1)

(a)We initially learn from the Pasuk "v'Kasuv ba'Sefer v'Chasum" that documents must be signed.

(b)Rabah therefore explains the 'Tikun ha'Olam' of Raban Gamliel according to Rebbi Elazar, who holds 'Eidei Mesirah Karsi', and that there is therefore no obligation for witnesses to sign documents.

(c)According to Rebbi Elazar the Pasuk in Yirmiyahu is merely conveying a practical suggestion (to have one's documents signed), but not an obligation.

(d)The reason for the Takanas Chachamim is due to resolve any problem that would ensue should the Eidei Mesirah die or leave the country.

2)

(a)Rav Yosef establishes our Mishnah even like Rebbi Meir. The Tikun ha'Olam is then for the witnesses to actually sign their names on the documents, and not just a statement to the affect that they signed as witnesses, like they used to do previously.

(b)According to the Beraisa that supports Rav Yosef, a Get would only be Kosher before the Takanah, when the witnesses did not sign their name if they had signed on some other document, enabling Beis-Din or witnesses to compare the two signatures.

(c)The reason for the Takanas Chachamim according to Rebbi Meir is in case the Beis-Din did not have a copy of their signatures, they would now be able to approach the witnesses themselves or someone who knew them to identify them.

(d)We query the Beraisa that obligates the witnesses to actually sign their names inasmuch as we find Amora'im who would actually sign documents with symbols, as we shall now see.

3)

(a)Rav would stamp the picture of a fish on a Get in lieu of his signature, Rav Chanina, that of a palm-branch and Rav Chisda that of a 'Samech' (from his name).

(b)Rav Hoshaya would stamp the picture of an eye Rabah bar Rav Huna, that of the mast of a ship.

(c)We reconcile this with Raban Gamliel, who required the name of the signatory on the Get by restricting the above to renowned Talmidei-Chachamim, whose symbols in lieu of their signatures, were well-known.

4)

(a)The connection between Hillel's Pruzbul and the Pasuk "Hishamer Lecha Pen Yiheyeh Davar im Levavcha Beliya'Al" is that it was due to the fact that the people were not adhering to the latter, that the former became necessary.

(b)The creditor writes in the Pruzbul 'Mosrani Lachem, Dayanim she'ba'Makom Ploni, she'Kol Chov she'Yesh Li Etzel Ploni she'Egvenu Kol Zeman she'Ertzeh'.

(c)We have already seen earlier that either the Dayanim or the Edim sign underneath.

(d)According to Abaye, Hillel had the right to countermand the law of the Torah, which cancels all debts at the end of the Shemitah year because he concurs with Rebbi, in whose opinion Shevi'is nowadays is only mid'Rabanan.

5)

(a)Rebbi infers from the Pasuk "v'Zeh Devar ha'Shemitah, Shamot" that the Pasuk is speaking about two different kinds of Shemitah, that of land and that of money (which is not connected with the land per se, and would therefore not be dependent on the Yovel, as Shemitas Karka is, as we shall see shortly). This comparison teaches us that when the former does not apply, neither does the latter.

(b)We know that Shemitas ha'Aretz does not depend on the Beis ha'Mikdash standing because in the time of Hillel, the Beis ha'Mikdash was standing, yet Shemitas ha'Aretz did not apply.

(c)The criterion for Shemitas ha'Aretz is in fact, whether Yovel applies or not. The Chachamim learn this from "v'Zeh Devar ha'Shemitah Shamot", which they Darshen to mean that when Yovel does not apply, Shemitah does not apply either (though this would appear to clash with Rebbi, whose Derashah is based on the same double Lashon). The criterion for Yovel incidentally, is that the majority of Yisrael are living in Eretz Yisrael.

(d)Chazal nevertheless instituted Shemitas ha'Aretz nowadays so that Shemitah should not be forgotten (see Tosfos Amud Beis, DH 've'Tikun').

6)

(a)According to the Toras Kohanim however Shevi'is nowadays, is d'Oraisa.

(b)Abaye ascribes the fact the Rabanan declare debts cancelled, even though min ha'Torah, they are not to the fact that the debtor merely desists from payment, which is an inaction, and the Rabanan have the right to issue decrees via 'Shev v'Al Ta'aseh'.

7)

(a)We asked earlier by what right Hillel countermanded the law of the Torah, which cancels all debts at the end of the Shemitah year, and Abaye established Hillel like Rebbi. According to Rava however Hillel can even hold like the Rabanan, who maintain that Shevi'is nowadays is d'Oraisa.

(b)He answers the initial Kashya on Hillel by applying the principle of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker', in which case, it is not a matter of the creditor claiming the debtor's property, but Beis-Din who declare the debtor's property Hefker.

(c)We might learn 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' from the Pasuk in Ezra "v'Chol Asher Lo Yavo li'Sheloshes ha'Yamim ... Yochoram Kol Rechusho". We might also learn it from the Pasuk "v'Roshei ha'Avos" which teaches us that just as fathers can bequeath to their children whatever they wish, so too, can the heads of the community (Beis-Din) place one person's property in the domain of another.

8)

(a)We ask whether Hillel instituted the Takanah of 'Pruzbul' for his generation only, or for all generations. The ramifications of the She'eilah are whether the Beis-Din of a subsequent generation has the authority to revoke it or not.

(b)We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from Shmuel, who states that Hillel's Pruzbul is confined to the Beis-Din of Sura and Neharda'a implying that all other Batei-Din revoked the Takanah (proving that Hillel only initiated it for his generation).

(c)We refute this proof however by establishing Hillel's Takanah exclusively by Batei-Din like his own, which were highly esteemed, such as that of Rav (in Sura) or of Shmuel (in Neharda'a).

(d)We now refer to the Beis-Din of Rav Ami and Rav Asi because they were the heads of the most prominent Beis-Din at the time when the She'eilah was asked.

9)

(a)When Shmuel referred to Pruzbul as 'Ulbana d'Dayna', he meant that Pruzbul is to the shame of Beis-Din, who exact money from the rightful owner unlawfully.

(b)He continued 'I Ayasher Chayil Avatlinei' which we initially think to mean that if he had the power, he would have negated the Takanah of Pruzbul, a proof that Hillel only instituted the Pruzbul for his generation. Otherwise, how could Shmuel even think of negating Hillel's Takanah, seeing as Chazal only permit a Beis-Din that is greater in wisdom and numbers than its predecessor to negate its Takanos.

(c)We refute this proof however by explaining Shmuel to mean that if he had been more powerful than Hillel, he would have annulled it.

(d)When Rav Nachman said 'Akayminei', he meant that had he had the power, he would have gone even further than Hillel, by decreeing that the Peruzbul should take effect automatically without having to write it in a Shtar.

10)

(a)We just cited Shmuel, who declared 'Ha Prusbela Ulbana d'Dayna Hu', which we translated as 'shame'. Alternatively, we translate it as 'convenience' meaning that the Pruzbul is merely for the convenience of the Dayanim, to relieve them of the trouble of claiming all outstanding debts before Shemitah arrives.

(b)We refute the latter translation by quoting Ula's statement 'Aluvah Kalah she'Zinsah b'Kerev Chupasah' referring to Yisrael, who were in disgrace for worshipping the Golden Calf (committing adultery) even as they stood under the Chupah (waiting for the Luchos [see Agados Maharsha]).

(c)Rav Mari Berah d'Bas Shmuel supports Ula from the Pasuk in Shir ha'Shirim "Ad she'ha'Melech bi'Mesibo, Nirdi Nasan Reicho". Rava proves from this very Pasuk that Hash-m still loves Yisrael in spite of their sin from the use of the word "Nasan Reicho", a nicer expression that the more natural "Hisri'ach" ('to give off a putrid smell', which the Pasuk would otherwise have used).

11)

(a)The Pasuk in Shoftim says that people who 'hear their shame but do not respond ... ' are compared to "the sun as it rises in its glory".

(b)To deserve such a reward they must also perform Mitzvos with love and rejoice in suffering.

(c)According to Rav Chisda 'Pruzbul' is the acronym of 'Peruz Buli (u'Buti') meaning 'a Takanah for the rich (and for the poor)'.

(d)'Peruzbul' is for the benefit of the poor as well as the rich inasmuch as otherwise, the rich would stop lending them money ('Ne'ilas Deles bi'Fenei Lovin').

12)

(a)Rav Chisda bases his explanation of the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in the Tochachah) "v'Shavarti Es Ge'on Uzchem", which according to Rav Yosef, refers to 'Bula'i she bi'Yehudah' (the aristocrats [the rich people] of Yehudah.

(b)And the source of 'Buti' meaning 'the poor', he gives as the Pasuk in Re'eh "Ha'avet Ta'avitenu", a command ordering the rich to lend money to the poor.

(c)When Rava asked that foreigner what 'Peruzbul' meant he replied 'a Takanah' (an enactment).