Minchat Aviv on Afkata Demalka II

Following up on the last post, let’s look at some of the Nafka Minot of Rav Lichtenstein’s idea that, even according to the Afkata Demalka opinion, loans aren’t completely nullified until the lender forgives them.

1. If the Borrower Chooses to Pay Anyway

One nafka mina is how we understand the basic case in the Mishna where the lender forgives the loan but the borrower chooses to pay it back anyway.

המחזיר חוב בשביעית, יאמר לו משמט אני. אמר לו, אף על פי כן, יקבל ממנו, שנאמר (דברים טו) וזה דבר השמטה--משנה שביעית י ח

Why is this mishna a chiddush according to afkata demalka? The repayment of the loan is apparently a matana gmura, so why should it be asur?

Rav Aharon's chiddush solves the problem: there is no chovat gavra to pay, but the Mishna teaches us that the loan still exists at some level.

2. Forcing the Lender to Pay

Rav Aharon's chiddush also helps us understand the Gemara on Gitin 37B where Rav says that if the borrower decides to pay back the loan and then changes his mind, he can be forced to pay.

המחזיר חוב לחבירו בשביעית צריך שיאמר לו משמט אני ואם אמר לו אע"פ כן יקבל הימנו שנאמר (דברים טו, ב) וזה דבר השמטה אמר רבה ותלי לי' עד דאמר הכי איתיביה אביי כשהוא נותן לו אל יאמר לו בחובי אני נותן לך אלא יאמר לו שלי הן ובמתנה אני נותן לך אמר ליה תלי ליה נמי עד דאמר הכי

How is tying him up the debtor until he agrees to pay a valid matana? It’s Ones!

Again, Rav Aharon's answer helps us. It's not really a matana. Since the debt remains and the borrower's statement of אף על פי כן is only him forgoing his ptur, so maybe it still works under ones.

3. Ruach Chachamim

This chiddush also bears on how we understand Shviit 10 mishna 9 that states that our Sages are happy with one who repays his loan despite the passage of the Shmitta Year.

המחזיר חוב בשביעית - רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו.

The Rambam says that they even like his initial desire to pay back the loan. This is apparently because the Afkata Demalka didn’t eliminate the loan, it only froze it.

The Rash, on the other hand, says that they only approve of his repayment of the loan after the lender was mashmit. This may be because, when the lender was mashmit, the Afkata Demalka disappeared and the debt can now be paid.

4. Returning a Shtar Chov

Rav Lichtenstein points out that one could disagree with him based on the Sefer Hatrumut that a lender must give back a shtar chov for an unpaid loan after the passage of the shmita year.

שטר חוב שעברה עליו שביעית ולא נכתב עליו פרוזבול מוציאין שטר מהמלוה להחזירו ללווה--ספר התרומות, שער מה אות ה

If the chov still exists and was merely frozen, why should the lender have to return the shtar chov?

Ultimately, Rav Aharon rejects this, arguing that a shtar chov corresponds to shiabud nechasim, not the loan itself. Even if the loans still exists at some level, there is certainly no more shiabud nechasim so the shtar chov must be returned.