משנה: פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל הַמּוּקְדָּם כָּשֵׁר וְהַמְּאוּחָר פָּסוּל. שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמּוּקְדָּמִין פְסוּלִין וְהַמְּאוּחָרִין כְּשֵׁרִין. אֶחָד לֹװֶה מֵחֲמִשָּׁה כּוֹתְבִין פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל לְכָל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. חֲמִשָּׁה לֹװִין מִן אֶחָד אֵינוֹ כוֹתֵב אֶלָּא פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן. אֵין כּוֹתְבִין פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל אֶלָּא עַל הַקַּרְקַע אִם אֵין לוֹ מְזַכֶּה הוּא בְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא. הָֽיְתָה לוֹ שָׂדֶה מְמוּשְׁכֶּנֶת בָּעִיר כּוֹתְבִין עָלֶיהָ פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. רִבִּי חוּצְפִּית אוֹמֵר כּוֹתְבִין לְאָדָם עַל נִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְלִיתוֹמִין עַל נִכְסֵי אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. כַּװֶרֶת דְּבוֹרִים. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר הֲרֵי הִיא כְקַרְקַע וְכוֹתְבִין עָלֶיהָ פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל וְאֵינָהּ מְקַבֶּלֶת טוּמְאָה בִמְקוֹמָהּ. וְהָרוֹדֶה מִמֶּנָּה בַּשַּׁבָּת חַייָב. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִין אֵינָהּ כְקַרְקַע וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין עָלֶיהָ פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל וּמְקַבֶּלֶת טוּמְאָה בִמְקוֹמָהּ. וְהָרוֹדֶה מִמֶּנָּה בַּשַּׁבָּת פָּטוּר. הַמַּחֲזִיר חוֹב בַּשְּׁבִיעִית אוֹמֵר לוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט אָנִי. אם אָמַר לוֹ אַף עַל פִּי כֵּן יְקַבֵּל הִימֵּינוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְזֶה דְּבַר הַשְּׁמִיטָּה. כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁגָּלָה לְעִיר מִקְלָט וְרָצוּ אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר לְכַבְּדוֹ. יֹאמַר לָהֶן רוֹצֵחַ אָנִי אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ אַף עַל פִּי כֵּן יְקַבֵּל מֵהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְזֶה דְּבַר הָרוֹצֵחַ. MISHNAH: A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid. Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid, postdated they are valid. If one person borrows from five, one writes a prozbol for each single [creditor]. If five persons borrow from one, he writes only one prozbol for all of them.
One writes prozbol only on the basis of real estate. If he104It was shown in Sheviit 10:2:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.10.2.6">Note 92 that one of his debtors must have real estate for a creditor’s prozbol. has none, [the other party] gives him the right to a minute area of their field. If he had a field mortgaged105Even if the loan is paid back in instalments, that for a fixed number of terms the creditor works the field and takes all its yield, it remains the property of the debtor. in town, one writes a prozbol on it. Rebbi Ḥuẓpit says, one writes for a man on his wife’s properties106Even if this is separate property, not dowry which becomes the husband’s property for the duration of the marriage. and for orphans on those of the guardians107Greek ἐπίτροπος “guardian, attorney”. In the opinion of the Gittin.37a">Babli (Giṭṭin 37a), documented claims of minor orphans are always under the supervision of the court, have the status of court documents, and do not need prozbol. The Babli is therefore obliged to interpret the Mishnah as speaking of debts incurred by the guardians for the living expenses of the orphans. This does not seem to be the position of the Yerushalmi..
A bee hive. Rebbi Eliezer says, it is like real estate: one may write a prozbol on it, it is not subject to impurity in its place114No real estate and nothing permanently connected to the ground can become impure., and somebody who takes honey from it on the Sabbath is guilty115Removing food from the ground is the definition of harvesting.. But the Sages say, it is not like real estate, one may not write a prozbol on it, it is subject to impurity in its place, and somebody who takes honey from it on the Sabbath is not sanctionable116While it is not permitted outright, there is no punishment for the action since no biblical Sabbath prohibition has been violated. The first part of the Mishnah is also in Uqeẓin 3:10.. If somebody returns a debt in the Sabbatical, he [the lender] says to him: “I am remitting.” If he [the borrower] says “anyway”, he [the lender] should accept it, for it is said (Deuteronomy.15.2">Deut. 15:2): “This is the word of remission117Once the word “remission” has been uttered, duty has been fulfilled.”.
Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them: I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept it, for it is said (Deuteronomy.19.4">Deut. 19:4): “This is the word of a homicide.”
הלכה: פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל הַמּוּקְדָּם כָּשֵׁר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוֹרַע כּוֹחוֹ. וְהַמְּאוּחָר פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּייַפֶּה כּוֹחוֹ. שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמּוּקְדָּמִין פְסוּלִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּייַפֶּה כֹּחָן. וְהַמְּאוּחָרִין כְּשֵׁירִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מֵירַע כּוֹחָן. HALAKHAH: “A predated prozbol is valid” because he diminishes its power, but “postdated it is invalid” because he increases its power93Since a prozbol is a declaration that all documents in the hand of the creditor have to be considered as delivered to the court, predating the prozbol does not increase the number of documents covered, but postdating may increase their number. In the latter case, the testimony of the witnesses affixed to the document would be perjured.. “Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid” because he increases their power, but “postdated they are valid” because he diminishes their power94As explained in Sheviit 10:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.10.1.1">Note 2, a document of indebtedness creates a lien on the real estate of the debtor. If the debtor sells any of his real estate after the document has been created, the lien is not removed. In case of nonpayment, the creditor can foreclose the parcel that was sold and let the buyer then try to recoup his money from the seller. Predating a document of indebtedness therefore might create a false claim to parcels sold before the document was executed; such a document must be invalid. But postdating the document might protect a buyer from the creditor; this is valid..
מִי מֵּידַע שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַחֲתוּמִין בַּשְּׁטָר. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ עָשׂוּ דִבְרֵי הַחֲתוּמִין כְּמִי שֶׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵידוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין. תַּמָּן אוֹתָן כְּשֶׁאָֽמְרוּ לֹא חָתַמְנוּ כָּל־עִיקָּר. בְּרַם הָכָא אָֽמְרֵי עַל זֶה חָתַמְנוּ וְלֹא חָתַמְנוּ עַל זֶה. Who notifies95Who may inform that a prozbol or document is pre- or postdated? The Rome ms. reads מודע which might be the more correct form.? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the signatories of the document. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, they treated the statement of the signatories of a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined by the court96Since in Jewish law, a witness may not change his testimony without disqualifying himself, a witness to a document is not admitted to testify to the falsity of the document unless he admits to perjury. Hence, testimony that a prozbol was predated or a financial document postdated can never be given by any witness to the document if genuinness of the signature of the witness is established from another source. [The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish is discussed, in the same sense, in Ketubot.18b">Babli Ketubot 18b, Gittin.3a">Giṭṭin3a.]? There97The rule of R. Simeon ben Laqish only applies if the authenticity of the document is in question. But for the prozbol they could assert that they signed for the fact of the prozbol but not the date., it is about those who would say: We did not sign at all. But here they say, on this we signed, on that we did not sign.
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר פְּסוּלִין מַמָּשׁ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֵינוֹ מוֹנֶה אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת הַכְּתָב. וְהָתַנֵּי פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל בֵּין מוּקְדָּם בֵּין מְאוּחָר כָּשֵׁר וְאֵינוֹ מוֹנֶה אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת הַכְּתָב. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן בִּשְׁטָרוֹת מַה בֵּין פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל מַה בֵּין שְׁטָר. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are really invalid98Predated documents of indebtedness.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he only counts from the time of writing. But did we not state: “A prozbol is valid, whether predated or postdated, but it only counts from the time of writing”? If you assert this for financial documents, what is the difference between a prozbol and a financial document99Since the Mishnah stated that the rules of prozbol and debt documents are opposites, it is impossible to accept R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position for debt documents and probably also the baraita quoted.?
שְׁטָר שֶׁזְּמַנּוֹ כָּתוּב בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ בַעֲשָׂרָה בְתִשְׁרֵי. רִבִּי יוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי פּוֹסֵל. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי יוּדָה מַעֲשֶׂה בָּא לְפָנֶיךָ בְצִיפּוֹרִי וְהֶכְשַׁרְתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ אֲנִי לֹא הֶכְשַׁרְתִּי וְאִם הֶכְשַׁרְתִּי הֶכְשַׁרְתִּי. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר מָאן דְּאָמַר פָּסוּל מִשּׁוּם מְאוּחָר. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר כָּשֵׁר מִשּׁוּם מוּקְדָּם אֶלָּא מָאן דְּאָמַר פָּסוּל מִשּׁוּם זִייוּף. “A document dated on a Sabbath or on the Tenth of Tishrē, Rebbi Jehudah declares it valid and Rebbi Yose invalid. Rebbi Jehudah said to him, a case came before you in Sepphoris and you declared it valid. He said to him, I did not declare it valid, but if I did it, I did it.100Makkot 1:2" href="/Tosefta_Makkot.1.2">Tosephta Makkot 1:3, a slightly different version Babli Baba Batra171a. The date normally is written by the day of the month; if one checks one may find that the date given fell on a Sabbath. In the case of the Day of Atonement, one must assume that the date is given in terms of a Gentile calendar.” They wanted to say that he who holds it invalid [does so] because it101The writing of the document, which makes the document predated. [The commentators all switch “later” and “earlier” in this statement, to adapt the language to that of the Mishnah. But the testimony of the two mss. forbids this emendation.] might be later, and he who holds it valid [does so] because it might be earlier102And the document would be postdated.; but he who holds it invalid [does so] because it might be forged103R. Yose also will agree that a document dated on a Sabbath or Day of Atonement, if genuine, probably is postdated and valid. He only states that the impossible date is prima facie evidence to declare the document forged, but he is open to proof that the document is genuine. This explains his equanimity when confronted with an apparent contradiction between his action and his formal statement. He will hold the document forged unless presented with evidence to the contrary. {The different interpretation of the Babli does not explain R. Yose’s agreement with the statement of R. Jehudah.}.
רַב אָמַר וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא קַרְקַע לְמַלְוֶה וּלְלֹוֶה. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לְמַלְוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְלֹוֶה לְלֹוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לְמַלְוֶה. אֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע וּלְחַייָבִין קַרְקַע כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא קֶלַח אֶחָד בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. וְהָתַנֵּי הַשּׁוּתָפִין וְהָאָרִיסִין וְהָאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין אֵין לָהֶן פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. אָֽמְרִין תַּמָּן כָּל־קֶלַח וְקֶלַח שֶׁל שׁוּתָפוּת הוּא בְּרַם הָכָא הוּא שֶׁלּוֹ. Rav said, only if both lender and borrower have real estate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, if the creditor does but not the borrower108Then the lender can give a borrower a stalk in his field and write the prozbol., or the borrower but not the lender109This is the original institution of prozbol.. If he has no real estate but one who owes him110Only one of the many debtors for whom the prozbol will be used, cf. Sheviit 10:2:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.10.2.6">Note 92. has real estate then one writes him a prozbol. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Even if he has only one stalk in a field, one writes him a prozbol. But did we not state: Partners, sharecroppers, and guardians111Neither of them is the sole owner of the property administered by him. have no prozbol? They say, there each single stalk is property of the partnership but here it is his.
מָהוּ לִכְתּוֹב לָאֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין עִל נִיכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין נִיִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא כּוֹתְבִין לְאִישׁ עַל נִיכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ. מָהוּ לִכְתּוֹב לְאִשָּׁה עַל נִיכְסֵי בַּעֲלָהּ נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא וְכֵן לִיתוֹמִין עַל נִיכְסֵי אֶפִּיטְרוֹפִּין. May one write for a guardian based on the orphans’ real estate? Let us hear it from the following: “One writes for a husband on his wife’s properties112The standard case that the husband administers his wife’s separate property is parallel to the guardians administering the orphans’ properties.”. May one write for a woman on her husband’s properties113This must refer to a case where the wife gives up her right to be supported by her husband for the right to earn her own separate money. If the guardian administers the property of the landless orphans, then the Mishnah permits a prozbol purely on the basis of his being trustee for others as well as property owner for himself. Similarly, we should admit the possibility of prozbol simply by the marriage of the lender to a property owner.? Let us hear it from the following: “And for orphans on those of the guardians”.
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וַיָּבֹא הָעָם אֶל הַיַּעַר וְהִנֵּה הֵלֶךְ דְּבָשּׁ. מַה אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא חוֹרְשָׁא מַפִּיק דְּבָשׁ. וְאִילּוּ אָמַר וַיִּטְבּוֹל אוֹתָהּ בְּיַעֲרַת הַדְּבָשׁ יְאוּת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר שָֽׁמְעָה יַתָהּ כֵּן וַיִּטְבּוֹל אוֹתָהּ בְּיַעֲרַת הַדְּבָשׁ. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Eliezer (1S. 14:26): “The people came to the forest and behold, there was a flow of honey.” What do you understand from this? Rebbi Mana said, the thicket produced honey. If he had said from (1S. 14:27): “He dipped it into the forest of honey”, it would have been better. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He really understood it from (1S. 14:27): “He dipped it into the forest of honey118Since both יער “forest, bush country” and יערה “honeycomb” are based on the root وعر “to have a rough surface”, the words are identified..”
מַה נָן קַייָמִין אִם בִּמְחוּבֶּרֶת לְקַרְקַע כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהִיא כְקַרְקַע אִם בִּנְתוּנָה עַל גַּבֵּי שְׁתֵּי יְתֵידוֹת כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁאֵינָן כְּקַרְקַע אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין בְּמוּנַחַת עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע. וְאַתְייָא כַּיי דָאמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה כּוֹתְבִין פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל עַל מְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל תַּנּוּר וְעַל מְקוֹמָהּ שֶׁל כִּירָה. רִבִּי חִייָא בַּר אָדָא אָמַר אַף עַל מְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל נֵר. Where do we hold119What is the disagreement between R. Eliezer and the Sages?? If it is connected to the ground, everybody agrees that it belongs to the ground. If it is on two bars, everybody agrees that it is not like ground. But where we hold is if it rests on the ground120The beehive sits on the ground but is not fastened to it.. It compares to what Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: One writes a prozbol on the space for an oven, also on the space for a hearth121Oven and hearth are movable clay vessels that sit on the ground without being fastened. The Gittin.37a">Babli (Giṭṭin 37a) notes that the statement is needed only if the ground on which the oven sits is rented, not owned.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, also on the space for a lamp.
אַף בְּפַת כֵּן מַחְלוֹקֶת רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וַחֲכָמִים. דְּבַשׁ גִּידּוּלֵי כַּװֶרֶת. פַּת אֵינָהּ גִידּוּלֵי תַנּוּר. Is it also the same for the space for bread, is that the disagreement between Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages? Honey is a product of the bee hive, bread is not a product of the oven122This refers to the statement that for Rebbi Eliezer, taking honey from the bee hive on the Sabbath is a desecration of the Sabbath. It is generally accepted that on the Sabbath one may take bread from the oven if it was fully baked before the Sabbath. The question is, does Rebbi Eliezer agree or does he disagree and for some reason his dissent was not considered in the rules of the Sabbath? He agrees that taking out the bread is not harvesting..
הַמַּחֲזִיר חוֹב בַּשְּׁבִיעִית וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ מְשַׁמֵּיט אָנִי רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הִימֶּינּוּ. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר בְּשָׂפָה רָפָה. וְהַיָּמִין פְּשׁוּטָה לְקַבֵּל. If somebody repays a debt in the Sabbatical even though he [the lender] says to him: “I am remitting,” the Sages are pleased with him. Rav Huna said, he says it in a soft voice and his right hand is stretched out to receive.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הָדָא אָֽמְרָה בַּר נַשׁ דְּתַנֵּי חָדָא מֵיכְלָא וְהוּא אֲזַל לְאָתָר וְאִינּוּן מוֹקְרִין לֵיהּ בְּגִין תַּרְתֵּיי צָרִיךְ מֵימַר לוֹן אֲנָא חָדָא מֵיכְלָא אֲנָא חֲכַם. Rebbi Yose said, this means that if a person who knows one collection123He has memorized and understands one collection of Tannatitic statements (usually in the feminine, מְכִילְתָא). goes to a place and they honor him for two, he has to tell them: “I know one collection.”