An exception to this rule is a check written on an account with insufficient funds. Such a check is considered a shetar chov. In other words, the loan is still outstanding and shemittah erases it in the absence of a prosbul.
* * * * *
There seems to be an attitude in society in general, which has pervaded our community as well, that the rich unfairly have all the money while the needy suffer. While we can’t state with certainty that every well-to-do individual has accrued his wealth through honest means, most people are indeed honest and deserve their hard-earned comfort.
Hillel the Elder had this attitude in mind when he instituted the prosbul for the poor to secure needed funds. He recognized that the rich are to be valued, not vilified, since they are the source of such funds.
We tend to consider people favorably when it comes to their observance of mitzvot. In a Talmudic discussion concerning the restrictions imposed on High Priests before the Day of Atonement, our Sages ask a rhetorical question (Yoma 6a): “Atu bi’reshiei askinan? – Are we dealing with wicked people?” Surely not! We assume that people behave properly.
With the above in mind, we turn to the following question submitted to the Gaon Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Iggrot Moshe Vol. 2, Choshen Mishpat 15):
“A person issued a loan but forgot to execute a prosbul. The borrower, knowing that such a document has not been executed, does not wish to repay the loan. The lender, himself a man of modest means, is asking whether he may collect the funds from the borrower through any means at his disposal,” i.e., via civil court or by force.
First, Rabbi Feinstein notes, “we must acknowledge that even according to those authorities who view shemittat kesafim as Biblical [nowadays], there is a statement at the end of Tractate Shevi’it (10:9) that declares, ‘The Sages are well pleased with one who repays his debt at the conclusion of shevi’it.’”
Referring to a passage in Tractate Gittin (37a-b), Rabbi Feinstein writes that a person who does not repay his debt at the conclusion of the seventh year is guilty of wrongdoing. Rabbah rules that “a person is to be coerced to state: ‘I am returning the money to you as a gift.’” He may be punished with of lashes if he refuses.
The Gemara reports an incident between Rabbah and Abba bar Marta during shemittah. Rabbah forgave Abba bar Marta’s debt to him, as required, and Abba bar Marta kept the money. Rabbah was disappointed by his colleague’s lack of good sense. He thought Abba bar Marta should have replied, “Even though the money is now legally mine, I wish to repay the debt.”
It is clear from this Gemara, comments Rabbi Feinstein, “that repaying a loan in the seventh year is not just a matter of gracious manners. Rather, one who does not do so is guilty of wrongdoing.”
Rabbi Feinstein also notes Rashi’s comment (ibid. s.v. “Vetali leih”) that one may even go so far as to threaten a debtor to “suspend him from a tree” unless he repays the loan as per the Sages’ ruling. “Thus,” Rav Feinstein writes, “we see that repaying a debt during shemittah is a law of the Sages (divrei chachamim).”
(The Radbaz explains in his commentary on “Vetali leih” that the words mean that we coerce him. Nowadays, though, we do not coerce somebody with actual physical punishment.)
Rabbi Feinstein also cites the Rambam (Hilchot Shemittah VeYovel 9:28-29) who, though he seems to differ with Rashi concerning the meaning of coercion, states, “We pursue the matter until the lender declares: ‘It is my money, but I am gifting it to you.’”