3,787. A Missing Prozbul

Hilchos Shemittah v’Yoveil 9:23

Pursuant to the previous halacha, if a prozbul is predated it’s valid, and if it’s postdated, it’s invalid. For example, if someone wrote a prozbul in Nisan and dated it back to Adar, it’s valid because he has weakened its legal power, since only loans given until Adar are not canceled by shemittah. However, if he postdated it to Iyar, the prozbul is invalid. This is because he has artificially inflated its power; if it was valid, then the loans extended until Iyar wouldn’t be canceled by shemittah. This would be inappropriate, since only loans extended until Nissan are legitimately not canceled because that’s when the matter was given over to the court.

Hilchos Shemittah v’Yoveil 9:24

If, after shemittah, someone produces a promissory note without a prozbul, the debt cannot be collected. If he claims to have had a prozbul but it was lost, he is believed. Since the time of the Roman oppression, a creditor was permitted to collect a debt after shemittah without a prozbul. If a creditor would bring his promissory note to court, or even if he would demand repayment of a loan made based on just a verbal agreement, the court tells the borrower to pay him. If the borrower asks for the lender’s prozbul, the court asks the lender if he had a prozbul that was lost. If the lender says that he did, he is believed. If he admits that he didn’t have a prozbul, the debt is canceled. Orphans (who are minors) don’t need a prozbul (because the court did not impose the Rabbinic cancelation of debts on their loans).