Rav Sternbuch argues, however, that granting someone a piece of land is different than extending the time to repay a loan, “In the instance where we grant the borrower a piece of land, that transaction is clearly a benefit to the individual, but it is not connected to the loan itself. Since he now has a piece of land [which secures the loan], we can execute a prosbul so that the loan is not canceled by shemittah. As such, it is only a side effect and a result [of the transaction that granted him the land]. It is not connected to the rule that granting someone land is considered a benefit [even against his will] and thus deriving from this that all benefits granted against one’s will should be valid.
“On the other hand, extending the due date of payment for the loan and, in effect, extending the loan itself for [even] a few days after shemittah would not be considered a benefit. The delay of payment is clearly the direct cause of maintaining the loan’s negotiability and the requirement to pay, for in the event that it was not extended, shemittah would cancel the loan. Thus, without doubt, this is not considered a benefit for the individual.”
Rabbi Sternbuch does make an exception. If both lender and borrower agree to an extension, even if only verbally, the agreement is legal and effective.
(To be continued)
