loan

Does this not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan given before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. He explains it for a documented loan. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A loan given before witnesses can be collected from heirs, on condition that they inherited real estate. As those from the house of Rav Neḥemiah, who lent money to the public. The case came before the rabbis who said, the public is neither all rich nor all poor.

Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasa’s name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meїr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

There could be terms. If he entered into terms with him, it is permitted. That means, with adults. With minors, the terms can be with their masters. That is, if the master was a Jew. If he was Gentile? Rebbi Tevele sold his slave and entered into terms with his master. Rebbi Isaac the goldsmith had slaves who fled to Bnoton. He came and asked Rebbi Immi who instructed him that a sales contract is forbidden, a loan for use is permitted, a cession is questionable. The slave girl of Rebbi Abba bar Ada fled to Cilicia. He came and asked Rebbi Mana, who instructed him following Rebbi Immi: a sales contract is forbidden, a loan for use is permitted, a cession is questionable.

There could be terms. If he entered into terms with him, it is permitted. That means, with adults. With minors, the terms can be with their masters. That is, if the master was a Jew. If he was Gentile? Rebbi Tevele sold his slave and entered into terms with his master. Rebbi Isaac the goldsmith had slaves who fled to Bnoton. He came and asked Rebbi Immi who instructed him that a sales contract is forbidden, a loan for use is permitted, a cession is questionable. The slave girl of Rebbi Abba bar Ada fled to Cilicia. He came and asked Rebbi Mana, who instructed him following Rebbi Immi: a sales contract is forbidden, a loan for use is permitted, a cession is questionable.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Full and partial damages are collected from encumbered property.” One understands full damages. Are partial damages not collected from the animal’s body? Rebbi Yose said, explain it when it was a docile ox which did damage and then his owner went and sold it. Its body already was encumbered to the injured party. The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he converted it into a loan. Then it should be foreclosed only by average quality land! Since the debt originated in a damage claim, he may collect from best quality.

“His field”, except if it was mortgaged. “His vineyard”, except Temple property. Where do we hold? If somebody caused damage and then dedicated to the Temple, that is what we have stated: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas.” If somebody dedicated to the Temple and then caused damage, that is what we have stated: “ ‘His neighbor’s ox’ but not the ox of Temple property.” Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if an ox of Temple property grazed on a private field. Rebbi Mana told him, we require Temple real estate and you say “on a private field”? But we must hold about one who said: I am obligating myself for 100 minas to the Temple; then went and caused damage. You should not say that between damages and a loan given before witnesses damages are privileged, and here damages are privileged against the Temple; therefore it was necessary to say “his vineyard”, except Temple property.

This is obvious: A loan that is disputed is not remitted. A loan that was disputed but is now a [confirmed] loan, is remitted. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is this also true for judgments? A loan that was disputed can be collected. A disputed loan turned into a [confirmed] loan is collected from property of average quality.

This is obvious: A loan that is disputed is not remitted. A loan that was disputed but is now a [confirmed] loan, is remitted. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is this also true for judgments? A loan that was disputed can be collected. A disputed loan turned into a [confirmed] loan is collected from property of average quality.

This is obvious: A loan that is disputed is not remitted. A loan that was disputed but is now a [confirmed] loan, is remitted. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is this also true for judgments? A loan that was disputed can be collected. A disputed loan turned into a [confirmed] loan is collected from property of average quality.

This is obvious: A loan that is disputed is not remitted. A loan that was disputed but is now a [confirmed] loan, is remitted. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is this also true for judgments? A loan that was disputed can be collected. A disputed loan turned into a [confirmed] loan is collected from property of average quality.

This is obvious: A loan that is disputed is not remitted. A loan that was disputed but is now a [confirmed] loan, is remitted. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is this also true for judgments? A loan that was disputed can be collected. A disputed loan turned into a [confirmed] loan is collected from property of average quality.

This is obvious: A loan that is disputed is not remitted. A loan that was disputed but is now a [confirmed] loan, is remitted. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is this also true for judgments? A loan that was disputed can be collected. A disputed loan turned into a [confirmed] loan is collected from property of average quality.

As the following: Ganiba was lead out to be executed. He said, One should give money to Rebbi Abuna from the wine of Kefar Panaya. They did not give him; they were considering what Rav said, “an heir is like the buyer of encumbered property.” Just as a loan before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. If they did not give it as payment of a debt, they should have given as a gift! They were considering what Rebbi Eleazar said, for Rebbi Eleazar asked: Does his gift follow the rules of the gift of a sick person? Rebbi Ze‘ira brought Rebbi Isaac from Atosha who stated for him: A gift is like a bill of divorce. Rebbi Abba said to him, perhaps like bills of divorce which one cannot deliver if not delivered during his lifetime, so a gift is not called a gift if not delivered during his lifetime? He said to him, here comes the rabbi with sophistication to let Rebbi Abuna lose money! You cannot, for we have stated there: “Give a mina to X; then he died. One shall give after death.” Following Rebbi Simeon. For Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees, they should give him, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A loan before witnesses can be collected from the heirs on condition that they inherited real estate. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if somebody was with him until the moment of his death. But if he goes in and out, I am saying that already he gave him. The word of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it was not given since Rebbi Ḥanina reported this fact: Levi Parisa was going from place to place when Ganiba’s relatives came to eat with him. He said, the money should be given to Rebbi Abuna; they started quarelling with him.

As the following: Ganiba was lead out to be executed. He said, One should give money to Rebbi Abuna from the wine of Kefar Panaya. They did not give him; they were considering what Rav said, “an heir is like the buyer of encumbered property.” Just as a loan before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. If they did not give it as payment of a debt, they should have given as a gift! They were considering what Rebbi Eleazar said, for Rebbi Eleazar asked: Does his gift follow the rules of the gift of a sick person? Rebbi Ze‘ira brought Rebbi Isaac from Atosha who stated for him: A gift is like a bill of divorce. Rebbi Abba said to him, perhaps like bills of divorce which one cannot deliver if not delivered during his lifetime, so a gift is not called a gift if not delivered during his lifetime? He said to him, here comes the rabbi with sophistication to let Rebbi Abuna lose money! You cannot, for we have stated there: “Give a mina to X; then he died. One shall give after death.” Following Rebbi Simeon. For Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees, they should give him, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A loan before witnesses can be collected from the heirs on condition that they inherited real estate. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if somebody was with him until the moment of his death. But if he goes in and out, I am saying that already he gave him. The word of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it was not given since Rebbi Ḥanina reported this fact: Levi Parisa was going from place to place when Ganiba’s relatives came to eat with him. He said, the money should be given to Rebbi Abuna; they started quarelling with him.

It was stated: [A claim based on] any of these three types of documents can be collected only from unincumbered property, not from mortgaged property. Rebbi Abba said, that means, if the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed. [But if the document in the hand of the lender has been confirmed, he may collect. Rebbi Yose asked: If the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed,] he should not be able to collect even from unincumbered property! But one must deal with a document confirmed in the hand of the lender. And why can he not collect? Rebbi Bisna said, because of action in partnership. Rebbi Abina said, because it is invalid And here, because it is invalid. Rebbi Abin asked, so far, if the old man took the loan [and the old man mortgaged. But if the old man took the loan and the son mortgaged,] can you say because of a conspiracy? No, because it is invalid. Rebbi Abun asked, was it not stated: The same holds for bills of divorce? Can you say there, because of action in partnership? No, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid.

It was stated: [A claim based on] any of these three types of documents can be collected only from unincumbered property, not from mortgaged property. Rebbi Abba said, that means, if the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed. [But if the document in the hand of the lender has been confirmed, he may collect. Rebbi Yose asked: If the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed,] he should not be able to collect even from unincumbered property! But one must deal with a document confirmed in the hand of the lender. And why can he not collect? Rebbi Bisna said, because of action in partnership. Rebbi Abina said, because it is invalid And here, because it is invalid. Rebbi Abin asked, so far, if the old man took the loan [and the old man mortgaged. But if the old man took the loan and the son mortgaged,] can you say because of a conspiracy? No, because it is invalid. Rebbi Abun asked, was it not stated: The same holds for bills of divorce? Can you say there, because of action in partnership? No, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid.

If somebody contests the signature of the witnesses or the signature of the judges. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he wants to certify it from the handwriting of the witnesses it is certified, from the handwriting of the judges it is certified; I am saying that even from one witness and one judge it is certified. If he gave permission to the scribe to write and to the witnesses to sign, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The witnesses have to write: “This loan is from the first of Nisan but we wrote at a later date.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The confirmation of the judges is valid even if it is at some distance. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? Could he then not certify from one handwriting? Rav said: The judges have to write: We certified this in the presence of X and Y. Why? So they can be convicted of perjury. But then also on which date, at which time, at which place? A judgment was given before Rav and this was not written. Rebbi Ḥaggai said: The judges have to know the parties. It happened that they falsified.

Is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah of the opinion that the “allotment” discussed here is preliminary marriage by biblical standards? Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebi Jehudah agrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. As it was stated: By the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. Just as Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon equates loan and deposit, so Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah equates “allotment” and loan.

Is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah of the opinion that the “allotment” discussed here is preliminary marriage by biblical standards? Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebi Jehudah agrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. As it was stated: By the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. Just as Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon equates loan and deposit, so Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah equates “allotment” and loan.

Is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah of the opinion that the “allotment” discussed here is preliminary marriage by biblical standards? Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebi Jehudah agrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. As it was stated: By the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. Just as Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon equates loan and deposit, so Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah equates “allotment” and loan.

Is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah of the opinion that the “allotment” discussed here is preliminary marriage by biblical standards? Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebi Jehudah agrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. As it was stated: By the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. Just as Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon equates loan and deposit, so Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah equates “allotment” and loan.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “ ‘Be preliminarily married to me by this tetradrachma after thirty [days].’ Even if she spent it within the thirty [days], she is preliminarily married; also Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar will agree to this.” What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was not given for preliminary marriage, while this was given from the start for preliminary marriage. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Then even if a peruṭah’s worth was not left, she should be preliminarily married! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “Be preliminarily married to me by the deposit you hold for me; if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, if there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married. By the loan you are holding from me, if she went and found that it was stolen or lost, even if there was no peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, a loan is like a deposit: If there was a peruṭah’s worth left, she is preliminarily married; otherwise, she is not preliminarily married.” Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr said that anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber, so Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says here, anybody who deviates from the orders of the owner is called a robber. For he explains it to be for a loan when the lender said, buy wheat for me, but he bought barley for him. That is difficult: can one pay for a preliminary marriage with robbed money? Rebbi Yose asked: One understands that a person may invest a peruṭah to gain a denar; would he invest a peruṭah to gain a perutah? Some Tannaïm state: One may preliminarily marry with a robbed item; some Tannaïm state: One cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item. Rebbi Mana said, the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has a chance to recoup from her hand. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which he has no chance to remove from her hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the one who said that one may preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner gave up hope to recover. The one who said that one cannot preliminarily marry with a robbed item refers to an item which the owner did not give up hope to recover.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The baraita if he said to her, by the deposit you are holding for me. But if he said, by everything which I deposited with you, she is not preliminarily married unless all of it is available. What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was given to be spent; this was not given to be spent. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.” Then even if a peruṭah’ s worth was left, she should not be preliminarily married unless all of them were available! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Abun said, were we not of the opinion to say, who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Jehudah imply comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Just as he says there, comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices, so he says here, comprehensive one preliminary marriage, in detail three preliminary marriages.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The baraita if he said to her, by the deposit you are holding for me. But if he said, by everything which I deposited with you, she is not preliminarily married unless all of it is available. What is the difference between this and a loan? A loan was given to be spent; this was not given to be spent. But did we not state: “If she was eating right away she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah.” Then even if a peruṭah’ s worth was left, she should not be preliminarily married unless all of them were available! He explains that as earlier. If it refers to the earlier statement, did we not state: “If she was eating immediately she is not preliminarily married unless one of them was worth a peruṭah”? Rebbi Abun said, were we not of the opinion to say, who is the Tanna of Wawim? Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan said: The words of Rebbi Jehudah imply comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices. Just as he says there, comprehensive one sacrifice, in detail three sacrifices, so he says here, comprehensive one preliminary marriage, in detail three preliminary marriages.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah,” etc. It was stated: “In all these cases, if they had intercourse they acquired. Rebbi Simeon [ben] Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: In all these cases, if they had intercourse they did acquire since his intercourse was predicated on the preceding preliminary marriage.” What did they acquire? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They acquired for restrictions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: With any condition which refers to a preceding action, she is preliminarily married for restrictions. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Who is the Tanna who stated: “Any condition which refers to a preceding action is invalid”? This does not follow Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She is preliminarily married for restrictions. How is that: “I am marrying you preliminarily by intercourse on condition that rains should fall.” If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of a preliminary marriage by a loan for restrictions, for real estate it was not acquired, for movables one does not deliver him to “Him Who exacted retribution.” If [the buyer] insists on the deal? Let us hear from the following: “You have wine to get from me, when he had no wine.” Therefore, if he had wine he would be obligated to deliver. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if he has wine he is obligated to deliver. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac did (not) say there: You should know that Rebbi Ḥiyya instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan that a preliminary marriage by a loan is for restrictions. Rebbi Ze‘ira resented it. Why? Because they were restrictive in practice and he taught them leniency? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they were lenient in practice and he taught them to be restrictive, that if another man came and married her preliminarily, his marriage would hold. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ḥanan said, if there is a doubt between adultery and no adultery, decide on no adultery.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody preliminarily marries two women with the value of a peruṭah,” etc. It was stated: “In all these cases, if they had intercourse they acquired. Rebbi Simeon [ben] Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: In all these cases, if they had intercourse they did acquire since his intercourse was predicated on the preceding preliminary marriage.” What did they acquire? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They acquired for restrictions. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: With any condition which refers to a preceding action, she is preliminarily married for restrictions. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Who is the Tanna who stated: “Any condition which refers to a preceding action is invalid”? This does not follow Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She is preliminarily married for restrictions. How is that: “I am marrying you preliminarily by intercourse on condition that rains should fall.” If rain fell, she is preliminarily married, otherwise she is not preliminarily married. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of a preliminary marriage by a loan for restrictions, for real estate it was not acquired, for movables one does not deliver him to “Him Who exacted retribution.” If [the buyer] insists on the deal? Let us hear from the following: “You have wine to get from me, when he had no wine.” Therefore, if he had wine he would be obligated to deliver. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, if he has wine he is obligated to deliver. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac did (not) say there: You should know that Rebbi Ḥiyya instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan that a preliminary marriage by a loan is for restrictions. Rebbi Ze‘ira resented it. Why? Because they were restrictive in practice and he taught them leniency? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they were lenient in practice and he taught them to be restrictive, that if another man came and married her preliminarily, his marriage would hold. Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ḥanan said, if there is a doubt between adultery and no adultery, decide on no adultery.

MISHNAH: Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was lost’. ‘I will make you swear’ and he said ‘amen’. If witnesses testify against him that he ate it, he pays the capital. If he confessed on his own, he has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice. Where is my deposit? He told him ‘it was stolen’. ‘I will make you swear’ and he said ‘amen’. If witnesses testify against him that he stole it, he pays double restitution. If he confessed on his own, he has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice. He who robbed from his father and swore to him when he died has to pay capital and fifth to his sons or brothers. But if he refuses, or does not have the money, he takes a loan and the creditors come and make themselves paid.

MISHNAH: If somebody says to his son: A qônām that you cannot enjoy anything from me, when he dies he can inherit from him. During my lifetime and after my death, when he dies he cannot inherit from him but should give it to his sons or his brothers, and if he has nothing he may take a loan; the creditors come and make themselves paid.

“If it was mortgageable property they have to return it.” What is mortgageable property? Rebbi Jonathan says, if they inherited real estate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if they inherited robbed items. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. But does [the Mishnah] not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property; just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be foreclosed from heirs. Explain it if he left them real estate. But might it not disagree with Samuel? Did not Samuel say, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property? Explain it if they inherited robbed items.

“If it was mortgageable property they have to return it.” What is mortgageable property? Rebbi Jonathan says, if they inherited real estate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if they inherited robbed items. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. But does [the Mishnah] not disagree with Rav? Since Rav said, an heir is like a holder of encumbered property; just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be foreclosed from heirs. Explain it if he left them real estate. But might it not disagree with Samuel? Did not Samuel say, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property? Explain it if they inherited robbed items.

MISHNAH: Somebody had robbed a field which subsequently was taken by discharged veterans. If it is a provincial plague, he may tell him: Here is your property before you. But if it was because of the robber, he has to give him a field. If a river had washed it away, he may say to him: Here is your property before you. He who robbed from another, or took a loan from him, or accepted a deposit in a built-up area cannot give it back to him in the desert. [If it was given] with the intent to depart for the desert, he can give it back to him in the desert.

MISHNAH: He who says to another: I robbed you, or I took a loan from you, you deposited with me, but I do not known whether I returned it to you or did not return it, is liable to pay. But if he said to him: I do not know whether I robbed you, or I took a loan from you, or you deposited with me or did not deposit, he is not liable to pay.

MISHNAH: He who says to another: I robbed you, or I took a loan from you, you deposited with me, but I do not known whether I returned it to you or did not return it, is liable to pay. But if he said to him: I do not know whether I robbed you, or I took a loan from you, or you deposited with me or did not deposit, he is not liable to pay.

HALAKHAH: “He who says to another: I robbed you,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wants to clear himself before Heaven. I robbed you, or I took a loan from you, you deposited with me; did I return it to you? The other party says, I do not know. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he is required to make good as a matter of law. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, still it is to become clear before Heaven. I took from the wallet and gave to you, and the other party says, I do not know. Rav Huna said, one tells him: You do not know but the other party knows.

HALAKHAH: “One who found documents of indebtedness,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Both based on a document containing an alienation clause or a document containing no alienation clause, he collects from unincumbered property. Following this opinion of Rebbi Meïr, to what purpose does he return it? To cover the mouth of his pitcher. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. Here you say, it can be collected, but there you say, it cannot be collected. There is no comparison between one who agreed to a small lien and one who never agreed to a lien.

Rebbi Eleazar said, for I am saying that he wanted to take a loan but did not. Rebbi Eleazar said, if the debtor agreed, he should return it. Rebbi Eleazar said, if the document was generally known to be in the creditor’s hand, he should return it. But all three are broken, “the Sages say, in no case should he return them.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of conspiracy. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If its date was that very day, he should return it.

If a person took a documented loan and paid it back, he cannot use the document to take a second loan because it diminishes the power of the buyers. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even on the same day. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Here you say, even on the same day. But there, you say, if its date was that very day, he should return it! He answered, a person is apt to take a loan and repay it the same day, but a person is not apt to repay a loan and take it the same day. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yasa: It is the same day, the same witnesses, and the same amount. What is the meaning of “it diminishes the power of the buyers”? He answered, if the property had not been mortgaged. But some say, if the witnesses did not sign for this loan.

If a person took a documented loan and paid it back, he cannot use the document to take a second loan because it diminishes the power of the buyers. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even on the same day. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Here you say, even on the same day. But there, you say, if its date was that very day, he should return it! He answered, a person is apt to take a loan and repay it the same day, but a person is not apt to repay a loan and take it the same day. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yasa: It is the same day, the same witnesses, and the same amount. What is the meaning of “it diminishes the power of the buyers”? He answered, if the property had not been mortgaged. But some say, if the witnesses did not sign for this loan.

If a person took a documented loan and paid it back, he cannot use the document to take a second loan because it diminishes the power of the buyers. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even on the same day. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Here you say, even on the same day. But there, you say, if its date was that very day, he should return it! He answered, a person is apt to take a loan and repay it the same day, but a person is not apt to repay a loan and take it the same day. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yasa: It is the same day, the same witnesses, and the same amount. What is the meaning of “it diminishes the power of the buyers”? He answered, if the property had not been mortgaged. But some say, if the witnesses did not sign for this loan.

If a person took a documented loan and paid it back, he cannot use the document to take a second loan because it diminishes the power of the buyers. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even on the same day. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Here you say, even on the same day. But there, you say, if its date was that very day, he should return it! He answered, a person is apt to take a loan and repay it the same day, but a person is not apt to repay a loan and take it the same day. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yasa: It is the same day, the same witnesses, and the same amount. What is the meaning of “it diminishes the power of the buyers”? He answered, if the property had not been mortgaged. But some say, if the witnesses did not sign for this loan.

If a person took a documented loan and paid it back, he cannot use the document to take a second loan because it diminishes the power of the buyers. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even on the same day. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Here you say, even on the same day. But there, you say, if its date was that very day, he should return it! He answered, a person is apt to take a loan and repay it the same day, but a person is not apt to repay a loan and take it the same day. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yasa: It is the same day, the same witnesses, and the same amount. What is the meaning of “it diminishes the power of the buyers”? He answered, if the property had not been mortgaged. But some say, if the witnesses did not sign for this loan.

HALAKHAH: “If one says to two people, I robbed,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here if they complain, there if they are silent. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. There, they say in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed. Rebbi Yasa wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, an officer of the court determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed. Other Tannaїm stated, a court which determined that one was robbed, [as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed,] not a court which determined that one was a robber. Rebbi Ila said, we also have stated that the rules are identical for robbery, intercourse, and loan. Everbody agrees about the deposit mentioned in the Mishnah, from the following: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you it was.”

“A Jew had borrowed money from a Gentile or a Gentile from a Jew when he converted. Whether the loan was finalized before or after his conversion, he can collect the principal but not the interest. But if a Gentile had borrowed money from a Jew and converted, if the loan was finalized before he converted, he can collect principal and interest; after he converted, he can collect principal but not interest. Bar Qappara said, he can collect both principal and interest.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Bar Qappara’s reason is that if you exempt him from interest he is turned into an insincere proselyte.

“A Jew had borrowed money from a Gentile or a Gentile from a Jew when he converted. Whether the loan was finalized before or after his conversion, he can collect the principal but not the interest. But if a Gentile had borrowed money from a Jew and converted, if the loan was finalized before he converted, he can collect principal and interest; after he converted, he can collect principal but not interest. Bar Qappara said, he can collect both principal and interest.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Bar Qappara’s reason is that if you exempt him from interest he is turned into an insincere proselyte.

HALAKHAH: “One does not contract for produce,” etc. May one contract based on Saracens’ rates? Rebbi Joḥanan says, one may contract; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one may not contract. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Would it not be reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about rates of Saracens of Sepphoris, since that is uninterrupted? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, I am wondering about what the rabbis disagree? Whether contracting for produce, or contracting for money, or a loan on produce? Rebbi Jeremiah said, they disagree about a loan, but about (a hostelry) [a contract] everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, they disagree about a contract, but about a loan everybody agrees that it is permitted. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one contracts for cattle feed. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, also on honeycombs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all villages near Tiberias one contracts once the rate was established at Tiberias.

HALAKHAH: “One does not contract for produce,” etc. May one contract based on Saracens’ rates? Rebbi Joḥanan says, one may contract; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one may not contract. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Would it not be reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about rates of Saracens of Sepphoris, since that is uninterrupted? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, I am wondering about what the rabbis disagree? Whether contracting for produce, or contracting for money, or a loan on produce? Rebbi Jeremiah said, they disagree about a loan, but about (a hostelry) [a contract] everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, they disagree about a contract, but about a loan everybody agrees that it is permitted. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one contracts for cattle feed. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, also on honeycombs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all villages near Tiberias one contracts once the rate was established at Tiberias.

HALAKHAH: “One does not contract for produce,” etc. May one contract based on Saracens’ rates? Rebbi Joḥanan says, one may contract; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one may not contract. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Would it not be reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about rates of Saracens of Sepphoris, since that is uninterrupted? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, I am wondering about what the rabbis disagree? Whether contracting for produce, or contracting for money, or a loan on produce? Rebbi Jeremiah said, they disagree about a loan, but about (a hostelry) [a contract] everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, they disagree about a contract, but about a loan everybody agrees that it is permitted. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, one contracts for cattle feed. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, also on honeycombs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all villages near Tiberias one contracts once the rate was established at Tiberias.

HALAKHAH: “The following transgress prohibitions,” etc. “Rebbi Yose said, come and see how blind are the eyes of people who lend on interest. If a person calls another one idolator, or adulterer, or murderer, the other will want to destroy him. But this one pays witnesses and a scribe and tells them, come and testify that I negated the roots [of Judaism]. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, they negate much more than the roots, for they declare the Torah false and Moses an idiot and say, if Moses had known how much we are earning, he would not have written it. Rebbi Aqiba says, interest is difficult since even a favor can be interest. If one told him to buy vegetables on the market for him, even though he gave him the money, this is interest. Rebbi Simeon said, interest is difficult since even greeting can be interest. If he never greeted him but because he took a loan from him he is quick to greet him, this is interest. In this sense, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar used to say, about a person who has money and does not lend it on interest the verse says: ‘his money he did not lend on interest,’ etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Immi said, we would not know what this tottering was if Salomon had not come and explained: ‘to save those taken to death.’”

MISHNAH: All artisans are paid trustees, but in any case where he said, take what is yours and bring money, he becomes an unpaid trustee. Watch over what is mine and I shall watch over what is yours, paid trustee. Watch over what is mine, and he said, put it down before you, an unpaid trustee. He who gives a loan on a pledge is a paid trustee; Rebbi Jehudah said, if he lent money, he is an unpaid trustee, if produce, a paid trustee. Abba Shaul said, a person is authorized to rent out a poor person’s pledge to continuously slice off [from the loan] because he is like a person who returns lost property.

MISHNAH: All artisans are paid trustees, but in any case where he said, take what is yours and bring money, he becomes an unpaid trustee. Watch over what is mine and I shall watch over what is yours, paid trustee. Watch over what is mine, and he said, put it down before you, an unpaid trustee. He who gives a loan on a pledge is a paid trustee; Rebbi Jehudah said, if he lent money, he is an unpaid trustee, if produce, a paid trustee. Abba Shaul said, a person is authorized to rent out a poor person’s pledge to continuously slice off [from the loan] because he is like a person who returns lost property.

HALAKHAH: It is written about torts that the collection be from the best quality, as it is said: “his best field, etc.” And it is written about a loan that the collection be from average quality, as it is said: “and the man to whom you are creditor, etc.” They inferred real estate from pledges. Similarly, should not pledges be inferred from real estate? Rebbi Simai explained: It is a word of the Torah that the court’s bailiff enter and collect from average quality. For if the creditor enter, he would bring out the best. And if the debtor enter, he would bring out the worst. But the court’s bailiff enters and collects from average quality. Rebbi Ismael stated: It is a word of the Torah that the debtor enter, as it is said: “and the man to whom you are creditor etc.” Rebbi La said, it was stated there: “to seize as pledge”, by the court. Outside the court, from where? The verse says, “if to seize as pledge you seize as pledge.” If he took the pledge without authorization, he transgresses all these verses. Rebbi La said, he caused himself to transgress all these verses.

“If two people lived in the same town,” etc. “They cannot write a bond one on the other.” As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

MISHNAH: Somebody who gives a loan to another person with a guarantor may not request payment from the guarantor. If he said, on condition that I may request payment from whom I choose, he may ask payment from the guarantor. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if the debtor has real estate then in no case may he request payment from the guarantor.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who gives a loan to another person with a guarantor,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the debtor has real estate. But if the debtor has no real estate, he may request payment from the guarantor. If he said, on condition that I may request payment from whom I choose, he may request payment from the guarantor.

MISHNAH: Somebody who lent to another by a document collects from encumbered property, by witnesses collects from free property. If he presents a note in his own handwriting that he owes him, he collects from free property. From a guarantor who endorsed after the signature of the witnesses, one collects from free property. This case came before Rebbi Ismael who said, he collects from free property. Ben Nannas said to him, he collects neither from encumbered nor from free property. He asked, why? He answered, if one would strangle another in the market place and a third person would say, let him go, I shall pay you, he is not liable since the loan was not made on his faith. Who is the guarantor who is liable? If he told him, “lend to him and I shall pay you,” he is liable because the loan was extended on his faith. Rebbi Ismael said, anybody who wants to train to become wise should study the laws of money matters since nothing greater is there in the Torah; they are like a flowing source, and anybody wanting to study the laws of money matters should serve Simeon ben Nannas.

MISHNAH: Somebody who lent to another by a document collects from encumbered property, by witnesses collects from free property. If he presents a note in his own handwriting that he owes him, he collects from free property. From a guarantor who endorsed after the signature of the witnesses, one collects from free property. This case came before Rebbi Ismael who said, he collects from free property. Ben Nannas said to him, he collects neither from encumbered nor from free property. He asked, why? He answered, if one would strangle another in the market place and a third person would say, let him go, I shall pay you, he is not liable since the loan was not made on his faith. Who is the guarantor who is liable? If he told him, “lend to him and I shall pay you,” he is liable because the loan was extended on his faith. Rebbi Ismael said, anybody who wants to train to become wise should study the laws of money matters since nothing greater is there in the Torah; they are like a flowing source, and anybody wanting to study the laws of money matters should serve Simeon ben Nannas.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid”? That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. Rav Huna, quoted here. “Rebbi Eleazar said, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony, the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

They and everything that belonged to them descended alive into the pit. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥelbo, even their names flew away from their papyrus rolls. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, even one of their needles that was in the hand of an Israel as a loan was swallowed up with them, for it is written: They and everything that belonged to them descended alive into the pit. Who prayed for them? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Moses prayed for them, Reuben shall live and not die. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Hannah prayed for them. This is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s opinion, as Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said in the name of Rebbi Yose: Koraḥ’s (opinion) [band] was continuously sinking until Hannah stood up and said, the Eternal kills and brings to life, He sends down into the pit and lifts.

MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I have a claim against X for a deposit, and a loan, and robbery, and a lost object.” “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” they are liable only once. “An oath that we do not know that you have a claim against X for a deposit, and a common venture, and robbery, and a lost object;” they are liable for each single one. “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that I have a claim against X for a deposit of wheat, and barley, and spelt.” “An oath that we do not know testimony for you;” they are liable only once. “An oath that we do not know that you have a claim against X for a deposit of wheat, and barley, and spelt;” they are liable for each single one.

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, why does the verse say, and he is a witness, or saw, or knew, etc.? I said this only for testimony which may be accepted about knowing without seeing, or seeing without knowing. How is knowing without seeing in monetary claims? “Give me my 200 zuz which you are holding.” “I do not have anything of yours.” “But did you not confess before X and Y”? “They should testify and I shall pay.” This refers to knowing without seeing. They came and said, whether he confessed to him or whether he robbed him, we do not know. Whether he gave him a loan we do not know. How is seeing without knowing in monetary claims? “Give me my 200 zuz which you are holding.” “I do not have anything of yours.” “But did I not count them for you in a meeting with X and Y”? “They should testify and I shall pay.” This refers to seeing without knowing. They came and said, whether he counted for him or whether he robbed him, we do not know. Whether he took a loan from him, we do not know. “Give me the fine for my daughter which you owe me.” But he says, “I never in my life was found liable for a fine.” Witnesses testify that he was found liable for a fine, but we do not know whether the fine was for his daughter or the fine for another woman. “You raped or you seduced my daughter.” But he says, “I never in my life did rape or seduce a woman.” Witnesses testify that he raped a woman, but we do not know whether it was his daughter or another woman. “You killed my ox and cut down my orchard.” But he says, “I do not know.” He is liable. “You told me to kill and cut down,” one follows the majority of orchards. What means, one follows the majority of orchards? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, if his ox was goring, he would have told him; if the orchard was barren, he would have told him. Rebbi Yudan said, in matters of monetary claims, since he may tell him, you told me to kill and cut down, even if he told him “I did not kill, I did not cut down,” he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, why does the verse say, and he is a witness, or saw, or knew, etc.? I said this only for testimony which may be accepted about knowing without seeing, or seeing without knowing. How is knowing without seeing in monetary claims? “Give me my 200 zuz which you are holding.” “I do not have anything of yours.” “But did you not confess before X and Y”? “They should testify and I shall pay.” This refers to knowing without seeing. They came and said, whether he confessed to him or whether he robbed him, we do not know. Whether he gave him a loan we do not know. How is seeing without knowing in monetary claims? “Give me my 200 zuz which you are holding.” “I do not have anything of yours.” “But did I not count them for you in a meeting with X and Y”? “They should testify and I shall pay.” This refers to seeing without knowing. They came and said, whether he counted for him or whether he robbed him, we do not know. Whether he took a loan from him, we do not know. “Give me the fine for my daughter which you owe me.” But he says, “I never in my life was found liable for a fine.” Witnesses testify that he was found liable for a fine, but we do not know whether the fine was for his daughter or the fine for another woman. “You raped or you seduced my daughter.” But he says, “I never in my life did rape or seduce a woman.” Witnesses testify that he raped a woman, but we do not know whether it was his daughter or another woman. “You killed my ox and cut down my orchard.” But he says, “I do not know.” He is liable. “You told me to kill and cut down,” one follows the majority of orchards. What means, one follows the majority of orchards? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, if his ox was goring, he would have told him; if the orchard was barren, he would have told him. Rebbi Yudan said, in matters of monetary claims, since he may tell him, you told me to kill and cut down, even if he told him “I did not kill, I did not cut down,” he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “An oath about a deposit,” etc. It was stated: Is an oath in his own formulation of an oath of testimony like an imprecation; in his own words is an oath about a deposit like an imprecation? Rebbi Yose said, since it is written “a person, a person”, everything is here and everything is there. Rebbi Mana said, an imprecation made in court is the topic of disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages. He lied to his fellow man, if his confession was eliminated by the oath. It excludes one who lied to one of partners; it excludes one who lied where there are witnesses and a document. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if two people took a loan from one person, even if they did not write “we are responsible and warrantors for one another”, they are responsible and warrantors for one another; but one does not act on this. If two made a joint deposit and one came to retrieve his property, one does not listen to him. Should he not be treated as denying his part and be liable? If one made a deposit with two people. If one denied it, he is liable. If the other denied it, he is liable. If the deposit was worth one peruṭa, does this not result in each of them bringing a sacrifice for half a peruṭa? What here? If one would swear, and swear, and swear, would he not bring a sacrifice for half a peruṭa? There, each oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth. Here no oath refers to a peruṭa’s worth.

MISHNAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan, the robbery, and the lost object which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything of yours;” he is liable only once. “An oath that I am holding for you neither a deposit, nor a loan, nor a robbery, nor a lost object;” he is liable for each separate item. “Give me the wheat, and the barley, and the spelt, which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything for you,” he is liable only for one. “An oath that I am not holding wheat, and barley, and spelt, for you,” he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each single one.

MISHNAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan, the robbery, and the lost object which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything of yours;” he is liable only once. “An oath that I am holding for you neither a deposit, nor a loan, nor a robbery, nor a lost object;” he is liable for each separate item. “Give me the wheat, and the barley, and the spelt, which you are holding for me.” “An oath that I am not holding anything for you,” he is liable only for one. “An oath that I am not holding wheat, and barley, and spelt, for you,” he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Meїr says, even if he says, “wheat, and barley, and spelt,” he is liable for each single one.

HALAKHAH: “Give me the deposit, the loan,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies that if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest. Rebbi Abba said, even Rebbi (Yasa) will agree with this. If it turns out that he had no wheat, does [the oath] refer to the other kinds? The colleagues said, it does not. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it does. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a baraita supports what the colleagues said. “A woman made a vow as a nazir and her friend heard it and said, ‘so am I’; the first woman’s husband heard it and dissolved [the vow] for her; the first one is permitted and the second forbidden. If she said, ‘my intention was only to be like her,’ both are permitted.” Because she said, “to be like her, in her state”. Therefore, if she did not say “to be like her, in her state”, the first is permitted and the second forbidden. Since there, where the essence is not an oath, you say it applies, here, where there was an original oath, not so much more? What Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon implies if it turns out that he had no wheat, he is not liable for the rest, if he connects: If he says, [my obligation for] barley shall be like that for wheat; [my obligation for] spelt shall be like that for wheat.

“ ‘You are holding a mina for me’, ‘I am not holding anything for you’, he is not liable.” Even “you are holding a lot for me,” “I am not holding anything for you”, he is not liable? But the following: “You are holding a mina for me.” “I am holding only a peruṭah for you.” He is liable. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying: Only if he made the loan in the presence of witnesses. But if he made the loan not in the presence of witnesses, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it. Rebbi Yudan said, in money matters one does not argue “because.” Because he could have told him, you did not give me a loan, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it? The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘You are holding a mina for me;’ he said ‘yes’. The next day he said, ‘return it to me,’ ‘I returned it to you;’ he is not liable. ‘I am not holding anything for you,’ he is liable.”

“ ‘You are holding a mina for me’, ‘I am not holding anything for you’, he is not liable.” Even “you are holding a lot for me,” “I am not holding anything for you”, he is not liable? But the following: “You are holding a mina for me.” “I am holding only a peruṭah for you.” He is liable. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying: Only if he made the loan in the presence of witnesses. But if he made the loan not in the presence of witnesses, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it. Rebbi Yudan said, in money matters one does not argue “because.” Because he could have told him, you did not give me a loan, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it? The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘You are holding a mina for me;’ he said ‘yes’. The next day he said, ‘return it to me,’ ‘I returned it to you;’ he is not liable. ‘I am not holding anything for you,’ he is liable.”

“ ‘You are holding a mina for me’, ‘I am not holding anything for you’, he is not liable.” Even “you are holding a lot for me,” “I am not holding anything for you”, he is not liable? But the following: “You are holding a mina for me.” “I am holding only a peruṭah for you.” He is liable. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying: Only if he made the loan in the presence of witnesses. But if he made the loan not in the presence of witnesses, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it. Rebbi Yudan said, in money matters one does not argue “because.” Because he could have told him, you did not give me a loan, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it? The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘You are holding a mina for me;’ he said ‘yes’. The next day he said, ‘return it to me,’ ‘I returned it to you;’ he is not liable. ‘I am not holding anything for you,’ he is liable.”

“ ‘You are holding a mina for me’, ‘I am not holding anything for you’, he is not liable.” Even “you are holding a lot for me,” “I am not holding anything for you”, he is not liable? But the following: “You are holding a mina for me.” “I am holding only a peruṭah for you.” He is liable. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying: Only if he made the loan in the presence of witnesses. But if he made the loan not in the presence of witnesses, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it. Rebbi Yudan said, in money matters one does not argue “because.” Because he could have told him, you did not give me a loan, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it? The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘You are holding a mina for me;’ he said ‘yes’. The next day he said, ‘return it to me,’ ‘I returned it to you;’ he is not liable. ‘I am not holding anything for you,’ he is liable.”

“ ‘You are holding a mina for me’, ‘I am not holding anything for you’, he is not liable.” Even “you are holding a lot for me,” “I am not holding anything for you”, he is not liable? But the following: “You are holding a mina for me.” “I am holding only a peruṭah for you.” He is liable. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying: Only if he made the loan in the presence of witnesses. But if he made the loan not in the presence of witnesses, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it. Rebbi Yudan said, in money matters one does not argue “because.” Because he could have told him, you did not give me a loan, he could tell him, you gave me a loan but I returned half of it? The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “ ‘You are holding a mina for me;’ he said ‘yes’. The next day he said, ‘return it to me,’ ‘I returned it to you;’ he is not liable. ‘I am not holding anything for you,’ he is liable.”

“`You are holding a mina for me,’ ‘I am not holding anything for you.’ ” Issy said, one who gives a loan to another in the presence of witnesses should claim repayment only in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Avin said, the word of Issy: If one gives a loan to another in the presence of witnesses, [the debtor] should not repay except in the presence of witnesses. The Mishnah disagrees with him: “ ‘You are holding a mina for me;’ he said ‘yes’. The next day he said, ‘return it to me,’ ‘I returned it to you;’ he is not liable. ‘I am not holding anything for you,’ he is liable.”

“`You are holding a mina for me,’ ‘I am not holding anything for you.’ ” Issy said, one who gives a loan to another in the presence of witnesses should claim repayment only in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Avin said, the word of Issy: If one gives a loan to another in the presence of witnesses, [the debtor] should not repay except in the presence of witnesses. The Mishnah disagrees with him: “ ‘You are holding a mina for me;’ he said ‘yes’. The next day he said, ‘return it to me,’ ‘I returned it to you;’ he is not liable. ‘I am not holding anything for you,’ he is liable.”

MISHNAH: One gave a loan to another on a pledge and the pledge was lost. He told him, “I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a šeqel,” but the other one says “no, a tetradrachma you loaned me and it was worth a tetradrachma”; he is not liable. “I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a šeqel,” but the other one says “no, a tetradrachma you loaned me and it was worth three šeqel;” he is liable. “You loaned me a tetradrachma on it but it was worth two,” and the other says “no, but I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a tetradrachma;” he is not liable. “You loaned me a tetradrachma on it but it was worth two,” and the other says “no, but I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth five denar;” he is liable. Who has to swear? The one who holds the pledge, lest one swear and the other produce the pledge.

One understands “to lend;” “to borrow” from them? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to give them loans;” “to ask them for loans”? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to pay debts to them;” “to accept payment from them”? That he should not say, his pagan worship had helped him. Rebbi Abba bar Tevelai in the name of Rav: If it was a loan in danger of being lost it is permitted. It was stated thus: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document. Even a loan by document is in danger of being lost, for not at all times does a person succeed in liquidating his debt. How is this? A loan not in danger of being lost, by pledge. A loan in danger of being lost, not by pledge. It was found following the former [opinion]: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document.

One understands “to lend;” “to borrow” from them? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to give them loans;” “to ask them for loans”? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to pay debts to them;” “to accept payment from them”? That he should not say, his pagan worship had helped him. Rebbi Abba bar Tevelai in the name of Rav: If it was a loan in danger of being lost it is permitted. It was stated thus: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document. Even a loan by document is in danger of being lost, for not at all times does a person succeed in liquidating his debt. How is this? A loan not in danger of being lost, by pledge. A loan in danger of being lost, not by pledge. It was found following the former [opinion]: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document.

One understands “to lend;” “to borrow” from them? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to give them loans;” “to ask them for loans”? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to pay debts to them;” “to accept payment from them”? That he should not say, his pagan worship had helped him. Rebbi Abba bar Tevelai in the name of Rav: If it was a loan in danger of being lost it is permitted. It was stated thus: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document. Even a loan by document is in danger of being lost, for not at all times does a person succeed in liquidating his debt. How is this? A loan not in danger of being lost, by pledge. A loan in danger of being lost, not by pledge. It was found following the former [opinion]: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document.

One understands “to lend;” “to borrow” from them? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to give them loans;” “to ask them for loans”? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to pay debts to them;” “to accept payment from them”? That he should not say, his pagan worship had helped him. Rebbi Abba bar Tevelai in the name of Rav: If it was a loan in danger of being lost it is permitted. It was stated thus: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document. Even a loan by document is in danger of being lost, for not at all times does a person succeed in liquidating his debt. How is this? A loan not in danger of being lost, by pledge. A loan in danger of being lost, not by pledge. It was found following the former [opinion]: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document.

One understands “to lend;” “to borrow” from them? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to give them loans;” “to ask them for loans”? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to pay debts to them;” “to accept payment from them”? That he should not say, his pagan worship had helped him. Rebbi Abba bar Tevelai in the name of Rav: If it was a loan in danger of being lost it is permitted. It was stated thus: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document. Even a loan by document is in danger of being lost, for not at all times does a person succeed in liquidating his debt. How is this? A loan not in danger of being lost, by pledge. A loan in danger of being lost, not by pledge. It was found following the former [opinion]: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document.

One understands “to lend;” “to borrow” from them? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to give them loans;” “to ask them for loans”? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to pay debts to them;” “to accept payment from them”? That he should not say, his pagan worship had helped him. Rebbi Abba bar Tevelai in the name of Rav: If it was a loan in danger of being lost it is permitted. It was stated thus: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document. Even a loan by document is in danger of being lost, for not at all times does a person succeed in liquidating his debt. How is this? A loan not in danger of being lost, by pledge. A loan in danger of being lost, not by pledge. It was found following the former [opinion]: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document.

One understands “to lend;” “to borrow” from them? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to give them loans;” “to ask them for loans”? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to pay debts to them;” “to accept payment from them”? That he should not say, his pagan worship had helped him. Rebbi Abba bar Tevelai in the name of Rav: If it was a loan in danger of being lost it is permitted. It was stated thus: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document. Even a loan by document is in danger of being lost, for not at all times does a person succeed in liquidating his debt. How is this? A loan not in danger of being lost, by pledge. A loan in danger of being lost, not by pledge. It was found following the former [opinion]: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document.

One understands “to lend;” “to borrow” from them? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to give them loans;” “to ask them for loans”? Because he increases his reputation. One understands “to pay debts to them;” “to accept payment from them”? That he should not say, his pagan worship had helped him. Rebbi Abba bar Tevelai in the name of Rav: If it was a loan in danger of being lost it is permitted. It was stated thus: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document. Even a loan by document is in danger of being lost, for not at all times does a person succeed in liquidating his debt. How is this? A loan not in danger of being lost, by pledge. A loan in danger of being lost, not by pledge. It was found following the former [opinion]: A loan in danger of being lost, by witnesses. A loan not in danger of being lost, by document.

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew who was found standing next to a wine cistern, if he has a loan secured by it, [the wine] is forbidden, if he has no loan secured by it, it is permitted. If he fell into the cistern and climbed out, or measured it with a measuring rod; if he tried to hit a wasp with a stick, or was drumming on the mouth of a fermenting amphora; all these cases happened and they said, it should be sold, but Rebbi Simeon permits. If he took the amphora and threw it into the cistern; this happened and they declared it kosher..

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew who was found standing next to a wine cistern, if he has a loan secured by it, [the wine] is forbidden, if he has no loan secured by it, it is permitted. If he fell into the cistern and climbed out, or measured it with a measuring rod; if he tried to hit a wasp with a stick, or was drumming on the mouth of a fermenting amphora; all these cases happened and they said, it should be sold, but Rebbi Simeon permits. If he took the amphora and threw it into the cistern; this happened and they declared it kosher..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rab Mattanah in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he won’t press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it. Did we not state: “If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day”? And Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah. But can he require payment on New Year’s Day? As Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since he could not ask him for payment, it is as if he could not believe him. And since he could not believe him, it is as if he could not pay him. And here, because he could have given him but did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rab Mattanah in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he won’t press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it. Did we not state: “If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day”? And Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah. But can he require payment on New Year’s Day? As Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since he could not ask him for payment, it is as if he could not believe him. And since he could not believe him, it is as if he could not pay him. And here, because he could have given him but did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: If somebody gives a loan to a person on condition that the Sabbatical not remit it, the Sabbatical does not remit it, as we have stated: “to return them after ten years instead of returning them after thirty days”. Are there ten years without a Sabbatical? Rebbi Huna said, Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet disagreed. One of them said, if the loan was given on a pledge; but the other said, if he writes him a prozbul.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: If somebody gives a loan to a person on condition that the Sabbatical not remit it, the Sabbatical does not remit it, as we have stated: “to return them after ten years instead of returning them after thirty days”. Are there ten years without a Sabbatical? Rebbi Huna said, Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet disagreed. One of them said, if the loan was given on a pledge; but the other said, if he writes him a prozbul.

It was stated: “For thirty days he will not come.” What means “for thirty days he will not come”? Samuel said, if somebody gives a loan to a person without specifying details, he has no right to ask for payment until after 30 days. Rebbi Jehudah came and explained: The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close? Lest you say, I am not permitted to ask for payment until after 30 days; after 30 days the debt will be remitted and I will not collect. Therefore, it must say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Did not Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah say in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it? It was found stated by Rebbi Ismael: The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close? Lest you say, the entire six years his vineyard is available, his field is available but after six years the debt is remitted and I cannot collect. Therefore, it must say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.

It was stated: “For thirty days he will not come.” What means “for thirty days he will not come”? Samuel said, if somebody gives a loan to a person without specifying details, he has no right to ask for payment until after 30 days. Rebbi Jehudah came and explained: The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close? Lest you say, I am not permitted to ask for payment until after 30 days; after 30 days the debt will be remitted and I will not collect. Therefore, it must say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Did not Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah say in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it? It was found stated by Rebbi Ismael: The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close. Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does the verse say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close? Lest you say, the entire six years his vineyard is available, his field is available but after six years the debt is remitted and I cannot collect. Therefore, it must say, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.

Rava said: This synagogue—it may be exchanged or sold [for secular purposes], but may not be rented out or pledged [to secure a loan]. What is the reason? [In the latter case] its holiness remains.

MISHNA: We testified that so-and-so owes 1000 zuz to his friend in thirty days, and he says it is a ten-year loan.

We assess how much one would pay for the loan to be in thirty days instead of ten years.

GEMARA: R' Yehudah said, Shmuel said, the Sabbatical year clears a ten-year loan.

Even though you would not be able to collect the loan , in the end he can come to collect.

Rava said, maybe it's in the case of the lending on collateral, or if he gives documentation to the court As we have learnt, a loan on collateral or where documentation is given to the court is not cancelled [by the Sabbatical].

Some say, R' Yehudah said in the name of R' Shmuel a loan for ten years is not cancelled. And even though eventually he will come to collect, however you cannot collect it.