Makkos Daf 3 מאקוס דַף 3

The next Mishnah discusses עדים who falsely testified that someone divorced his wife and owes her kesubah. Since he may have to pay it one day anyway, אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בכתובתה של זו – we assess how much a person would be willing to pay now for the rights to this woman’s kesubah, שאם נתאלמנה או נתגרשה – that she may become widowed or divorced, entitling her to the kesubah, ואם מתה יירשנה בעלה – but if she would die first, her husband will inherit her and be exempt.

Rav Chisda says this amount is appraised בבעל – by the husband’s rights in the kesubah (i.e., the purchase value of his rights), which is what the עדים sought to make him lose. His rights are more valuable, because he is entitled to her properties’ produce, and because the properties are already in his possession and easier to collect. Rav Nassan bar Oshaya says: באשה – we assess by the woman’s right in the kesubah, and they pay the entire value of the kesubah minus this amount. Rav Pappa agrees we assess her rights, but says we only assess the kesubah’s value, and not נכסי מלוג, since they are not recorded in the kesubah, and the עדים can claim they did not know about them.

Shmuel says that if someone lends his friend money for ten years, שביעית משמטתו – shemittah cancels [the debt]. ואף על גב דהשתא לא קרינן ביה לא יגוש – Even though now, we cannot apply to [the lender] the prohibition of “he shall not press” the borrower to pay (since it is not yet due), סוף אתי לידי לא יגוש – eventually, [the loan] will be subject to “he shall not press.” Shmuel is challenged from the Mishnah here, which teaches that if עדים falsely testified that someone’s ten-year loan was actually a thirty-day loan, they pay the difference in value between the two, which proves that such a loan would be paid!? Rava answers that the Mishnah’s case is a loan with a משכון – security, or במוסר שטרותיו לב"ד – one who hands over his documents to Beis Din, both of which are not canceled by shemittah (because he does not need to “press” the borrower for payment).

In another version, Shmuel said that shemittah does not cancel a ten-year loan, because we cannot currently apply "לא יגוש" to the lender, since it is not yet due.

Shmuel says that if one lends "על מנת שלא תשמטני שביעית" – on condition that shemittah does not cancel [my debt], shemittah does cancel it. Apparently, Shmuel holds this is מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה – stipulating against the Torah, and holds such a תנאי is void even regarding monetary matters. But this contradicts another statement of Shmuel: if one sells something "על מנת שאין לך עלי אונאה" – on condition that you have no claim of overcharging against me, Rav says the buyer still has a claim of אונאה, but Shmuel says he cannot claim אונאה, and the תנאי is effective, despite being against Torah law!? The Gemara answers that Shmuel clarified his latter ruling: although if he said “on condition you have no claim of אונאה against me,” the תנאי is effective, but if he said "על מנת שאין בו אונאה" – on condition that there is no אונאה in [this sale], it is interpreted as guaranteeing there is no overcharge, and since there is, the sale is void. Here, too, if he lends money "על מנת שלא תשמטני בשביעית" – on condition that you do not cancel [my debt] in shemittah, the תנאי is effective (because the borrower waived his right to cancelation), but if he said “on condition that shemittah does not cancel my debt,” his debt is still canceled, because shemittah’s laws are not in his control.