Gittin

The Rabbis, however, ordained that it should be operative, in order to keep alive the memory of the Sabbatical year, and when Hillel saw that people refrained from lending money to one another, he decided to institute the prosbul. But is it possible that where according to the Torah the seventh year does not release, the Rabbis should ordain that it does release?  — Abaye replied: It is a case of 'sit still and do nothing'.  Raba, however, replied: The Rabbis have power to expropriate [for the benefit of the public]  For R. Isaac has said: How do we know that the Rabbis have power to expropriate? Because it says, And that whosoever came not within three days according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity.  R. Eleazar said: We derive it from here: These are the inheritances which Eleazar the priest and Joshua the son of Nun and the heads of the fathers' houses etc.  Now why is the word 'fathers' [here] put next to 'heads'?  To show that just as fathers transmit to their children whatever property they wish, so the heads transmit to the public whatever they wish. The question was raised: When Hillel instituted the prosbul, did he institute it for his own generation only or for future generations also? What is the practical bearing of this question?  — [In case we should desire] to abolish it. If you say that Hillel instituted the prosbul only for his own generation, then we may abolish it, but if for future generations also, [this would not be easy] since one Beth din cannot annul the decisions of another unless it surpasses it in wisdom and in numbers.  What [then is the answer]? — Come and hear, [since] Samuel has said: We do not make out a prosbul save either in the Beth din of Sura  or in the Beth din of Nehardea.  Now if you assume that Hillel instituted the prosbul for all generations, then it should be made out in any Beth din? — perhaps when Hillel instituted it for all generations, he meant it to be issued by a Beth din like his [Samuel's] or like that of R. Ammi and R. Assi, which are strong enough to enforce payment [where necessary], but not for the ordinary Beth din. Come and hear: Samuel said: This prosbul is an assumption  on the part of the judges; if I am ever in a position, I will abolish it.  He abolish it? How so, seeing that one Beth din cannot annul the decision of another unless it is superior to it in wisdom and numbers? — What he meant was: If ever I am in a stronger position than Hillel, I will abolish it.  R. Nahman, however, said: I would confirm it. Confirm it? Is it not already firmly established? — What he meant was: I will add a rule that even if it [the prosbul] is not actually written it shall be regarded as written. The question was raised [in the Academy]: Does this word 'ulbana mean 'assumption' or 'convenience'?  — Come and hear, for 'Ulla once exclaimed:  O shameless ['alubah]  bride, to be false under the very bridal canopy!  Said R. Mari the son of Samuel's daughter [in reference to this]: What scriptural verse indicates this? The verse, While the king sat at his table my spikenard sent forth its fragrance.  Rab said: The [sacred author] still shows his love for us by writing 'sent forth' and not 'made foul'. Our Rabbis taught: 'They who suffer insults [ne'elabin]  but do not inflict them, who hear themselves reviled and do not answer back, who perform [religious precepts] from love and rejoice in chastisement, of such the Scripture says, And they that love him are like the sun when he goeth forth in his might.' What is the meaning of the word 'prosbul'? — R. Hisda says: Pruz buli u-buti.