Afkata Demalka for Shmitat Karkaot

Previously, we looked at the debate over the mechanism by which loans are nullified in the Shmita year. A similar debate exists with regard to Shmitat Karkaot. Rav Rimon presents this debate in his book "הלכה ממקורה: הלכות שביעית" on the page titled "הפקרת האדם או הפקעת המלך". Here he brings two poskim who are split over why fruits of the seventh year are considered ownerless and for all to take.

The Beit Yosef states that the fruits only become ownerless when the owner fulfills the command to relinquish ownership.

כי לא נפטרו פירות שביעית ממעשרות אלא מטעם הפקר וכל שאינו מופקר לא נפטר ממעשרות--שו"ת אבקת רוכל סימן כד

The Mabit, on the other hand, says that the fruits become ownerless automatically by virtue of the fact that they grew in the Shmitta Year.

ישראל שגדר כרמו ולא הפקירה בשנת השמיטה...רחמנא אפקריה לארעיה לעניים ולעשירים ולכך אין שום חיוב במעשר--שו"ת המבי"ט חלק א סימן יא

Same Issue?

So one could certainly claim that these two questions, with regard to Shmitat Ksafim and Shimatat Karkaot respectively, are one and the same. The meta-question is whether the kedusha of Shmitta Year requires us to relinquish these claims on our property(loans and Shmitta fruit), or whether it nullifies them automatically and we are merely commanded to accept the results.

On the other hand, one could argue that the two debates are not dependent on one another. Certainly, when looking at the psukim, the requirement of human involvement sounds more explicit for Shmitat Ksafim, when the lender is commanded “!שמוט”.

וזה דבר השמטה שמוט כל בעל משה ידו אשר ישה ברעהו לא יגש את רעהו ואת אחיו כי קרא שמטה ליהוה--דברים טו ב

Compare this to Shimta Fruit where it sounds like the arrival of the seventh year itself is what nullifies ownership.

והשביעת תשמטנה ונטשתה ואכלו אביני עמך ויתרם תאכל חית השדה כן תעשה לכרמך לזיתך--שמות כג יא

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.

Minchat Aviv on Afkata Demalka

 
Every seventh year is a Shmitah year, when the land is allowed to lie fallow and any fruit that does grow is considered ownerless and free for the taking(Shmitat Karkaot), and when loans are forgiven(Shmitat Ksafim). In his paper "מצוות שמיטת כספים" in מנחת אביב, Rav Aharon describes the well known chakira on Shmitat Ksafim.

Machloket: How Chov is Eliminated

With the very concise wording of Torah commandment commandment to forgive loans, various questions arise: When is the loan actually cancelled? Does the loan still exist if one doesn't forgive it? Rav Aharon cites three opinions among the Rishonim on the topic.

1. Lender Forgives Loan

The Yereim says that the loan only ceases to exist once the lender explicitly forgives it.

וחוב שעבר עליו שביעית אינו רשאי לווה לעכבו אלא על פי מלוה, שכל זמן שלא השמיטו מלוה חייב לפרוע...(יראים סי’ קסד)

2. Loan is Automatically Cancelled

The Ohr Zaruah, Rambam, and Ramban, on the other hand, say that the loan is cancelled at the end of the Shmitta year, regardless of the will of the lender.

(אור זרוע ע"ז סי’ קח, רמב"ם שמיטה ט:ד, רמב"ן בספר התרומות מה:ה)

3. Synthesis

The Ittur's opinion essentially combines these previous two ideas. During Shmitta year, a lender is commanded to forgive the loan and only once he does is it cancelled. At end of year, the Torah forgives any remaining loans regardless.

והא דתנן המחזיר חוב לחבירו צריך לומר לו משמט אני, דווקא בשביעית, אבל לאחר שביעית לא(העיטור אות פ פרוזבול)

Limit on Afkata Demalka

Rav Aharon ultimately argues(based on the Mishna in Shviit 10:8 and Gamara in Gittin 37B) that, even according to the opinion that the loan is automatically nullified, it is really more frozen than cancelled and still remains intact on some level. Only once the lender fulfills the commandment and verbally forgives the loan does it disappear entirely.