(Mishnah): Sheviis cancels loans whether they were made with or without a document. It does not cancel credit of a store but if it was converted into a loan, it is cancelled.

(R. Yehuda): Earlier credit is cancelled (as it was automatically converted into a loan when he took the most recent credit).

The wage of a hired worker is not cancelled but if it was converted into a loan, it is cancelled.

(R. Yosi): The payment for any work that must stop in Sheviis is cancelled; if does not need to stop, it is not cancelled.

If one slaughtered a cow and divided it up on Rosh Hashana (of the 8th year to people who had agreed to buy portions of it and pay afterwards), if the previous month was declared a full month (thereby rendering the 1st day of Rosh Hashana as the last day of the previous year and the next day as the true Rosh Hashana), the payments are cancelled (as the end of the Shemita year cancels all loans, and these were considered loans before that time). If not, (meaning that the 'loans' were actually taken in the new year), they are not cancelled.

Penalties for rape, seduction and defamation (known as Motzi Shem Ra) and any obligation ordered by Beis Din, are not cancelled.

One who loaned with collateral and one who handed over his loan documents to Beis Din - their debts are not cancelled.

(Gemara) Question: The Mishnah taught that Sheviis stops the loan, with or without a document. Without a document is understandable; but with a document, why does it stop it? It should be like a loan taken with collateral, and it shouldn't stop it?

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): It refers to a document that does not stipulate land on lien and it follows R. Meir (who said, unlike the Rabbanan, that if no stipulation is written, it was not an oversite of the scribe and there is no automatic lien).

Such a case came before R. Yochanan of a document without a lien and he ruled that the loan should be cancelled. (This seems to contradict the way he explained the Mishnah.) He said that even though that was the correct way to understand the Mishnah and the Halacha should follow the Rabbanan (that every document has an automatic lien and therefore Sheviis should not cancel it), the Halacha actually is that Sheviis does cancel such a loan (in which a lien wasn't written). (Note: This is the Rash's explanation according to our text. However, the Vilna Gaon's text, which is also the text in the Bavli in Gitin 37a, states that in the story of R. Yochanan, it was a document with a lien and R. Yochanan was stringent that it should cancel, despite its logical comparison to a loan with collateral.)

Answer #2 (R. Yirmiyah): Even if the document has a lien written, if the borrower doesn't own a field, the loan is cancelled. The Gemara understands that this means that if he owns a field, the loan is not cancelled.

(R. Yosi disagrees): Even if he owns a field, it is cancelled.

R. Yosi follows Rav's view, as R. Ba said from Rav that if the borrower designated a field to be reserved for payment, Sheviis doesn't cancel it. The Gemara understands that this means that if he didn't designate such a field, Sheviis cancels (since as long as he can deflect him to another field, the loan is not considered collected).

Baraisa: If a man designates a field for his wife's Kesubah and he later sold it, if she wishes, she can collect her Kesubah from it or from the rest of his property (that's not on lien), she may do so.

(R. Hila): R. Elazar ruled like this Baraisa.

The Chevraya suggested that she should only collect from that particular land that was on lien, but not from other lands that don't have a lien (and he still possesses them).

Question (R. Yosi): There are lands without a lien available and you are telling her to collect from land on lien?

Answer: The case is when he didn't explicitly say that collection may only be from this particular field; but if he did, she may only collect from it.

If one designated a field (for payment if a loan wasn't returned) and he then sold that land - R. Acha said that it's considered temporarily sold (and the buyer may eat the fruits); R. Yosi said that it's no sale at all.

Proof for R. Yosi is from the following - If he designated his ox as payment and then sold it, it is valid, since he's able to hide it from his creditor (if he comes after it); but if he designated his field and then sold it, it is not a valid sale as there's no way to hide it from his creditor.

Question: But if the buyer of the field is tough, the creditor won't be able to repossess it!

Answer (R. Yudan, father of R. Matanya): Tough guys often fall (and the creditor will then be able to repossess it).