## Gittin Daf 36b

###### Gittin 36b:1
[Gittin 36b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:1)

וְתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן דִּתְשַׁמֵּט, זֵכֶר לַשְּׁבִיעִית; רָאָה הִלֵּל שֶׁנִּמְנְעוּ הָעָם מִלְּהַלְווֹת זֶה אֶת זֶה, עָמַד וְהִתְקִין פְּרוֹסְבּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Sages instituted that** despite this, the Sabbatical Year still **will abrogate** debt in the present, in **remembrance of the** Torah-mandated **Sabbatical** Year. **Hillel saw that** the people of **the nation refrained from lending to each other** so **he arose and instituted** the ***prosbol*.** According to this explanation, the ordinance of Hillel did not conflict with a Torah law; rather, he added an ordinance to counter the effect of a rabbinic law.


###### Gittin 36b:2
[Gittin 36b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:2)

וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא מְשַׁמְּטָא שְׁבִיעִית, וְתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן דִּתְשַׁמֵּט?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to this explanation, the Sages instituted that even in the present the Sabbatical Year would bring a cancellation of debt, despite the fact that by Torah law the debt still stands. The Gemara asks: **But is there anything** like this, **where by Torah law the Sabbatical** Year **does not cancel** the debt, **and the Sages instituted that it will cancel?** It is as though the Sages are instructing the debtors to steal from their creditors, as by Torah law they still owe the money.


###### Gittin 36b:3
[Gittin 36b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:3)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שֵׁב וְאַל תַּעֲשֶׂה הוּא. רָבָא אָמַר: הֶפְקֵר בֵּית דִּין – הֶפְקֵר. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן שֶׁהֶפְקֵר בֵּית דִּין – הֶפְקֵר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָבוֹא לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת הַיָּמִים כַּעֲצַת הַשָּׂרִים וְהַזְּקֵנִים, יׇחֳרַם כׇּל רְכוּשׁוֹ וְהוּא יִבָּדֵל מִקְּהַל הַגּוֹלָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says:** This is not actual theft; **it is** an instruction to **sit** passively **and not do** anything. The Sages have the authority to instruct one to passively violate a Torah law, so long as no action is taken. **Rava says:** The Sages are able to institute this ordinance because **property** declared **ownerless** by **the court** is **ownerless. As Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From where** is it derived **that property** declared **ownerless** by **the court** is **ownerless? As it is stated: “And whoever did not come within three days according to the counsel of the princes and the Elders, all of his property shall be forfeited, and he shall be separated from the congregation of the captivity”** (Ezra 10:8).


###### Gittin 36b:4
[Gittin 36b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:4)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״אֵלֶּה הַנְּחָלוֹת אֲשֶׁר נִחֲלוּ אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן וְרָאשֵׁי הָאָבוֹת וְגוֹ׳״. וְכִי מָה עִנְיַן רָאשִׁים אֵצֶל אָבוֹת? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה אָבוֹת מַנְחִילִין אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם כֹּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ, אַף רָאשִׁים מַנְחִילִין הָעָם כֹּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer said:** The *halakha* that property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless is derived **from here:** The verse states: **“These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers’ houses** of the tribes of the children of Israel **distributed for inheritance”** (Joshua 19:51). The Gemara asks: **What do the heads have to do with the fathers?** It comes **to tell you: Just as fathers transmit anything that they wish to their children, so too, heads** of the nation **transmit to the people anything that they wish.** This demonstrates that the court has the authority to take property from one person and to give it to another; therefore, the Sages have the authority to decide that all debts are canceled.


###### Gittin 36b:5
[Gittin 36b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:5)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כִּי הִתְקִין הִלֵּל פְּרוֹסְבּוּל – לְדָרֵיהּ הוּא דְּתַקֵּין, אוֹ דִלְמָא לְדָרֵי עָלְמָא נָמֵי תַּקֵּין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **When Hillel instituted** the ***prosbol*,** was it **for his generation** alone **that he instituted** it, and the custom developed to continue using it, **or** did he **perhaps institute** it **also for all generations?**


###### Gittin 36b:6
[Gittin 36b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:6)

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְבַטּוֹלֵיהּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְדָרֵיהּ הוּא דְּתַקֵּין – מְבַטְּלִינַן לֵיהּ; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְדָרֵי עָלְמָא נָמֵי תַּקֵּין, הָא אֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵּית דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן גָּדוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ בְּחׇכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן. מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What difference is there** whether it was instituted for his generation only or for all generations when either way, it is still in use? The Gemara explains: The difference arises with regard **to nullifying** the institution of *prosbol*. **If you say** that it was **for his generation** alone **that he instituted** it, then **we can nullify it** if we desire. **But if you say** that **he instituted** it **also for all generations,** then there is a principle that **a court can nullify the action of another court only if it is greater than it in wisdom and in number.** Therefore, we would not be able to nullify the ordinance instituted by Hillel and his court. **What,** then, is the *halakha*?


###### Gittin 36b:7
[Gittin 36b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא כָּתְבִינַן פְּרוֹסְבּוּל אֶלָּא אִי בְּבֵי דִינָא דְּסוּרָא אִי בְּבֵי דִינָא דִּנְהַרְדְּעָא. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לְדָרֵי עָלְמָא נָמֵי תַּקֵּין, בִּשְׁאָר בֵּי דִינָא נָמֵי לִכְתְּבוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests a resolution to the dilemma: **Come** and **hear that** which **Shmuel said: We write a *prosbol* only in the court of Sura or in the court of Neharde’a,** as they were the primary centers of Torah study, but not in any other court. **And if it enters your mind** to say that **he instituted** it **also for all generations,** then **let them write a *prosbol* in the other courts as well.**


###### Gittin 36b:8
[Gittin 36b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:8)

דִּלְמָא כִּי תַּקֵּין הִלֵּל לְדָרֵי עָלְמָא – כְּגוֹן בֵּי דִינָא דִּידֵיהּ, וּכְרַב אַמֵּי וְרַב אַסִּי, דְּאַלִּימֵי לְאַפְקוֹעֵי מָמוֹנָא; אֲבָל לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **Perhaps when Hillel instituted** the *prosbol*, he did so **for all generations,** but only for courts **such as his court,** which was the primary court of his time, **and** courts **like** those of **Rav Ami and Rav Asi, as they have the power to remove money** from someone’s possession. **However, for all** other courts, which are not as authoritative, he did **not** institute this ordinance. Therefore, the statement of Shmuel cannot serve as a proof with regard to the manner in which the *prosbol* was instituted.


###### Gittin 36b:9
[Gittin 36b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָא פְּרוֹסְבֻּלָא – עוּלְבָּנָא דְּדַיָּינֵי הוּא; אִי אֲיַישַּׁר חַיִל אֲבַטְּלִינֵּיהּ. אֲבַטְּלִינֵּיהּ?! וְהָא אֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵּית דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן גָּדוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם אֲיַישֵּׁר חַיִל יוֹתֵר מֵהִלֵּל, אֲבַטְּלִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof: **Come** and **hear that** which **Shmuel said: This *prosbol* is an *ulbena* of the judges; if my strength increases I will nullify it.** The Gemara challenges this statement: How could Shmuel say: **I will nullify it? But isn’t** it the case that **a court can nullify the action of another court only if it is greater than it in wisdom and in number?** It must be that Shmuel holds that Hillel did not establish the *prosbol* for all generations, and in his time it carried the force of a mere custom. The Gemara rejects this proof: It can be explained that **this is what he said: If my strength increases** so that I become **greater than Hillel,** then **I will nullify** the *prosbol*.


###### Gittin 36b:10
[Gittin 36b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:10)

וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אֲקַיְּימִנֵּהּ. אֲקַיְּימִנֵּהּ?! הָא מִיקַּיַּים וְקָאֵי! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵימָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא כָּתוּב כְּכָתוּב דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **Rav Naḥman said:** If my strength increases, **I will uphold** the institution of the *prosbol*. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: **I will uphold it? Isn’t** it **upheld and standing?** Why does the *prosbol* require further support? The Gemara explains: **This is what he said:** If my strength increases, **I will say something about it,** and I will institute **that even though** the *prosbol* **was not written, it is considered as though it was written.** Then people would no longer need to write a *prosbol*, as it would be considered as if everyone wrote one.


###### Gittin 36b:11
[Gittin 36b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:11)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הַאי עוּלְבָּנָא – לִישָּׁנָא דְחוּצְפָּא הוּא, אוֹ לִישָּׁנָא דְנִיחוּתָא הוּא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: עֲלוּבָה כַּלָּה שֶׁזִּינְּתָה בְּקֶרֶב חוּפָּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **This *ulbena*** of the judges that Shmuel speaks of, is it **a term of insolence,** in that the judges are, according to Shmuel, enabling lenders to insolently collect debts that are not due to them, **or a term of convenience,** in that the judges are saving themselves the inconvenience of having to actually collect the debts detailed in the promissory notes? The Gemara suggests a proof: **Come** and **hear that** which **Ulla said** in describing the Jewish people after they sinned with the Golden Calf immediately following the revelation at Sinai: **Insolent [*aluva*] is the bride who is promiscuous under her wedding canopy.**


###### Gittin 36b:12
[Gittin 36b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:12)

אָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרַהּ דְּבַת שְׁמוּאֵל: מַאי קְרָא? ״עַד שֶׁהַמֶּלֶךְ בִּמְסִבּוֹ נִרְדִּי נָתַן רֵיחוֹ״. אָמַר רָבָא: עֲדַיִין חַבִּיבוּתָא הוּא גַּבַּן, דִּכְתִיב ״נָתַן״, וְלָא כְּתִיב ״הִסְרִיחַ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mari, son of Shmuel’s daughter, says: What is the verse** from which it is derived? **“While the king sat at his table, my spikenard sent forth its fragrance”** (Song of Songs 1:12). He understands the verse in the following manner: While the king was still involved in his celebration, i.e., God had just given the Torah, the perfume of the Jewish people gave off an unpleasant odor, i.e., they sinned with the Golden Calf. **Rava says:** Nevertheless, it is apparent from the verse that **the affection** of God **is still upon us, as it is written** euphemistically as **“sent forth** its fragrance” **and** the verse **is not written: It reeked.**


###### Gittin 36b:13
[Gittin 36b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:13)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַנֶּעֱלָבִין וְאֵינָן עוֹלְבִים, שׁוֹמְעִין חֶרְפָּתָן וְאֵין מְשִׁיבִין, עוֹשִׂין מֵאַהֲבָה וּשְׂמֵחִין בְּיִסּוּרִין, עֲלֵיהֶן הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״וְאוֹהֲבָיו כְּצֵאת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בִּגְבוּרָתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues discussing the meaning of the word *ulbena*. **The Sages taught: Those who are insulted [*ne’elavin*] but do not insult** others, **who hear their shame but do not respond, who act out of love and are joyful in** their **suffering, about them the verse states: “And they that love Him are as the sun going forth in its might”** (Judges 5:31).


###### Gittin 36b:14
[Gittin 36b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/36b:14)

מַאי ״פְּרוֹסְבּוּל״? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: פְּרוֹס בּוּלֵי וּבוּטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of the word ***prosbol*? Rav Ḥisda said: An ordinance [*pros*] of *bulei* and *butei*.**