Yerushalmi Sheviit 10:1 ירושלמי שביעית י׳:א׳

MISHNAH: The Sabbatical remits any loan¹The end of the Sabbatical year., with or without a document²In Talmudic tradition, there are three kinds of loan by document. If there is no surety given in the document, the status of the loan is the same as that of a loan given in front of two witnesses, without a written document. The standard loan contract establishes a lien by the creditor on all real estate the borrower may have. (Some tannaitic authorities hold that the absence of such a lien from a document is an error of the scribe; the existence of a lien may always be assumed.) Since the lien (known as “alienation of property”) is not specified, the lender can foreclose on such a loan only by lengthy court proceedings. If the loan is documented and given as a mortgage on a specific parcel of real estate, in the theory of the Yerushalmi it is a loan on a pledge and not remitted, as stated in Mishnah 2.. Store credit is not remitted; if it is transformed into a loan it is remitted. Rebbi Jehudah says, any preceding one is remitted³R. Jehudah holds that any new credit given by a store to a customer automatically transforms any previous credit into a loan.. Wages of a hired hand are not remitted; if they are transformed into a loan they are remitted; Rebbi Yose says, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted; if it does not stop they are not remitted⁴It is to be discussed whether the work has to stop because of the Sabbatical or only during the Sabbatical. The hired hand cannot be a day-worker because the wages of a person hired for the day must be paid that same day..
If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day³⁶The butcher gives away meat both days of the New Year of the Sabbatical. It is forbidden to transact business on the holiday; therefore, the Mishnah avoids speaking about selling meat; the meat is distributed on the holiday, billed later by estimate., if the month was long it is subject to remission³⁷If the month of Elul was 30 days, the first day of the New Year really was the 30th of Elul, the second day the first of Tishre. The debt incurred on the first day enters the Sabbatical and is subject to remission; the debt of the second day is contracted during the Sabbatical and not subject to remission., otherwise it is not subject to remission. The rapist, the seducer, the calumniator³⁸These are all fines, and fines are never remitted. The fine for the rapist is spelled out in Deut. 22:29, the one for the seducer Ex. 22:16, the one for the calumniator who accuses his bride of adultery between the preliminary and actual marriages, Deut. 22:19., and all court documents are not subject to remission. If somebody gives loans on pledge³⁹The pledge is in the hand of the lender; the loan is not a claim on another person but the borrower must come and redeem his pledge., or deposits his documents⁴⁰The obligation of remission of debt is one on real persons only. with the court, they are not subject to remission.

HALAKHAH: “The Sabbatical remits any loan, etc.” ⁵In the Babli, Giṭṭin37a, Rav and Samuel explain the Mishnah that “with a document” means a document with the alienation clause, “without a document” means either a document without the alienation clause or an oral loan. R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish explain “with a document” as a loan with a document without the alienation clause, and “without a document” as a loan executed before witnesses but without any written document, but a loan on a correct document, with the alienation clause, is always like a loan on a pledge and never remitted. The opinion of Rav and Samuel is accepted as practice in the Babli; the reports there on the positions of Rav and R. Joḥanan are not totally in accordance with the Yerushalmi. We can understand if it is without a document. With a document it should be treated similar to a loan on a pledge⁶A loan on a pledge is not remitted in the Sabbatical, as stated in Mishnah 2. and not be remitted. Rebbi Joḥanan said, explain it for a document from which alienation of property is missing, following Rebbi Meïr⁷He states in Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:6 that a document without an alienation clause cannot be foreclosed in court.. A case came before Rebbi Joḥanan of a document without alienation of property and he instructed that it was remitted. Because we are interpreting the Mishnah, should we act on this⁸Since we reject R. Meïr’s opinion and hold that the court will force the borrower to pay for every loan proven by a valid document, and will even allow the lender to foreclose real estate if the borrower does not pay, we cannot consider the Mishnah here practice to be followed. The same argument is quoted in the Babli, Giṭṭin37a, referring to a case brought by R. Assi before R. Joḥanan.?

Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is only if he has no real estate⁹Since the alienation of property clause refers only to real estate, such a clause in a contract with a landless borrower is devoid of meaning and without legal consequences.. Hence, if he has real estate it is not remitted. Rebbi Yose said, even if he has real estate it is remitted¹⁰He takes the Mishnah to apply to all borrowings (except mortgaging a well-defined piece of real estate), following Samuel and Rav in the Babli; cf. Note 5.. Rebbi Yose parallels Rav, since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav if he singled out real estate it is remitted¹¹While this text appears in both mss., in this and the next sentences the expressions “singled out” and “did not single out” must be switched: “Rebbi Yose parallels Rav, since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav if he did not single out real estate it is remitted. They said only ‘if he did not single out’; therefore, if he singled out it is not remitted.” Everybody agrees that a mortgage written on a well-defined piece of real estate is no longer a debt owed by the borrower but a lien on the land.
The statement ascribed to Rav here parallels a baraita in Babli Giṭṭin 37a and in content, but not in the formulation, a Tosephta (8:6, speaking about a document of hypotheke, mortgage, cf. Note 22). {The treatment of mortgages in Yerushalmi and Babli cannot be directly compared since the Babli admits irrevocable mortgages for which the lender obtains the right to all yield of the land for a fixed period, usually 20 years, after which the parcel reverts to the original owner without repayment of the capital. In the Yerushalmi, all mortgages are redeemable.}. They said only “if he singled out”; therefore, if he did not single out it is not remitted.

“If somebody established a lien on a field for his wife but then went and sold it, if she wishes she collects from this field or she collects from any other property.¹³The lien is part of the marriage contract and covers the payments due the wife in case of dissolution of the marriage either by divorce or by the husband’s death. A parallel baraita in the Babli (Giṭṭin 41a) gives the option both to the wife and to any lienholder, both of whom have the choice of either going after unincumbered property of the husband or debtor or to choose the more complicated procedure of foreclosing the property from the buyer, letting the buyer then sue the seller to recover his damages. In the Babli, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel declares the original sale invalid if the lienholder is the wife since women cannot be expected to be willing to go through lengthy and complicated court proceedings.” Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Eleazar instructed following this baraita. The colleagues asked: Should she not collect only from the properties that are under the lien? Rebbi Yose said to them, there are unencumbered properties¹⁴Which the wife can take with a minimum of legal steps. and you say, those under the lien? The baraita [applies] if he did not say¹⁵In all these statements, “to say” means “to write into the appropriate document.” you shall be paid only from this. But when he said, you shall be paid only from this, she may collect only from this¹⁶The piece of real estate on which she holds the lien..

If somebody established a lien for another person on his field and then went and sold it; Rebbi Aḥa said, it is temporarily sold¹⁷In the time between the sale and the lienholder’s foreclosure, the buyer is the rightful owner in all respects. This is the unquestioned position of the Babli.. Rebbi Yose said, even temporarily it is not sold¹⁸Since the sale does not break the lien, the sale is invalid as far as the lienholder is concerned. The lienholder has only to enforce his rights vis-à-vis the debtor but does not have to sue the buyer of the land.. The strength of Rebbi Yose is from the following: He may induce his ox to flee; he cannot induce his field to flee¹⁹This refers to the rule, not otherwise quoted in the Yerushalmi, and brought as a statement of fifth-generation Amora Rava (Rav Abba bar Joseph bar Ḥama) in the Babli (Baba Qama 11b, Baba Batra 44b), that a mortgage on cattle is not valid, since the disposition of animals is outside the control of the lienholder. This implies that a valid lien puts the mortgaged property at the disposal of the lienholder.. Think about it, if [the field] was sold to a violent person²⁰The lienholder might be afraid of the consequences if he brings the buyer into court.! Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said: Violent persons are apt to fall²¹Even if the lien is temporarily unenforceable, nobody will give up his claim because of this..

It was stated: “If somebody mortgages²²Greek ὑποθήκη “mortgage”. a field to a woman for her ketubah²³Cf. Peah Chapter 3, Note 155. or a creditor for his claim and then sells it, that is sold and the buyer should beware for himself²⁴This baraita seems to support R. Aḥa only. In Yebamot 7:1 (fol. 8a), Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel disagress and decrees that in the case of a ketubah the sale is void since we cannot require a woman to sue a third party for her rights.” This baraita if he said to her: you should be paid from this. They disagree if he says, you should only be paid from this²⁵In this case, R. Yose declares the sale invalid, which does not contradict the baraita..

Rav said, if she compromised [her ketubah], even if she did not extend credit, if she extended credit even though she did not compromise. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Unless she would compromise it and extend credit²⁶This refers to Tosephta 8:4: “A woman’s ketubah, if she compromised it and extended credit, is subject to remission. If she compromised it but did not extend credit, if she extended credit but did not compromise, it is not subject to remission.” “Compromised” means that she obtained partial payment of the ketubah and now cannot use the original ketubah document for the remaining claim but must produce a new document from the husband (for a divorcee) or the heirs (for a widow) for the remainder. “Extending credit” means that she does not insist on immediate payment but on payment terms as if it were the repayment of a loan. The Tosephta text follows Rebbi Ḥiyya; Rav makes the ketubah subject to remission in the Sabbatical even if only one of the conditions is met. (In the Babli, Giṭṭin 18a, the position of R. Ḥiyya is ascribed to Rav and that of Rav to Samuel.).

Because he extends him credit a second time, is the first turned into a loan?²⁷This refers to the Mishnah, where R. Jehudah declares that the exemption of store credit from the laws of the Sabbatical only covers the last credit extended. Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah²⁸This statement seems to be obvious since R. Jehudah only restricts the exemption of store credit. But the reference here is to Mishnah 2, where it is stated that store debt incurred on New Year’s Day may be subject to remission. While this Mishnah is anonymous, it is stated here (and in Halakhah 2) that it also is R. Jehudah’s and refers to a customer who took food from the store on both days of the New Year. For R. Jehudah this implies that the debt incurred the first day is subject to remission (at the end of the Sabbatical year.). But can he require payment on New Year’s Day²⁹Since handling money is forbidden on a holiday, payment cannot be asked for.? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: About money for which he can believe him³⁰The prior argument is rejected. If the customer is creditworthy, extending credit is tantamount to asking for payment and extending credit is permitted on the holiday.. And since he could ask him for payment, he should be able to give him money. And here, because he should have been able to give him money and he did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan³¹The storekeeper is implicitly asking for payment by providing the food; cf. Note 36. Hence, non-payment automatically turns the credit into a loan and the farmer has a great incentive to ask for his money during the Sabbatical. The same argument applies to the butcher mentioned in Mishnah 2..

³²This refers to the last sentence in the Mishnah, where R. Yose declares that wages for an unfinished job are remitted if not paid during the Sabbatical. R. Joḥanan holds that this applies only if the Sabbatical is the cause of the interruption; R. Simeon ben Laqish disagrees. Rebbi Joḥanan says, for ploughing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, for building. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, any work that stops because of the Sabbatical. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, any work that stops in any way. Does Rebbi Yose hold with Rebbi Jehudah³³Does R. Yose hold that payment for work done is turned into a loan the moment the work is finished and was not paid? This would parallel the opinion of R. Jehudah about store credit.; does not Rebbi Yose say, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted, if it does not stop they are not remitted? But Rebbi Yose does not hold with Rebbi Jehudah³⁴This probably should read: R. Jehudah does not hold with R. Yose. The statement of R. Jehudah is in Mishnah Šebu‘ot 7:5, that a banker never can be believed if he claims to have given change before he received the large coin.; while “Rebbi Jehudah says that it is not the way of a banker to give an as unless he has received a denar,” he agrees that the wages of the hired man are due only at the end³⁵The payment is due only during the Sabbatical and not subject to remission since only debts incurred before the Sabbatical must be remitted. The argument about store credit is not appropriate here..

⁴¹This paragraph and the three following ones are from Roš Haššanah3:1 (fol. 58c). They are included here only because the two days of the New Year are mentioned in the Mishnah. Rebbi says, Nisan never was lengthened⁴²This means that the start of Nisan (and Tishre) was never delayed when the New Moon was declared only after it had been observed. In these two months, messengers were sent to proclaim the exact dates of the holidays (Roš Haššanah 1:5). [For the details of the Tannaitic calendar, see the author’s Seder Olam (Northvale, NJ, 1998), p. 268–269.]. But did we not state⁴³Mishnah Šeqalim 4:5: Incense was prepared in one batch for an entire year, starting with the first of Nisan. Then it is stated that on the first of Nisan, “if the New Moon appeared in time, incense was taken from the new batch; otherwise, it was taken from the incense prepared the previous year.” This Mishnah implies that the month of Adar preceding Nisan could have either 29 or 30 days. Rebbi implies that this Mishnah is purely hypothetical.: “If the New Moon appeared in time”? If it would appear, it did not appear. Rav said, Tishre was never lengthened⁴⁴Babli Roš Haššanah 19b, also in the name of Rav, stating a tradition going back to the days of Ezra. The same statement is also in Yerushalmi Šeqalim 10:2 (fol. 39b), Sanhedrin 1:2 (fol. 18d).. But did we not state⁴⁵In the Mishnah here.: “If the month was long”? If it would be, it never was.

⁴⁶Tosephta Roš Haššanah 3:11, also quoted in Yerushalmi Roš Haššanah 4:6 (59c), Nedarim 6:13 (40a), Sanhedrin 1:2 (18d); Babli Roš Haššanah 32a; Sifra Emor Parašah 11(5).“When they sanctified the year at Usha⁴⁷When the Synhedrion was reconstituted under a Roman emperor in the later second century. Any recollection that Rabban Simeon could have had of the Synhedrion at Jabneh must have been from his childhood., on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Baroqa led⁴⁸He was the reader for the musaph prayer on New Year’s Day which consists of nine benedictions. The three first and the three last ones are those of everyday prayers; there are three additional ones proclaiming God’s Kingdom, מַלְכִיּוֹת, His remembering all living creatures, זִכְרוֹנוֹת, and the shofar blowing connected with the theophany on Mount Sinai, שׁוֹפָרוֹת, each one followed by blowing the shofar. R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa takes malkhiyot together with the third benediction, “sanctification of the Name”, and has as fourth benediction the usual holiday benediction, without shofar blowing. R. Aqiba takes the holiday benediction as part of malkhiyot; this is the rule followed today as established by Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in the Tosephta. and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day⁴⁹The story contradicts the assertion by Rav that Elul was never 30 days because, if it is clear that Elul is only 29 days one observed only one day for the New Year at the place of the Synhedrion.? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized⁵⁰Something happened that made the Synhedrion unsure which day was the right one; in that case, the story must date to the beginning of Rabban Simeon’s presidency when his authority was not yet established. This is confirmed by the fact that Rabban Simeon could not instruct the other rabbis on which rule to follow.. What is “the first, the second”⁵¹Reading with the text in Roš Haššanah: מַהוּ הָרִאשׁוֹן וּמַהוּ הַשֵּׁנִי.? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year⁵²Rav insists that his tradition is correct and that the two prayers were said in two different years. It is pointed out that this contradicts the language of the Tosephta; the problem remains unresolved.! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

If they sanctified it before its time or after its lengthening, should I assume it was lengthened⁵³Since a month can only be either 29 or 30 days, New Year’s Day can be only the 30th or the 31st of Elul. If the Synhedrion did not proclaim New Year’s on the 30th of Elul, then the 31st is automatically sanctified; whether it needs a proclamation is a matter of controversy (Mishnah Roš Haššanah 2:8).? The verse says (Lev. 23:2) “them”, you, “these are My holidays.⁵⁴This is explained in Babli Roš Haššanah 25a and Sifra Behar Parashah 9(3). In Lev. 23:2 (Tell the Children of Israel and say to them, the holidays of the Eternal, you have to proclaim them as holy assemblies, these are My holidays), Lev. 22:4 (These are the holidays of the Eternal, holy assemblies; you have to declare them at their times), and Lev. 22:37 (These are the holidays of the Eternal; you have to declare them as holy assemblies) the word “them” is written defective אֹתָם so that it could also be read as אַתֶּם “you”. This is taken to imply that no holiday is sacred that is not proclaimed by the Synhedrion. Since the Synhedrion is human, it is error prone. The three “them - you” are explained in the Babli as “you, even if unintended, you, even if intentionally wrong, you, even in error.” In the Sifra, the three cases are “even if forced by an act of God, unintended, or in error.” This interpretation is the basis of the Jewish computed calendar which, being based on a constant mean synodal month and a base line outside the Land of Israel, is necessarily in error if compared with astronomical computations of the motions of the moon.” Before its time is not “My holidays.” Before its time, the 29^th day, after its lengthening, the 32^nd day. From where that one intercalates the year because of the [men of the] diaspora that set out but did not yet arrive⁵⁵This argument does not belong to the discussion about one or two days of the New Year since the intercalary month always has to precede Passover. The intercalary month is a necessary feature of any lunar-solar calendar. It is included here probably because it refers to the same verse and appears in Sifra Behar Parashah 9(1). Since both the Children of Israel and God’s holidays are mentioned in Lev. 23:2, it is inferred that the holidays must be appropriate for all Children of Israel. {The rule itself, without Scriptural justification, is in Babli Sanhedrin 11a.}? The verse says (Lev. 23:2), “the Children of Israel, my holidays”. Make the holidays so they can be observed by all of Israel. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only if they had reached the river Euphrates.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ammi, in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi: If they sanctified it and afterwards the witnesses turned out to be perjured, it still is sanctified⁵⁶The verses quoted in Note 54 imply that the holidays have to be declared. Since they are defined by the calendar months, it follows that the months have to be declared. Since the declaration is valid even if in error, it is not rescinded if an error is found. In any case, the error can not be of more than one day. The rules given here are implied by Mishnah Roš Haššanah 2:9; they are not explicit in the Babli. The paragraph here is the source of Maimonides, Qidduš Haḥodeš 2:2 (not recognized by the commentators ad loc.). Rebbi Assi stayed with Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi and asked him: Did you hear this from your father? He said, yes. Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not cross-examine the witnesses of the New Moon.

Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah since he could ask him for payment on New Years’s Day. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah 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 it⁵⁸One should assume that the loan is not remitted in the Sabbatical since it can never be claimed and the Sabbatical law applies only to loans that can be claimed (Deut. 15:2).. We did state: “If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day,” and Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah⁵⁹Since it is assumed that payment cannot be claimed on New Year’s Day since it cannot be given.. But can he require payment on New Year’s Day? As Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since he could ask him for payment, he can believe him. And since he could believe him, he could pay him⁶⁰The case of the butcher cannot be used to support Rav’s statement; in practice, Rav’s statement is rejected.. And here, because he could have given him but did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan⁶¹This sentence does not belong here but to Mishnah 1, cf. Note 31..

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 remit⁶²In the Babli (Makkot 3b), Samuel is reported to have declared that the Sabbatical will remit. In the end, a fine distinction is made in the wording. If the contract reads that the debtor will not enforce the remission, that condition is valid. But if the contract reads that the Sabbatical should have no influence, that would mean abrogating a Torah law and the condition is invalid., as we have stated⁶³Mishnah Makkot 1:2, dealing with witnesses who falsely testify that a debtor has promised to pay within 30 days when in fact he is obligated to pay after ten years, they are sentenced to pay the present value of the debt due in ten years.: “Whether he gives it after thirty days or after ten years.” Are there ten years without a Sabbatical? Rav Huna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rav Sheshet disagreed. One of them said, if the loan was given on a pledge⁶⁴As noted in the Mishnah. In the Babli, this explanation is attributed to the later Amora Rava., but the other said, if he writes him a prozbol⁶⁵Explained in the next Mishnah, cf. Note 80..

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 days⁶⁶This is a statement of Tosephta Baba Meẓi‘a 10:1, where however the rule is qualified so that it is superseded by local usage if such usage is determined. This means that for the Tosephta, the 30 day rule is rabbinic in character. In the Babli (Makkot 3b), the rule is quoted by Samuel as a Tannaitic statement and the biblical proof given here by R. Jehudah is attributed there to Rav Mattanah.. Rav Jehudah came and explained (Deut. 15:9): “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”? That you should not 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 that “the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.”⁶⁷The entire verse reads: “Guard yourself, lest there be in your heart an unworthy thought saying, behold, the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close, and you will be badly disposed towards your needy brother and not give him; when he would appeal against you to the Eternal then sin will be in you.” The verse is taken to deal with a case where the Sabbatical will remit without any possibility for the lender to recoup his loan. The only case found is that of an unsecured loan given less than 30 days before the date of remission when repayment cannot be claimed but the debt will be remitted. 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 in the name of Rebbi Ismael (Deut. 15:9): “The Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.” Is not the Sabbatical year the remitting year? Why does it have to say, “the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close”? That you should not say, all six years long his field is before me, his vineyard is before me, but after six years the debt is remitted and I cannot collect; therefore, it has to say “the Sabbatical year, the remitting year, is close.⁶⁸The statement of R. Ismael gives a different explanation of the verse; therefore, the biblical character of the 30 day rule is not established and the Yerushalmi is in accordance with the Tosephta, against the Babli.
The argument in the baraita goes as follows: If one gives a loan during a regular year, even if it is not a mortgage the lender might recover his loan from the crop of the borrower. But in the Sabbatical, there is no commercial crop, and when the next crop grows, the debt already is remitted. Hence, the verse speaks of any loan given in the sixth year, and nothing can be implied about the 30 day rule. {In Sifry Deut. #117, R. Yose the Galilean points out that the expression “the Seventh year, the remitting year” is needed to show that the Seventh year is not the seventh year after a loan has been granted but the seventh calendar year.}”

“The rapist, the seducer, the calumniator³⁸These are all fines, and fines are never remitted. The fine for the rapist is spelled out in Deut. 22:29, the one for the seducer Ex. 22:16, the one for the calumniator who accuses his bride of adultery between the preliminary and actual marriages, Deut. 22:19..” Rav Jehudah said, Rav [said]: This follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, it depends on the one extending credit⁶⁹Since the persons mentioned here have to pay only by order of a court, the question is why these cases have to be mentioned in the Mishnah separately and are not subsumed under the general notion of court judgments. The fines for the rapist and the seducer are spelled out in the Torah only for the נערה, a minor. The fines have to be paid to the father if at the time of judgment and payment the girl was a minor, to the woman if she was an adult at the time of judgment. The problem is, who receives the fine if she was minor at the time of judgment but an adult at the moment of payment. In Ketubot 4:2, R. Simeon says that the fines are paid as a consequence of a court document, the money goes to the woman, and the obligation is not remitted in the Sabbatical. The rabbis hold that the obligation is a civil one, a “loan”, the payment goes to the creditor of the loan, viz., the father, and is remitted in the Sabbatical. The position ascribed to R. Meïr in this Mishnah is that the status of the obligation is that of a loan which is not remitted in the Sabbatical. {R. Simson holds that the position of R. Meïr is that of the rabbis, that the claims to fines are not remitted in the Sabbatical but that any judgment for fines not collected before the Sabbatical is remitted. If that were true, the position here should be described as that of the rabbis.}
The main differences between loan and court decree is that in a forcible execution, loans are paid from the borrower’s real estate of average quality but court judgments covering torts from the best quality..

“And all court judgments,” these are court decisions.⁷⁰Reading of the Rome ms: דיינין “of judges”.

This is obvious: A loan that is disputed⁷⁵The debtor claims he does not owe the lender. As long as the case is not settled in court, everything is suspended. The loan cannot be remitted in the Sabbatical because it cannot be collected. If judgment is given for the lender, the judgment is a court document which is not subject to remission. is not remitted. A loan that was disputed but is now a [confirmed] loan, is remitted⁷⁶If, after the court established the validity of the loan, the lender does not insist on immediate payment, the loan regains its original status.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Is this also true for judgments? It is not necessary to say that a loan that was disputed can be collected⁷⁷After a court judgment on a disputed loan, the debt can be collected after the Sabbatical.. A disputed loan turned into a [confirmed] loan is collected from property of average quality⁷⁶If, after the court established the validity of the loan, the lender does not insist on immediate payment, the loan regains its original status..

“If somebody makes a loan on a pledge”, Samuel says, even on a needle⁷⁸This parallels the statement of Samuel in Babli Šebuot 43b: “If somebody gave a loan of 1000 tetradrachmas and took as pledge the handle of a sickle, if he lost the handle he lost the 1000 tetradrachmas.” The Babli disagrees in practice and rules that the sum not remitted in the Sabbatical is equal to the value of the pledge.. (Deut. 15:3): “What you have on your brother you shall release;” that excludes your brother’s [property] in your hand. “What you have on your brother you shall release,” which excludes one who hands over his documents to the court⁷⁹The last two sentences are also in Sifri Deut. 113..