(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Gitin 37

GITIN 37 (Adar 21) - This Daf has been dedicated anonymously l'Zecher Nishmas the holy "No'am Elimelech," ha'Rav Elimelech [b'rebbi Eliezer] of Lizhensk, on the day of his Yahrzeit. May the Rebbe be a Meilitz Yosher for Klal Yisrael during these troubled times and plead to Hashem that He may answer all of our Tefilos.



(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules that Yesomim do not need to write a 'P'ruzbul'. This is supported by a Beraisa cite by Rami bar Chama - which gives the reason because Raban Gamliel and Beis-Din are the father of the poor (and it is as if their Sh'taros are already handed over to his Beis-Din, and so it is with every Beis-Din in subsequent generations).

(b) A P'ruzbul can only be written if the debtor has Karka - because Hillel gave the Sh'tar of P'ruzbul the same specifications as other documents, and other documents automatically mortgage all Karka belonging to the debtor, but not Metaltelin.

(c) In the event that the debtor does not own any Karka - the creditor can still write a P'ruzbul, by inserting in the Sh'tar, a small piece of land for the debtor.

(d) There is no minimum Shiur Karka that the debtor must own for the P'ruzbul to be valid. Even a 'Kol she'Hu' in which one can plant a cabbage stalk is sufficient. This is because it is possible to claim and re-claim it until one's entire debt is paid (like the case of 'Ketina de'Ar'a' of Abaye in Kesuvos that we cited earlier in the Perek).

(a) Renting or lending the debtor a place to put his oven will suffice to write a P'ruzbul.

(b) The Beraisa, quoted by Hillel ha'Katan, says - that lending the debtor a flower-pot will enable the creditor to write a P'ruzbul, provided it is holed.

(c) The flower-pot requires a hole, despite the fact that normally, the fact that the location of the pot is lent to him will suffice - because the Tana is speaking about a pot that is suspended above the ground (in which case neither is the ground automatically lent to him, nor is the pot considered attatched to the ground - unless it is holed).

(d) Rav Ashi was Makneh to the debtor the stump of a date-palm on which he wrote a P'ruzbul. When the Rabbanan of Bei Rav Ashi borrowed money from each other and the Sh'mitah arrived - they would appoint three of their friends as a Beis-Din, and 'hand them' their Sh'taros verbally.

(a) If only the guarantor or only the borrower possesses Karka, one may write a P'ruzbul.

(b) It is possible to write a P'ruzbul even if neither of them actually possess Karka - if someone who owes the debtor money does.

(c) This is because of Rebbi Nasan, who Darshened from the Pasuk in Naso "ve'Nasan la'Asher Asham Lo", that if Shimon owes Reuven money, he can claim it directly from Levi, who owes Shimon (known as 'Shibuda de'Rebbi Nasan'). It therefore transpires that Levi's lands are Meshubad to Reuven on account of Shimon's debt, permitting the latter to write a P'ruzbul to claim from Shimon.

(a) The Mishnah in Shevi'is states that Sh'mitah cancels debts whether they are documented or not. Rav and Shmuel both interpret 'non-documented' to mean that they do not contain Acharayus Nechasim - meaning that the documents preclude the right to claim from the debtor's lands.

(b) A 'documented debt' therefore means that they do. And if Shevi'is cancels these - it will certainly cancel an oral loan.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish disagree. According to them - 'documented Sh'taros' refers to Sh'taros without Acharayus Nechasim, and 'non-documented Sh'taros', to oral loans. But Shevi'is will certainly not cancel debts, when the creditor has a Sh'tar with Acharayus Nechasim.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish have the support of a Beraisa.

(a) Another Beraisa states that if the debtor merely designated a specific field for the creditor to claim, the debt is not canceled, to which the Tana adds - the case of someone who designated all his fields to the creditor.

(b) A relative of Rebbi Asi wrote a Sh'tar with Acharayus Nechasim. Rebbi Asi informed him that Shevi'is does not cancel such a debt - on the basis of what his Rebbe, Rebbi Yochanan, had taught him.

(c) Imagine his surprise when Rebbi Yochanan, to whom the creditor turned for 'a second opinion' ruled that it does, ascribing ...

1. ... this change of heart to the fact - that it is not because a Rav, based on his own logic, issues a certain ruling, that he cannot retract from it.
2. ... the Beraisa which supports his initial ruling - to the fact that the author is Beis Shamai.
(d) Beis Shamai say - 'Sh'tar ha'Omed Ligvos ke'Gavuy Dami' (when a creditor holds a valid Sh'tar that is ready to claim with, the debt is considered to have already been claimed), in which case, he does not transgress "Lo Yigos" (the basis for the prohibition of claiming a debt after the Sh'mitah).
(a) The Mishnah in Shevi'is states that Sh'mitah does not cancel the debt of someone who hands his Sh'taros to Beis-Din or who lends money against a security. The reason for the former is as we explained by P'ruzbul. Rava's initial reason for the latter is - because he is already holding his debt (in the form of the security).

(b) Abaye asked Rava why Shevi'is will not then cancel the debt of a creditor who went to live in the debtor's Chatzer, seeing as he too, is holding on to his debt, to which Rava (slightly amending his original answer) replied - that a security is different, because, as Rebbi Yitzchak Darshened from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "u'Lecha Tihyeh Tzedakah", the creditor acquires a security (eliminating the possibility of transgressing the La'av of "Lo Yigos").

(c) The criterion for acquiring a security is - the fact that he is obligated to replace it in the event that it gets lost.




(a) When the Mishnah in Shevi'is speaks about 'ha'Machzir Chov la'Chaveiro bi'Shevi'is' - the Tana refers to the time when the Sh'mitah is practiced, not during the actual Sh'mitah year, because debts are only canceled at the end of the year, and not at the beginning.

(b) The Tana learn from the Pasuk "ve'Zeh *D'var* ha'Sh'mitah" - that, when the debtor comes to pay his debt after the debt is cancelled, the creditor is obligated to say 'Meshamet Ani'.

(c) Should the debtor insist on paying, and says 'Af-al-pi-kein' - the creditor is permitted to accept the money.

(d) Rabah even permits the creditor - to take a debtor who wants to walk away without paying, and suspend him on a tree, until he says 'Af-al-pi-kein'.

(a) We reconcile Rabah with the Beraisa which obligates the debtor to return the debt using a Lashon of Matanah, and not of payment of a debt - by establishing Rabah's Din too, when the suspended debtor finally offered to pay in the form of a gift.

(b) When Aba bar Marsa returned money that he owed Rabah at the termination of the Sh'mitah, and Rabah responded with 'Meshamet Ani' - Aba Marsa walked away without saying 'Af-al-pi-kein'.

(c) Abaye, who found Rabah (who was a poor man - see Ya'avatz) despondent at Aba bar Marsa's omission - advised the latter to pay it then (since he felt that Rabah would accept it). And that is precisely what he did.

(d) Rabah commented - that Aba bar Marsa slipped up by not saying it the first time.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Nachman (or just Rav Nachman) believes a creditor who says that he had a P'ruzbul but lost it - based on the logic that a person will not be'Isur what he can do be'Heter (at no extra cost).

(b) Rav used to ask creditors who claimed their debts after the termination of Sh'mitah without producing a P'ruzbul - whether they had not had a Sh'tar and lost it (because in such obvious cases, we adopt the policy "P'sach Picha le'Ileim", to help the claimant to stake his claim effectively).

(c) The Mishnah in Kesuvos says that a creditor who claims his debt after the Sh'mitah without a P'ruzbul - loses his claim.

(d) Rav Nachman and Rav reconcile their opinion with the Mishnah in Kesuvos - by citing a Beraisa which presents this as a Machlokes Tana'im (and in fact, their opinion conforms with that of the Chachamim).

(a) Our Mishnah says that if someone who redeems a captured slave ...
1. ... as a slave - the latter remains a slave.
2. ... as a free man - he goes free.
(b) Assuming that the owner had ...
1. ... been Meya'esh (despaired of receiving him back) - why would he continue to serve as a slave in the Reisha?
2. ... not been Meya'esh - why would he go free in the Seifa?
(c) Abaye establishes the Mishnah when the owner had not been Meya'esh. Nevertheless, if he redeemed him ...
1. ... as a free man, he does not return to his master - because we do not want to discourage people from redeeming a captured slave (from his Nochri captors), and there is no Mitzvah to redeem a slave.
2. ... as a slave, he does not become the slave of the man who redeemed him - because, before Yi'ush, he would not acquire him, and taking him for himself would constitute theft.
(d) The reason of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that, either way, the slave returns to his master - is because, in his opinion, it is a Mitzvah to redeem slaves like it is to redeem Jews who are free.
(a) Rava establishes our Mishnah after Yi'ush. He explains ...
1. ... 'Im le'Shum Eved, Yishta'bed' - to mean that he works for the man who redeemed him.
2. ... 'le'Shum ben Chorin, Lo Yishta'bed' - to mean that he does not work for his original master because he was Meya'esh; and not for the second one because he redeemed him in order to set him free.
(b) According to Rava, we establish Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ('Bein-Kach u'Vein-Kach Yishta'bed') like Chizkiyah - who explains that he returns to his original master, in order to discourage errant slaves from thrusting themselves onto marauding bands (to free themselves from their masters).

(c) Despite the fact that, as Rava explains, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's reason is that of Chizkiyah, the Tana of the Beraisa nevertheless gives the reason that we cited earlier ('it is a Mitzvah to redeem slaves like it is to redeem Jews who are free') - because Raban Shimon ben Gamliel was uncertain of the Tana Kama's approach. Consequently, either way, he countered his statement: If he was speaking before Yi'ush, then 'It is a Mitzvah to redeem slaves ... ', whereas if he is speaking after Yi'ush, then the reason was like Chizkiyah explained.

(d) According to Rava, in whose opinion the Tana is speaking after Yi'ush, and the slave works for the man who redeemed him, the latter acquire him - from his captors as we shall now see.

(a) A Nochri captor acquires a slave from a Jew - with Yi'ush.

(b) A Nochri captor acquires a slave from a Jew - with regard to the work of his hands.

(c) This applies even assuming that the slave was circumcised and Toveled by his Jewish master.

(d) He would acquire the slave completely - by Toveling him.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,