(Mishnah): A pre-dated Prozbul is valid; a post-dated one is invalid.

Pre-dated loan documents are invalid; post-dated ones are valid.

If one person borrowed from five, each lender writes a Prozbul. If five borrowed from one, one Prozbul is written for all of them.

One may only write a Prozbul over (a debt secured by) land. (I.e. the borrower must own land.) If he doesn't own land, the lender should give him a piece of land of any value within his own field. If the borrower has a field pledged as collateral in the city (for another debt), a Prozbul may be written.

(R. Chutzpis): A Prozbul may be written for a borrower using his wife's property (as the required land) and for orphans using their guardian's land.

A bee-hive (that is resting on but not attached to the ground) - R. Eliezer says that it is considered to be the ground, so a Prozbul may be written over it and it cannot contract Tumah in its place, and one who detaches honey from it on Shabbos would be liable.

(Chachamim): It is not considered to be the ground, so a Prozbul may not be written over it, it contracts Tumah in its place and one who detaches honey from it on Shabbos is exempt.

One who comes to return a loan in Sheviis - the lender must tell him, "I release (the debt)''. If the borrower says, "Even so, (I wish to repay it)'', he may accept the payment, as the pasuk states (Devarim 15:2), "This is the Dvar of the release''. (Dvar is usually translated as matter; here it means 'word', that the lender is merely required to state that he releases the debt.)

Similarly, when a (unintentional) murderer arrives at the city of refuge and the people there wish to honor him, he must tell them, "I'm a murderer''. If they say, "Even so...'', he may accept the honor, as the pasuk states (Devarim 19:4), "This is the Dvar of the murderer'' etc.

(Gemara): A pre-dated Prozbul is valid, because it weakens the lender's position. A post-dated Prozbul is invalid, because it strengthens his position. Pre-dated loan documents are invalid, because they strengthen the lender's position. Post-dated loans documents are valid, because they weaken his position.

Question: Who informs the Beis Din that the document is pre-dated?

Answer (Shimon bar Vava citing R. Yochanan): Those that signed it.

Support: Didn't R. Shimon ben Lakish say that they viewed those that signed on the document as if they were cross-examined in Beis Din.

Rebuttal: He was referring to when the witnesses later said that they didn't sign at all. Here, they said that they signed only on the loan itself, but were not signing as to the accuracy of the date.

(Pre-dated loan documents...) R. Yochanan said that they are completely invalid (and cannot be used to collect). R. Shimon ben Lakish said that they are valid but may only be used to collect from the actual date that it was written.

Question (Baraisa): A Prozbul - whether pre or post-dated, it is valid, but it may only be counted from when it was written. (This is unlike the Chachamim of Mishnah). If you say that it's the same with documents (like Reish Lakish), what's the difference between Prozbul and other documents? (This disproves R. Shimon ben Lakish.)

If a document is dated on Shabbos (if one checks out its calendar date) or the 10th of Tishrei, R. Yehuda says that it is valid; R. Yosi says that it is invalid (since the date is certainly wrong). R. Yehuda said to R. Yosi - Such a case was brought to you in Tzipori and you ruled that it was valid! R. Yosi replied - I didn't rule that it was valid, but if I did, it was for a different reason.

The students wanted to suggest that R. Yosi's was concerned that it was pre-dated and R. Yehuda reasoned that it was post-dated. However, in conclusion, even according to R. Yosi, if there is proof that it is valid, it is fine, and his concern was for forgery.

(Rav): Both the lender and the borrower must own land.

(R. Yochanan): Either the lender or the borrower must own land.

If the borrower doesn't have land but those that owe him do have land, the lender may write a Prozbul. (See earlier Chulin 45(n).)

(R. Ba citing Rav): If one only has one stalk of produce in his field, they may write a Prozbul because of it.

Question (Baraisa): A Prozbul cannot be written for partners, sharecroppers and guardians because they don't have a field that is exclusively theirs. (But how are they different to owning one stalk?)

Answer: In that Baraisa, each and every stalk is only partially owned; but here, he fully owns that one stalk.

Question: For a guardian who borrowed for himself, may one write a Prozbul over the property of the orphans (that he is taking care of)?

Answer (Mishnah): One may write a Prozbul for a man over his wife's property.

Question: May one write a Prozbul for a woman over her husband's property?

Answer (Mishnah): One may write a Prozbul for orphans over their guardian's property.

(R. Abahu citing R. Shimon ben Lakish): (The Mishnah taught about a bee-hive (that is resting on but not attached to the ground) - R. Eliezer says that it is considered to be the ground, so a Prozbul may be written over it...etc.) R. Eliezer's source is the pasuk (Shmuel I 14:26), "And the nation came to the forest and behold, there was a flow of honey''. (It's as if the pasuk wrote - 'And behold, the honey was flowing from the forest'.)

Question: But how do we deduce that from this pasuk?!

(R. Mana): (Also questioning the proof) Can a forest produce honey? Had it been proven from the next pasuk, "(and he extended the end of the staff which was in his hand) and dipped it into the Yaaros Dvash (honeycomb - or literally forests of honey)'' -it would have been understood that the forest produces honey and a bee-hive is considered connected to the ground. (But what is the proof from the previous from the first pasuk brought?)

(R. Yosi b'R. Bun citing R. Shimon ben Lakish): We do in fact learn from that second pasuk of 'and dipped it into the Yaaros HaDvash'.

What's the case of the Mishnah's dispute? If the bee-hive is attached to the ground (with mud), all agree that it is like the ground. If it's resting on top of pegs, all agree that it is not like the ground. Rather, it is resting directly on the ground, but not attached...

It is like R. Zeira taught from R. Yirmiyah that one may write a Prozbul even if he lent him the ground under an oven or a stove. (Similarly, the ground under his bee-hive is considered his land for a Prozbul.)

(Rav Chuna bar Ada): Even if he lent him the ground under a candle.

Question: Does the same dispute exist about removing a bread from an oven as it does about removing honey from a bee-hive?

Answer: A bee-hive is different as the honey grows there, but bread doesn't grow in an oven.

If one returns a debt in Sheviis, the lender must say that he releases him of the obligation.

(R. Huna): He should say it in a weak voice but with his right hand outstretched.

(R. Yosi): (The end of the Mishnah spoke about the obligation for a lender and also a person coming to a city of refuge to state their situation.) We learn from here that a person who learned one Maseches and he goes somewhere where they honor him for knowing two, he must set them straight.