## Gittin Daf 37a

###### Gittin 37a:1
[Gittin 37a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:1)

בּוּלֵי – אֵלּוּ עֲשִׁירִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁבַרְתִּי אֶת גְּאוֹן עוּזְּכֶם״, וְתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵלּוּ בּוּלָאוֹת שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה. בּוּטֵי – אֵלּוּ הָעֲנִיִּים, דִּכְתִיב: ״הַעֲבֵט תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְלָעוֹזָא: מַאי פְּרוֹסְבּוּל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוּרְסָא דְמִילְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
***Bulei*, these are** the **wealthy, as it is written: “And I will break the pride of your power”** (Leviticus 26:19), **and Rav Yosef taught** with regard to this verse: **These are the *bula’ot*,** the wealthy people, **of Judea. *Butei*, these are the poor,** who are in need of a loan, **as it is written:** “You shall not shut your hand from your needy brother; but you shall open your hand to him, and **you shall lend him [*ha’avet ta’avitenu*]** sufficient for his need” (Deuteronomy 15:7–8). Therefore, the *prosbol* was instituted both for the sake of the wealthy, so that the loans they would give to the poor person would not be canceled, and for the sake of the poor, so that they would continue to find those willing to lend them money. **Rava said to a foreigner** who spoke Greek: **What** is the meaning of the word ***prosbol*? He said to him:** It means the **institution [*pursa*] of a matter.**


###### Gittin 37a:2
[Gittin 37a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:2)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: יְתוֹמִין, אֵין צְרִיכִין פְּרוֹסְבּוּל. וְכֵן תָּנֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: יְתוֹמִין אֵין צְרִיכִין פְּרוֹסְבּוּל, דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּבֵית דִּינוֹ אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁל יְתוֹמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: Orphans do not require a *prosbol*** in order to collect payment of debts owed to them. **And similarly, Rami bar Ḥama taught** in a *baraita*: **Orphans do not require a *prosbol*, as Rabban Gamliel and his court,** i.e., any rabbinic court, are considered **the fathers of orphans,** meaning that all matters that relate to orphans are already managed by the court, including their promissory notes.


###### Gittin 37a:3
[Gittin 37a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:3)

תְּנַן הָתָם: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין פְּרוֹסְבּוּל אֶלָּא עַל הַקַּרְקַע. אִם אֵין לוֹ – מְזַכֵּהוּ בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ כׇּל שֶׁהוּ. וְכַמָּה כׇּל שֶׁהוּ? אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: אֲפִילּוּ קֶלַח שֶׁל כְּרוּב. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אֲפִילּוּ הִשְׁאִילוֹ מָקוֹם לְתַנּוּר וּלְכִירַיִם – כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו פְּרוֹסְבּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **there** (*Shevi’it* 10:6): **One may write a *prosbol* only on** the basis of the debtor owning **land. If** the debtor **has no** land, then the creditor **transfers any amount of his own field to him** so that he can write a *prosbol*. The Gemara asks: **And how much** is sufficient to be classified as **any amount? Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says** that **Rav says: Even** the amount of land sufficient to grow **a stalk of cabbage** is sufficient. **Rav Yehuda says: Even** if **he lent him a place** sufficient **for an oven and a stove, one** may **write a *prosbol* on** this basis.


###### Gittin 37a:4
[Gittin 37a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:4)

אִינִי?! וְהָתָנֵי הִלֵּל: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין פְּרוֹסְבּוּל אֶלָּא עַל עָצִיץ נָקוּב בִּלְבָד. נָקוּב – אִין, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב – לָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this statement: **Is that so? But didn’t Hillel teach** (*Tosefta*, *Shevi’it* 8:10): **One writes a *prosbol* only on** the basis of the debtor owning **merely a perforated pot** placed on the ground. This demonstrates that **a perforated** pot **can** serve as the basis for the writing of a *prosbol*, as it is considered to be part of the ground due to the perforation; however, a pot **that is not perforated cannot** serve as the basis for the writing of a *prosbol*.


###### Gittin 37a:5
[Gittin 37a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:5)

אַמַּאי? וְהָא אִיכָּא מְקוֹמוֹ! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּמַנַּח אַסִּיכֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues the question: Since Rav Yehuda stated that possession of the place occupied by the oven is also considered possession of the land underneath with regard to this issue, **why** can’t a non-perforated pot serve as the basis for a *prosbol*; **but isn’t there** the **place** where the pot is resting? The Gemara answers: **No,** one cannot compare the case of Rav Yehuda to this case, as it is **necessary** for Hillel to state his *halakha* in a case **where** the pot **is resting on stakes** and the borrower has no possession of any land at all. Hillel teaches that even so, if the pot is perforated it is considered to be land and may serve as the basis for the writing of a *prosbol*.


###### Gittin 37a:6
[Gittin 37a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:6)

רַב אָשֵׁי מַקְנֵי לֵיהּ גִּידְמָא דְּדִיקְלָא, וּכְתַב עֲלֵיהּ פְּרוֹסְבּוּל. רַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רַב אָשֵׁי מָסְרִי מִילַּיְיהוּ לַהֲדָדֵי. רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן מְסַר מִילֵּי לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא; אֲמַר לֵיהּ: צְרִיכְנָא מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיכַתְּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara recounts a related incident: When **Rav Ashi** would lend money and wish to write a *prosbol* **he would transfer** to the borrower **a stump of a palm tree** that was still attached to the ground, **and he wrote a *prosbol*** based **on this. The Sages of the school of Rav Ashi would transfer their matters,** i.e., their debts, **to each other** without writing a *prosbol*, by stating: You are hereby a court, and the debt is given over to you. **Rabbi Yonatan transferred a matter** by means of such a statement **to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba.** Rabbi Yonatan **said to him: Do I need anything else? He said to him: You do not need** anything else, as this statement alone is sufficient.


###### Gittin 37a:7
[Gittin 37a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע, וְלֶעָרֵב יֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע – כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו פְּרוֹסְבּוּל. לוֹ וְלֶעָרֵב אֵין לָהֶן קַרְקַע, וְלַחַיָּיב לוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע – כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו פְּרוֹסְבּוּל, מִדְּרַבִּי נָתָן –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the requirement for the debtor to have land. **The Sages taught:** If the debtor **has no land but the guarantor has land** then **one writes a *prosbol* on** the basis of the land of the guarantor. If both **he and the guarantor have no land, but** another person **who is obligated** to pay money **to** the debtor **has land,** then **one writes a *prosbol* on** the basis of this land. This *halakha* is derived **from** a statement **of Rabbi Natan.**


###### Gittin 37a:8
[Gittin 37a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:8)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לַנּוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵרוֹ מָנֶה, וַחֲבֵרוֹ בַּחֲבֵרוֹ, מִנַּיִן שֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין מִזֶּה וְנוֹתְנִין לָזֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנָתַן לַאֲשֶׁר אָשַׁם לוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Natan says: From where** is it derived that **when one lends one hundred dinars to his friend, and** that **friend** lends an identical sum **to his** own **friend, that** the court **appropriates** the money **from this one,** the second debtor, **and gives it to that one,** the first creditor, without going through the middleman, who is both the first debtor and the second creditor? **The verse states** with regard to returning stolen property: **“And gives it to him in respect of whom he has been guilty”** (Numbers 5:7). The fact that the verse explains that the money is given to one: “In respect of whom he has been guilty,” indicates that the money should be given directly to the one to whom the money is ultimately owed. In this case as well, the second debtor possesses land, and as he owes money to the first debtor, it is considered as if the second debtor owes money to the first creditor, enabling the first creditor to write a *prosbol*.


###### Gittin 37a:9
[Gittin 37a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:9)

תְּנַן הָתָם: הַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמֶּטֶת אֶת הַמִּלְוָה, בֵּין בִּשְׁטָר בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁטָר. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בִּשְׁטָר – שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁטָר – שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים; כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **there** (*Shevi’it* 10:1): **The Sabbatical** Year **abrogates debt both** for loans that were contracted **with** a promissory **note and** for loans that were contracted **without** a promissory **note.** The *amora’im* disagree with regard to the interpretation of the mishna: It is **Rav and Shmuel who both say:** Loans that were contracted **with** a promissory **note,** is referring to loans that were contracted with a promissory **note that contains a property guarantee;** loans that were contracted **without** a promissory **note,** is referring even to loans that were contracted with a promissory note **that does not contain a property guarantee. All the more so, a loan by oral** agreement is canceled by the Sabbatical Year.


###### Gittin 37a:10
[Gittin 37a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:10)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בִּשְׁטָר – שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁטָר – מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה. אֲבָל שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, it is **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who both say:** Loans that were contracted **with a** promissory **note** is referring to loans that were contracted with a promissory **note that does not contain a property guarantee,** whereas loans that were contracted **without** a promissory **note** is referring to **a loan by oral** agreement. **However,** the Sabbatical Year **does not abrogate** a loan contracted with a promissory **note that contains a property guarantee,** as it is as though the creditor had already taken possession of the debtor’s land.


###### Gittin 37a:11
[Gittin 37a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:11)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: שְׁטַר חוֹב – מְשַׁמֵּט, וְאִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: סִיֵּים לוֹ שָׂדֶה אַחַת בְּהַלְווֹאָתוֹ, אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ כָּתַב: ״כׇּל נְכָסַיי אַחְרָאִין וְעַרְבָאִין לָךְ״ – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:** The Sabbatical Year **abrogates a promissory note, but if** the promissory note **contains a property guarantee** the Sabbatical Year **does not abrogate it.** Similarly, **it is taught** in **another** *baraita*: If the debtor **specified one field for** the repayment of **his loan,** then **it is not canceled. And not only that, but even** if **he wrote: All of my property is pledged and guaranteed to you,** then the Sabbatical Year **does not abrogate it,** even if he does not specify a field for the repayment of the loan.


###### Gittin 37a:12
[Gittin 37a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:12)

קָרִיבֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי הֲוָה לֵיהּ הָהוּא שְׁטָרָא דַּהֲוָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְשַׁמֵּט אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט. שַׁבְקֵיהּ, וַאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְשַׁמֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **The relative of Rabbi Asi had a certain** promissory **note that had a property guarantee written in it. He came before Rabbi Asi** and **said to him:** Does the Sabbatical Year **abrogate** this loan, **or** does it **not abrogate** it? **He said to him:** It **does not abrogate** it. **He left** Rabbi Asi **and came before Rabbi Yoḥanan** and asked him the same question. Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: It does abrogate** it.


###### Gittin 37a:13
[Gittin 37a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:13)

אֲתָא רַבִּי אַסִּי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְשַׁמֵּט אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְשַׁמֵּט. וְהָא מָר הוּא דְּאָמַר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָנוּ מְדַמִּין, נַעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָתַנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּמָר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא הָהִיא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: שְׁטָר הָעוֹמֵד לִגְבּוֹת – כְּגָבוּי דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Asi came before Rabbi Yoḥanan** and **said to him:** Does the Sabbatical Year **abrogate** this loan, **or** does it **not abrogate** it? **He said to him: It does abrogate** it. Rabbi Asi challenged him: **But wasn’t it** the **Master** himself **who said** that the Sabbatical Year **does not abrogate** a promissory note that contains a property guarantee? Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: Because we think** that this should be the *halakha* should **we perform an action** based on this? Rabbi Asi **said to him: But isn’t it taught in** a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of** the **Master? He said to him: Perhaps that** *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Beit Shammai, who say** more generally: **A** promissory **note that stands to be collected is considered as though it has been collected,** and this is why the loan is not abrogated, as it is considered as though the loan had already been repaid. And the *halakha* is not in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai in that issue.


###### Gittin 37a:14
[Gittin 37a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:14)

תְּנַן הָתָם: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ מָעוֹת עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, וְהַמּוֹסֵר שְׁטָרוֹתָיו לְבֵית דִין – אֵין מְשַׁמְּטִין. בִּשְׁלָמָא מוֹסֵר שְׁטָרוֹתָיו לְבֵית דִּין – דְּתָפְסִי לְהוּ בֵּי דִינָא. אֶלָּא מַלְוֶה עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, מַאי טַעְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **there** (*Shevi’it* 10:2): With regard to **one who lends money to another** based **on collateral, and one who transfers his** promissory **notes to a court,** the debt owed to them **is not canceled.** The Gemara asks: **Granted,** the debt is not canceled when **one transfers his** promissory **notes to a court, as** the **court seizes** the promissory notes, and they are able to collect this debt. **But what is the reason** that the debt is not canceled for **one who lends** money based **on collateral?**


###### Gittin 37a:15
[Gittin 37a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:15)

אָמַר רָבָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּתָפֵס לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הִלְוָהוּ וְדָר בַּחֲצֵרוֹ – דְּתָפֵיס לֵיהּ, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא מְשַׁמֵּט?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Due to** the fact that the creditor **has seized** an item that belongs to the debtor, it is considered as though the debt has already been collected. **Abaye said to him: If that is so,** then if a creditor **loaned money to** someone **and lives in his courtyard** as a collateral for the loan, **since** he **seizes** the courtyard, which belongs to the debtor, would you **also** say that the Sabbatical Year **does not abrogate** the debt? That would contradict the accepted *halakha* that in this case the debt is canceled.


###### Gittin 37a:16
[Gittin 37a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁאנֵי מַשְׁכּוֹן, דְּקָנֵי לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁקּוֹנֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְךָ תִּהְיֶה צְדָקָה״ – אִם אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה, צְדָקָה מִנַּיִן? מִכָּאן לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁקּוֹנֶה מַשְׁכּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him: Collateral is different, as** the creditor **acquires it** for himself, as learned **from** the statement **of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From where** is it derived **that a creditor acquires collateral** given to him and is considered its owner so long as the item is in his possession? **As it is stated** in the verse with regard to the obligation of a creditor to return collateral at night: **“And it shall be righteousness for you”** (Deuteronomy 24:13). Rabbi Yitzḥak infers: **If** the creditor **does not acquire** the collateral, then **from where** is the **righteousness** involved in returning it? He would be simply returning an item to its rightful owner. **From here** it is learned **that a creditor acquires the collateral.** Therefore, when he returns the collateral to the debtor he is performing an act of charity.


###### Gittin 37a:17
[Gittin 37a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/37a:17)

תְּנַן הָתָם:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **there** (*Shevi’it* 10:8):