## Makkot Daf 3b

###### Makkot 3b:1
[Makkot 3b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:1)

וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּהַשְׁתָּא לָא קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״לֹא יִגֹּשׂ״, סוֹף אָתֵי לִידֵי ״לֹא יִגֹּשׂ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And even though now,** during the Sabbatical Year, **we do not** yet **read concerning his** loan the prohibition: **“He shall not exact it** of his neighbor and his brother, because the Lord’s release has been proclaimed” (Deuteronomy 15:2), as the time for repayment has not yet arrived, **ultimately,** when the time for repayment arrives, he will **come to** a situation where the prohibition **“He shall not exact it”** applies. Therefore, like all other debts it is abrogated by the Sabbatical Year.


###### Makkot 3b:2
[Makkot 3b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:2)

מֵתִיב רַב כָּהֲנָא: אוֹמְדִים כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן וְיִהְיוּ אֶלֶף זוּז בְּיָדוֹ בֵּין לִיתֵּן מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וּבֵין לִיתֵּן מִכָּאן וְעַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתּוֹ – כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana raises an objection** from the mishna: Rather, the court **estimates how much** money **a person** would be **willing to give** so that he **would** keep a loan of **one thousand dinars in his possession,** and one calculates the difference **between** that sum in a situation where he would be required **to give** the money back **from now until thirty days** have passed, **and** that same sum in a situation where he would be required to **give** the money back **from now until ten years** have passed. **And if you say** that **the Sabbatical** Year **abrogates** a ten-year loan, the conspiring witnesses **need** to **pay** the borrower **the entire** sum of the loan **as well,** as their testimony sought to render the borrower liable to pay a debt that by right should be entirely forgiven.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּמַלְוֶה עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, וּבְמוֹסֵר שְׁטָרוֹתָיו לְבֵית דִּין. דִּתְנַן: הַמַּלְוֶה עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, וְהַמּוֹסֵר שְׁטָרוֹתָיו לְבֵית דִין – אֵין מַשְׁמִיטִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: What are we dealing with here** in our mishna? We are dealing with debts that are not abrogated with the passing of the Sabbatical Year, e.g., **in** the case of one who **lends** money **on** the basis of **collateral, or in** the case of one who **transfers his** promissory **notes to the court** for collection. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Shevi’it* 10:2): In the cases of **one who lends** money **on** the basis of **collateral and one who transfers his** promissory **notes to the court** for collection, the Sabbatical Year **does not abrogate** those loans. In those cases, the debt would not have been forgiven during the Sabbatical Year. Therefore, the conspiring witnesses are not liable to pay the entire sum.


###### Makkot 3b:4
[Makkot 3b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:4)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ לְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים – אֵין שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתּוֹ. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאָתֵי לִידֵי ״לֹא יִגֹּשׂ״, הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא לָא קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״לֹא יִגֹּשׂ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who state** another version of this discussion: **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** In the case of **one who lends** money to **another for** a period of **ten years, the Sabbatical** Year **does not abrogate** the debt. **And even though** when the time for repayment arrives he will **come to** a situation where the prohibition **“He shall not exact it”** applies, **now, in any event,** during the Sabbatical Year **we do not** yet **read** the prohibition of **“He shall not exact it” concerning his** loan.


###### Makkot 3b:5
[Makkot 3b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:5)

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן וְיִהְיוּ אֶלֶף זוּז בְּיָדוֹ, בֵּין לִיתֵּן מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וּבֵין לִיתֵּן מִכָּאן וְעַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתּוֹ – כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי בָּעוּ שַׁלּוֹמֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana says: We learn** this ruling in the mishna **as well:** The court **estimates how much** money **a person** would be **willing to give** so that a loan of **one thousand dinars will be in his possession,** and one calculates the difference **between** that sum in a situation where he would be required **to give** the money back **from now until thirty days** have passed, **and** that sum in a situation where he would be required **to give** the money back **from now until ten years** have passed. **And if you say** that **the Sabbatical** Year **abrogates** a ten-year loan, then the conspiring witnesses **should pay** the borrower **the entire** sum of the loan **as well,** as their testimony sought to render the borrower liable to pay a debt that by right should be entirely forgiven. The fact that they are not required to pay the entire sum proves that a ten-year loan is not abrogated by the Sabbatical Year.


###### Makkot 3b:6
[Makkot 3b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:6)

אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּמַלְוֶה עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, וּבְמוֹסֵר שְׁטָרוֹתָיו לְבֵית דִּין, דִּתְנַן: הַמַּלְוֶה עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, וְהַמּוֹסֵר שְׁטָרוֹתָיו לְבֵית דִין – אֵין מַשְׁמִיטִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** No proof may be cited from there, as **what are we dealing with here** in our mishna? We are dealing with debts that are not abrogated with the passing of the Sabbatical Year, e.g., **in** the case of one who **lends** money **on** the basis of **collateral, or in** the case of one who **transfers his** promissory **notes to the court** for collection. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Shevi’it* 10:2): In the cases of **one who lends** money **on** the basis of **collateral and one who transfers his** promissory **notes to the court** for collection, the Sabbatical Year **does not abrogate** those loans. In those cases, the debt would not have been forgiven during the Sabbatical Year. Therefore, the conspiring witnesses are not liable to pay the entire sum.


###### Makkot 3b:7
[Makkot 3b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:7)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תְּשַׁמְּטֵנִי שְׁבִיעִית״ – שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמֶּטֶת. לֵימָא קָסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַתְנֶה עַל מָה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה הוּא, וְכׇל הַמַּתְנֶה עַל מָה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה – תְּנָאוֹ בָּטֵל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **And Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says** with regard to abrogation of debts: In the case of **one who says to another** the stipulation: I am lending you money **on the condition that the Sabbatical** Year **will not abrogate my** debt, even if the borrower agrees to that stipulation, **the Sabbatical** Year **abrogates** the debt. The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that **Shmuel holds** that the lender who proposed that stipulation **is** one who **stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, and** in the case of **anyone who stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his stipulation is voided.**


###### Makkot 3b:8
[Makkot 3b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:8)

וְהָא אִיתְּמַר, הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לְךָ עָלַי אוֹנָאָה״, רַב אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו אוֹנָאָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אוֹנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But wasn’t it stated** that there is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel concerning this matter? In the case of **one who says to another** the stipulation: I am selling you this item **on the condition that you have no** claim of **exploitation against me** if I charge you more than the item is worth, **Rav says:** The buyer **has** a claim of **exploitation against him,** as one cannot stipulate to waive the *halakha* of exploitation. **And Shmuel says: He has no** claim of **exploitation against him.** Apparently, according to Shmuel, one may stipulate to waive a Torah law in monetary matters, as it is tantamount to waiving his rights to money due him and it is not in effect counter to that which is written in the Torah.


###### Makkot 3b:9
[Makkot 3b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:9)

הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב עָנָן: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לְךָ עָלַי אוֹנָאָה״ – אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אוֹנָאָה. ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אוֹנָאָה״ – הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בּוֹ אוֹנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Wasn’t it stated with regard to that** *halakha* that **Rav Anan said: It was explained to me** personally **by Shmuel** himself that the matter depends on the formulation of the stipulation. If the seller stipulates: **On the condition that you have no** claim of **exploitation against me,** then the buyer **has no** claim of **exploitation against him,** as it is as though he is waiving his right to money due him. But if the seller stipulates: **On the condition that there is no** prohibition of **exploitation in** this transaction, **there is** a prohibition of **exploitation in** that transaction.


###### Makkot 3b:10
[Makkot 3b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:10)

הָכָא נָמֵי, ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תְּשַׁמְּטֵנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית״ – אֵין שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתּוֹ. ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תְּשַׁמְּטֵנִי שְׁבִיעִית״ – שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Here too,** if the lender stipulated to the borrower: I am lending you money **on the condition that you will not abrogate** the debt **during the Sabbatical** Year, **the Sabbatical** Year **does not abrogate** his debt, as the borrower is merely waiving money due him. But if he stipulated: **On the condition that the Sabbatical** Year **will not abrogate my** debt, **the Sabbatical** Year **abrogates** the debt, as that is a stipulation to nullify the *halakha* of the Sabbatical Year concerning that loan, and one may not stipulate counter to that which is written in the Torah.


###### Makkot 3b:11
[Makkot 3b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:11)

תָּנָא: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ סְתָם – אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְתוֹבְעוֹ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. סְבַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב לְמֵימַר: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר, דְּלָא עֲבִד אִינִישׁ דְּטָרַח דְּכָתֵב שְׁטָר בְּצִיר מִתְּלָתִין יוֹמִין, אֲבָל מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה – לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב: הָכִי אָמַר חֲבִיבִי: אֶחָד הַמַּלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר וְאֶחָד הַמַּלְוֶה עַל פֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the loan discussed in the mishna, the Gemara cites a Sage who **taught: One who lends** money to **another** for **an unspecified** period **is not permitted to demand** repayment **from him less than thirty days** after the loan took place. The Gemara comments: **Rabba bar bar Ḥana,** who was seated **before Rav, thought to say: This statement** applies only **with regard to a loan with** a promissory **note, as a person does not typically exert** himself **to write** a promissory **note** for a loan whose duration is **less than thirty days. But** with regard to **a loan by oral** agreement, **no,** it may be for less than thirty days. **Rav said to him: This** is what **my uncle,** Rabbi Ḥiyya, **said:** This *halakha* applies to **both one who lends with** a promissory **note and one who lends by oral** agreement. If one fails to establish a time for repayment of the loan, he may not demand repayment until thirty days have passed since the loan was given.


###### Makkot 3b:12
[Makkot 3b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:12)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ סְתָם – אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְתוֹבְעוֹ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, אֶחָד הַמַּלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר וְאֶחָד הַמַּלְוֶה עַל פֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **That is also taught** in a *baraita*: **One who lends** money to **another** for **an unspecified** period **is not permitted to demand** repayment **from him less than thirty days** after the loan took place, and that is the case with regard to **both one who lends with** a promissory **note and one who lends by oral** agreement.


###### Makkot 3b:13
[Makkot 3b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב מַתְנָה: לָא תִּיתֵּיב אַכַּרְעָיךָ עַד דִּמְפָרְשַׁתְּ לָהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא: מְנַָא הָא מִילְּתָא דַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ סְתָם אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְתוֹבְעוֹ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, אֶחָד הַמַּלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר וְאֶחָד הַמַּלְוֶה עַל פֶּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Shmuel said to Rav Mattana: You shall not sit on your feet until you have explained this *halakha*;** explain it immediately. **From where is this matter that the Sages stated** derived: **One who lends** money to **another** for **an unspecified** period **is not permitted to demand** repayment **from him less than thirty days** after the loan took place, and that is the case with regard to **both one who lends with** a promissory **note and one who lends by oral** agreement?


###### Makkot 3b:14
[Makkot 3b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּכְתִיב ״קָרְבָה שְׁנַת הַשֶּׁבַע שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִטָּה״, מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״קָרְבָה שְׁנַת הַשֶּׁבַע״, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהִיא שְׁנַת שְׁמִטָּה? אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִטָּה״? לוֹמַר לָךְ: [יֵשׁ] שְׁמִטָּה אַחֶרֶת שֶׁהִיא כָּזוֹ, וְאֵיזוֹ – זוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ סְתָם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְתוֹבְעוֹ בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. דְּאָמַר מָר: שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם בַּשָּׁנָה חָשׁוּב שָׁנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Mattana **said to him** that it is derived from a verse, **as it is written: “The seventh year, the Sabbatical Year, approaches”** (Deuteronomy 15:9). The question arises: **From** the fact **that it is stated: “The seventh year…approaches,” don’t I know that it is the Sabbatical Year? Rather, why** must **the verse state: “The Sabbatical Year”?** It is **to tell you** that **there is another** period **that is like the Sabbatical** Year; **and which** period **is it? It is** the period in the case of **one who lends** money to **another** for **an unspecified** period, **who is not permitted to demand** repayment **from him less than thirty days** after the loan took place. During that period, as during the Sabbatical Year, one may not exact payment for his loan. In what sense can that period be characterized as a year? It is **as the Master said: Thirty days in a year are considered a year.**


###### Makkot 3b:15
[Makkot 3b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:15)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַפּוֹתֵחַ בֵּית הַצַּוָּאר בְּשַׁבָּת – חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. מַתְקֵיף לָהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: וְכִי מָה בֵּין זֶה לִמְגוּפַת חָבִית? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זֶה חִבּוּר, וְזֶה אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **And Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: One who** unwittingly **opens** a new **neck opening** in a shirt **on Shabbat** by cutting through the fabric and threads that kept it closed is **liable** to bring **a sin-offering.** By creating the opening he renders the shirt fit to wear, thereby fashioning a utensil on Shabbat. **Rav Kahana objects to this: And what** is the difference **between this and the stopper of** a wine **barrel,** which the Sages permitted piercing on Shabbat in order to serve wine to guests? There too, by piercing the stopper he fashions a utensil. Rava **said to him:** The cases are not comparable: In **this** case, that of the neck opening of a shirt, the material closing the neck hole is considered **a connecting** element, i.e., it is an organic part of the weave of the fabric; **and** in **that** case, that of the stopper of the barrel, the stopper is **not** considered **a connecting** element, as its purpose is to be removed from the barrel.


###### Makkot 3b:16
[Makkot 3b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:16)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין מַיִם שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכָן קוּרְטוֹב שֶׁל יַיִן, וּמַרְאֵיהֶן כְּמַרְאֵה יַיִן, וְנָפְלוּ לְמִקְוֶה – לֹא פְּסָלוּהוּ. מַתְקֵיף לָהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: וְכִי מָה בֵּין זֶה לְמֵי צֶבַע? דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מֵי צֶבַע פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה בִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: הָתָם ״מַיָּא דְצִבְעָא״ מִקְּרֵי, הָכָא ״חַמְרָא מְזִיגָא״ מִקְּרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **And Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** In the case of **three *log*** of drawn **water into which one sixty-fourth of a *log* [*kortov*]** of **wine fell, and the color of** the water **is like the color of wine, and** that liquid **fell into a ritual bath** containing less than forty *se’a*, although the Sages ruled that three *log* of drawn water invalidate a ritual bath, in this case the liquid **does not invalidate it,** because the halakhic status of the liquid that fell into the ritual bath is that of wine, and wine does not invalidate a ritual bath. **Rav Kahana objects to this: And what** is the difference **between this** case of water into which wine fell **and** the case of **dye water, as we learned** in a mishna (*Mikvaot* 7:3): **Rabbi Yosei says: Dye water in** the amount of **three *log* invalidates a ritual bath?** The wine, like the dye, colors the water. **Rava said to him:** The difference is that **there** the mixture **is called dye water,** where the water maintains the status of water; **here it is called diluted wine.**


###### Makkot 3b:17
[Makkot 3b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3b:17)

וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: הוֹרִידוּ אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה! אָמַר רָבָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, הָא רַבָּנַן, דִּתְנַן: שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין מַיִם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to Rav’s statement: **But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach** that three *log* of water into which a *kortov* of wine fell **reduce the ritual bath** into a state where it is no longer valid? **Rava said** that this *baraita* is **not difficult,** as **this** statement of Rav is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri,** and **that** *baraita* taught by Rabbi Ḥiyya is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Mikvaot* 7:5): In a case where there are **three *log*** of drawn **water**