Fashionably Late Interest & Bribery - Rav Yona Reiss

So this kabura is uh about a couple of different inyanim but they're all related and uh one is ribbism ribbis muheris is relevant in the realm of hovah and it's also relevant in the realm of dionos as we shall see uh that uh there's a notion that both with respect to ribbis if there's a payment that's made after the loan has been repaid sometimes it's going to be a problem of a ribbus at least what we'd call ribbon theoskins is a lower level of ribbon where there isn't even an obligation to return a lot that's what but nonetheless still if it's clear that the payment related to the loan that the borrower is adding on extra relating to the loan why is it not ri because it wasn't stipulated there's no kit if it would be stipulated up front that the borrower has to pay an extra amount of premium him over the loan by by virtue of the fact that he received the loan. So even if the ribbis payment is paid a little bit later, that's still ribbut. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about when the borrower on his own decides that he's going to give an extra payment to the to the lender. That's ribbis. Now there are certain exceptions as to when we say that it's going to be permissible. it's a sufficiently low-level is that we have the various exceptions that will be applicable if it's not clear that it's relating to the that's relating to the loan cuz what are you going to do? You're going to prevent a borrower forever from ever being able to extend a favor to say shalom uh to open up a door to give mishmanos to somebody just because once upon a time they extended alone at a certain point in time. to say that it's already uh sufficiently removed or the amount that's given is sufficiently a small amount that we're not going to relate it to to related to the loan. So those are some of the denim of ribbis but there are certain situations where we say this is such a big gift that it's obvious that it must have related to to the loan and certain other situations. And certainly the borrower doesn't do himself any favors if he says, "Oh, I know I'm giving this to you late, but I wanted to just give this to you because I know that I put your money out of commission for such a long time and therefore I'm giving you this extra amount." So that's a really bad idea. That's going to be also according to everybody no matter what the size of the gift and no matter how the far removed it is from the time of repayment. But what's interesting is that this also is combined in the it sort of goes neck to neck where the the about what sort of favors are allowed or not allowed during the term of the loan itself. During the term of the loan itself the same way that we say with respect to ribbis that sometimes it's so far removed from the loan that we say that for sure it doesn't relate to the loan and therefore the payment the late payment by the borrower is going to be permissible. Sometimes we'll say even with respect to little favors that a borrower may do to a lender over the course of the loan that it's sufficiently removed from the loan that it's clear that it's not being given because of the loan is being given because they had a pre-existing relationship because these were favors that were rendered in the past and so forth. We have that certainly the base with respect to being that we say that even is prohibited is something that nobody pretends is going to be a problem after the loan has been paid off. After the loan has been paid off, no problem of ribbis anymore of saying shalom or anything of that sort. That's all going to there's all going to be permissible from the standpoint of ribbis. But even to the extent that we don't allow ribbisum during the during the course of the loan, it's very clear that this is only when it was not the common practice of the borrower to say shalom to the lender prior to the loan. If it was the practice of the borrower to say to do other things that would constitute ribbar just words of and things that don't really have a monetary value, opening up a door for the uh lender beforehand and things that people wouldn't pay for but that we would put in the category of ribb. Uh so that that's going to be permissible even during the course of the loan. So the discusses and then discusses these other that there are similarly other items that might be more drastic than ribbar and there might be things that have a objectively a monetary value. I have a shovel that I sometimes loan out but I could rent out my shovel. So has a monetary value if I give my shovel to somebody. If the borrower was in the habit of giving his shovel on a regular basis to the lender before the lender extended his loan. So he's allowed to continue to loan out his shovel to the lender after the loan has been extended prior to the time of payment of repayments of the loan. and some of the gradations and some of the exceptions and some of the discussions that relate to to ribbis muharis of what's going to be permissible in ribbis muharis context what's going to be forbidden in ribbism context are transposed by the by by the meshim as also being applicable in this type of situation as well which is why I feel that these two in yanim go together and I wanted to discuss them uh in tandem with in tandem with each other uh there then finally Finally, what I wanted to touch upon is the comparison which the post can make between these cases of ribbis of certain things are going to be prohibited even after the payment of the loan and certain things will be permitted to the question of is not something which is so explicitly discussed in the sources. There's one gimm and a question about how you interpret the gimra is also derived by certain posts including the vagonia regarding ribbis that the same way that we say ribbis it could be a problem even after a loan is repaid. So it could be a problem you give a dian a gift even after the dian has adjudicated the case and has decided the case. It's a little bit more complicated because a loan ends when it's repaid. As we know from the bezdon, sometimes it's hard to tell when a case actually ends. There's a it could be, you know, maybe 20 years later, you can it's clear that a case is over, but you'd be surprised how many cases come back because there's some sort of an addendum, there's a footnote, there's a new problem that that arose afterwards. So, that also creates an additional layer of complication when dealing with the situation. It's not always so clearly. uh you know I sat on a case where it was a divorce case and uh we decided the case it was a zablo so this is well over 20 years ago I think it was a zaba case because they couldn't agree upon a bezen so I sat together with um Rabbi parrot Steinberg uh was was a secondh was the third dian it was a zabla zabla case and hashem we were able to decide all the issues that were presented to us they only presented the financial issues to us and the get issues. So we took care of the get we took care of the financial issues but the parties between themselves we didn't endorse it but they decided they're going to go to court with respect to the child issues because uh bezdon process all the vagaries of bezda and who knows how long it's going to shle out let's go to court then 3 years later it's still shleing out in court the child issues we had to decide all the monetary issues in 3 months but then all the issues relating to the children were shleing out in court and there was some discussion that they wanted to come back to the bezdon maybe for the bezen to decide by the child related issues because it was just draining all of their resources and it wasn't being resolved in court and in the midst of all of this I get in the mail the person who selected me it was the wife who had selected me as the dian I sat as a bow rare for for her side so to speak I do this I normally wouldn't sit on a zablo but to for an auna case to see to what the woman receive yet so I agreed to sit on on the case and suddenly I get this beautiful package a couple of like a day before perm in the mail I open it up it's this beautiful who sent to him. So this person she said, "What's going on over here in my house?" She said, "Oh, this is just to show my appreciation for everything that you've done for me. Not necessarily a decision, just you always be there. Be you've always been there for me and so forth." I said, "Number one, that's a problem according to, but number two, it looks like the case might still be continuing afterwards." Uh, so I uh so so I picked up the Mishlo Manos, repackaged it, and sent it back to her in the mail. But even though I sent back the mish manos, nonetheless, we know from all the cases of the in the towards the end of little favors, you just have a bird go, you know, the shua bird offer the dian's head or something like that, help the the dian across the rickety bridge. So the so even if the um even if the dian or or you had the sharecropper who wanted to bring his payos better case to the dian and the dian said, "Why are you bringing it early?" Or because I have a case in front of you. So he said well that I'm not going to be able to sit on the case even though he turned down the peros. So now I turned down the mishlo but nonetheless I still might have a feeling of closeness towards this individual. So I called up the other data immediately on the case and I said listen this is what happened. The person gave me these monos. I sent back the mish manos but uh I don't think I can sit in this case anymore. So I said if it comes uh that this is going to reach the next stage. So I'm I'm disqualifying myself from sitting on the case. But lisa it never happened. and they never came back anyways was was it was okay but that becomes you know much more complicated so we'll talk about that as well um so what are the different gradations so first of all we'll start I have the source sheet so we'll go through the source sheet try to do this we have the has brings down what really was a locus between the and the with respect to that the way it's codified in the in the base it's a mishna says there such a thing ribb is misus right some money is paid before the loan is is even given the borrower sends it as an inducement right for the lender to loan him some money but it's not conditional so that's why it's called ribbis mcdis if it would be conditional that would be ribbut even if it's not conditional that's considered to be ribb such a thing as ribbis mus is also such a thing as ribbism borrower borrow the money return the money to the lender but now he sends him a little bit extra a little bit extra and he says because I put your money out of commission this is why I'm giving you extra this is says the rash the case is very clear I'm only worried if the borrower opens up his mouth the borrow should teach the borrower just don't talk so much right so if the borrower opens up his mouth and he says this is why I'm giving to you it's a problem if he doesn't open his mouth it's not going to be a problem that's the simple understanding that's of of the case. That's what the rash says. When the ram codifies this case, the ram says, "No, no, it's always a problem." The Ram doesn't specifically say that the borrower has to open up his mouth. It's just a stamp case that the ribbis is given very shortly after the loan. It's understood that he's giving it because of the loan and therefore it's going to be prohibited. Never mind the fact that the has this confusing ruling where he seems to indicate that you could be make if a person has in mind that they're going to give a maton even at the time of repayment. Time of repayment. writes and everyone loves to quote him about this but it's very you know in the in in the literature like the most problematic time most problematic time is not before the loan after the loan during the terminal loan most problematic time is the time of repayment you're going to give a little bit extra the time of repayment there so that for sure is going to be the biggest possible problem who's the make on that it's based on the but seems to be a make on that even in the case of says Okay, maybe it's a case of you're throwing in a little bit of extra about whether you're paying or throwing in a little bit of extra money, but certainly that's we don't really accept this particular of the seems to hold it even at the time of repayment itself. A person makes it very clear that they're just uh kind of throwing in some extra money into the bone that wouldn't be noticed. It's just like they're they're they're including it so that the lender will only discover afterwards that there's some extra money. So that's also that's also a problem. Some say no it's only a problem when he counts originally the t says he counts up the money and he says now I'm counting up some additional money. That's that that's going to be a problem. But the case with the raisel about is where I as I said it's all just sort of swallowed up into the only then is it going to the others say no it's not true that the ra is not really permitting it. says it's only that it doesn't have to be returned. But of course, it's but of course it's so whatever you do with Raom, you could say that the Ram is talking about a case where it's just um completely um disguised in the um in the payment and so clearly that it's only being done from a ton of purposes going to be make or the RA is only make it's not really only you don't have to return the money or we're only talking about a mecha case. Never in mind the fact that the ra seems to explicitly be talking about case. There are ways out of that. But it seems very very clear that leaving aside the ra for a moment certainly adding extra at the time of actual repayment that that's going to be the biggest the biggest possible problem. But what this says is that if it's after the time of repayment, so then the Rama says that for sure if it's not 100% clear that it's for the sake of mat, the ra is mir in this case and the ra is m in this case even if the person doesn't specify. is like the very clearly seems to bask like just says that if the payment is made that's this is considered to be and it has the status of we said a lighter lower form of a ribbus that doesn't even have to be be returned but according to the as long as it's pretty clear from the context that it was being given because of the money of the lender that was being put out of commission. So that's going to be the says only in a case of pure. So that's that's that's what we have so far. Now then the next in the um oh there's one other important thing that the Ramas says. So the Ramas says that either when the the borrower pays back the money he specifies he's paying it because of the loan. That's going to be a problem. Fine. Then he adds something else. And this is where we have our bridge so to speak between this and the things that we're going to allow during the course of the loan where it says or it's a very very large gift very large gift like there was a loan that was made from the lender to the borrower. He loaned him a million dollars. The borrower the borrower repaid the million dollars and then a day later the lender looks out his front window and he looks and what do you know? Lo and behold, there's a new Rolls-Royce which is waiting for him outside. So, where' the Rolls-Royce come from? The borrow he gave the Rolls-Royce. They didn't say, "I'm giving you the Rolls-Royce for this particular reason." But why else would the borrower have given the Rolls-Royce? It's obvious. It's not like he gave him maybe a box of chocolates. We we we can explain for other reasons, but if it's a Rolls-Royce, it's a matuba. So, then says to meaning that it's quite clear what the intention is. So this idea that it's quite clear um when you have a matanuba that gives us a little bit of a bridge with respect to where we draw the line when it comes to things that we allow to be given during the course of the loan. When we say certain things a borrower might do during the course of the loan it's not really related to loan it's related to their relationship. Well, that might work if it's a small little thing, but if it's a very very large thing of something which is very publicly um pronounced what we call so some of the post say that this is in the same category of what we call the matuba. So take a look at the next in the we have two things that has to be careful not to do to even if they have a relationship prior to the loan you know they had a relationship prior to the do loan. One is that even if there was something that the lov would have done to the Malv for the Malv prior to the loan being made he would have allowed the Malv to live in his courtyard. He would have allowed him to do that because he said they have they're good friends and the lov the mala sometimes goes down to Orlando needs a place to stay. Lov says I have a place in Orlando you can play stay in my place or no no no no no problem. So even if this was done before the loan, nonetheless, if the malves says he's going to he takes advantage of the goodwill of the Lov so that while in the past the Mauve would have asked permission of the Lov but now that he extended the loan so the Malva feels that he's in charge m right he's he has some extra leverage in this case so he takes advantage of that leverage by just going straight to the place in Orlando he knows where to get the key whatever and he and he doesn't even ask of the borrower for for permission. So that is not allowed. That's not allowed because now he's taking advantage of that relationship. This idea of taking advantage of the relationship is only while there's a relationship points out this particular exception that there are things that that the borrower would have done for the lender but that we're not going to allow the lender to take advantage of when it's shalom. That's only during the course of the loan because clearly the lender is taking advantage of the current lender borrower relationship. If that's miser situation, we don't find anywhere in any of the literature any comment saying that the lender wouldn't be allowed to take advantage of the fact that the borrower always allowed him to do something in the past and and even do it without asking the borrower if it's if it's after the loan was paid off. Kokus M points that out that would be okay because that's only something which is a function of the relationship the lender borrower relationship which only exists during the course of the loan. So that's one rule shalom. This is both of these rules that appear in Zim come from a toos based on the sugal in the gimarus. That's rule number one. Um rule number two is um that if it's something which is done with the das with a full knowledge of the borrower and it's something that the lender would have received from the borrower even prior to the borrower making the loan. So then that would be okay. That would be okay. uh that's maybe in the same category as what we would call matan muetes right uh that the borrower is giving something to the lender you know after loan is over doesn't appear to be related to the loan this would be okay even during the course of the loan however here we have another exception as long as it's not something which is publicly pronounced as long as it's not my case where the lender is going into the courtyard he's going into the house he's going to the the the the Orlando winter and summer home of the of the borrower so Even if the borrower gave permission, that's a dish for to leave in the live in the person's courtyard is a and even if this is this it's like a home. It's a home that the borrower lets people go in without their having to pay money for it and the lender has is the law of he doesn't need this for himself. Nonetheless, it's still going to be if it's a shell for and those are the exact the example given like to live in his or to utilize the EVIT of the borrower you could justify this under normal circumstances. Well, the borrowers away and the the Eban's not doing any work and this way he's going to keep the Eban in good shape to make sure that the EB remembers that he's supposed to be working uh and that he'll remain on his toes. So normally the Garra says that might be something that would be acceptable but no it's not acceptable under these circumstances when it's in the context of taking advantage of the of the relationship with professia people will see that it's very public they'll know that a loan was extended from the lender to the borrower and they'll think that this is a special favor the borrower is allowing the person to use the courtyard of their house the the evid because of because of the loan this all stems from gimar to go into all the details of the gimmar you know the garra the gimar based on the mishna and sama um that talks about that the person extends alone. He's not allowed to live in his courtyard for for free. And the Garra says this isn't only in a situation where a courtyard is generally rented out of even if it's a situation where the courtyard is not normally rented out, it's still going to be prohibited because of the fact that the borrower owes money to the lender. So it looks like ribbons. So Tossus asked a very funny question, very funny question when you think about it because it's a kasha that wouldn't necessarily occur to all of us to ask to because I might think that there's a special rule in the Torah that there's a certain hashkafa that the Torah imposes upon us that okay maybe yesterday you were friends but but but but but today the borrower needs one friend needs money from the other friend. So now going forward until that loan is repaid they're not considered friends anymore. They're considered to be lender and borrowing. All the rules change. All the rules change and they have to be very very circumspect with each other. Kind of like you know what I would think should be the case in a dian situation right I'm a dian for somebody the case my wife knows she invites people you know to the house and so she'll give me the guest list these are the people I want to invite for shabas and I'll say okay this person hold off inviting them you know because when you're in the middle of some sort of a case before the bezen so that that friendship has to be you know tempered a little bit. So it says to what are you talking about? This isn't a court case. This is a friendship. What do friends do? Friends friends loan each other money. So they shouldn't be friends anymore. Says what? Because the now they're good friends. They're always doing nice things for each other. Now the lender loans some money for the borrower. So the borrower is not allowed to open up a door for the lender. The borrower is not allowed to to to to to loan his shovel to the lender that he always loaned to the shovel to the lender in the past. He's not allowed to allow him to use his horse that he always allowed him to use in in the past. How can such a thing be? You're going to prohibit number one the special favors that the borrower did to the lender. Okay, you might have an argument for that, but even that I don't understand, says Tossos. But you're going to go so far that even things that the borrower would have done for other people, even that the lender is not going to be able to enjoy like the courtyard. The borrower wouldn't have charged anybody to to to hang out in his courtyard. You're going to tell me this is gives two separate reasons. You could say the two reasons each one has a each one is standing independently. One explanation is that the courtyard case is a worseman's case is the worst case because it's ornament's case is the worst case because it's so I could have picked and choose I could have said okay I'll choose this I'll choose the other you know that would be okay and if it would be a shalom case and it wasn't for that would be okay so we said no we're going to go the in both directions that's in both directions if either I have a situation which is like living in the courtyard Or I have a shalomi dao where the lender takes something that normally he would have taken he would the borrower always rent always loaned out his shovel to the lender. He always loaned out his lawn mower to the the lender. No problem. And now the lender goes one day and he needs a lawn mower and he sees that the lawn mower is just sitting in the borrower's front yard and he figures okay I'll take the lawn mower. I'm not going to ask him. Um but normally he asks him but it's in the middle of the loan the middle of the loan term. So then we're not going to we're not going to allow that. And that's we ask like like like both of these. Okay. So we have both of these. Now bear all of that in mind. As I said the is one that only applies during the course of the but not in a ribb situation. However that could be a different story. So look at the ink has the I'm sorry in it's going on in the this is very important because it tends to be confusing. You know you look at the shock which sift is he going on the shak is talking about the sif in the that's going on ribbis and he talks about why is it that a matuba is going to be user in the case of a ribb so the shak now draws the comparison between the two look very carefully the says it could be that even if was something that was that was regularly given by the borrows and lend He was always giving Rolls-Royces to I don't know it was interesting relationship the bar was always giving Rolls-Royces to to to lend her nonetheless that's still going to be prohibited why something which is so big and so fantastic and so glamorous that's akin to a mil so just same way that we don't allow milia in the midst of the course of the loan something which rises to this level of milia so in people's minds they're going it's a marion thing in people's minds they're going to associate that with a ribbis payment the leader. So therefore that's the reason why it's going to be prohibited. Um and then he mentions um one other thing that becomes sort of a a third variable. So we mentioned that we have a maklous between the raim and the rush in the case of ribbism. The ram says that as long as it is clear that it relates to the loan this extra payment is going to be user and the rush says it's only when it is specified. Right? Okay. So, let's say that it's not clear that it relates to to the loan. It's not clear that it relates to the loan. Uh and um it might be like well after the loan term is completed. Maybe it's 10 months later. It's 2 years later. It's not clear. Even though according to the it should be perfectly fine. But person has in mind the lo has in mind. I'm giving this out of appreciation for the the food alone. I'm not going to open up my mouth. I'm not going to open my mouth. I'm not going to say anything. But I know this is my kabona. My kavana is that I'm giving this extra amount better of appreciation for the fact that I put this fellow's money out of commission for a period of time. That's why I'm giving the money says the shock that's also going to be our and the shock says that within both opinions the shock is saying that even within the opinion of the Rama the Raos Paskkin like the Rash who says that it's only a problem he says this is just as bad as Kishap means that even the even the lender is not allowed to accept it because the lender knows that that the borrower has in mind that he's doing it for the loan but from the borrower's perspective it's going to be user for the borrower whether he opens up his mount or whether he only has it reside inside of his heart. That's still going to be a problem. And that's what's that's what the shock says. A very very interesting thing disagrees because the shock quotes the balotumos. He says I this is what the balotum says that's nice. This is what the balotum says. Valotumos is only saying this within within the Ramom because there's a mlocus within the Ramom that it could be that according to one one interpretation of the Ramom the Ram holds that it's only user when the Lova has actual cabana and according to the according to the other day in the Ramom it could be user even if there wasn't even if there wasn't cabana and the Batumos is talking about that um that type of situation he says that if the person was rogill that if they normally gave gifts beforehand we would otherwise be make so then if he has if he wasn't if he doesn't have but all this is all is only within the so he says but according to the rush says and according to the the Torah that the poskins like them so it's only when the borrower opens up his mouth and he says I'm giving it because of the loan so therefore means that we don't care what's inside of his heart we'll say we'll say whatever he has in his So who knows what what lurks you know in the hearts of man that that is irrelevant in terms of the is of and therefore that would be 100% permissible. So this is a very important namina because if you had like a matanuetis for example that was given a couple of years after loan was over. So according to the sha um if you say muetes that it would still be user if the person has kabana even though he doesn't open up his mouth he still has kabana that he's uh has that he has in mind that he's going to give it that for the purpose of that the borrower is giving this this amount this gift because of because of the loan according to rabbi it would seem that that would not be that would not be a problem okay what it's Not entirely clear. It's not entirely clear that it would not be the that that that he would be make in a case which is not s who is in a case which is not s if it's very even in a case of niskav. So that seems to be the bas yoseseph. The bas yoseph seems to be malleable in that case because the bas says that if it's something which is very far away in time um then even a matanuba is going to be is going to be mut like even if the borrower gives a rolls at some point in time which is let's say two years later to the lender that's going to be permissible. Matanuba. So it sounds like if it's a matanuba, it would seem like that's equivalent to a case of misab and the bas would agree. Everybody says that if it's pish, even if it's much later in time, pish is still going to be a promise. It would seem that bas would draw a distinction between pishabin if I'm dealing with a matano which is muog that's being given at a much later point in time. It seems to be that way. The basio is a proof text. What's the proof text of the basio? The proof text of the bas is this weird case and the vase where it's talking about you know normally the lov is supposed to write up like the contract of indebtedness and then give it over to um and give it over to the lender and it says has to do with a a an item that belonged to a woman and the husband's writing to get on this item. Did she know to be machna the item to the husband or not? So he's bringing a proof text from the situation of an old man an old man in some hick town somewhere and he was the one who was always making I mean in some sort of a you know country bumpkin little place I don't know and he's the one who's always making city loans for everybody in this you know city area or whatever this is the village city area so he's so this old man um it says would have he would write the documents himself because they didn't know how to write documents and they would sign the documents so the question is that it doesn't seem like this is a case either where they it was coming from them. It was coming from him. It was his document. Said no, he was an old man. So he was a man of the world. So he knew to be mocking the document to them. That's that's a sugar. So Tossas has accasha. He says, "No, we're talking about a loan document, a loan document. He would have a sheep on them anyway. Strictly speaking. So it would only be aashi if I'm talking about like a sale document. They would be selling peels. So but the Gar doesn't talk about selling peels or gifting peels or anything like that. So Tossas makes it up. So Tossa says that you have to infer from the gimmar the fact that he's making these loans to these individuals in this um in this it's called an ear. It sounds like it's an ear with people who are not that knowledgeable but he's writing these um the these these loan documents. So it must be that there are also sale documents that are coming from them to him. Why is that? Because he's constantly making he was constantly making loan documents to them. They must have loved this guy. They must have loved this guy and they must have had such incredible appreciation for this guy that it must be says to he makes up the whole story that it must be that uh they were gifting their fields to him after a period of time like oh every everybody loved this guy he was their big you know mascot whenever they would have their big village parades he'd be like the grand marshall everybody loved this guy so they would give their fields to him or they would sell their fields maybe at a discount to him and presumably it would be done the same way that he would write everything and they would and uh and they would sign it. So that's the kasha because here the document really has to come from them. So how could it come from them if he's the one who's writing the document? So that's must be what the Gmorra is talking about. But Tulsus doesn't seem to have a problem with this concept that because of the fact that he was making these loans for them that they were gifting their fields to this fellow. But why is that? So says the bas clearly because even though a field a field is very much a matanuba you give a whole field to somebody it's a matanuba even though it's a matanuba nonetheless it was something which was mugg it was a much later much later in time so it sounds in the b y that even mscav in that particular situation would be okay so comes along the um the shukar shaw says that there really two different approaches over here he says that one is the approach he quotes from the shock. He doesn't say the shock's name says says that if a person regularly gave gifts in the past so then it would be okay as long as he doesn't have in mind this is talking about context that he's going to do it because of the then he says there are those who are mater right there so that would be the opinion that argues with the shock who argues with the shock ties argues with the shock those who argue Okay. So he says that that there is an opinion that says that even if he is as long as he's not it is okay. Then go down a number of lines says that if I'm talking about a case so then that's always going to be also because of this idea that But if it is going to be at a much later point in time, then it doesn't appear like even if it's like the case of the right and he throws in he throws in what's implicit in the bas you see. So he does our work for us. So the bas so the shakar throws in what's implicit in the boss. says, "Even if he's misguided, even if he's misguiding, but but but but all of this is only a long long footnote to the second line of this excerpt from the shukar and which is the follows the first line which is the right um so then he says so therefore he says that would be as even if it's a very very far in time lift According to this opinion, but according to the first opinion, which is what? Which is the opinion of the you should be makmir like the first opinion namely that of a shock. So the way he's understanding the first opinion is that the first opinion you would be machmir even with if I'm dealing with mu even if I'm talking about mule is har I'm talking about a much later point in time for a matuba I would still have to be makmir in a case of niskav according to the shock now how in the world you know should we pasin there are the various you know people who have written on this issue so I found you know some articles written by various decom about how to what we should do the ma so moh's Zilberg in an article in Orio said that h you know we're talking here ribbes it's mule and it's a very far away in time. So he thinks that there is a rumor to be make um like the um shitos that say that if you're not misgav that even if you are misgaving if you're not mfares so then he thinks that you can be um he thinks that you could be mal um especially in the case of especially in the case of mulog um so I don't know that everybody would necessarily hold that way but it's not entirely clear it's not entirely clear I just wanted to point out according to any time in which you have a situation of it's always going to it's always going to be problematic Um then he goes on to say that even according to the you should only be um you should only be make in a situation of a matanuis if it's right um and um and where it's known the person who's giving it knows that he would have given this amount even if not for the even if not for the um I'm sorry that the even though I'm sorry this is the first if you sold the held like the second spar so then even the even if it's niskavin uh then it wouldn't necessarily be be a problem but it's not something which is broadcast to the whole world that it's related to the loan however if it's something which is going to be broadcast to the whole world um that uh the everybody knows in other words that will be obvious apparently obvious to everybody that it wouldn't be done without the hab so then he says that's considered to be a matan ruba why am I quoting from this second this next paragraph because this par next This paragraph adds another dimension to matanaruba that when we say matanuba is the one sort of carve out in the in the bib's case even if you hold that it's not a problem as long as you're not mfarish and even if you hold that it's not a problem even if you're miscav nonetheless he says that matuba that suk is considered to be a problem and anything which is a situation where the world looking at this gift would say there's no way in the world that this gift would be given If not for the fact of the hava will qualify as a matan ruba. Matan ruba is not a magical thing that has to be a rolls. It could be anything where the people looking on um would say that this is obvious that it's only been given because of the havah. So even if I whether I return I compare Matan Ruba to Farhesio or I compare it to this situation it seems like it's not doesn't have to be per se Fares to be a to be a problem since remember that the we're not talking necessarily in the Rivaris case about people who are friendly with each other who did these types of favors for each other beforehand because Riv Mukaris is Mut even if they didn't do these favors before and so therefore it's going to be a little bit of a stricter standard in terms of this matan ruba it's not going to be dka for hessa thing. It's going to be anything where it's sort of clear that from the context that anybody would be able to figure out that it was based upon the loan. And then he has his famous his famous paragraph about Bashas Pon everything is off limits the time of repayment called Loab. I don't care if it's merchandise or money. I don't care if it's I don't care even if it's no I don't care if the person is everything is going to be 100% prohibited. We know who disagrees with this particular statement of the none other than the but himself is sort of a question mark as to how far you you apply or disagree or agree with the we'll get to that in a second. Now, I just wanted to read to you says and then he gives you all of the scenarios and then go to the next page. So here he also see Mr. Paskkin like the shock. He says explicitly he is like the shakers well the niskavin is going to be but he draws the following distinction which we hinted at before something that the didn't do he said what's the um significance of niskavin the significance of niskavin is that from the perspective of the malv if the lov doesn't say anything and it's not clearly related to the loans so the malva can assume that the lo is not doing anything hankypanky he's not doing anything wrong so then it would only be an isa for the lov but not for the mala if he's ncab but he doesn't say anything and we're talking about like a matan muetes after the loan that's not clearly related to loan. He doesn't have to assume that is he doesn't have to ask the question why are you giving me this box of chocolates. This would be sort of the classical matanamu at this right. I made a loan to somebody. The person returned a loan. Now a week later, a bouquet of flowers arrives at my house before shopping. A box of chocolates. That's not a matan ruba. Not a matuba. I mean, it depends how expensive the flowers are. It's like a $6 bouquet of flowers. It's necessarily not a matuba. So I don't have to ask him the question. I could just say, okay, this is perfectly fine, right? However, if the loan knows then it'll be and he says as well even if it's so this idea that the Bose seem to have introduced that if it's mugg so then everything is fine even if there's he says no no no no if there's kabana if there's I mean the base didn't say kabana it's implicit from the base there's kavana so just the same way the says the problem says the problem so we have a number of say kabana is very important over here the law knows that this is why he's giving the extra map so the law might not be problem for the to take it. He doesn't have to assume the worst. But but it's a problem for the to give it the doesn't have to assume the worst. He'd be allowed to take it even if you're matan as long as the bar keeps his mouth shut. Be sure that so then it would be so then it would be permissible. So this is the way that you can potentially you know reconcile these different opinions. Now how do you define this category of mule that you say oh if it's mule so then even if it's a matan maruba so the ma can assume are the best so what if the lender and the borrower they didn't have any shyus with each other other than the loan and then suddenly this Rolls-Royce that shows up from the borrower years from the borrower a year later so what else what else is the lender supposed to attribute this to other than the loan right so shy says that maybe you can this is razam he says He said that you you can define mugg in one of two different ways. Some say one month is mugg. Some say a year is mugg. Some say a couple of days is mugg. It doesn't really appear to be a very clear shar. I mean it's hard to imagine a couple of days is mlo but it doesn't appear to be a very clear shear with respect to mug. Certainly I've seen one month with respect to says have they moved on to another stage of their relationship. In other words, the loan has been paid and now they're moving on to something else. They have a business deal with each other. They have they're they're planning a trip with each other. They're going to a ball game with each other. They having a kusa with each other. They've moved on to the next stage of their relationship. So at whatever point they move on to the next stage of their relationship says this is very misab I think he says that is when it's mugg because then you can easily attribute the gift to something else that's mugg he says that is one definition of mlug right um oh ml or it's a really really really a long time away now that raises a question let's say it's a really really a long time but they didn't have anything else to do with each other so then what is the lender supposed to think like how is the lender mameus that it's not something related to the loan when suddenly it's okay. So the he made a $1 million loan to the borrower. He got his money back. They didn't have any conversation any deals with each other. Now it's 20 years later and suddenly a Rolls-Royce so shows up at his house if I'm the borrower. Why is that going to why is that going to be okay? So um hold that thought. I think I might have a I think I might have a suggestion. Um so the Mak has this interesting idea. Makim says if it's crystal clear 100% clear that something is being given because it is a gift. So then he says that that for sure is right. That explains the difficult Ramom where the Ramom says that if the person just inconspicuously throws in some extra coins into the purse that he's handing over to lender when he pays back the loan and it's more than to toe and it's more than a person would normally make a make a mistake. So it's clear that it was so seems to indicate that that's okay and as we said that's very very problematic and we as I said we probably don't bask in that way. So I mean we don't bask in that way really but nonetheless that's you know sort of one of the points of it's one of the points of data. So it says at the machim that I believe that there is the following he talks about the situation of the osen the osen where the bas said that this is a matanuba and the bas have to give a terce well matanuba if it's a long time away so that's going to be okay so he says I don't think it's a cash at all because we would be talking in that case when when the people gifted their fields to this old man you know what they said they said old man we want to give you a gift and those are the magic ical words in the same way that according to the rush a person saying I am paying you this money because of your money that I put out of commission when you loaned it to me that that is the kiss of death so too a person who's pish a matana that's the kiss of life you say matana that makes everything mut no problem it's good matana matana great matana nothing to do as a with ribbis this is a matana yeah sure I'm giving you a matana because I'm so happy that you gave me money that I was able to borrow but I'm giving this to you as a matana says that solves all problems. That's what he says. which is why people are not so thrilled with it can't be it can't be if a person has that they're giving something as interest and they just throw in the magical word mat that everything is going to be but that's what the says because this way he's able to explain he's able to explain away all kinds of then he says is like the except that we say not that's that it's money per se and also it can only be up And nobody's real has a dinner nowadays is what's added by the delay post. But why is that? Because he says so it's quite clear that they're giving mat even if they don't open up their mouths even if they don't say that it's matana when it's like crystal clear. So he says that would be that would be perfectly that would be perfectly fine as well. Furthermore this is the explanation of the what happens in the he doesn't really spell it out so much. the case above you have aimera is on his deathbed and he says I want you to give this amount to my creditor my creditor I owe money to my creditor but I want you to give him like he really deserves he wants if he saysovo so you just pay up the amount that he owes but if he sayso like he deserves so that means that the person is saying that this was such a wonderful fantastic fellow I want to give him a gift I want to give him a gift and in fact what's the hook that if the individual on his deathbed said like the gimar says. So then you pay back the loan plus you give this fellow ko. You give him like this 200 whatever the amount is that the person said I I want you to give this extra amount could be double what the amount of loan was but I want you to give this amount because clearly he wanted to give it to to him as as a gift otherwise why should this be mut you're paying back the person's debt plus you're throwing on this gift to the creditor that should be ribbous right? No, but the fact that he said coro so shows that he had in mind that that would be that would be a matana. And of course this also explains the ram of the person who th who folds in a little bit of extra money for the individual that he that he owes money to um that that he include he sweetens the deal so to speak. Um so why is that permissible? Because it's clear that under the circumstances that it is meant to be that it's meant to be a matona, right? Um so this is a this is a very a very very interesting uh very interesting question. Um so it it sounds a little bit um like the case in Baba Basra certainly seems to very strongly support and but this position but there is there is there is there is another way of understanding the GM and Babas and this opens up a totally new portal and this is something I don't know if you've seen this but you find this theme um in a number of the different postkim um that talk about this issue certainly the brispas that by wind was considered to be one of of the foremost authorities in Hosis nowadays and you find this in a number of other places as well which is the question of what if there's a relationship that is created between the borrower and the lender that didn't pre-exist prior to the loan but the loan creates a relationship. The loan itself creates a relationship. Yes, it creates a borrow lender relationship but it also creates a smoozing relationship. you didn't smoo with this person before because you didn't need the borrower didn't need to ask for funds. Now that the borrower asks for funds, so they're on speaking terms, you know, you can have the person's like your biggest enemy, but if you had something in common with them at one point in time, it creates a bond. You ever like meet somebody up, you know that you went to yeshiva with, you went to elementary school, you spent 10 years with them, you were the you you were the worst enemies with each other, now you meet up 20 years from each other. Ah, my old good friend, you know, remember the good times we had together. You didn't have any good times together. You hated each other. But the thing is that there was a relationship because of the fact that you had some interaction with each other. It creates a relationship. So so too there's a relationship that's created between this lender and borrower. It's the strangest thing as a result of this loan. It actually creates a relationship. So the rasha has like a slightly different formulation and you could say that it's a very docistic formulation but it may be a question of is the person giving extra because of the loan or they're giving extra because they have an appreciation for this very fine benevolent fellow who extended the loan and according and it could be that if they're giving something extra not because of the loan but because they just want to show appreciation to this really really good guy um that they now have become close to as a result of the loan. So it could be that's okay. Could be that's okay. So and that's a better according to the even if the person is giving the extra money to as something that relates to the loan itself but they're giving it mat. So that's okay. But that may not be true. It could be that what we can derive from the case of Baba Basra is that if the person is giving some extra money not because of the per se but because of the appreciation for the so maybe that's a different story. Look at the raspa in the on the says this is going the says if the individual then you just give the amount of loan said so then you give the loan plus you give this extra gift about so second line we don't say he's giving it because of the ribb and therefore it should be prohibited based on he's saying because this person he uplifted my spirits he uplifted my spirit said this is somebody who had the individual in question had a profoundly good positive effect upon me and that's why I want to show my appreciation this could give us a different insight into why it would be okay according to the case of the zakod that the people especially if it's a mu and the way to presents it is that they just love this guy they love this guy this guy always took care of them maybe he took care of them in other ways as well but he always took care care of them. So because of the fact that he always took care of them. So that's why he's that they they want to give their their feels to him. It's not as a repayment of the loan. It's not that they're giving extra because of the most sets. It's because they want to show great appreciation for this guy. It's a funny thing because when brings this case of the he says, "Oh, so we assume that if the said it must mean I want to give him, you know, good. I want to give him a special gift because he was so good to me and Mama he also like he must have done other good things for me as well. I'm going to read from some other Oh, so the says take a look at the brisk. Okay. So he talks about a couple of scenarios. One scenario is where you have in the middle of the where the lender and the barber will become friendly with each other for reasons other than like they become relatives, they become neighbors. So then the lo is allowed to give to the males things that that he would give to any neighbor or to any relative even though he didn't give it to them before. So this we understand it's not related to the lot it's related to the fact that their neighbors are their relatives. However, look at this. Then he says or if they became friendly because they got to know each other by virtue of discussing the loan. I mean, he spells out that it could be that they would have become friendly even if the loan hadn't been extended just because the borrower asked for the loan and then they smooed a little bit. Oh, why do you want the loan? What's going on with you with your family? What do you need it for? And even if he wouldn't have extended the money, so maybe they would have developed the relationship anyway. So, the fact that he that he extends the loan um does not to does does not to take away from the fact that now there is a genuine friendship that has been um established. The dogma like for example If the borrower generally would allow only his close circle of friends to utilize his cell phone, obviously we're talking about a flip phone over here. So then it would be permissible to give that to the mal as well. Even though their relationship only came about due to the due to the that's what he says. Okay. Even though it's only because of now that he became acquainted that he became acquainted with him, nonetheless that would be that would be considered to be to be good enough. Um so this is something which is also um uh which is also stated by the uh by Ramosa Zilberg who says that it would also be permissible to give a matanuetes to somebody who you became friendly with only as a result of the hob. It's really a fascinating thing says let's say they didn't know each other before the val day. This is an article in the or you saw as I mentioned and they only became close with each other because of the he says that this would be considered to be like a gift that's not related to the loan any a small matana would be permissible even prior he's not talking about even prior to the loan being paid back unbelievable unbelievable but you find this in a number of different writers a number of different thinkers that they say that this could be potentially permissible. I saw it in an article in the Ruain journal by Rab the Liel williger where he also talks about Mishlo Manos giving Mishlo Manos during the term of a loan where he makes at least the suggestion. He says that not necessarily everybody would agree that even if they only became friendly with each other because of the loan but nonetheless the mish mon is not being given based on loan but based on the friendship that they have with each other that this should also be considered to be potentially permissible um because of the fact that uh that's not that now they're actually they have a relationship with each other they have a relationship with each other it's um uh I don't know exactly how far you're going to take this per Okay. But I found this to be a very revealing sort of idea and it could explain as I said the babbas on some level and it could explain also the story regarding the person who is the um the but if so then we can really understand very well the of both that if in fact when the lov is extending this bismanog at some later point in time they really aren't escabing because of the loan. So maybe that would be problematic. But as I mentioned, otherwise uh if there is no nuscave and it's not purish and the lender himself just sees this Rolls-Royce roll into his driveway 20 years later. So maybe after 20 years, it's not you could say it's not because of the loan anymore. It's because like uh whatever relationship we establish at this point in time, obviously the borrower still has warm feelings towards me. Uh and he doesn't have to be a do me a you know at this point in time. must be because you know he feels that I was a good guy and maybe that would be some type of a justification. I'm not sure according to the rit not sure according to the maybe according to you could say that if if there well were a couple of other things as well that they had in terms of interactions. So if he has the ability to attribute it to at least one other type of tova that maybe was done by the um by the lender to um to to the borrower outside of a loan context. So then certainly there would be room to be made. Mi even according to even according to that opinion the um uh go back to source to source test so says uh that what is considered to be paria and this is something which the mahashal talks about marshall talks about a case of somebody who's a borrower and they buy an aliyah for an individual in the basset they buy an aliyah for an individual in the basset so is that considered to be fario so this is talking about a sh you know this is before the day of steeples I guess everybody's gathered together in the sh and now the borrower is buying the aliyah for the for the lender and um it's during the course of the loan so if he had done it beforehand I would have said well maybe that should be permissible but not because we say if it's a it doesn't matter if he did it beforehand it's still going to be it's still going to be problematic so he quotes that he says if it would be so that's going to be a problem but there is a potential exception this is an exception that the Marshall writes that that is accepted by pretty much all the post which is that even if our situation if it's if everybody knows that the borrower always did things for on behalf of the lender before the loan was extended. So then even is going to be okay. In other words, that the case that Tossus talks about that paresio living in the courtyard would be prohibited is only when not everybody knows. Could be that some people know, could be a lot of people know but not everybody but that everybody knows. So then he says that is going to be perfectly perfectly okay. Um and then he takes it a step further. says once we're going to say it's going to be perfectly okay for even the other case of shalomidas is also going to be permissible if it is known that the and the hear it doesn't have to be everybody knows because it's not perhia it just has to be I know that two two parties know in the shalomidas case if it's if it if it's no if they if if it before the loan was extended the borrower would allow the lender to live in his courtyard or forget the courtyard case that's for you but to to to borrow his rake um or his shovel or his lawn mower um even without asking the even without asking um the um for for for permission of the borrower but it's something that the borrower would automatically do um even if it was shalomidas even without his knowledge he would always allow the lender to take advantage of his lawn mower and so forth. So then he says by the same logic by the same by the extension of the same logic we should also say that that would also be permissible. In other words, that these are not absolute categories. It depends upon context. If I did have a sit or let's say I had a situation where the whole world um would take something from the borrower without permission like a tissue box in the base medish. Everybody takes from a person's tissue box without permission, right? I think so. Um because that's what tissue boxes are for. Um so presumably since the whole world would take beforehand, so the lender doesn't have to teach it to treat himself any more stringently in that um in that particular in that particular situation. Okay. Fine. Um so the um um once you he he notes oh there's one other important thing that he picks up from the shar when he talks about the favors that are done prior to the that are done prior to the repayment of the loan. So we said that those things are going to be permissible if I have number one it was done beforehand. Number two it's not shalomidas unless it was always done before shalom das number three it's not beforeia unless the whole world knows that professia was done beforehand as well as we just said but he adds the condition of the shak the condition of the shak that the shak mention with respect to so he mentions in this context as well if you take a look at the bottom of page four of course here too he throws in this consideration. So sums up basically what are the four conditions that would be necessary and he says that we should be more mahmir because the rules as we know of a bak certainly more machm during the term of the loan than after loan has already been paid up. So here the kabani issue should be taken more seriously um because here the the loan hasn't even paid been paid up yet said you really need four in order to allow the ma to take a tova from the lo during the course of the loan. Number one number two unless you know this extreme exception applies. And number four shalis it has to also be shalis. Okay fine. So we have all of these different conditions that are more of the conditions with respect to before the before the loan has been repaid. Now shalom has a tremendous that you can feel free to disagree with. So when he's talking about basically this um um this you know so to speak that he says certainly all bets are off even if it was wrong that the person generally gives him and so forth but he says it seems to me getting back to the he says we don't reject the entire it's just that normally we have to be suspicious of whether something's being given as a But let's say at the time of repayment, it's very clear that it's a gift. And this also may help us understand the suga in Baba Basu because Baba Basu what's happening? The fellow is disposing of all of his assets and the creditor is going to get two things. He's going to get this gift and he's also going to get his loan. It sounds like he's getting them both at the same time, doesn't it? Right? So he says if it's very clear that it's a mitzvah like for example the shows up to the bar of the because now they become good friends as we mentioned right oh and he says this is a great opportunity for me to repay my loan and also to give a wedding gift or mitzvah gift right maybe says I think that would be mut you wouldn't believe me if I didn't read this insights okay um maybe the ritual says otherwise But he says he says this is going to be even if he actually repays the at that point in time but he has to know that he is not intending to give this as ribbis but just as a mat and as we said it could be that under these circumstances maybe because their relationship has developed that he's even getting invited to the barit the wedding of the m that he really intends it as a wedding gift and not something he but he says he has to be careful example that he's not going to give us a larger gift than what he would have given him if not for the so I don't know that's a little bit complicated I suppose um so he says that um however if it's if it's after the payment has been made so then he says that maybe even if it's a larger gift it would be okay as long as it's not in the category of matuba if you're not going to be makme like the shak in the case of niskav so he has this incredible uh incredible um in such a um in such a case but it's uh it's mistav in terms of explaining at least that other suga that might be an explanation as to why that would be that would be okay when it's clear that the additional amount that's being given is being given um maton okay um now the um question then arises nowadays what's this business of faresio what's paresio who knows that a lender loan money to a borrower it could be in the olden days everyone knew the affairs of what was going on inside of the community and it was known this is the lender this is the borrower and so forth but in our communities you don't know is the lender is a borrower so you really have this issue the borrower is going to buy an aliyah for the lender is it really going to be a problem is anybody even going to know about it altogether he's going to live he's going to go to his summer home in Orlando or whatever his winter home in Orlando and the the borrower is going to be sitting does anybody know the lender has extended him any money so it says take a look at the bottom of your test this is in nobody knows as is often the case nowadays. He does not he does not have sign or anything. He just gives him a private document. Maybe he he put something down in the mortgage land records, but nobody really takes a look at that loss. It's not advertised in the newspapers. You don't have a magazine. Army magazine doesn't say, "Oh, the following lender just extended a $1 million loan. Few prohibited these cases as well." So he says if the is only known to very few people and whoever knows about the knows that they have a very close relationship and they know that whatever favors the borrower is doing he would have done in the past. So he says in such a case this would be 100% permissible because this is like it's yall in the sense that it's ydul who need to know because anybody who knows about the law knows about the relationship. So that's what he says but there are two other approaches. What is the brisk that's of when he says no if the ribbus that's been given the this this being acquired for somebody is being done in public. So then you have to be worried that that eventually the people who are there in show might find out about the hava they might find out about the loan that took place and once they find out about the loan that takes place they oh but this borrower who took this loan he bought this aliyah for this person in sh allowed him to live in his winter home in Orlando so then we have to be worried that it's going to become a problem afterwards says that we're worried he in his article he says You don't know who knows about the the loan. It could be that when the loan was being made like maybe it was being made in a conference room somewhere, somebody was like, you know, walking by the conference room and that person, you know, happens to diamond in Schola. They have a brother-in-law is going to dab it in when the alias is purchased a couple of weeks or a couple of months later or whatever. She asked if I ask you this. You don't know who knows about the loan. So therefore, he says you have to be worried that there are people who know about the loan. The Brisbin says you have to be worried that people are going to find out about the loan. when they find out about the loan, they're going to put two and two together. So, I think that that particular of the shalom I think is is a stretch strike. It strikes me strikes me as a stretch. Now, what about if the person actually bought the aliyah? What does the mal do? There's the somebody wrote an article about a borrower who bought the Torah. He bought the Torah. This is an article by Rom Levinger also from so he says I guess that's what I quoted. So, he this is what happened. So the borrower bought an aliyah and now what's going to happen if the person refuses to accept the aliyah it might look like he's a pagan let's say he's a coin you know so it might look like you know something wrong with his kun or his levia or his Jewishness if he doesn't get up and you know and and take the aliyah so what does he do under those circumstances so basically everybody all said they all say the same thing also has a about this I think they all say that under those circumstances you just the lender just has to make sure not to benefit monetarily from what the borrower is doing and to pay whatever would be the value of the aliyah for himself talks about this he have to pay the full amount let's say that the borrower spent $250 for but from the lender's perspective he wouldn't have paid a nickel more than $50 so how much does he have to pay so he thinks that he would only have to pay $50 in that situation and um it's not clear from the others who talk about this whether they agree that you could get away with paying that amount or whether you would have to pay the full amount I'm sorry what feel to it was an auction and if that was the winning bid then he could not have got away with a lower bid. Um yeah but it could be at this but it doesn't matter. This person himself wouldn't have bid more money. Um and the the Levinger makes a very good argument. He says that for certain things that that lova would do to a ma he's not allowed to do it but it's not the ma's fault that the lova did it like ribbar the lova stops in the street and say sham alaikum shamikum how you doing? He wouldn't have said shalom before ender. So does the lova have the right to then insist okay I said shamikum you got to pay me $2. It's worth $2. Let's say it's a $100 loan. So he says shalom 50 times and he won't have to repay the loan. So he says it can't be uh that you have to pay money for this for a ribbon drama situation. If it's something that doesn't have a monetary value the lender. So then it doesn't make sense you would make him pay for it. So he's stuck in a situation of course he has to accept the aliyah because otherwise it's not going to look good. Maybe it'll bring like a tremendous embarrassment. It's going to be a hoba. So he can take the aliyah but he doesn't have to pay more than it's worth to him. Whatever is the difference between what it's worth to him and the amount that the borrower would paid is basically ribbis. So is it to him it's not worth this amount. So therefore he says that this is the total amount that he would have to pay under those under those circumstances and that seems to be the um the shy's uh loon iso I'm not sure sounds like maybe whatever the person paid the says he has this in one in his he says that these things um what this would have been worth to this individual um what he would have paid somebody else in order to receive this kib. So he says very much along um along the same lines I think that's um I think that's basically mist I think it's mist even though the bach had quoted ra said that when a person is moxikto this is the quoted by the at the end of simmon the person is moxikto so then you should be moxiktove in return that's what the raio said that the borrower says to lender oh sham so the lender just gives it right back to him oh shamaikum to you so now he doesn't owe him anything because he's basically paid him back in the same shamikum So he says that or sounds a little bit like the box saying you got to pay back. The way the remark codifies the hawk is not at all like the ravio just says that being moxik tove is okay if it's a type of thing that the two parties would have always been moxytove towards each other anyway like you have the situation the double door situation double door situation I have a lender and a borrower they're walking through double doors okay so the borrower opens up the first door of the lender and then lender goes to the second door and opens it up for the borrower so there is a classic example of the rabbi gets prepaid right away no problem whatsoever but even if you didn't have that particular scenario the way the da codifies the is that yeah, anything that they basically would do for each other anyway would be perfectly fine for them for them to do. But what I'm sorry you can buy an I don't know. I don't know that it's a possibility. Maybe it's a possibility. I don't know. So Leger says that um if you look at the Bach the Bach doesn't say that you always have to pay money when he quotes the Rabia. He quotes saying that perish the the box says perish when he's quoting when he's explaining the rava when he's doing he's doing like a tangible deed the borrower does a tangible deed for the lender so then the lender should say I'll do the same for you like he says I'm going to talk to the president because I have a connection that's something he's a broker that's like a broker to make a connection that's something that would be worth money so he brings a from this that even the ra is only talking about paying back something that's worth money to you if it's not worth money to you. So then you don't have an obligation, you wouldn't have an oblig obligation to do so. Um it's um uh it's interesting that the Mosha Feinstein has a chuba in which his father it turned out that a person's father-in-law had borrowed 25 rubles from Mosha's father and now Ramosha discovers that this check was given over by the son of this individual um to Ramosha Feinstein for the amount of $100. And it was because the nifter namely this person's father-in-law um had commanded him had been bin Mab before he died like a case he said to his son-in-law I want you to give to Mosha Feinstein um the um the $100 for this for this debt of 25 rubles that I had borrowed from from Feinstein's father in fun um many many years ago. So Emo Feinstein sort of ponders. He writes to this fellow, "Thank you very much for the check, but I'm not 100% sure what to do with it because you know there's a potential ribbus problem over here because it seems according to what your father had said that my father had loaned your father-in-law 25 rubles and you're paying back $100." Right? So this is a big, you know, so he has a whole over here, right? You know, you know, 25 rubles, 25 rubles. So he has this, you know, sort of situation scenario. what in the world am I supposed to do? So he said well he said I think there are a few reasons I can be malle ultimately rahosha was not so comfortable being mal but he said I have a few spurs to be malle number one to be mal is that it could be uh that that the was already um uh that if he was if he really was a he would have paid it back you know many many years ago so if he didn't pay it back then it must have been that it was really a matana that my father gave and even if at the time my father said it was a hab but probably is a good chance that he been that money was never paid then it was probably forgiven in which case it didn't have to be returned in which case this is clearly a matana. So again relying like the if it's clearly a montana so then there's room to be to be makeo particularly when we're talking about something where he says that there was either never no loan to begin with or there was a forgiveness of the loan. Number two, he says that it's perfectly possible that the value of 25 rubles is now at least $100 because the 25 rubel note was apparently um no longer extent uh at the time in which this loan was repaid from Russia or whatever. Um and therefore he says that you would have to I guess based on dina dea translate the 25 rubles into 25 rubles worth of gold. That's what he says. Um, and this would certainly um have to would have to be paid in whatever was its value in gold and whatever was it value in gold would certainly be worth $100. I don't know if there's maybe a deemed of consideration. Number three says that the father-in-law of this individual was a and of course he knows that ribbus would be prohibited and therefore he's giving it as a matana and we have the are allowed to give matas to each other and certainly whatever he would describe to call himself this was you know something that was supposed to be paid back to his father so certainly and would also qualify obviously so we have here a repayment of towards each other but he says could only pay up to 20% more accord away is code in chok but you have the other as far as to maybe it wasn't maybe it's not worth the more than the 25 rubles anyway and also maybe it's not really a loan but then he says that I still want you to examine in your head because the father-in-law wasn't alive anymore what exactly did your father-in-law say did he say that it was a really a really exactly then why um did he not pay the money back um and certainly um he would not want to pay extra money that would be ribbous. Or is he saying that he borrowed the money a long time ago, right? Um but he's not saying that he still owes the money and maybe the amount that he's giving right now is only is because of a friendship and a love that he had for my father. Meaning if you look at it sounds very much along the lines of what we're talking about like the whole discussion and the he's not saying that he owes the money anymore. The money was presumably paid up already but now he just wants to pay this extra money because of the friendship that he has towards my father. But then he even adds the words bish and seems to indicate that's legitimate. Right? Look at the words. Look at the words. Okay? I challenge you whatever you know you're welcome to interpret it in some other fashion. But that seems to be that seems to be what is saying. Okay. It seems to be okay just I'm just saying because this is not considered to be a ribbus. That wouldn't be considered to be ribbous. So you know I'm just throwing it in the mix. Okay. Fine. So that's all I have to say about the question of the of the ribbis of the matana of the of the matan muetes during the course of the loan that's not related to the ribbus itself the tremendous stringency of the shaspiron and the regarding ribb ribbis muer now um in terms of adian in terms of a dian you have to realize there's a very different dynamic at play because what are we worried about in the case of ribbis I'm worried about ribbis I'm only worried about I don't have a problem with friendship. I'm happy for the lender and borrower to be friendly with each other. This is what we want. This mashia is wonderful. We love that. Okay. We want everybody to be friendly. That's not a problem. What we want to avoid is only ribb that it shouldn't be a ribbus payment. That's was to be sometimes if it's matan as long as it's not haram, right? Um that's why if they had a pre-existing friendship so then know we could be no mal even if they only became friends now as a result of circumstances of the loan we see that there certainly are there certainly are with respect to that situation as well and I would submit that there may even be a basis for that in the various suggest but ribbis is a different but but is a different story is what it makes the dian like one with the one who gives him the money it's not because the money is being given to pervert justice we know that because that's You're not allowed to lobb you're not allowed to pervert justice the person the problem as we all know is even when the balding gives the money to the dian says I want you to judge the case correctly I want you to judge the case fairly and correctly even if I lose no problem but the dian already is tilted he's going to be um he's going to be slanted in favor of that individual says whenever I have a court case the dian is automatically going to be slanted by virtue of the fact that he accepts money even if he intends to conduct himself with integrity if it will be an isra situation. I discover after Pesak that I inherited right before Pesak $5 million worth of beer. Okay. Um and I didn't know to sell it and now I have to make a decision. Oh, do I rely on that everything was included in the sales? I don't know. And then I passed myself. I he said yes. I decided this 100% motor even though I'm so no gay dumber. The kas says no. This person is a dying of integrity. Even though it's even though he stands to gain a lot of money, it's not a court case. That would be perfectly permissible. the Torah that the is going to distort a person's justice. That's a totally different. So here we have the story of the right killed somebody. It seems you decide the case. And then there were two aid that that Bama brought to um to Passel um to the um Tasel, one of the witnesses that he had committed the um he had committed the murder and the um and Rabi and Rapuppy um argued basically like he proved that the like Rabi mayor that if they were possibly imominous they're also possibly and as a result that puppy was able to demonstrate that lock is like Rabbi Mayor. So these aid with the pass one of the Aiden who testified against Bahama and Bakama was not punished as a result and puppy got him off the hook and once puppy got him off the hook was so happy and so ecstatic that he kissed him on his feet and said and I'm going to pay all your taxes okay for all the years I'm going to pay all your taxes okay that's what it says that he was as a token of appreciation was going to pay all of his taxes that he owed to the king for the rest of his life. A very very good deal. So the question is but wait a second what about shood? So the rush says yeah there would have been shun over here. there would have been shenan over here. But he says that the um that in this particular case because of the fact that he says that this was something where he that a puppy wouldn't have had to pay the tax anyway was not doing him any favors. You know, it was not doing him any f favors. Whatever. I mean he he's he was an Indian giver kind of um gesture. So because of the fact that a puppy wasn't really getting anything of substance because he didn't owe ow the taxes anyway therefore it wouldn't be like so we see otherwise that this would be and of course this led to the comment the famous comment of the right um the quoted by the hilos says that even though a puppy himself was not the actual dian we see that anybody who's in this um important uh position of author ority right that he's malatib even though that he would um be that even those who are malibor despite the fact that they're da not in Torah I think he wasn't talking about a puppy specific position he was assuming a puppy went together with the um with the other dian who was on who was on the case but it wasn't like a real capital case it was such like a class case like a kas case so he said that we see from here that even people who are not like strictly real real life they're just community leaders but they have to make a determination um nonetheless they would be subject to laws of sh that's one explanation the gives a different explanation the says that the reason why this was okay was not because puppy didn't get something of value but he holds that since a puppy himself was not an actual dian he was just somebody who was arguing in favor of bakama he was an onlooker who was offering hisma he was a he was maybe a a towing right? You know, he was a to ra maybe not hired as such a per se, but he just kind of like intervened based on maybe they figured I'm going to help out this. So um miss since he wasn't a dian that's the reason it would be okay but otherwise it would not be okay someone would interpret the saying that oh we see he was only concerned about so he holds it really wouldn't be a problem that's one interpretation of the well but it doesn't really matter at the end of the day because the like the even though this made his um commitment after the case had already been decided and the then gives him a mat because of the fact that that he helped him out. He ruled in his favor. Sounds like it's what sounds like. Okay, fine. We just say we say but sounds like an incend but nonetheless it's says the yeah because it's like what it's like. So here we have our match made in heaven between ribbis and shud right says the same way that when it comes to sh it relates even if it's afterwards unless it's it doesn't same thing is true with respect to and what's said the pro text the proof test it says is the case and it's only because the time not they had to pay mass anyways of the bim Ayes talks about a Dian who helped her to resolve an Auna situation. Then the Auna is so appreciative because he was able to figure out arguments as to why the husbands really didn't. She can remarry so she gave him money afterwards. And the question is was he allowed to keep the money. It's very fascinating. He keep asking he can keep the money. basically can keep the money because he says you could argue it was just and really she didn't need all of his minations and it wasn't like a real dorra in which she was pitted against somebody else and she didn't really need him because she could have just said on her own mace Bali and we would have believed her but I mean what does that mean because she could have lied so therefore that's why he gets to keep the money I I didn't understand that argument didn't understand that argument but there is such a chuva in the um in the beric on the other hand there's also chuva by um in the Torah in in the Torah to the um which I think is a cha by right the so he says the so he says as follows so he says that I had a who wrote an argument on behalf of one of the balin gave it into the dian the dian was so impressed by this argument that they ruled in favor of the side that he was arguing for and now the question is whether he is allowed to receive money because he's receiving his is he allowed to receive the in such a case or is that considered to be shar when he's paid afterwards so do we say that he's not one of the or by virtue of the fact that they wouldn't have decided if not for his learned opinion so therefore that would be considered to be like and apparently in this case it was a case so I don't know what the do actually this chuva of the because it seems in this case they says what makes it particularly problematic fact is that it was stipulated beforehand by the party that he wrote this opinion for that the party would pay him money in the event that he would end up winning the casear that there was actually a tan that was made with the party that enlisted this individual to write an argument to submit to the in his favor and he quotes from the suga of and maybe whether he would win or lose but it doesn't really matter for these purposes and he quotes from the suga of Barama um in in Sanhedrin and he says that it's quite clear that a puppa was not a dian in the matter he was just somebody that was relied upon because of the fact that he was such a distinguished scholar who was able to give opinions that the dian in the case of would rely upon and so he says maybe so since this person wrote the chuva is bringing all kinds of arguments that the are relying upon therefore he's considered like and and therefore he's not allowed to receive any payment because of even if it would be paid after the fact and certainly when it was stipulated up front so what did the do with this cha I'm asking what do they do with this cha doesn't this sound like you know like a major pagam on every single situation of a rabini doesn't it no no I'm just asking the question is anybody have any way out of this here out of maybe he's just the tone don't think that the judge necessarily based their time based on they're just presenting information and but they're writing up chu they're writing up chu for the bat to rely upon they're not doing like a lawyer in which they're just presenting the lawyers in front of they're just presenting the facts of the case and uh and giving sort of the litany of the um of the circumstances and the uh and everything that happened so that so that the can properly apply the to the facts of the case but here and making whatever you know claims uh that that they're asking for and and whatever you know uh recovery they're they're seeking but here the the dwanim I know because I've sat on cases where people have submitted briefs from dwanim and so forth they're they're arguing they're submitting haloc briefs that they would to convince the datam of the correctness of their position so I don't know I don't know I don't know what to do about this but I'm just you know throwing it out there um this is one you know clear application um in terms of worrying about the the sky in this um in this particular case um it says of Mosha Feinstein if it's stipulated that there's going to be a scabbata. So then a scabbata is um uh would basically would would basically be okay. However, if the person is paying up money to a to a dian because of the fact that the dian ruled in his favor. So he says oselo the cablo. So he says that is going to be be problematic. um and uh if it was stipulated up front um so that he's going to give it to to the Diane and it wouldn't be just that the parties agreed that they're going to pay Scapatola to the Dian. So then he says obviously that would be an issa dissa even if it's paid after the fact and that doesn't count as an issa as we said with respect to ribbis if it's stipulated up front obviously that's also going to be an isa an isa dissa um I think that um if you take the does the money have to be returned by the dian so the shok says strictly speaking the money doesn't have to be returned by the dian if it's not if it's not requested but the shoken says of course it has to be returned and the adds You're not allowed to tilt a case because of love or hate of the parties. It's certainly based on a very serious matter. So the piscua brings a makus between the dash and the beio as to whether if a person had you given services to a dian a doctor and he provided free services to the dian before the case. So does that disqualify the dian or not? So he says that if the person had charged for his services so maybe it's amidas for the doctor to recuse himself in the case if he has a caratto towards the doctor but that certainly wouldn't possible him but if it was provided for free so then he says if it was only provided the services were provided for free when the patient realized I mean when the doctor realized that he had a case in front of the dian so he said oh you know what I'm going to give you free services and lo and behold two weeks later he has a case in front of the dian so that's a problem but if he always had this relationship so then that would be perfectly fine um That's what he says. However, because he says it's very similar that if it was basically um something that was done before the loan and then it could be done even after the loan as well. And the same thing would be true for a Diana situation. But the be picp and he says he's not really so sure that this would necessarily be the case because I mean we speak about a dian the paskins based on the lion of the a who has to borrow caim from this individual um is ple is lun and he says that it could be that this is true I mean even with I mean it sounds like this is true even with respect to a situation where the dian was generally doing this beforehand before the didn't came to um came to pass. Why is that? Because of the fact that the dian is going to have a predisposition in favor of this individual. It's not a question of ribbus. RI is a question or are you doing it because alone with the case of a dian it's a question of anything that's going to create a predisposition of the dian to be slanted in favor of a party is going to be problematic and therefore these types of relationships even if they were 100% legitimate beforehand it doesn't matter it still creates the possibility of a tilting in uh in favor of the um of the individual um and yes go ahead question I just I mean you alluded to this earlier with the shonus let's They uh they bring the Rolls-Royce and D says, "Hey, thank you. I'll give you the Rolls-Royce." But now I recuse myself bring the Rolls-Royce anyway. Is there any doing that? Oh, I only gave you that you stay in the bed and No, no, no, no, no. You can't take it if a person's giving it under this context. So, we see from the stories in that it has to be the person both recuses himself from the case and he's not allowed to take it and he's not allowed to take it either, right? Um but uh but I think but he says at the end there's no from the case of so I wanted to say based really on the it's a totally different consideration with respect to the river scenarios. Now sometimes there may be a small relationship because Dian knows lots of people in the neighborhood and so forth and it's not like there has been like a tremendous favor that was given to the diet and they just you know they they know the person around town they go to their sharim and so forth. Maybe they've, you know, said to may maybe they've done nice things for each other. They've invited each other to their class and the things of their variety. I don't think necessarily disqualifies the diet, but it's at the very least a disclosure issue. I say that there are two different issues when it comes to a diet. Some things are disqualification. Certainly, if it's a doctor regularly performs services for free for the diet, so that's, you know, much more problematic. Um, if it is that they happen to be neighbors, you know, in the neighborhood and everybody brings mishloaf monos to the rabbi, I don't think that, you know, if it's not like, you know, fancy schmancy misho monos, especially during the time of the dora that was bought before, I don't think that would necessarily be a disqualification, but it's at the very least a disclosure issue and then if the other party is uncomfortable with it, the d would have to step down. I mean, it becomes sort of a general, you know, issue with respect to data in general. You have to really assess at one point in time that the relationship is too close. That's why very often what we'll say when we know the parties in the say we know the person they come to our shir and so they ask us shilus but but but we're not socially close to them because if you're socially close then that creates a um it creates a different dynamic for one thing that's certainly not a problem and this is true both in the ribbas context and it's true in the dionist context is if the dian does favors for the individual if it it doesn't go in the other direction that you have a dian who said like he does to people in the community the fact you've done to the person doesn't disqualify you from the dian being a dian the fact that a lender does to a borrower is not something which is user even during the course of the loan. It's only in the opposite direction unless you're dealing with other issues but you know leaving that aside. Um so that that generally that generally will be um um will be okay but nonetheless even though when I have people in my home so you could say I'm doing by having in my home but one other but but but it also creates two other things when you have somebody in your home. When you have somebody in your home number one you're giving them access. Um and access is also very very important in terms of a person could just like slip in something that could relate to a case um that they have that a close relative has and you have to be very careful. You want to avoid that. And number two as we saw even from the loan context that too much of a close if it's a very close relationship that a person comes regularly even though you're doing the but it also creates a friendship when you have like a very close smoozing relationship and eating together relationship. So that also can become uh problematic um in terms of it creating uh certain expectations of doing favors and so forth. So that also is something that could becomes much more problematic in the Diana's context than it does in the ribbons context where it could actually um dispel the possibility that what's being given is based on ribbus. But in the dionist context it could create a close ga which could also create this joining of the hearts which is particularly problematic in the context of um adjudicating a dintor. Okay. So that's basically everything I wanted to say about this subject for today and uh thank you all for okay was once asked to be a d on some case for community in in London and they sent him a beautiful uh portrait picture something painting in advance of the dtora. Oh my goodness. And he called him up and said thank you so much I'm hustle now. Yeah. Right.