Question: What does the word Pruzbul mean?
Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): Prus (an enactment for) Buli and Buti (rich and poor).
Buli are the rich, like Rav Yosef taught.
(Rav Yosef): "I will break your strength" refers to the Buli of Yehudah.
Buti are the poor - "Ha'avet Ta'aViTenu (you will lend to him)."
Answer #2: A non-Hebrew speaker told Rabah that 'Pruzbul' denotes an enactment.
(Rav Yehudah): Orphans do not need a Pruzbul.
(Rami bar Chama): This is because R. Gamliel and his Beis Din are like the father of orphans (they enacted as if orphans automatically have a Pruzbul).
(Mishnah): Pruzbul may be written on a loan only if the borrower has land;
If he has no land, the lender gives him a tiny piece of his land.
Question: How small can it be?
Answer (R. Chiya bar Ashi): It must be the size of a cabbage stalk.
(Rav Yehudah): Even if the borrower borrowed place to put a stove (in a Chatzer (courtyard), Pruzbul may be written on this.
Question: (An Amora named) Hillel taught a Beraisa saying that we write Pruzbul on a flowerpot only if it has holes (for then it is considered attached to the ground).
Inference: One may not write Pruzbul on a flowerpot without a hole!
Even though he has a place to put it, this is not enough. (Why is an oven different?!)
Answer: The case is, the flowerpot is on pegs. (He has no rights to the place it rests over.)
Rav Ashi gave to a borrower a stump of a palm tree, and wrote a Pruzbul.
The Rabanan of Rav Ashi's Beis Medrash recited the text of Pruzbul in front of each other (without writing it).
R. Yonason recited it in front of R. Chiya bar Aba.
(R. Chiya bar Aba): This is sufficient.
(Beraisa): If the borrower has no land but the Arev (guarantor) has land, Pruzbul may be written;
If neither the borrower nor the Arev has land, but someone who owes money to the borrower has land, Pruzbul may be written, due to R. Nasan's law.
(Beraisa - R. Nasan): "He will give to the one to whom is Asham (the principal)" - if Reuven owes Shimon and Shimon owes Levi, we take money from Reuven to pay Levi.
WHICH LOANS ARE CANCELLED IN SHEMITAH?
(Mishnah): Shemitah cancels a loan, whether or not a document was written on the loan.
(Rav and Shmuel): 'A document was written on the loan' refers to a document with Acharayus (it gives rights to collect from property sold after the loan was given);
'A document was not written on the loan' is when there is a document without Acharayus, and all the more so (Shemitah cancels) a Milveh Al Peh (a loan without any document).
(R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): 'A document was written on the loan' refers to a document without Acharayus. 'A document was not written on the loan' refers to a Milveh Al Peh;
If there is a document with Acharayus, the loan is not cancelled.
Support (Beraisa #1): Shemitah cancels a loan document. If it has Acharayus, it is not cancelled.
(Beraisa #2): If the borrower designated a field that will be used to pay the loan, the loan is not cancelled in Shemitah.
Even if the borrower wrote 'all my property is like an Arev, and may be used to pay the loan', the loan is not cancelled.
R. Asi's relative had a document in which Acharayus was written.
R. Asi: The loan is not cancelled is Shemitah.
The lender went to R. Yochanan, who said that the loan is cancelled in Shemitah.
The lender: You taught that it is not cancelled!
R. Yochanan: Should we act upon my reasoning and comparisons?!
The lender: A Beraisa supports you!
R. Yochanan: Perhaps that Beraisa is like Beis Shamai, who consider a document ready to be collected as if was collected already.
(Mishnah): If one lent money and took a security, or handed over his documents to Beis Din, the loan is not cancelled in Shemitah.
Question: We understand that if he handed over his documents to Beis Din, they are holding the debt, so it is not cancelled;
When he lent and took a security, why isn't the loan cancelled?
Answer (Rava): It is as if he is holding the payment.
Question (Abaye): According to this, also if the lender lodges in the borrower's Chatzer, we should say that the loan is not cancelled!
Answer (Rava): A loan with a security is different, for the lender acquires a security, like R. Yitzchak taught:
(R. Yitzchak) Question: "To you (the lender) it will be Tzedakah (to return the security)" - if the lender does not own it, why is returning it called Tzedakah?!
Answer: Rather, this shows that the lender acquires the security.
ONE WHO WANTS TO REPAY A LOAN THAT WAS CANCELLED
(Mishnah): If Reuven returns a debt to Shimon in Shemitah (i.e. after Shemitah, in a period when Shemitah applies), Shimon must say 'I refrain (from collecting)';
If Reuven says 'even so, I want to repay', Shimon may take the money.
We learn this from "this is the matter (word) of Shemitah" (one must say that he refrains from collecting).
(Rabah): Shimon may hang (coerce) Reuven until Reuven says that he wants to repay anyway.
Question (Abaye - Beraisa): When Reuven pays, he may not say 'I am paying the loan.' Rather, he says that it is a gift.
Answer (Rabah): Yes! Shimon hangs Reuven until he says this.
Aba bar Minyomi owed money to Rabah; he brought it to him in Shemitah.
Rabah: I refrain.
Aba took his money and left. Abaye noticed that Rabah was sad; Rabah explained what happened.
Abaye told Aba that he should have said that he wants to pay anyway, and that he should now return the money and say this. Aba did so.
Rabah: He did not know enough to do so the first time.
IS ONE BELIEVED TO SAY THAT HE WROTE A PRUZBUL?
(Rav Yehudah): One is believed to say that he wrote a Pruzbul, but it was lost.
Question: What is the reason?
Answer: Once Pruzbul was enacted, a lender can always collect his loan legally. One will not abandon a permitted way to achieve something and do it in a forbidden manner.
When lenders came before Rav, he would ask 'perhaps you had a Pruzbul, and lost it?'
This is a case when we open the mouth of a mute (suggest a claim for one who does not know what he should say).
Question (Mishnah): Also, if a creditor presents a loan document without a Pruzbul, he does not collect.
Answer: Tana'im argue about this law:
(Beraisa): If a creditor presents a loan document, he must have a Pruzbul to collect;
Chachamim say, he does not need a Pruzbul.
A CAPTURED SLAVE
(Mishnah): If Shimon's slave was captured, and Reuven redeemed him:
If he redeemed him l'Shem Eved (in order that he should be a slave), he works like a slave;
If he redeemed him l'Shem Ben Chorin (in order that he should be free), he does not work.
R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, in either case, he works.
(Gemara) Question: What is the case?
If Reuven redeemed him before Shimon despaired (of getting back his slave) l'Shem Ben Chorin, surely he works (for Shimon)!
Answer #1: We must say that he redeemed him after Shimon despaired.
Objection: If so, when he was redeemed l'Shem Eved, why does he work?
Answer #2 (Abaye): Really, he redeemed him before Shimon despaired. If he was redeemed l'Shem Eved, he works for Shimon. If he was redeemed l'Shem Ben Chorin, he does not work for Reuven or Shimon.
He does not work for Reuven, since Reuven redeemed him l'Shem Ben Chorin!
He does not work for Shimon. This is an enactment, lest people refrain from redeeming slaves.
R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, in either case he works. R. Shimon holds that it is a Mitzvah to redeem slaves, just like it is a Mitzvah to redeem free people (who were captured, so there is no need for an enactment).
Answer #2 (Rava): Really, he redeemed him after Shimon despaired. If he was redeemed l'Shem Eved, he works for Reuven. If he was redeemed l'Shem Ben Chorin, he does not work for Reuven or Shimon.
He does not work for Reuven, since Reuven redeemed him l'Shem Ben Chorin!
He does not work for Shimon, because Shimon already despaired.
R. Shimon says, in either case he works, like Chizkiyah taught:
(Chizkiyah): He works in either case. This is an enactment, lest slaves present themselves to captors to escape their masters.
Question (Beraisa): R. Shimon ben Gamliel told Chachamim 'just like it is a Mitzvah to redeem free people, it is a Mitzvah to redeem slaves.'
Granted, according to Abaye, this is why R. Shimon says that there is no enactment.
According to Rava, R. Shimon's reason is like Chizkiyah!
Answer (for Rava): R. Shimon did not know Chachamim's opinion;
He said 'if you discuss before despair, just like...
If you discuss after despair, we make an enactment, like Chizkiyah.
Question: According to Rava, he was redeemed after despair, and he works for Reuven. Reuven bought him from the captors. Did the captors really own him?!