Previous daf

1)

(a) We initially learn from the Pasuk "ve'Kasuv ba'Sefer ve'Chasum" - that documents must be signed.

(b) Rabah therefore explains the 'Tikun ha'Olam' of Raban Gamliel - according to Rebbi Elazar, who holds Eidei Mesirah Karsi, and there is no obligation for witnesses to sign documents.

(c) According to Rebbi Elazar - the Pasuk in Yirmiyah is merely conveying a practical suggestion (to have one's documents signed), but not an obligation.

(d) Rav Yosef establishes our Mishnah even like Rebbi Meir. The Tikun ha'Olam is then - for the witnesses to sign their names on the Sh'tar, and not just 'I signed as a witness', like they used to do previously.

(a) According to the Tana of the Beraisa in support of Rav Yosef, a Get would only be Kasher before the Takanah, when the witnesses would not sign their name - if they had signed on some other document, enabling Beis-Din or witnesses to compare the two signatures.

(b) Rav would stamp the picture of a fish on a Get in lieu of his signature, Rav Chanina, that of a palm-branch and Rav Chisda - that of a 'Samech' (from his name).

(c) Rav Hoshaya would stamp the picture of an eye - Rabah bar Rav Huna, that of the mast of a ship.

(d) We reconcile this with Raban Gamliel, who required the name of the signatory on the Get - by restricting the above to renowned Talmidei-Chachamim, whose symbols in lieu of their signatures, were well-known.

(a) The connection between Hillel's P'ruzbul and the Pasuk "Hishamer Lecha Pen Yihyeh Davar im Levavcha Beliya'al" is - that it was due to the fact that the people were not adhering to the latter, that the former became necessary.

(b) The creditor writes in the Pruzbul - 'Mosrani Lachem, Dayanim she'ba'Makom P'loni, she'Kol Chov she'Yesh Li Eitzel P'loni she'Egvenu Kol Z'man she'Ertzeh'.

(c) We have already seen earlier that either the Dayanim or the Eidim sign underneath.

(d) According to Abaye, Hillel had the right to countermand the law of the Torah, which cancels all debts at the end of the Sh'mitah year - because he concurs with Rebbi, in whose opinion Shevi'is nowadays is mi'de'Rabbanan.

(a) Rebbi infers from the Pasuk "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Sh'mitah, Shamot" - that the Pasuk is speaking about two different kinds of Sh'mitah, that of land and that of money (which is not connected with the land per se, and would therefore not be dependent on the Yovel, as Sh'mitas Karka is, as we shall see shortly). This comparison teaches us that when the former does not apply, neither does the latter.

(b) We know that Sh'mitas ha'Aretz does not depend on the Beis ha'Mikdash standing - because in the time of Hillel, the Beis Hamikdash was standing, yet Sh'mitas ha'Aretz did not apply.

(c) The criterion for Sh'mitas ha'Aretz is in fact, whether Yovel applies or not. The Chachamim learn this - from "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Sh'mitah Shamot", which they Darshen to mean that when Yovel does not apply, Sh'mitah does not apply either (though this would appear to clash with Rebbi, whose D'rashah is based on the same double Lashon). The criterion for Yovel incidentally, is that most Hews are living in Eretz Yisrael.

(d) Chazal nevertheless instituted Sh'mitas ha'Aretz nowadays - to commemorate Sh'mitah (so that Sh'mitah should not be forgotten [see Tosfos Amud Beis DH 've'Tikun']).

(a) The Toras Kohanim disagrees with the previous D'rashah.
According to the Toras Kohanim - Shevi'is nowadays, is d'Oraysa.

(b) Despite the fact that Min ha'Torah, debts are not cancelled nowadays, the Rabbanan have the authority to cancel them, Abaye explains - because the debtor desists from payment, which is an inaction, and the Rabbanan have the right to decree 'Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh'.

6)

(a) We asked earlier by what right Hillel countermanded the law of the Torah, which cancels all debts at the end of the Sh'mitah year, and Abaye established Hillel like Rebbi. Rava disagrees. He establishes Hillel - even like the Rabbanan, who hold that Shevi'is nowadays is d'Oraysa.

(b) He answers the initial Kashya on Hillel - by basing the creditor's claim on 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker'. What actually happens is that the creditor claims his debt with the power of Beis-Din, who demand that the debtor repays the money on their orders, even though the Torah has revoked the obligation to pay. In short, it is the creditor who claims, but the Beis-Din who enforce the payment through the power of Hefker Beis-Din Hefker.

(c) We might learn 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' from the Pasuk in Ezra "ve'Chol Asher Lo Yavo li'Sheloshes ha'Yamim ... Yochoram Kol Rechusho". We might also learn it from the Pasuk "ve'Roshei ha'Avos" - which teaches us that just as fathers can bequeath to their children whatever they wish, so too, can the heads (Beis-Din) place into the possession of one person or another whatever they wish.

(a) We ask whether Hillel instituted the Takanah of 'P'ruzbul' for his generation only, or for all generations. The ramifications of the She'eilah are - whether one is permitted to revoke the decree or not.

(b) We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from Shmuel, who states that Hillel's P'ruzbul is confined to the Beis-Din of Sura and Neherda'a - implying that all other Batei-Din revoked the Takanah (proving that Hillel only initiated the Takanah for his generation).

(c) We refute this proof - by establishing Hillel's Takanah exclusively by Batei-Din like his own, which were highly esteemed, such as the Beis-Din of Rav or of Shmuel (which is precisely what Shmuel was saying).

(d) We now refer to the Beis-Din of Rav Ami and Rav Asi - because they were the heads of the most prominent Beis-Din at the time when the She'eilah was asked.

(a) When Shmuel referred to P'ruzbul as 'Ulbana de'Dayna', he meant - that P'ruzbul is to the shame of Beis-Din, who exact money from the rightful owner unlawfully.

(b) He continues 'I Ayasher Chayil Avatlinei' - an apparent proof that Hillel only instituted the P'ruzbul for his generation. Otherwise, how could Shmuel state that if he had been as powerful as Hillel, he would have negated his Takanah, in view of Chazal, who require a Beis-Din to be more powerful than its predecessor, before being able to negate its Takanos?

(c) We refute this proof however - by explaining Shmuel to mean that if he had been more powerful than Hillel, he would have annulled it.

(d) When Rav Nachman said 'Akayminei', he meant - had he had the power, he would have gone even further than Hillel, by decreeing that P'ruzbul take effect automatically without having to write it in a Sh'tar.

(a) We cited Shmuel earlier who said 'Ha P'rusb'la Ulbana de'Dayna Hu', which we translated as 'Chutzpah'. Alternatively we suggest, it might mean - 'convenience' (meaning that the P'ruzbul is merely for the convenience of the Dayanim, to relieve them of the trouble of claiming all outstanding debts before Sh'mitah arrives).

(b) We repudiate this second suggestion by quoting Ula's statement 'Aluvah Kalah she'Zinsah be'Kerev Chupasah' - referring to Yisrael, who were in disgrace for worshipping the Golden Calf (committing adultery) even as they stood under the Chupah (waiting for the Luchos - see Agados Maharsha).

(c) Rav Mari B'rah de'Bas Shmuel support's Ula from the Pasuk in Shir ha'Shirim "Ad she'ha'Melech bi'Mesibo, Nirdi Nasan Reicho". Rava proves from this very Pasuk that Hashem still loves Yisrael in spite of their sin - from the use of the word "*Nasan* Reicho", a nicer expression that the more natural "Hisri'ach" (which the Pasuk might have been expected to use).

(a) The Pasuk in Shoftim says that people who 'hear their shame but do not respond ... ' - are compared to "the sun as it rises in its magnificence".

(b) To deserve such a reward - they must also perform Mitzvos with love and rejoice in suffering.

(c) 'P'ruzbul' is the acronym of 'P'ruz Buli (u'Buti)' (meaning 'a Takanah for the rich (and for the poor)'.

(d) 'P'ruzbul' is for the benefit of the poor as well as for the rich - inasmuch as otherwise, the rich would stop lending them money ('Ne'ilas Deles Bifnei Lovin').

(a) Rav Yosef quotes a Beraisa which explains the Pasuk in the Tochachah "ve'Shacarti es Ge'on Uzchem" - as 'Eilu *Bula'i* she bi'Yehudah', meaning 'These are the aristocrats (the rich people) in Yehudah.

(b) The source for 'Buti' meaning 'the poor' - is the Pasuk in Re'ei "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu", a command ordering the rich to lend money to the poor.

(c) When Rava asked that foreigner what 'P'rusbul' meant - he replied 'a Takanah' (an enactment).