must incurred on the first day enters the come and redeem his pledge. Sabbatical and is subject to remission; 40 The obligation of remission of the debt of the second day is debt is one on real persons only. contracted during the Sabbatical and
.130^2 vyiin N3 ON Nil"! VO>D 12^)313 N> ")0>3 IttÌN >3") 1
wfin n?n ON l^ri Nni VBJQ "12^3 N> nym DON 2*1 ,N3 N1? N3 ON
.nviN^nmoN 121V0 T T T T T : Halakhah 2: 41Rebbi says, Nisan never was lengthened42. But did we
not state43: "If the New Moon appeared in time"? If it would appear, it did
not appear. Rav said, Tishre was never lengthened44. But did we not state45: "If the month was long"? If it would be, it never was.
41 This paragraph and the three when the New Moon was declared only following ones are from Ros Hassanah after it had been observed. In these 3:1 (fol. 58c). They are included here two months, messengers were sent to only because the two days of the New proclaim the exact dates of the Year are mentioned in the Mishnah. holidays (Ros Hassanah 1:5). [For the 42 This means that the start of details of the Tannaitic calendar, see Nisan (and Tishre) was never delayed the author's Seder Olam (Northvale, NJ, 640 SHEVI'IT CHAPTER TEN
1998), p. 268 - 269.] either 29 or 30 days. Rebbi implies 43 Mishnah Seqalim 4:5: Incense that this Mishnah is purely hypothet- was prepared in one batch for an entire ical. year, starting with the first of Nisan. 44 Babli Ros Hassanah 19b, also in Then it is stated that on the first of the name of Rav, stating a tradition Nisan, "if the New Moon appeared in going back to the days of Ezra. The time, incense was taken from the new same statement is also in Yerushalmi batch; otherwise, it was taken from the Seqalim 10:2 (fol. 39b), Sanhedrin 1:2 incense prepared the previous year." (fol. 18d). This Mishnah implies that the month of 45 In the Mishnah here. Adar preceding Nisan could have
>:n 133 "T&V oi»3 n^wa ro^ri Jii< wn>i?vtoi tJto>>?ì ii liypvy lan -ION .nu 13 i3ni> >31 >1.31? mqh nj^i-ia 13 i3ni>
>pi> >31 i33 n>33n >3*1-ay >3#l> oi»3 .713323 1? i>jdì3!3>>ii
1? !w>!?>?a 13 livpvi 131 (foi. 39c) .n3>pi> >31 naiD .>>>>?ri ai 0W3 Ni>y^ >31 .>3^31 liWNia inw7>i? >sriiji .n33>3 i>ini313»jj
31 oy>3113 >31 .»?wd i>3 noi liwNin i>3 ri© n£j?>i?Ji3 n3^ nriiN iqtpn
.>3yi»ri ov liwNi oi> >srini .n>>)y ns^i njivwi njy
46"When they sanctified the year at Usha47, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Johanan ben Baroqa led48 and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Johanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Hananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh." But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day49? Rebbi Ze'ira in the name of Rav Hisda: That year was disorganized50. What is "the first, the second"51? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year52! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day? HALAKHAH 2 641
46 Tosephta Ros Hassanah 3:11, holiday benediction as part of mal- also quoted in Yerushalmi Ros Has- khiyot-, this is the rule followed today sanah 4:6 (59c), Nedarim 6:13 (40a), as established by Rabban Simeon ben Sanhedrin 1:2 (18d); Babli Ros Has- Gamliel in the Tosephta.
sanah 32a; Sifra Emor Parasah 11(5). 49 The story contradicts the 47 When the Synhedrion was re- assertion by Rav that Elul was never 30 constituted under a Roman emperor in days because, if it is clear that Elul is the later second century. Any recollec- only 29 days one observed only one tion that Rabban Simeon could have day for the New Year at the place of had of the Synhedrion at Jabneh must the Synhedrion. have been from his childhood. 50 Something happened that made 48 He was the reader for the the Synhedrion unsure which day was musaph prayer on New Year's Day the right one; in that case, the story which consists of nine benedictions. must date to the beginning of Rabban The three first and the three last ones Simeon's presidency when his authority are those of everyday prayers; there was not yet established. This is are three additional ones proclaiming confirmed by the fact that Rabban God's Kingdom, ni'pVa, His remem- Simeon could not instruct the other bering all living creatures, niai"QT, and rabbis on which rule to follow. the shofar blowing connected with the 51 Reading with the text in Ros theophany on Mount Sinai, niiBi®, each Hassanah: wn visi |i©K-in vjo. one followed by blowing the shofar. R. 52 Rav insists that his tradition is Ismael ben R. Johanan ben Beroqa correct and that the two prayers were takes malkhiyot together with the third said in two different years. It is benediction, "sanctification of the pointed out that this contradicts the Name", and has as fourth benediction language of the Tosephta; the problem the usual holiday benediction, without remains unresolved. shofar blowing. R. Aqiba takes the
Tin>ri ,-aiy)? nti? this ov rna'y inN in imp oiip inw^j? on'^v iant .'-jinn n>n vn iajo^ >33> .nyio on oriN orriN
^ njyn nis V'ipi .oi> ov ru/vm") 642 SHEVI'IT CHAPTER TEN
JIN r\W "ijaib *tt»>ri wan v?7in nv>jn
ini .i^D? ^Ninyi nm .bN-wrb? iriw iwy?^ rn"Tyi»n
.jna iri3>
If they sanctified it before its time or after its lengthening, should I assume it was lengthened53? The verse says (Lev. 23:2) "them", you, "these are My holidays.54" Before its time is not "My holidays." Bef ore its time, the 29lh day, after its lengthening, the 32nd day. From where that one intercalates the year because of the [men of the] diaspora that set out but did not yet arrive55? The verse says (Lev. 23:2), "the Children of Israel, my holidays". Make the holidays so they can be observed by all of Israel.
Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman said, only if they had reached the river
Euphrates.
53 Since a month can only be assemblies; you have to declare them at either 29 or 30 days, New Year's Day their times), and Lev. 22:37 (These are can be only the 30th or the 31st of Elul. the holidays of the Eternal; you have to If the Synhedrion did not proclaim New declare them as holy assemblies) the Year's on the 30th of Elul, then the word "them" is written defective Dn'K so 31st is automatically sanctified; that it could also be read as Dnx "you". whether it needs a proclamation is a This is taken to imply that no holiday matter of controversy (Mishnah Ros is sacred that is not proclaimed by the Hassanah 2:8). Synhedrion. Since the Synhedrion is 54 This is explained in Babli Ros human, it is error prone. The three Hassanah 25a and Sifra Behar Para- "them - you" are explained in the Babli shah 9(3). In Lev. 23:2 (Tell the as "you, even if unintended, you, even Children of Israel and say to them, the if intentionally wrong, you, even in holidays of the Eternal, you have to error." In the Sifra, the three cases are proclaim them as holy assemblies, these "even if forced by an act of God, un- are My holidays), Lev. 22:4 (These are intended, or in error." This inter- the holidays of the Eternal, holy pretation is the basis of the Jewish HALAKHAH 2 643 computed calendar which, being based feature of any lunar-solar calendar. It on a constant mean synodal month and is included here probably because it a base line outside the Land of Israel, is refers to the same verse and appears in necessarily in error if compared with Sifra Behar Parashah 9(1). Since both astronomical computations of the the Children of Israel and God's motions of the moon. holidays are mentioned in Lev. 23:2, it
55 This argument does not belong is inferred that the holidays must be to the discussion about one or two days appropriate for all Children of Israel. of the New Year since the intercalary {The rule itself, without Scriptural month always has to precede Passover. justification, is in Babli Sanhédrin lia.)
The intercalary month is a necessary
wsHM *J3 inNi ìnwpi? na -13 rvjv >3*1 own >»>N rn NHN 13 apy? >3-1 rpi? -Hon .na 13 rnv >3-1 oy nov >3*1 op .vnipp m nn "popi* onyn
Ijnv >3"! 0W3 -im N3N >31 .15 rp> iKiN mpm Nin y? m
.wfinn VP1PD? VN
Rebbi Jacob bar Aha, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar
Pazi: If they sanctified it and afterwards the witnesses turned out to be perjured, it still is sanctified56. Rebbi Assi stayed with Rebbi Jehudah bar
Pazi and asked him: Did you hear this from your father? He said, yes.
Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Johanan: One does not cross- examine the witnesses of the New Moon.
56 The verses quoted in Note 54 than one day. The rules given here are imply that the holidays have to be implied by Mishnah Ros Hassanah 2:9; declared. Since they are defined by they are not explicit in the Babli. The the calendar months, it follows that the paragraph here is the source of Maim- months have to be declared. Since the onides, Qiddus Hahodes 2:2 (not declaration is valid even if in error, it recognized by the commentators ad is not rescinded if an error is found. In loc.) any case, the error can not be of more 644 SHEVI'IT CHAPTER TEN ini? -q n? >3-| wNia iyaiiù >iN-jf N>n n-jv >3-17 >3-> "ion
rop ^i! i-»>?n jin ni>©n 3*i ow} ninio xi OIt)?J> "an
>3-) -»jon"} nj^D vìó? n^ni mjn tin oniwn >arim .inopw? Jvyuy owl ny. .nj^n VN1^ iv^irt? Nin wyj N>n TTJV >3*1"! pT>?pi Niny iV3in> wi Nin^> iv?»? N-vyt *3->
>INI Nini ^'Nin INDI .niyn it? >ÌNIt nìhv» Ì^ONli^ >INIt NÌTI^Ì
,mT>)p miWNi mwyj irò iC?) ii>
Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah since he could ask him for payment on New Years's Day. Rebbi Abba bar Marnai, Rav Amram,
Rav Mattanah in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it58. We did state: "If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year's Day," and Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah59.
But can he require payment on New Year's Day? As Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Zeira: Since he could ask him for payment, he can believe him. And since he could believe him, he could pay him60. And here, because he could have given him but did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan61.
57 From the parallel in Makkot 1:5 can be claimed (Deut. 15:2). (fol. 31a); title missing here. Rav 59 Since it is assumed that payment Amram was a Babylonian Amora, cannot be claimed on New Year's Day probably a student of Rav Sheshet and since it cannot be given. Rav Hisda. 60 The case of the butcher cannot 58 One should assume that the loan be used to support Rav's statement; in is not remitted in the Sabbatical since practice, Rav's statement is rejected. it can never be claimed and the Sab- 61 This sentence does not belong batical law applies only to loans that here but to Mishnah 1, cf. Note 31. HALAKHAH 2 645
Hty rop Vvnn jin ni>®n n own ya >:n >a
•pa oi> D'w^w *Tjn V? l?>?riri'! .inoo^rp i>n ipynvi
N^n ION .ooy ivi l?')? vwi
npTn"! ^ rnt>03 ion in nil api>> iipnj ai li^flw
ii> ion
Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: If somebody gives a
loan to a person on condition that the Sabbatical not remit it, the
Sabbatical does not remit62, as we have stated63: "Whether he gives it
after thirty days or after ten years." Are there ten years without a
Sabbatical? Rav Huna said, Rav Nahman bar Jacob and Rav Sheshet
disagreed. One of them said, if the loan was given on a pledge64, but the
other said, if he writes him a prozbol65.
62 In the Babli (Makkot 3b), Samu- with witnesses who falsely testify that el is reported to have declared that the a debtor has promised to pay within 30 Sabbatical will remit. In the end, a fine days when in fact he is obligated to distinction is made in the wording. If pay after ten years, they are sentenced the contract reads that the debtor will to pay the present value of the debt not enforce the remission, that con- due in ten years. dition is valid. But if the contract 64 As noted in the Mishnah. In the reads that the Sabbatical should have Babli, this explanation is attributed to no influence, that would mean the later Amora Rava. abrogating a Torah law and the 65 Explained in the next Mishnah, condition is invalid. cf. Note 80. 63 Mishnah Makkot 1:2, dealing
"Hon dv qw^H) in® .»ti>n iCy ov o^y; >3ri
10N1 nTirp ai .ov iviirb Drip i-pnn nis
J13V N>n ya^n r|3V' N>ri tO nv»nyn roy yi^n ra")i? 646 SHEVI'IT CHAPTER TEN
-monti niy; va^ri toy ra-)j? unlpri nn .n^p\{>ri
Nirri oio^n? ov o^yi -ion!? wn oi>
don "p V3WD nn-ij? tyn* i? dio>
rop by i-»>ao riht ro>»o 11 rgnn a*i o*y?y 57n*i boa 13 to »3*1
ni-ji? bNV^V- .iJio>3^>? rpyuv> iynirtp
nn*)j7 into nm .nvppyn njyi yn^n row wn N!? .n\?>»Y>n ni\f>
ion? viw-!?? nv^oyri roy ya^n n?yi
ra-»E -«o>o rjns •)? oia> m?? h1? nvt) D>ao? ony^n? vv "inN^
.n\?>pv>n royj yn$n royi
It was stated: "For thirty days he will not come." What means "for
thirty days he will not come"? Samuel said, if somebody gives a loan to a
person without specifying details, he has no right to ask for payment until
after 30 days66. Rav Jehudah came and explained (Deut. 15:9): "The
Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close." Is not the Sabbatical year the
remitting year? Why does the verse say: "The Sabbatical year, the
remitting year, is close"? That you should not say, I am not permitted to
ask for payment until after 30 days; after 30 days the debt will be
remitted and I will not collect; therefore, it must say that "the Sabbatical
year, the remitting year, is close."67 Did not Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav
Amram, Rav Mattanah say in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a
loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the
Sabbatical will remit it? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael
(Deut. 15:9): "The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close." Is not the
Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does it have to say, "the
Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close"? That you should not say, all
six years long his field is before me, his vineyard is before me, but after HALAKHAH 2 647
six years the debt is remitted and I cannot collect; therefore, it has to say
"the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.68"
66 This is a statement of Tosephta claimed but the debt will be remitted. Baba Mezi'a 10:1, where however the 68 The statement of R. Ismael gives rule is qualified so that it is superseded a different explanation of the verse; by local usage if such usage is deter- therefore, the biblical character of the mined. This means that for the 30 day rule is not established and the Tosephta, the 30 day rule is rabbinic in Yerushalmi is in accordance with the character. In the Babli (Makkot 3 b), Tosephta, against the Babli. the rule is quoted by Samuel as a The argument in the baraita goes as Tannaitic statement and the biblical follows: If one gives a loan during a proof given here by R. Jehudah is regular year, even if it is not a attributed there to Rav Mattanah. mortgage the lender might recover his 67 The entire verse reads: "Guard loan from the crop of the borrower. yourself, lest there be in your heart an But in the Sabbatical, there is no unworthy thought saying, behold, the commercial crop, and when the next Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is crop grows, the debt already is re- close, and you will be badly disposed mitted. Hence, the verse speaks of any towards your needy brother and not loan given in the sixth year, and give him; when he would appeal nothing can be implied about the 30 against you to the Eternal then sin will day rule. {In Si fry Deut. #117, R. Yose be in you." The verse is taken to deal the Galilean points out that the ex- with a case where the Sabbatical will pression "the Seventh year, the re- remit without any possibility for the mitting year" is needed to show that lender to recoup his loan. The only the Seventh year is not the seventh case found is that of an unsecured loan year after a loan has been granted but given less than 30 days before the date the seventh calendar year.} of remission when repayment cannot be
>3-17 N>n -pNo >a-n 3i "v?n rmrv an .jn oyy N^ion-) nriajpTj") tJiwn
-a^n ion -PNO 648 SHEVI'IT CHAPTER TEN
"The rapist, the seducer, the calumniator38." Rav Jehudah said, Rav
[said]: This follows Rebbi Me'ir, since Rebbi Mei'r said, it depends on the one extending credit69.
69 Since the persons mentioned hold that the obligation is a civil one, a here have to pay only by order of a "loan", the payment goes to the creditor court, the question is why these cases of the loan, viz., the father, and is have to be mentioned in the Mishnah remitted in the Sabbatical. The posit- separately and are not subsumed under ion ascribed to R. Mei'r in this Mishnah the general notion of court judgments. is that the status of the obligation is The fines for the rapist and the seducer that of a loan which is not remitted in are spelled out in the Torah only for the Sabbatical. (R. Simson holds that the min, a minor. The fines have to be the position of R. Mei'r is that of the paid to the father if at the time of rabbis, that the claims to fines are not judgment and payment the girl was a remitted in the Sabbatical but that any minor, to the woman if she was an judgment for fines not collected before adult at the time of judgment. The the Sabbatical is remitted. If that were problem is, who receives the fine if she true, the position here should be was minor at the time of judgment but described as that of the rabbis.) an adult at the moment of payment. In The main differences between loan Ketubot 4:2, R. Simeon says that the and court decree is that in a forcible fines are paid as a consequence of a execution, loans are paid from the court document, the money goes to the borrower's real estate of average woman, and the obligation is not quality but court judgments covering remitted in the Sabbatical. The rabbis torts from the best quality.
.•)>y>7 n^ ten* pi rpi nvvn-^)
"And all court judgments," these are court decisions.70
70 Reading of the Rome ms: ]i*n "of judges". HALAKHAH 2 649
DD^isi »O 15 ni>)p!p7•«in >ya n>>p")> n)>)?
74[n)!?>? Ji'tyVJ r»>?-}*>3] .naia "nona? Ji'V^i n^p 72n1?*t
.n>ito>aa niiJ
This is obvious: A loan that is disputed75 is not remitted. A loan that
was disputed but is now a [confirmed] loan, is remitted76. Rebbi Jeremiah
asked: Is this also true for judgments? It is not necessary to say that a
loan that was disputed can be collected77. A disputed loan turned into a
[confirmed] loan is collected from property of average quality76.
71 Reading of the Rome ms. remitted in the Sabbatical because it Leyden and Venice: ON. cannot be collected. If judgment is 72 The last three words are only given for the lender, the judgment is a here, not in the parallel Gittin 5:1 (fol. court document which is not subject to 46c). remission. 73 From the text in Gittin; here: 76 If, after the court established mba the validity of the loan, the lender does 74 From the text in Gittin", missing not insist on immediate payment, the in the text here. loan regains its original status. 75 The debtor claims he does not 77 After a court judgment on a owe the lender. As long as the case is disputed loan, the debt can be collected not settled in court, everything is after the Sabbatical. suspended. The loan cannot be
;pnN HIS n>rp .onon by I^SN twioy "p^nn by rq.>nn
;j>nN TIN n>i}> Tl? n»!? ons onyri
."in n>a!p vniiovp ipion ;p-p onyiri
"If somebody makes a loan on a pledge", Samuel says, even on a needle78. (Deut. 15:3): "What you have on your brother you shall release;" 650 SHEVriT CHAPTER TEN that excludes your brother's [property] in your hand. "What you have on your brother you shall release," which excludes one who hands over his documents to the court79.
78 This parallels the statement of Babli disagrees in practice and rules Samuel in Babli Sebuot 43b: "If that the sum not remitted in the somebody gave a loan of 1000 tetra- Sabbatical is equal to the value of the drachmas and took as pledge the pledge. handle of a sickle, if he lost the handle 79 The last two sentences are also he lost the 1000 tetradrachmas." The in Sifri Deut. 113.
^7) vpipn^» o>-mn ip inN imp-i? :> rwon (foi. 39b) rnirn aijiav» no ty VTtfVI n* nis m o^ii n^n ttri vpjpn -137 13 i^n
Mishnah 3: A prozbol80 does not remit. This is one of the ordinances of Hillel the elder. When he saw that the people refrained from giving loans to one another and transgressed what is written in the Torah, as it is said (Deut. 15:9): "Guard yourself, lest there be in your heart an unworthy thought saying,67 etc.", he instituted the prozbol.
80 A Greek legal term, JtgoaPoX.fi, subject to remission. Hillel substituted "document recording the knocking for actual delivery a document declar- down of a lot to a purchaser", cf. Peak ing the intent of the creditor to Chapter 3, Note 120. By Mishnah 2, transfer his documents to the authority instruments of indebtedness delivered of the court without actually delivering to the court for collection are not them. HALAKHAH 3 651
->17 biap-iai .rninn in Ninv> brim?!? opp > nsbn (foi. 39c)
.rnin ->37> iniDjpo bbn pp^n^D .rrnn
Halakhah 3: From here81 they supported the notion that prozbol is from the Torah. But is prozbol from the Torah82? When Hillel instituted it, they supported it from words of the Torah.
81 The sentence just preceding the subject to remission. Mishnah, giving biblical support to the 82 Since the documents are not rule that instruments of indebtedness in delivered, prozbol cannot be biblical. the possession of the court are not
Jli->V>V? "Ï&N'I "JNJCD HPiH 13 3pJI> >37 lOin >3") "V3N
-1370 83[niYv>V)3 -1&N7 iN)p cna biann? bbn Nrp? OO>TQ7>?] bioy? tow nv^)? p"! >©i> -»on .rnin -»37 by vpno bbn) .rnin
>pN3 i>3 o>ao •> oovpro >pNa nvib^n niswri p nos? N1? !m>
DON') >ui> >37 -içn 83.[")n i^n niirn own] rnin 137 rwni i>3 o>£>to opwn rnin 137 n^ii no>«^nv> ny^a n\f»ovin ->37 nil
n^n^ri^ ny^ -^nin rising V3 V? tori ,orin37o >pTNb ruin? v? YW3 V3 ïiîdù o>at>? ooyJn ir»i.37>?
N>nv> no>)?y3 rnin rnin -»37 nWyyç tobri VV^PV ^ ->37 rrçi >357 .1^137)? nib>ai> ippa .rnin "»37 nîoii îtiù bii»rrç> .bni>i
i?>3Vn> 83[~b3] nib>3V lpp3 lDn.37)? ^PV
03W V3371V»? vn n>by w? .FDinp ipp Nb n>by ^^i^»
-inib -n»>ri .")>>r)ù nibai»n in> biD> rmnri rrçin?
03W >sni 131N7 03W ibw 1V3 -»piN nNsp? n>3wi>_bDb n>3Vii>
.nib3i»Li iboa nvôpn 652 SHEVHT CHAPTER TEN
Rebbi Huna said, I asked before Rebbi Jacob ben Aha: Following him
who says tithes [are from their words, it is understandable that Hillel
instituted prozbol. But following him who says tithes] are from the
Torah, does Hillel institute anything against the words of the Torah84?
Rebbi Yose said, from the moment that Israel was exiled to Babylonia, did
they not become free from all commandments connected with the Land,
but the remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land
from the words of the Torah [because it is an obligation of the person85]?
Rebbi Yose turned and said, (Deut. 15:2) "this is the word of the
abandonment, remit" as long as abandonment86 is followed as a word of
the Torah, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the
Land from the words of the Torah, but when abandonment is followed as
their word, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the
Land from their word. There87, they say that even one who holds that
tithes are from the Torah will hold that the Sabbatical is from their word.
As we have stated (Deut. 15:2): "this is the word of the remission, remit!"
Rebbi says, these two remissions are the Sabbatical and the Jubilee. As
long as the Jubilee is operative, the Sabbatical is from words of the Torah.
If the Jubilees are abolished, the Sabbatical is operative from their words.
When were the Jubilees abolished? (Lev. 25:10) "[All its] inhabitants.88"
In the time when its inhabitants lived on it, not when they went into exile.
If they lived on it but intermingled, the tribe of Judah in Benjamin, and
the tribe of Benjamin in Judah, I could think that the Jubilee is operative.
The verse mentions its inhabitants, "All its inhabitants;" you find that when the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh went into exile, the Jubilees were disestablished. HALAKHAH 4 653
83 The clauses in brackets are 87 Babylonia. The Babli (Git tin from the Rome ms., missing in Leyden 36a) quotes only Rebbi's statement ms., Venice and modern prints. below. The commentators of the Babli 84 The disagreement about tithes is assume that the majority of rabbis between R. Yose ben R. Hanina and R. oppose Rebbi. There seems to be no Eleazar in Halakhah 6:1 (Note 11). basis for that assumption. The sketchy "Their words" are the rabbinic institu- treatment of the subject in the Babli is tions. explained by Meiri (Magen Avot, ed. 85 While this may be the correct Last, London 1909, Chap. 15.). reason, the language is Babylonian 88 From here to the end of the rabbinic Hebrew; the insert probably is Halakhah, the argument is also in Babli a gloss that found its way into the text. Arakhin 32b and Sifra Behar Pereq In Sifry Deut. Ill, the reason given is 2(3). The verse reads: "You shall not this logical argument but the verse sanctify the fiftieth year and call free- (Deut. 15:2): "this is the word of the dom for all its inhabitants, a Jubilee it remission: every creditor remit what is shall be for you so that everybody in his hand, what he loaned to his return to his ancestral land, everybody fellow; he shall not press his fellow return to his family." "Ancestral land" because a remission was declared for is the plot given to the family in the the Eternal." Since God is Lord over original distribution after the conquest. the universe, remission is applicable It follows that there can be no Jubilee everywhere in the universe. if the distribution of land by Joshua is 86 Agricultural Sabbatical. no longer known.
>5^31 OD^ >3>f Ipi» t»Spi? ty iSW ^ :t niVtt (fol. 39b) ooj'io] nsiKV* lor^? ^iW ^ oippa^ o>3»in .ovTyn iN ion!p ^prrin
Mishnah 4: This is the essence89 of prozbol: I declare before you, judges X and Y at place Z, that I shall collect any debt due me any time I wish. The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses. 654 SHEVriT CHAPTER TEN
89 In addition, all legal formalism incorporated into the prozbol. that makes a document valid must be
.'oiii i^sn] n>>pi> >a~i ova >3*1 fiabn (f0i. 39c)
Halakhah 4: Rebbi Hizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even if they are in Rome90.
90 It is possible to write a prozbol This implies that prozbol and the on the names of judges at another related documents do not have to be place (who probably will never know deposited with any court. about the existence of this prozbol.)
IN -ion-! vwin "ID& tnis Jinn ny 'jy 19117 ow? ns >:n o^ini 15 ion VTPMpio »an -ION .n^yia «57 ooyn «prinyj >a ty
•>m roy>N (foi. 39d) ,!?i ap-iar? inn jit» .onyn iN n\?«> pn^iin
.Imtfi?» "tw^ inn ripp Nin
Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there91: If three sat in judgment and one of them died, two sign and note: Even though we are two who sign, we were three in judging. Rebbi Haggai said, our Mishnah implies this: "The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses." Does one learn court documents from prozbol? It was found stated: This about court documents was learned from the rules of prozbol.
91 In the Babli (Ketubot 22a), this Mishnah mentions only two judges and is also a statement of Rebbi Abba (in equates the signatures of judges and Babylonian Aramaic). A court usually witnesses. Since witnesses must always is composed of three judges (Mishnah be two, it follows that there is a Sanhedrin 1:1); in the opinion of the situation in which the signature of two majority of authorities, a court of two judges is valid even for those who judges is incompetent. Now the disallow a court of two judges. HALAKHAH 5 655
i»n law-} Npip pn .im^-ia ft pinis yp_-)p_ ft pi^n!?^ Vi3"ji? ft 1>n
If he has no real estate but his debtors have real estate, one writes a prozbol for him92. How is that done? Ruben owes Simeon and Levi owes Ruben. Ruben has no real estate, Levi has real estate. One writes for Simeon on the properties of Levi.
92 It is stated in Mishnaiot 6 and ymous majority holds that in a chain of Peah 3:8 that prozbol can be written debtors, only the creditor of a debtor only on the basis of real estate; the with real estate may write a prozbol possession of one square inch is but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel asserts enough. In Tosephta Sevi'it 8:9 it is that the real estate of one of the made clear that the debtor must have debtors is good for all. The real estate (to give the prozbol a status Yerushalmi here and a similar Babli similar to a mortgage which is not (Gittin 37a) follow Rabban Simeon ben remitted.) In Tosephta 8:8, the anon- Gamliel without mentioning his name.
ain n\p\y ,!7it73 nniN^ni o^ion impi? rav» (foi. 39b)
;mp-)9 "paste n^nqB nip in^ vinwjPD"! VPTi?^
Tnis !?iap-i? n^n arrio tni* v? "piYi? n^pr) .in^i Mishnah 5: A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid. Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid, postdated they are valid. If one person borrows from five, one writes a prozbol for each single [creditor]. If five persons borrow from one, he writes only one prozbol for all of them. 656 SHEVI'IT CHAPTER TEN
-inwjaDI .into jnio wny oan ->v>d o^an Im^ria :n iiaVn (foi. 39d)
•inb na»^ ->)ar? potion nin now into t?it>a
."into y*vo >330 vinweni
Halakhah 4: "A predated prozbol is valid" because he diminishes its power, but "postdated it is invalid" because he increases its power93.
"Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid" because he increases their power, but "postdated they are valid" because he diminishes their power94.
93 Since a prozbol is a declaration the debtor sells any of his real estate that all documents in the hand of the after the document has been created, creditor have to be considered as the lien is not removed. In case of delivered to the court, predating the nonpayment, the creditor can foreclose prozbol does not increase the number the parcel that was sold and let the of documents covered, but postdating buyer then try to recoup his money may increase their number. In the from the seller. Predating a document latter case, the testimony of the of indebtedness therefore might create witnesses affixed to the document a false claim to parcels sold before the would be perjured. document was executed; such a 94 As explained in Note 2, a document must be invalid. But document of indebtedness creates a postdating the document might protect lien on the real estate of the debtor. If a buyer from the creditor; this is valid.
>31 inN p Hi .lovy? odinoti I3ni> own -U pvow vi1» >>?
•)jsr» ."jn rpia invny nnj?n^> trowon wy WQÌ ^ liyjpy n^i U)?rin n* iy no* ion tn? .^if'i^ linnn Hi npK^s
.DÌ in ^»prin
Who notifies95? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi fohanan: the signatories of the document. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, HALAKHAH 5 657 they treated the statement of the signatories of a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined by the court96? There97, it is about those who would say: We did not sign at all. But here they say, on this we signed, on that we did not sign.
95 Who may inform that a prozbol document if genuinness of the signature or document is pre- or postdated? The of the witness is established from Rome ms. reads mis which might be another source. [The statement of R. the more correct form. Simeon ben Laqish is discussed, in the 96 Since in Jewish law, a witness same sense, in Babli Ketubot 18b, Git tin may not change his testimony without 3a.] disqualifying himself, a witness to a 97 The rule of R. Simeon ben document is not admitted to testify to Laqish only applies if the authenticity the falsity of the document unless he of the document is in question. But for admits to perjury. Hence, testimony the prozbol they could assert that they that a prozbol was predated or a signed for the fact of the prozbol but financial document postdated can never not the date. be given by any witness to the
n!?N n?in -WON -pypv* >a-t .WJSJO *V?N >3-1
nain ii>N"j iniNO v? o^in V3 ^rim ansn nyvyp
.-ioyj pa no pi np jmoyia p tin on .iron n^n
Rebbi Johanan said, they are really invalid98. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he only counts from the time of writing. But did we not state: "A prozbol is valid, whether predated or postdated, but it only counts from the time of writing"? If you assert this for financial documents, what is the difference between a prozbol and a financial document99?
98 Predated documents of indebt- 99 Since the Mishnah stated that edness. the rules of prozbol and debt docu- 658 SHEVI'IT CHAPTER TEN ments are opposites, it is impossible to for debt documents and probably also accept R. Simeon ben Laqish's position the baraita quoted.
>3*11 rrjV '3*1 .n.^Jia 31J13 "lO^
>JN iti "ION .nn-j^DO"! nis^? NI ntyyo >?*•> it? -ION .^oia
DWO !7i03 -)N)p »ya pin >rn\ibn DN"!
.«ivn own !71os -ion1? vop orTi?io own ion? "inoi .-iniNp
"A document dated on a Sabbath or on the Tenth of Tishre, Rebbi
Jehudah declares it valid and Rebbi Yose invalid. Rebbi Jehudah said to him, a case came before you in Sepphoris and you declared it valid. He said to him, I did not declare it valid, but if I did it, I did it.100" They wanted to say that he who holds it invalid [does so] because it101 might be later, and he who holds it valid [does so] because it might be earlier102; but he who holds it invalid [does so] because it might be forged103.
100 Tosephta Makkot 1:3, a slightly forbids this emendation.] different version Babli Baba Batra 102 And the document would be 171a. The date normally is written by postdated. the day of the month; if one checks one 103 R. Yose also will agree that a may find that the date given fell on a document dated on a Sabbath or Day of Sabbath. In the case of the Day of Atonement, if genuine, probably is Atonement, one must assume that the postdated and valid. He only states date is given in terms of a Gentile that the impossible date is prima facie calendar. evidence to declare the document 101 The writing of the document, forged, but he is open to proof that the which makes the document predated. document is genuine. This explains his [The commentators all switch "later" equanimity when confronted with an and "earlier" in this statement, to adapt apparent contradiction between his the language to that of the Mishnah. action and his formal statement. He But the testimony of the two mss. will hold the document forged unless HALAKHAH 6 659 presented with evidence to the agreement with the statement of R. contrary. (The different interpretation Jehudah.) of the Babli does not explain R. Yose's
Kin nDip to i>N ON Vj?"ji?n ty M^ biapn? "panto :) nwa (foi. 39b)
n>}y "^V? riJDyiino rn'y to iwn .nid^s irny rjiJia
>pD3 l>)3in>>l .in^N >PD3 ^ D7N> Jl>£)inn >•!-)
Mishnah 6: One writes prozbol only on the basis of real estate. If he104 has none, [the other party] gives him the right to a minute area of their field. If he had a field mortgaged105 in town, one writes a prozbol on it. Rebbi Huzpit says, one writes for a man on his wife's properties106 and for orphans on those of the guardians107.
104 It was shown in Note 92 that 107 Greek eiutqojioc; "guardian, one of his debtors must have real estate attorney". In the opinion of the Babli for a creditor's prozbol. (Gittin 37a), documented claims of 105 Even if the loan is paid back in minor orphans are always under the instalments, that for a fixed number of supervision of the court, have the status terms the creditor works the field and of court documents, and do not need takes all its yield, it remains the prozbol. The Babli is therefore obliged property of the debtor. to interpret the Mishnah as speaking of 106 Even if this is separate property, debts incurred by the guardians for the not dowry which becomes the hus- living expenses of the orphans. This band's property for the duration of the does not seem to be the position of the marriage. Yerushalmi. 660 SHEVl'IT CHAPTER TEN
(foi. 39d)-i£N ijnv .rrj>>!» ni>«> ypli? Nri»y »orr) ->0N a*i > na^ii
Vir\p. ft VN .n)!pn> y9 ^ in n)>> by in
n^n ib ai ova ni >a-i .bian-i? ib pijpis
Vaiio^n") ppnNri") pimwn ^rini .than-»? ib vaapis vny rpn-i this mn ndh dia Nin jiisjiw ty n^i nbfrbs ipri m>?N .biatfia i^b vn
Halakhah 6: Rav said, only if both lender and borrower have real
estate. But Rebbi Johanan says, if the creditor does but not the
borrower108, or the borrower but not the lender109. If he has no real
estate but one who owes him110 has real estate then one writes him a
prozbol. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Even if he has only one stalk
in a field, one writes him a prozbol. But did we not state: Partners,
sharecroppers, and guardians111 have no prozbol? They say, there each
single stalk is property of the partnership but here it is his.
108 Then the lender can give a for whom the prozbol will be used, cf. borrower a stalk in his field and write Note 92. the prozbol. Ill Neither of them is the sole 109 This is the original institution of owner of the property administered by prozbol. him. 110 Only one of the many debtors
by vajpto Nin p v»in> by paiio^b airpb in»
PI iqrj ip n^ya >pD? by airpb ir»o .iiivw >?D3
by
May one write for a guardian based on the orphans' real estate? Let us
hear it from the following: "One writes for a husband on his wife's properties112". May one write for a woman on her husband's prop HALAKHAH 7 661 erties113? Let us hear it from the following: "And for orphans on those of the guardians".
112 The standard case that the the landless orphans, then the Mishnah husband administers his wife's separate permits a prozbol purely on the basis property is parallel to the guardians of his being trustee for others as well administering the orphans' properties. as property owner for himself. 113 This must refer to a case where Similarly, we should admit the the wife gives up her right to be sup- possibility of prozbol simply by the ported by her husband for the right to marriage of the lender to a property earn her own separate money. If the owner. guardian administers the property of
nr) npiN ^ .onm im? :? mvn (foi. 39b) ni^i mpo niiim .npipjpi nNpio n^apjo n}>Nl rp>y pistol
•»niK iin -inn»n .-»109 nava n^jp niiim .nntppi nNpro
-137 nil w)3>n 15 ty IN ib mqh ON vmr? ib
.nv>>>pviri
Mishnah 7: A bee hive. Rebbi Eliezer says, it is like real estate: one may write a prozbol on it, it is not subject to impurity in its place114, and somebody who takes honey from it on the Sabbath is guilty115. But the
Sages say, it is not like real estate, one may not write a prozbol on it, it is subject to impurity in its place, and somebody who takes honey from it on the Sabbath is not sanctionable116. 662 SHEVriT CHAPTER TEN
If somebody returns a debt in the Sabbatical, he [the lender] says to him: "I am remitting." If he [the borrower] says "anyway", he [the lender] should accept it, for it is said (Deut. 15:2): "This is the word of remission117".
114 No real estate and nothing per- action since no biblical Sabbath manently connected to the ground can prohibition has been violated. The become impure. first part of the Mishnah is also in 115 Removing food from the ground Uqezin 3:10. is the definition of harvesting. 117 Once the word "remission" has 116 While it is not permitted out- been uttered, duty has been fulfilled. right, there is no punishment for the
-liV^if ^"H n>?V\? «pp^ PVJ?V> oyia imN >51 :? nabn (foi. 39d)
NJ)3 .rO>P vm no .wa^r mrp -^»n bN oy
\y17n nniN tm\p»i -ion tow .W17 p>an
firiiN i? rm? ny^ \w>p!? 12 "pypvy owa yia >51
.wmn T S ~ Halakhah 7: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish:
The reason of Rebbi Eliezer (IS. 14:26): "The people came to the forest and behold, there was a flow of honey." What do you understand from this? Rebbi Mana said, the thicket produced honey. If he had said from
(IS. 14:27): "He dipped it into the forest of honey", it would have been better. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He really understood it from (IS. 14:27): "He dipped it into the forest of honey118."
118 Since both 1»' "forest, bush based on the root "to have a rough country" and msr "honeycomb" are surface", the words are identified. HALAKHAH 7 663
rwrpa dn N>nv> ""rin n iqf^ Vi?">i?> rtllinpa on v>3»j? ^ no
nroio5 v>?ri2 ^ Njajriw im>ri> ^
btatris piriis ny^ N-yyt D0N7 »3 n»jin] .yp_-yp_ >33 ty
IN DON N7N -13 N>>n >3") .mx>3 ty r))?ip)? ty) "I«*! ty iOip)? ty
.-o inipp
Where do we hold119? If it is connected to the ground, everybody
agrees that it belongs to the ground. If it is on two bars, everybody agrees
that it is not like ground. But where we hold is if it rests on the
ground120. It compares to what Rebbi Zei'ra said in the name of Rebbi
Jeremiah: One writes a prozbol on the space for an oven, also on the
space for a hearth121. Rebbi Hiyya bar Ada said, also on the space for a
lamp.
119 What is the disagreement bet- clay vessels that sit on the ground with- ween R. Eliezer and the Sages? out being fastened. The Babli (Gittin 120 The beehive sits on the ground 37a) notes that the statement is needed but is not fastened to it. only if the ground on which the oven 121 Oven and hearth are movable sits is rented, not owned.
i3>N J13 .rntD >>H>3l YO^ .D>ODni Jlp^OlP 1? J133 «)N
.iwri >im>>
Is it also the same for the space for bread, is that the disagreement between Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages? Honey is a product of the bee hive, bread is not a product of the oven122.
122 This refers to the statement that generally accepted that on the Sabbath for Rebbi Eliezer, taking honey from one may take bread from the oven if it the bee hive on the Sabbath is a was fully baked before the Sabbath. desecration of the Sabbath. It is The question is, does Rebbi Eliezer 664 SHEVI'IT CHAPTER TEN
agree or does he disagree and for some that taking out the bread is not har- reason his dissent was not considered in vesting, the rules of the Sabbath? He agrees
ai .i3)i>>n nnii o>pDn ryn on oo^>o ib -ipiN) n^iya *>nnon
noiwa vw! na-j naya "»on N^n
If somebody repays a debt in the Sabbatical even though he [the lender]
says to him: "I am remitting," the Sages are pleased with him. Rav Huna
said, he says it in a soft voice and his right hand is stretched out to
receive.
-pyn ran-) *vy> n!?^ rui-i ii nsv? :h row» (foi. 39b)
.nimn "137 71^ 1? ^ IN to ^ON ruin in1? "»ON1»
Mishnah 8: Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them: I am a
homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept it, for it is said (Deut.
19:4): "This is the word of a homicide."
Nirn n^?>o N*in >3jn ">3 rnpN N7n >oi> >3*1 ion :n Twin (foi. 39d) n!??>o Nin NW io>o »rnri n>> "p^N") -mN> ^
.DDn N3N - T -: Halakhah 8: Rebbi Yose said, this means that if a person who knows one collection123 goes to a place and they honor him for two, he has to tell them: "I know one collection." HALAKHAH 9 665
123 He has memorized and under- statements (usually in the feminine, stands one collection of Tannatitic xnVoa). T I * I
V? rn^n ,i3)3>n nnù D'ODO nn rpyuyja nin o row» (foi. 3%)
.i3»>n nnù D>ODD nn -innn O>O VIII? mn> VN NAN T • T "J - ' VI r • « T T S ' -! - • T T i •• -
Mishnah 9: If somebody repays a debt in the Sabbatical, the Sages are pleased with him. If somebody borrows from a convert whose sons converted with him, he does not have to repay the sons but if he repaid, the Sages are pleased with him124. Movables are acquired only by being drawn close, but the Sages are pleased with everybody who keeps his word125.
124 This is the text in all Mishnah Gerondi in his commentary to Alfassi mss., whether Palestinian, Babylonian, (Qiddusin #596): Since a convert is or Maimonidean traditions. However, like a newborn for Jewish law, the the Babli (Qiddusin 17b/18a) quotes children converting with him are not the Mishnah in the form "the Sages are legally his Jewish children and the law displeased with him," and the text here, will not force the debtor to pay after "the Sages are pleased with him," is the lender's death. However, the given only as a baraita. The meaning children are his own children and not of the distinctions made in the Babli is to pay the sons after their father's not clear; therefore, Maimonides omits death is reprehensible. If the convert the rule in his Code. The only coherent has children after his conversion, they explanation of the Mishnah is that are his Jewish children and all laws of given by Rabbi Isaac in Tosaphot inheritance apply. The only problem CQiddusin 18a, s. v. ]K3) and R. Nissim 666 SHEVI'IT CHAPTER TEN arises if his pregnant wife converted a formal divorce. The Ycrushalmi does with him. The Babli notes that in such not consider this unlikely case. {The a case, the Sages are displeased with Sulhan Arukh, Hosen Mispat §127(2) any repayment to the child born after decides otherwise, following what is conversion. The reason given by the reported in the name of Rashi.) commentators is that the child is 125 The rules of acquisition are Jewish by birth; if the laws of inher- spelled out in Mishnah Qiddusin 1:5. itance did apply one would conclude The rule is that by rabbinic decree, that the child is legally a relative of his transfer of movable property can be father and his older siblings. But the accomplished only by actual or sym- fact is that a Gentile father never can bolic possession. This means that if the have a legal relationship with his child buyer pays before he takes possession, by a Jewish mother. For example, if a the seller is legally free to return the Jewish man marries his late father's money and sell the goods to a higher other wife, this relationship is incest- bidder. However, doing so is morally uous and the marriage is non-existent; reprehensible and the tricked buyer the woman can marry another man may ask the court to declare (Mishnah without a divorce. But if the child Baba Mezi'a 4:2): "He Who made the conceived as a Gentile would marry generation of the Deluge and the one of his late father's wives other generation of the Tower of Babylon than his mother, while the marriage is pay, He will make him pay who does not tolerated it is valid and would need not stand by his word."
*T3>ai ÌD& ^PV -V31!? ">>?N (fol. 39d) .vriiia!? 0^3 to vn ON o>n to w> ON
«LI© >>? to NSV? im!? -inr£ rnin 127 -on JIVM-P ^NIN -IONJI nnii O>»DD NN -INORI ONI -TNR)? Ì»N N^N VNV to inoSH^
Halakhah 9: Rebbi Eleazar said, only to his sons. Rebbi Yose asked, what means "only to his sons?" If he has sons, one should return it to his sons. If he has no sons, one should return it to his daughters. That you HALAKHAH 9 667
should not say, since the inheritance of the convert is not settled in the
Torah126, he should return it to the children. Similarly, if somebody died
who was the last of his family and he has no heir127 except his mother
one does not have to repay, but if the debtor repaid the Sages are pleased
with him.
126 The laws of inheritance in Num. distributed.] In the absence of children, 27:6-11 appoint the sons as heirs; the father's family inherits in ascending daughters are to inherit only if there and descending order; the mother's are no sons. [However, by rabbinic family never inherits, decree unmarried daughters may claim 127 No relative on his father's side a dowry before the inheritance can be can be found after diligent search.
on VN ^a&PO n^sao wi?^ naws
.W)ipr) nnii O>ODO
128The robber who repents and wants to return what he robbed, if
somebody accepts it from him, the Sages are displeased with him.
128 Tosephta 8:11 and Babli Baba robbers and lenders who have no Qama 94d, speaking of "the robber or income whatsoever except robbery and one who lends on interest." The Babli interest, and probably refers only to restricts the advice only to those Rebbi's time.
on vn row on^-ja irriirn MwiJO l?nv »an owa n»n nn
.jnay H^t*. iniN vipio ")>N D?N jptq •pjipn') .isgpn nnii O>)?DD
Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Johanan: If somebody trades in promises129, there you say the Sages are displeased with him. But sometimes you say only130 that one gives him up to "Him who made pay125". 668 HALAKHAH 4
129 Nothing has been written, no mind) and Yerushalmi Baba Mezi'a money has yet changed hands, no act of 4:3,4 (fol. 9c-d). acquisition has been performed. {The 130 "Only" must be a scribal error text here follows the Rome ms., the since the curse by the court is more of Leyden ms. and Venice print have |"jn a punishment than the displeasure of mx nxi] Parallels are in Tosephta the Sages. The case here applies when Baba Mezi'a 3:14 (quoted in Babli Baba money has changed hands but no act of Mezi'a 49a, where Rav disagrees and acquisition has taken place. holds that one is free to change his
wp'ai i*var£ nyao yavy iriiirj ")inv >3-1 oyn inaN >a-> nyM >3*1
.Jiyao rp> ion nn^ iniN >3-1 >»ip Nyi N-pyi >a-> ,i3 inn ia
,N>n rO»ya ni3:n\pn> ia-n ain^ .JIÌ>3\? V3 noi iin^
Rebbi Zeira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Johanan: He who gives a ring as surety and wants to get out of the deal, may get out of the deal131. Rebbi Zeira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: A gold coin? He said to him, a ring. What is the difference between a gold coin and a ring?
Gold coins are exchanged132, a ring remains as it is.
131 Since the ring is a deposit, pledge as an act of acquisition. taking the ring is not an act of 132 If payment is made, the depos- acquisition. The Babli (Baba Mezi'a itor can reclaim only a gold coin of the 48b) disagrees and considers taking a same value, not the identical piece. wpn1» vvan^ DOTO -|rp> ION ijnv 0W3 ina* >3-1 mi -13 api» >3*1
inn pp> mi ->a apy> oy >oi> »an op .ia -Kin is -»itr£
-r? don 2-17 p>? a*i .rpn pi* ty vn "donv* nyya ion pi* vol P73 ni ìy ,>a iin v) *n!p rono in»!? >rpa >?a> ->SN K^
n^N^ i^na ÌN D'airi nwna DD>w)pa v?p? V>o>o)3n 11m >r»pn< iN nap iDion mvna vty !?a>py> •))>? npi!?n nwm HALAKHAH 9 669
N^ DH^aio T)\ o>»an nivno TIN nsvi
IN? *T3V nio .lpip)? n^t to nrpty»^ iN ID? "TV nsj?
DON HM 7? D?N IT] 3-1 i"P)?>>0 N "|N3 i»V i*T>)pJ|DV? ftryj? *pp3N m 13 *rn t> "»in roto rgnn irito >JV3 >?3> in i3i3*)>>»-b3 nis to iri> iN nto 3i >3j> njin .nnp'i nn>>» ^ i^n ion t? don Nin "|>3ri .317 rprio'W nai»on >)?> to "riw??
JH>>o!p "1)315 .VDn DON Nin NDT .>3 -|*n Djto 13> D3310 ^flto >JV3 >33>
.nvppn m>)p> vn? 3*17 njoi Nin vin
Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Johanan:
If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind133. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi
Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) "and just yes?134" He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since
Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind135. A baraita disagrees with Rav: "136Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted137; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner's property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him." What does Rav do with this138? One is if he was standing with him139, the other if he was not standing with him.
Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt140; it rose in price. He came before Rav who 670 HALAKHAH 4 said, either he should give corresponding to the surety141 or he should be given up to "Him who made pay". The arguments of Rav are contra- dictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so142? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.
133 Also in Ma'ser Seni 4:7 (fol. mind since there was no acquisition 55b), Baba Mezi'a 4:2 (fol. 9c-d), Babli and no money given? Baba Mezi'a 49a. In the Babli, the 139 In this provisional answer, it is statement is restricted to large gifts. only asserted that the promise of a gift 134 This cryptic statement is to another person is binding. But the explained in Sifra Qedosim Pereq 8(7), question remains, why should it be Babli Baba Mezi'a 49a: "Why does the binding if there was no acquisition, verse mention 'a just epha and a just which could only be effected by hin"! Is not a hin a part of an epha, removing the gift from the donor's how can one have correct measures for property? one and not the other? One takes 140 In the Babli, Baba Mezi'a 48b, biblical hin as rabbinic hen 'yes'. That the story is told of R. Hiyya bar Josef, your yes should be a yes and your no a who appeared before R. Johanan. no, the same in your mind and your 141 In the Babli, loc. r.it., Rav holds mouth." that a surety gives a claim for the 135 This is taken as a legal state- value of the surety while R. Johanan ment; at the end it will be accepted as holds that a surety establishes a claim a moral precept only. for the entire lot in question. The 136 Tosephta Qiddusin 1:8, Baba version of the story here implies that Batra 5:2; Yerushalmi Qiddusin 1:4 (fol. Rav was the judge. 60b), Gittin 8:1 (fol. 49b); Babli Baba 142 For his own gifts he establishes Batra 85a. the rule that a gift is unchangeable, for 137 Things deposited on a persons's commercial transactions he says that real estate are his property as soon as they are reversible, even if that would he has the right to them. be morally wrong. 138 Why should he not change his