Loan Conditions Relating to Arms-Length Transactions - Rav Yona Reiss

Okay. All right. So, this is the subject today is uh armslength transactions as a condition for a loan where it's a little bit of a a variation from your normal ribbus situation. Normally, ribbis means that the lender loans money to the borrower and asks for the money back plus a premium, some extra amount, which is going to be ribbus. It could be that the borrower has to do a service for the lender in addition to paying back the loan, but something extra in addition to the loan. But the question is, what if there's something extra that is being requested by the lender that's part of the deal is something where it's an arms lend transaction and nobody is really losing out. It's a tit for tat type of transaction. The lender says to the borrower, I'm going to loan you $100. And the condition is uh that uh anytime that you need some work done around the house, I'm a handyman. So you'll hire me and I'm the one who will do the work, but he'll pay him the fair market price for whatever the work is going to be. Uh so that's one version of uh the uh type of uh scenario uh that uh is discussed in the shawak and another version is if you have a lender who extends a loan to the borrower and the uh lender says you'll pay me back uh money uh and then you'll also lend me money and uh then and I'll pay you back. So the the borrower is going to give money but the borrower is going to get the money back at the end. Uh so both of these scenarios are discussed in the uh they're not explicitly really discussed in the gimar at all and the question is so what should be the ruling in these types of cases one of them the first case appears at the end of simakiml second case appears in sim and the first case is related to the question of han why is he related to han because a person when they are making a decision about who to hire for a particular job. Uh so they have the wherewithal to decide they're going to go to this professional or that professional the other professional. The same way that a person who's giving chumosis can decide whether they're going to give their chumus misus to the trumas to a particular coin the mice to particular ley and so forth. Uh so in a way the makab is taking away whatever is the value of that toba that the that the lo the borrower would be able to make the choice on his own whom he would choose to perform the transaction. Uh so what is what what's the let's take this first case. So the is very clear says that this is going to be prohibited. This is discussed in the Bose and the Bose if it bases this upon a rash. The Russia which is a source Kimmel in the materials in Zion speaks about the case of the Aagra where Mal is not allowed to stipulate that as a result of his giving alone he'll be able to reside in a of the Lovyard of the Lob that's not normally rented out uh where there isn't going to be any shall we say on the part of the Lov Because the DO is not giving something for which he would otherwise get a value since he doesn't normally rent it out. It could be that there'll be tarbis says the rush if the if the m is a gabid leagger but but if he normally would pay rent to live in the space truth is this is going to be us even if he wouldn't normally pay rent to live in this space but nonetheless says as the uh says the rush the fact that there is no loss to the lov only means that there would be no obligation to return any kind of aribis because there wasn't really ribbis that was received on a on a Torah level. But nonetheless, um this is something which is still a ser and he compares it to the case of a cohane who loans money in order to for the borrower to give the trumos to the to the coane which the lova needs to give to the cohane to a coane anyway. And the rush says that in this case as well there since the loven needs to give the tumor to the cohane to a cohane anyway if it's stipulated he's going to give to this cohen so it's not something that we would require that be dis disgorged once it would be given to to the cohen but the lion of the rush where he says that since it's if I assume that of course he says it does depend on whether I Say tobasa is mmon tobasa is mmon. Then the mere fact that the lobe would be able to receive money from let's say somebody who wanted to pay the lov that the lova should agree to give all of his tumors to this person's uh son-in-law who happens to be a cohen for example so to his grandson who happens to be a coin. Uh so then if you hold it that ability to stipulate a price for the right to choose who you're going to uh give your chumos to is go in the realm of so then it would be ribbis but even if I hold it that's the way that it's because it's therefore it's not a nickn And the shak has a long dissertation at the end of which the demonstrates that we ask clearly the moment but says the even if you assume that nonetheless all that means is but the indicates that it's only but otherwise it is in fact the same way it would be for the borrower to turn to the lender and say go and loan me money and I'll let you live in my even if the issu so this seems to be the the source of the prohibition at least as is understood by the base y based on his interpretation of the rush and it's codified in the vagon gives another possible source for the vagon quotes from a shami in a toppa that um that says explicitly Not with respect to a loan transaction, but with respect to a sale transaction that somebody who sells his field. He says, "I'm going to sell my field to you." To the seller says to the purchaser on condition that I will continue to be able to live to work the field as a sharecropper and get a certain percentage of the yield from of the field every single year as a sharecropper. So the usami says it's mut. The mashami doesn't talk about a loan transaction. But the milagon says that what do I need to teach me that in a sale transaction this would be mut. Why wouldn't it be mut in a sale transaction? You could stipulate whatever you want when the seller and purchaser are bargaining a deal with each other. So he says the kamashan if it would be a milva transaction if it would be a loan transaction. So then it would be os. Those are two possible sources for for the Iser. So the Rama picks up on this and the Rama draws the distinction between if I would hold tobas and the Rama says as follows. says if you do hold the right to be able to give your work to somebody else, the right for somebody to give his co it's his rumor to somebody else and that he can negotiate some money for it and that would therefore cons make it as if it is considered to have actual tangible monetary value if you that's what we say so then it would be considered to be mama would be whatever the stringencies of ribbis that would be applicable including that you'd have to return whatever that benefit would be since there was originally a and then the next sentence of the Rama is subject to a little bit of debate. The next subject of the Rama says even if there would not be a Tai there would not have been a Tai originally but let's say that after the loan is extended by the Ma to the Loba the loa now starts to give all of his work he starts to give all of his business to the ma the ma is a handyman he's given ma is a plumber he gives all of his plumbing work all of his all the hand all of the uh the work around the house that needs to be done the fixing and the fixing up around the house. All the handyman work is now given over to the Malv or he's go from Malva is a financial adviser and he's now giving over all of his uh the money to be managed by the Mala. Whatever the business is the Malv owns a store and now he used to frequent other stores but he's now only frequencing the mal store. So then the draws a distinction. He says if the did not previously give his work or frequent the business of the previously so then it would be because then presumably it's only being done because of the loan called and so too this would be true of any single tobas and so forth. So this is in the realm of a tobasa. But what if there um what if you have a situation where if you where there was no tonight like the Rama says and the person was anor rogill so the lo was anor rogill to patronize the mahab's business beforehand. So then it seems like the rama is saying very very clearly that it is user. But there is one possible um more lenient interpretation of the Rama which is that the Rama is started out by saying what he started out by saying well if you hold it to M so then it's going to be like ribbiska and that's going to be such a serious thing. So in the event even if you didn't make a Tai since you're we're holding that if you would have made a Tai it would have been ribba because if so then you'd have to be mmir in a case where the lov was beforehand that even though there was no stipulation even though this is an arms length transaction um where the malva is not really getting any kind of benefit because the ma is doing the work in order to earn whatever money he's being paid or he's giving over goods in order to get whatever money he's being paid and he's not giving he's not selling at a premium and he's not charging an extra amount for the work that he's doing. So maybe it's only according to the Rama if you are talking about the prem if if you're talking about the um the case where the uh the assumption is that tova is m and there was no tonight and there was an roio. But if you work with the premise that is a mama the way that we pasin the way that the rama himself pkins in simishb so maybe in this particular case he would hold um then in fact even in the case of an as long as there was no tonight we don't have to be so super machmir we can say that even if there would have been a tai it only would be ribbon so if there's no tonight so then maybe it should be mutami is there anybody who makes such a bold and audacious ious argument to say this because that's not the way that most people would read the Rama. Most people would read read the Ramas. These are two separate unconnected statements that if you hold to and since you made a and by the way even if there was no tonight made it's still going to be whether you hold the moment and whether you hold the moment that's the way that I certainly read the Ram when I read the Rama the first time and the second time and the third time. But there's a Tam inau by the name of Shaya Khaduk who uh wrote an article in the um in the or Torah journal and he cites the safer I didn't look up the safer but there are many sparum that have been written in the last several years and husband and what oh that's that's the of the This is a very legitimate safer. Yeah. Okay. So he's a he's a Okay. Very good. All right. So he makes this argument to say that if you hold to so then it would be as long as there was no tonight even if it was an anorial situation. And he also interestingly brings a from the safer sharda the comment the the commentary sharda on which is a very mainstream commentary to shara to be um distinguished from the share which is a different zaper on ona but the sharda comments on the rama and it sounds from his lion like he's saying with with respect to the Rama. Oh yeah, the Rama says this. And by the way, even if you hold it should be because it's because just like for even if there was no stipulation, the borrower if he never before stopped the mal in the street and said good morning or how are you and now he starts saying it. So it's going to be so he says call shikain. If I'm dealing with a toa situation, obviously that should be just the way Dharma is. Even if you hold that to is a m. So you'd figure why are you quoting the shade who clearly is machmir even if you hold the m. So he's saying he's quoting the shadea to say clearly the sharda understood that the rao wasn't saying that. That's why he had to go further and say, "Oh, and by the way, even if you hold to a M, it's still going to be assa." So it sounds a little bit like the sha understood that the ra is only saying that it's according to the dea that holds the is and the clearly aligns himself 100% with this conclusion although he's not obligated necessarily to go along with the anyways the lamelik the says be that if you hold the moment it's only going to be a problem in the case of a but if it was something where there was no actual tonight so that doesn't really look so suspicious. It doesn't seem as problematic because after all we are talking about an armslength transaction where the LOV is getting a benefit from the Malv in addition to paying money for that benefit but he's it's a tit for tat. So there really is a no loss on the part of the lov there's no tataris no harm no foul in the event that that you hold the tobas those are the different arguments that that he makes in order to present in order to present this position. Yes. That was awesome. Right. And if you wouldn't have made it at the time of the hoba, so then it would seem like it would have been much better that that would have been okay. That would have been mut. So that supports basically the argument that he's making 100%. So he quotes then from the malashem who disagrees with this interpretation based on the following arguments. Argument number one is that the doesn't seem to distinguish between and that most people would read the rama the way that I read it. Number two that if you look at the Rama in Cify B the Rama and Cify Base seems to draw a comparison between the situation of Tobas and Ribbisim because the Mab there says that if the Ma said to the LG go and let me know when somebody arrives in town that's so that's going to be and the says even if it's something which is toyama. So it sounds like he's drawing a comparison and since we know that ribbarim is going to be user even in a case where there is no tonight we hold that it's user. So therefore it should follow that the same thing should be true in a case of tovas hano as well. Uh and he adds that number three reason not to pin like the uh assumption that if we say to that if there is no tonight then the lo should be able to give all of his over to the mal is because we see that there are shitos that say explicitly that even if the held this way we shouldn't pask in that way like the sharda that we quoted and number four um maybe it's a fake fake laakmir that number one that that it's not 100% that we should hold the when it comes to certain maybe it's codified that way in the but maybe it's a question whether to and even if we assume to maybe we should hold like the like the say that against the Malik that it shouldn't make a difference and there should still be so sticks to his guns and he responds number one with respect to the Rama don't tell me that the steam is that it's user in all cases because the Rama didn't he could have said he could have started out a little bit differently and said that it's going to be user and then bring in the the line about if you hold the Torah is and the fact that he goes in the order that he goes seems to indicate that it's all interconnected that the about is going according to the day of the Torah is and number two he says don't make draw don't draw a comparison to ribbis because ribbis is different because when you do have this lo who never said hello how are you doing shalom before and now suddenly starts saying it so he's he's being himself he's subjugating himself to the m showing that he's giving he's fing over the m and getting giving him special coat and special attention ention in which case that's sort of a a form of on some level but here the lo is losing absolutely nothing he's paying money for a service and he's receiving the value of the money that he's paying so therefore he would have had to give his to somebody to do anyway and then furthermore the both the and according to the reading of the lab as well is that they both seem to say like this reading of as well that if I would hold that to a mama and the Mishna Malik says it very leush sounds this way as well that they both seem to say that you could be mal in these situations. So he concludes that really um in an event if if we are convinced as we seem to be that toba ain't a m that it should follow that if there was no tonight and this would be the uh majority of transactions that come up nowadays. The mava loans money to the borrower and now the borrower he finds out about the lender. Now he knows that that the lender is out there and that the lender uh is a handyman, the lender is a plumber, lender is a carpenter, the lender owns a business, owns a store, whatever it is, the lender provides these services. Now he starts he has the relationship anyway with the lender and he starts giving all of his business over to the lender to perform. So he concludes that you could be Mo. But he just he does finish up his essay with okay you know just a little cautionary note that since there are over there so but if you're not interested in an extra you're not going to get a either. So he thinks it would be um it would be mut. Now another point he raises in this entire discussion which you've been waiting for obviously is that there seems to be a taz who disagrees with this entire um the taz says that where do you where did you get this from? I mean the uh the the bas the seem to have gotten it from the rush but it was a throwaway line in the rush that had nothing to do with giving the lova giving his mala to somebody. was a lie about the lova being a Israel who's giving his trumos to a coin who's standing alone to him that might be a little bit different if I'm learning from the ri of the from the yushami that's also not necessarily mo because that case of the makum had nothing to do with a loan and who says you have to be madak that because it's mut in a sale transaction it's going to be user in a loan a loan transaction and the taz brings his argument from a ha which is actually based on a gimra because there as I said not too many gimaras that make their way into this discussion but you have the gimra that says explicitly that if at the time that the loan was extended the lender um received collateral from the borrower received a house received a field and he says to the borrower oh so in the when the time comes that you want to sell this field or this house so only sell it to me um with reh for the amount of money of the loan. So the the Gimarra says that that would be perfectly permissible only in one instance. What would that one instance be? That that is in fact the value of the field. If it turns out that the field is worth more than the value of the loan, so then that's going to be prohibited ribbons. But if in fact this is the value of the loan, so then um in the event that the borrower wants to sell his field as this is considered to be a perfectly fine condition that the borrower will be required to sell it to the lender for the actual value because again it's it's an armslength transaction for the actual value of the field and we say that that is 100% mut. says the taz if that's 100% mut so it would seem that this should be 100% mut as well because it's exactly the same sort of scenario that you're saying similarly that in the event you have work to do to to give to somebody so give it to me and give it to me at the fair market value and why should that be user and it's different even if you want to say but what about the rush no it's different from the case of the rush because in the case of the cohane The Mava is receiving a real Tova. The Mava the is a Coen and the Mava is receiving the Trumos. He didn't have to, you know, pay anything for the Trumas. He just extended a loan. He's going to get his money back. Plus, he's going to get the Trumos. But in this particular case, the Mava is going to get money, but he's going to have to work for his money. He's going to have to provide a service. He's going to have to fix the bellow sink. He's going to have to repair his deck. He's going to they have to provide financial services. whatever it is, he's going to have to sell the goods in his store. Um, and therefore, it's says the taz and you can distinguish between these two cases. Arguably, this is a case where as the radaz puts it that you would have no and you would have no tarbis. That's how the the radaz describes the case of the sale of the the house of the field that was taken as collateral by the mala. why it's okay for the ma to say it over if you want to sell it sell it to me that's going to be the and and that sale um will basically be the payment of the loan because so he says whatever amount I already gave that's going to count as the sales price so he says the reason is mut the rabb says very eloquently because and therefore he says that's a perfectly find to where the person is simply getting the getting getting the money for the sale of the sale of the field. So the question is does the ties really disagree? At the end of the day the ties leave this it leaves this as does not necessarily mean registering a disagreement. Just because the TA actually begins his comment by saying Lle Pardos that if not for the fact that a holy mouth has already passed in this fashion I would have found reason to disagree but that you don't necessarily have the ability to characterize the ties as disagreeing. So here you have a split amongst the various postkim some quote the ties as outright disagreeing like for example this kaduk and some say the ties didn't like rabbi riceman in his safer points out the ties didn't actually disagree he just leaves it as it so you can't claim that oh I'm going to use the ties as a sniff because here we have you know one opinion that clearly disagrees the I'm going to throw in other things as well no you can't throw in other things he brings a okay you can reckon with that give it whatever weight you know it deserves but you can't give the weight of saying oh well I have the taz on my side because the ties didn't necessarily actually pass in this way but in any event what do you do with the bam kasha of the taz the taz actually brings you know a ria from the gimra gimra that says that this sort of thing is 100% mut so you'd have to distinguish between the cases somehow and the tak gives two different distinctions between the two different cases in the nudo so one distinction that the shaka gives is that the case of the kaka is different because the case of the kaka the kaka is already tako it's already in the possession of the of the malva so the shalom presses a little bit on this because that's all the shock says it's a very tur comment in the nudes so the shalom of shamse gel says why does this matter who cares that's already in the possession of the ma why does that make it any better so he says says a couple of things. He says, well, it could be that if you hold tobas, what is the whole problem over here anyway? What is the problem if I understand? So, it's as if the M is getting a monetary value. If I so why should this be why should this beer and it's clear that it's even if you hold the to where that's what the rush is saying explicitly. So, the whole problem he says is Mexicarbis and one said the item already starts out being in the mob's possession. So, it's the last Mexicaribus. It doesn't look like the Mav is grabbing something away from the lo in return for the loan because the Mav already has it. That's his explanation. Um that's one possible explanation. Another possible explanation is and this is found in the count that the Malv would have barzra rights anyway that once it's in the possession of the of the malv so then he would have the right anyway to have a first dibs or right of first refusal in the event that the lo would want to sell it. So therefore um there's nothing new that is being added with respect to this condition. But of course the kasha with respect to that particular explanation is that bars rightites don't always apply across the board. There are lots of exceptions to bars rightites. Somebody else is willing to pay more and whatever it is. So that's a little bit harder to fathom. Maybe the first explanation is a little bit easier. But if you follow that explanation, so then the case of the um of the that appears in the gar that's codified in simar would really stand very much alone. It would be a sui generous type of a case um where only when you had a mashkun that was already in the possession of the malva would it not be a uh would it not be a problem but every other case where there was a stipulation even an arms length transaction where fair value is being given and the loves is giving over all of his work to the mal and the uh the uh and uh or excuse me and and paying the mal and getting the fair value of the payment. from the mal that would all be user. Similarly, if you follow the explanation of the kabasd before we get to the second terret of the nuda sesa but go a little out of order the kabazdas gives a different answer which is that the advantage of the case um in the gimar of the field that's being held as collateral is that the loan transaction is effectively being transformed into a sale transaction that it will turn out retroactively that the money wasn't really loan money because the once the borrower decides to sell it. So what do you know that Abracadabra the loan has magically turned into a sale and the money that was originally extended since now the borrower has decided that he's going to allow the field to be sold. Um the whole discussion there whether it's only if you say may actually we don't say may avo that the property is being transferred over really as a sale transaction but in all of these cases the loan continues to be viable the loan remains intact and remains in place and you have this separate service agreement that is being provided for the m so therefore that's going to be problematic according to that explanation of the kavastas kavastas has a cooler which is that since it's a sale transaction based upon the value of the property that was already in the hands of the LOVA at the time that the stipulation was made of the value even if it would go up in value afterwards think about situation subsea even if it would go up in value afterwards um it would still be a perfectly valid transaction but okay so according to those explanations then that particular case would stand alone but then the shock has a second terrace second terrace of the shock there's a little bit more nuance the shock says that the difference is that in this particular case with respect to the business the MAV is getting something that he is entirely new meaning that he's getting a value that he wouldn't necessarily have had access to that when it comes to buying a field. So the the the the mob is not getting any new value. He had the money before. He had the money and now he has a field that's worth that amount of money. So there's nothing new in terms of the value that he had. He had, you know, something that he had $100,000 in his possession and now he has a field that's worth $100,000. So he's not getting anything new of a value in this particular case. However, when it comes to business, who says that he would have got in business? You know, a a business person has to be very industrious. You have to do a lot of advertising, word of mouth. You have to promote your brand and so forth. Who knows if you would have gotten any plumbing jobs, any dentistry jobs, any carpenting jobs at this particular month. Maybe other your competitors would have gotten everything. Maybe nobody maybe maybe you would have been left out in the cold. So therefore, in this particular case, by securing the Lopez business, the Mav is getting something that he wasn't necessarily assured of having. And it's not as if that he had something tangible in his possession that was worth the same value. If you're out of work, it's not like you say, "Oh, that's great because I already have my salary." No, you don't already have your salary. You don't even have the equivalent of your salary. You have the ability to do your work. That's great. You have your ability, but that's not going at that, you know, and and $2 or whatever will buy you a subway ticket, whatever it costs nowadays. But the ability itself is not any kind of value that you can cash in. You could go to a restaurant and say, "Well, I don't have a credit card with me. I don't have any money, but you know, I have the ability to do work." I said, "Well, we don't want your work." Um so it doesn't count for anything. So therefore he's getting a direct benefit in this particular case as opposed to the case of the field where the mala had money before and now he's just getting field which is worth a field which is worth that amount of the money. So this second approach of the shock would allow for a koola in the following two cases as the na shalom points out. Um let's say that number one the LO um that you have a condition that the LOV is going to sell a certain to the MV. So if that would be the condition when the Malva says and and let's assume the was for sale. If it wasn't for sale obviously it's a different story but let's assume had a certain for sale and there was a market price he was asking for it and the mava says I will pay this particular price. So in this particular case where the lov says okay rather than sell it to somebody else I'll sell it to you that's perfectly fine because the malv the lo is not losing anything and the malvet is not getting any kind of a benefit of an additional value over what he has because he's paying market value. He has the money in his possession already. He's paying market value for this particular. So according to the second terrorist of the shock this would be perfectly permissible. Secondly, the case of the would be perfectly permissible. The inim extends, excuse me, extends this that we have in with respect to the mu makes the condition that the borrower is going to give all of his work to the ma that that's user. He says that the reverse case is also user. If the mala says that you love it, I know that you're a carpenter and I and I have a lot of work that I need done on my deck. You might have a long list of people that you're planning to service and so forth. I want to be bumped to the top of the list that any time that I need work to be done since you're somebody who's a practitioner of this work. You're somebody who fixes decks, you're somebody who fixes bathrooms, you're somebody who uh is uh is a good plumber and I have plumbing problems in my house. anytime that I need something to be fixed, you're going to come over and you're going to pay I'm going to pay you I'll pay you market price. But no problem with that. But this says the GR is going to be user. Um exactly in the same way the the same way that I'm not allowed to go and tell somebody if I give a loan for to them uh that I want you to um to work for me, right? That you're not allowed to do that. um if you're just just going to extend a loan to somebody and say that I want you to work for me. So the gr is very very emphatic that even the idea that you extend money to somebody and they're going to invest your money and you're going to pay them is only something which we would allow in the context of an ISKA transaction. It's not something that we would allow in the context of a regular loan transaction. And there and the vil nagon says and the same thing would be true in terms of the scenario in look at the end of the vagon he quotes he says sheets that if the lobe would agree to do any work that the m asks to be done even though the m is prepared to pay full market value for it gamkser that also is going to be user. So in the case of the GR, if you think about it, um the this is not a case where I have a person who's capable of rendering work, but it's just that he's not going to get any value if nobody hires him, which is the case that we have in the but it's somebody who has money, but he just needs some work done on his behalf. So he's going to be swapping the money for the work, but he's not going to be getting any additional value because he already has the money. He already has the money. So it says in Shalom since in this particular case the mal already has the money that's the gr scenario the bill neon scenario which the bill neon says would be user according to the second terret of the shock should in fact be should in fact be mut he's mupuk about the following case if you take a look in at the bottom of page two source test he said that he said okay I'm pretty convinced about these two cases that they would be mut according to the second terret of the shak but he says What if it's the opposite scenario that the MA is going to buy the of the lo but the lo should buy the of the MV the M has the Mona Lisa and he says that it's worth you know 55 you know billion dollars or whatever and um I want you to buy it for the $55 billion Bill Gates whatever okay just somebody who has the money and he says so so in this particular case since he has a but he doesn't have money if nobody's going if you go to Sbees says nobody's going to auction on this thing so even a Mona Lisa something you just throw out in the trash can it's only worth something because people are willing to pay money for it okay otherwise I could draw some mysterious you know woman with a mysterious expression as well but the so therefore that's not necessarily kessive that the person has in their hands that they're just exchanging for something that's clearly of no a future value. So he says maybe that's not considered to be considered bashibio in such a case or let's say that the mother owns a store and in the store he has lots of different items. He has cream cheese and he has a cold cereals and whatever else if nobody buys them they're going to you know I don't know cold cereal but the cream cheeses will certainly go bad. Um somebody ate cold cereal like 25 years after like expiration date apparently by by accident. uh and he was perfectly fine. So this was like a me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember me remember member story that came out last year but let's say it's cream cheeses or whatever and they're going to go bad anyway. So if there so here it's really worth something to the malva that the lov that somebody should come along and buy it. So let's say the condition is that the lo will come and he'll buy the the from the store of the malves from now on he's going to only go to the grocery store of the malves. So maybe this really is adding a value maybe we wouldn't say that the kit is considered to be like actual case kip. So he leaves this as sort of like do we say that even if though that since even if the lo wouldn't buy it the mava would still have it ma this would be similar to the gur regarding the um regarding the the purchase of the field where the ma is just swapping you know money for a field and therefore it should not be prohibited or do say no since he didn't have money before. He just had the cream cheese and now he's actually getting money for it. The fact that otherwise he's going to end up just with unsold cream cheese that's not considered to be a a swap. It's not considered to be a an exact exchange. So he leaves that as sort of a within these distinctions of what would be permitted at least according to the second um the second terret of the nakuda. So it's with this backdrop with this backdrop that the mascan later on in the niv shalom is a little bit more understood. So I don't think I uh I I wrote down these words but I'll tell you what he says. The niv shalom at the end of his discussion regarding this sip. So he comes to the following conclusions. He says that in the case of Alo who has let's say the self and um and it's a case where lo okay where there was no original tai because remember all of these nfkamino that that the shock is talking about in response to the taz is talking about a case where there is a tonight. So let's go back to our original discussion of the case where there is no actual tonight. Remember according to the way that we ask it the where we have this and the melik who are prepared to say oh well everything should be mut anyway in that case. So he says that if I have this combination of circumstances that it is number one a case of a lo who has the to sell and the mala says I want to buy your and the shak said explicitly that according to I mean not the shock they shalom said according to the second terret of the shak this should be 100% mut again not according to the first terrors of the shock not according to the's explanation but certainly according to second second explanation of the shock so he throws in that if I had a low Hislim situation, then it would be perfectly fine for the Malva to walk into the Lov store and to buy the just like anybody else could walk into the store and buy the and so too if the Lova walks into the Mala store to buy a Now remember this was the case that he was a little uncertain about but he thought that there was a possible argument to say certainly in the cold serial case right this going to last longer there's certainly certainly a an argument to to make that this is also just a swapping of things of equal will value the for money the money for. So he said he thinks that this should be fine as well unless the lov knows that he's doing it only because of the loan that he's doing it only because he wants to butter up the Malv and buy from his store because of the loan. But if he's doing it otherwise, let's say because now he knows about the Malv and that's why he's walking into his store or he doesn't have the mindset that he's doing it just because of the loan. So then that would be okay. But in the case of giving all of his molos to the malv. So there he says it's only mutter in the event that the lo is in a situation where he's in a bind and there's no other plumber in town. There's no other carpenter in town. He needs to buy a 2x4 in order to build his suka and the only one who owns a home depot in town happens to be the mala that there's nobody else that he could possibly buy it from. But if there's somebody else he can buy it from even if he doesn't have the mindset that I'm doing it because of the loan. So then he still would not allow the lov to do it under these circumstances. So I would suggest he doesn't say this but I would suggest that maybe the idea that he's conveying over here is that I have a tartivusa on some level. I have number one that these are cases that fall into the category of the second terrorists of the shock or at least where you're buying a ma arguably within the second terrorists of the shock and number two you also have a situation of lownu where there was no actual tonight where as we've seen there certainly are postkim who are prepared to be make across the board since we hold the tobas in a moment when there is no actual where there is no actual tonight. Um so you could also go further and say that according to what we quoted from the sharda uh that there would be a possible kula in the event that all of this happens meaning the purchase of the goods um from let's say the ma store or potentially even giving over all of your mala to the mob when there was no tai um all of this might be more um lenient or there might be more room for leniency uh in the event that we're talking about when it is a ribbism type situation when the loan was already paid up. I didn't see anybody explicitly address this issue of does this become a more lenient issue after loan is already paid up because we know there is such a thing as ribbis right uh now of course if it's like not immediately after the loan um was um was paid that there's more room for leniency but if it's something which is maruba so then we're going to be mock even by ribbism but one area where we're very maker when it comes to ribbis is what is ribbis We have a general principle there. There's no problem whatsoever once the loan has already been paid. So according to say that the reason why you should be even if you hold and there is no because it's loving in all of the cases that the loan has already been paid up. Now just you know full disclosure if you look at the actual he says well where I have to so since he throws in the kosh to I can't say categorically based on his lion to be malle in such a um in such a case um but it's um but then again the ram language in cify base seems to be very much the opposite where he seems to say in that and then when he says Kimoshi's barb sofa simmon well kimoshi's barb sofa simmon is our case that is the sofa simmon case of the main case anyway at the beginning of this sip with respect to the raas seems to say well this is even more than the case of ribb and on some level we said it really is because the case of ribbis as we said the person as said the the lo is being himself to ma while here I have an enormous length transaction so it kind of maybe offsets sets each other these different arguments. Seems to me if you want to be mal there's a little bit more room to be mal lowistn situation even in a situation where lo is now going to give all of his mal over to the mala if we're talking about after the loan was already was already paid. Um so that's just something that I'll I'll um I'll throw out there. Now there there is a one is another inkal where he seems to argue that there is another distinction between the two different cases and this is also something I guess it's worth pondering which is that the mallet in the case of the field is that the way in which the malvet is presenting the condition is he says in the event that you want to sell the field just sell the field to me meaning that it's not muhok that the lov has to sell the field at all. He still maintains control over whether he's not he's going to sell the field as opposed to this formulation of mal the any mala that you have you're going to give to me that's more of an inevitability because it is a and that's the suggest this although he doesn't necessarily make a big deal out of it he just kind of suggests this in passing but he suggests that maybe this is that call because it creates more of an inevitability that the lov is going to have mala to give over to the mal as opposed to um if you happen to want to buy you know a particular kit um you'll buy that for me or you want to you know have a a particular type of mala so then you'll come to me but when it's called mala so then it becomes something which is more of an absolute obligation that's being imposed upon the loves so that also is something that I would suggest best you can throw into the mix that the less you have a tailay which creates sort of an inevitability that something has to be given over to the malbas if you decide you want to sell the sky then you know sell it to me if you decide that you want to buy this brand of cream cheese so you know just buy it for me so that probably also would diminish of the uh the the the extent of the um of the prohibition uh even on a um on this durabundant level that um that we're talking about now the machim understands that we're talking about a totally different type of case. And the way that he understands it fits in much better with the lion of the because the is um wait hold that thought that this this actually works out better according to something I'm going to say afterwards. But the machim has a different explanation of what we're talking about over here. The Makim says that the lovah himself is a bomb because he says if I'm talking about a situation where the lovah himself is not a bomb. So is clearly getting a benefit by giving over mala to for the mala to do to fix his kitchen sink when he's not able to do it himself. And therefore he says that this what possible um what possible loss is the lo having when he definitely needs to fix his sink anyway and he's just giving over the mala to the malv and he's getting the benefit of the of of the mala and he's just paying whatever happens to be the going the going rate. It's not as if he would be entitled to receive money for that on any level. But he says that in the event what we're really talking about is where the LO is a Mala and where the LO is forfeiting um his ability to do the work that he would do himself and he's saying that any kind even though he would be able to do the work himself he's going to give it over to the Malvet um under those under those circumstances. So there um where he could have been the one to do the work and instead instead he's going to give over the work to the Malva to do instead. So there he really is forfeiting a value that he could have received in terms of work but this would imply that it's somebody else's work. So I guess that this does fit into what I was about to say which is if you look at the so this would work out very well actually according to this explanation which is that the is basically giving over that he could have done himself for a third party and he's giving over that mala to the ma to do instead even though that's a very nice explanation that works out well according to the wording anyway but it's clear from context the never indicates certainly in the base y that this is the scenario that he's talking about even though that might be the words smithing that he came up with but the way that it's understood by 99% of the is that it means that the lova needs performed as opposed to that the lova could have performed for somebody else and now he's giving it over to the malva in fact what points out that that there is a a clear scenario where it would be what we would call ribbis and that would be a scenario where the lov essentially is a broker. Um, and this is also this also fits well with the where the LO gets paid. Not that the LO is a B himself, but where the LO is a broker that he is somebody who makes a shock between people who need the work done and somebody who's capable of providing that work. That's what brokers do, right? And he gets paid a fee. He gets paid a fee for that service. So here instead of the Malbe having to pay the fee that everybody else would have to pay to this broker to this lover to be able to get the job that the lover is bringing to him. So he's being excused from that fee. So Mosha Feinstein says that's not just to that's ribbon because here we're talking about actual money that is the actual money that this Alova that this individual is always going to get paid by serving as a broker. So he says in that scenario for sure that's going to be not merely on a ribbist or abundant level even if I hold to in a moment this is not to this is actual moment this is actual moment in um in such a case um now is there anyone else besides who would be in our case where an ro despite the lo of the rama we already quoted the mission lamelik so you take a look at the lamelik in source verse hold on 19 source your test on page on page six. So he says over here and within this man of the decides he wants to give to for perform that if you hold moment it's going to be a so so he says explicitly that it's going to be permitted. So certainly as we pointed out we he does have that that colleague over here. Um now the um uh if you have uh the uh if you have as well the the Taurus ribbis the taurus ribbis um speaks about this particular scenario where I have and now the mishamelik who's machm I have the who's who excuse me I have the sheet of the shadea who is machmir about this the postures of the ram I thought was that the rama was machmir as well so he quotes this as a mlo he says the case of lowest and he's talking about the ribbis is talking about even when it's a case where all the of the is going to be given over to the m he says it's a mus and the strange part about the tourist ribbis I have to tell you is that he doesn't quote the rama he doesn't which I mean the ra seems to be only about this he says well the ism which is true if you take a look in the which is in source z so he says clearly that it's that this would that this would be. He says he says and included in this is that you can't have like a extending a loan to somebody on condition that he's going to be hired as like a tutor for that person's student or he's going to be the music teacher for that for that person's um of that person's child I should say. So he says that that is clearly even if the loan already took place for the lo to hire this individual to tutor his son and so forth if he would not have hired him before the loan had taken place. So he's very very clear about this that even if it's an anorugial type of a situation that it would be user even in a case of low of low hit and the maklo seems to um there seems to be a little bit of a mlo about what is the opinion of the when it comes to this when it comes to this situation. The Taurus ribbis quotes the Adam as being amongst the maleim and the uh and in the safer mishbar ribbis by raaron um weer so he says I have a hard time with the tourist ribbis being incredibly make about this situation um but I'm really but I but I but I'm very very troubled uh by the fact that he is even um that he quotes the as being on his side when the clearly holds than the case of and it would still be it would still be what does the actually say? So I leave it to your interpretation as to who's right with respect to the reading of the if you take a look in said that okay whatever hold on let me let me move move this um I think that this is the case of the he says, yeah, so he says if he's going to make a condition when he loans him the money that he's going to have to um hire him and so forth. So it's going to be but if he made the if he gave the loan and then afterwards he was hired to buy the to learn where the son and was not part of the stipulation. So he quotes who says it's so he quotes who says that it would be Mut. Why would it be Mut? Because this is the the general this is what is generally done that Abalabias will make a Tana with a mamameid and that he's going to pay for his misonos and so forth but he didn't make any tai at the time so therefore it's going to be permissible. So the turist ribbus I think assumed from this that since he's quoting the lavush that as long as there was no tonight at the time of the actual so then that should be that should be perfectly fine and I think that the mishb was focusing upon the first line of the which was that we're talking about is already learning with the child it's just that he hadn't made the yet that he's going to get hotos for the for the amount of time that he's teaching the that he's teaching the child. But he's already roguel. He already has this relationship with the malamade. So maybe that's why the that the mlo hinges upon what's considered to be roil, but he already had the relationship. So therefore, if he's going to add something afterwards in terms of paying since that's sort of a standard thing that you do with a malam anyway. So the malamade and this person was already serving as the mameid. So that doesn't necessarily teach me if there was no working relationship between the two of them altogether that there would be greater room for leniency. On the other hand, this particular arrangement wasn't a regular arrangement that the balabayas wasn't already paying for the misus of the malame before the he extended the loan. So I think you could probably read the sodum either way. meaning I can see um basically the arguments of each side when it comes to this particular um this particular interpretation of the um of the um but uh in any event uh the uh I I did see in the Yehuda init that he doesn't talk about the situation but he does say that if you had a situation where it low. So he says that as long as there was no Tai that was made at the time of the loan, even if the borrower, let's say that the lender owns a store and the borrower never used to come to the store before, says that it would be mut for the borrower to now go to the store and buy things and it would also be mut for the borrower to sell things to the uh to to the lender even though he didn't sell things to him before. um and he and he issues no qualification whatsoever and doesn't explain why he seems to be positing against the rama but here too I would say that the brisa is a little bit more readily understandable than the taurus ribbis because similar to the niv shalom he's talking about situations that would seem to at least satisfy the criteria of the second terret of the shak that namely you're talking about either frequencing the mala store which we said was you know at least the suffic in the shock that the sufficam had that according to the shock maybe that should be permissible just just swapping one object of value for money and certainly the idea of selling something to the malv would be something that we would readily understand would be permissible because the mal is starting out with money in that case and therefore he's certainly not getting anything of greater value than the money when he's paying the fair market value for the item that he's going to receive and there was no actual tonight so since that's a scenario where arguably um you can say that it should be mut altogether even if it was stipulated um based on the second terrorists of the shocks certainly if there was no stipulation there would be more room to be make in those cases so I more readily understand the um the bris yuda as a but the taist ribbus is not picking sides he's just saying that it's a mlo makuskim and the interesting thing about the the torist ribbis is that he is not quoting the rama at all in this makus and he is attributing to the same kulab that he that would be attributed to the um to the Mishna to the Mishna Lamelik. Okay. Now um one other very important caveat that the nivam talks about sham talks about which is that whether we're dealing with a situation where the lo is going to give all the mala to the mala whether he's going to give only some of the mala to the mal everyone would agree that it would be mut even in a case of an roil when it's coming from the lov and that was sort of the sam saying that the lov is desperate there's no other place where he can find a plumber in town and the Malva happens to be the plumber. So that's not something that's being done in order to benefit the Malva. We know for sure that's being done to benefit the Lova because there is no other plumber in town. There is no other store in town other than the Mala store. The Home Depot, even though the Lova never shopped in the Home Depot before, but now he needs a 2x4. The only place he can get is the Home Depot. So everyone would agree that under those circumstances, it would be okay. There's no other bomba to do something that he suddenly needs. um the only doctor in town happens to be the doctor who extended the loan um who's who has this particular specialty. So what are you gonna saying that the Lovic shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of the best urologist in town because you know he never needed a neurologist before and this is the best urologist who happened to extend a loan to him. So everybody would agree that that that would be okay. So in this sense this halo also depends upon the direction that it goes. So for example, Nivong is the following case and some of the other mfort talk about this as well. Um I think the osa ribbus talks about this too. Let's say you have a store that he does. Let's say you have a store in fact that source of the hill ribbus. You have a grocery store that extends credit to anyone who makes a certain purchase over a certain amount of money. So if you buy $200 worth of groceries so then instead of having one week to pay, you'll have three weeks to pay. instead of having to pay right away, you'll be able to pay over a twoe period. You're going to extend credit to you under these circumstances. I'm not going to uh you're not going to pay $210 at the end of the two weeks. You'll still just pay you paid the $200, but he's extending credit. In other words, in he's turning the sale transaction into a loan transaction under those circumstances. So, is that permissible? Or do we say that no, this is basically a loan transaction from the store owner to the purchaser that he's loaning him these $200, you know, for two weeks on condition that he's going to buy from his store. So it says in a sham, no, because you got it completely mixed up. You got it reversed. This isn't a situation where the lo the customer walked into the store and said, I want a loan. And the cell say, "Oh, you want a loan? So then I'm going to require you to buy merchandise." This is a case where the customer walks into the store to buy merchandise and as a result of his very buy merchandise. So the the the owner of the store is extending this credit if you buy a certain amount of merchandise, a certain amount of groceries. So you'll get you'll get a loan since it's starting out basically as a sale transaction as opposed to a loan transaction. So this is going to be perfectly permissible. Look at the he says the same thing. He's not loaning him money in order for the um borrower to buy from him. It's in an opposite direction. The borrower wants to buy from him and he's the one who's saying, "Okay, so I'm agreeing to wait for the money." There's a from the Gimra. the end points to this. You have the porters who come along and they see that there's somebody who has merchandise. He's taking from a cheap place to a place where the merchandise is going to be sold more expensively and he says give it to me and I'll pay you back you know the amount that you would get in the more expensive place. That's user. But if the person who had the merchandise originally takes the aayas for the merchandise until the merchandise is moved by the porters to the place where they're going to sell it and only after it's sold and then basically becomes a loan transaction when the porters are going to receive the money for selling the merchandise does it become a loan and their responsibility to have to pay back the money to the merchant in the f that that gave them the merchandise in the first place. So that would be perfectly permissible. It says Tossus, yeah, it's perfectly permissible, but only if he didn't make them do work for him for nothing because they were carrying the the merchandise. So, he's going to have to pay them for the he's going to have to pay them for the that they're carrying his merchandise. So, why isn't this user? Because after all, they're borrowing uh money and they're getting um and and they're getting work. And the the person who is um the person loan them money and he's saying and you're working he's he's having them work for him even though he's paying them fair market value but he's having them work for him. So why isn't that the reason it's not user and this is codified in the reason it's not user explains in is because he's not asking them to do the work. They wanted to do the work. That's why they approached him in the first place. They wanted to take the merchandise so they could sell the merchandise to more expensive location. This is I think a it's a very very strong ri as to why this particular case should be mut in fact the says in the second paragraph he says points out that there are those who want to be makm in this particular situation about the the grosser who is going to you know give this loan this credit period of a couple of weeks to people who buy more than a certain amount of groceries. So he says no that is a wrongheaded approach. In one case that the person is by giving their business that they're paying back for the loan. But here this is that comes about because of the sale transaction in the first place. The is the sale transaction. So therefore this was never answered especially when you think about this being really in the realm of from our perspective based on since we all the only thing that the gross has to be careful about is not to say oh well it would have cost you $200 but because I'm giving you a twoe race period now it's going to cost you $210 but other than that should be heter that should be heter gummer okay um so another um heter um would be um uh based on the fact that since it's never going to be any worse than ribbon. So therefore you're going to have a in a situation when you're dealing with let's say a gamak organization. So this is something the non points to as well. Let's say somebody wants to receive a loan for a substantial amount of money from a gamak organization. And the gamach says to him, fine, we're happy to give you the loan provided that you pay us your m money that you've already set aside as messer. Okay, you set aside messer. It has to go somewhere. Uh so you're getting a benefit from us. So we want you to pay your m money to us. So is that something which is permissible? So seem says well it depends if the person has not yet set aside his m. So then it's not considered like this is already something which is out of their possession. This is actual moment. But if they've already pledged money, say I'm pledged, I'm pledging the following amount of stalker. They've already put it in their official mice sim account. They now have these special accounts that people create and so forth. So it's going to have to go to some stuckle organization anyway. So in this particular case, it's not going to be any worse than an issuan like the case of asking the cohain to give over his trumosa. So if it is as this situation where it's a stuck organization he thinks that this would be 100% per permissible. So that I think is another interesting but it makes a lot of sense since it's never going to be worse than a ribb button and we hold that ribbis button is going to be a mut for stock organizations. Now the um the sister analog to well yes go ahead school that would be yes that would be user that would be user here has to be something that as I said was already basically pledged yeah okay so then we have to be very uh you have to be very careful about that right okay uh and there was an interesting is an interesting discussion about what if you a person if you take a look at the ribbis that there's a you already have a ruggal situation here comes the question of the was this what the kakma was talking about that you could be make um if there was no tonight but here there actually is a tonight so it's much worse you have a mauve who was already working um for for the lov and the lov needed money the mauve I guess had more ready cash was more liquid than the lov um so the the mauve even though he needs to be employed by the Lov but the MAV is more liquid than the LO. Right? So he says look I'm your employee. I know that you're not so liquid right now and you need some funds. I'll give you some funds on condition that you don't fire me. On condition that you don't fire me. So he quotes that this is 100% permissible. Why is it 100% permissible? because he says this is like a situation where he was like royal beforehand um because he's already working for him. So I think you can make an argument if he's wrong beforehand that you can have all kinds of leniencies but not if it's part of the condition. Nobody not the not the is lenient in these cases of this scenario of the and so forth if it's part of an explicit tonight. It's part of an explicit tonight. So then that's much more problematic. Um if it's something new that the person is getting as a benefit, if it's something, you know, you make a tenai um with respect to something which a person uh is supposed to do anyway, say like the Ritz case, I'm loaning you money. I'll deny that you pay me back that gzle that you stole from me. That's perfectly okay. I'm I'm loaning you money. I'll deny that you keep Shabas. I'll deny that you keep Shabas. You're obligated to keep Shabas anyway. You're not doing me any favors. That's perfectly permissible. The Post can actually talk about these scenarios. But here points out the osa ribbis you're getting something new that beforehand it's true that there was a relationship that this ma was already working for the loves so there was an employment relationship so there'll be nothing wrong with saying I'll give you the money on condition that you hire me well he already hired him so it doesn't mean anything but on condition you don't fire me hey a lot of these you know businesses have an employee at will you know type of arrangement that's a very big benefit to have an agreement not to be fired that you're not going to be an employee at will anymore. So therefore the says that all due deference to the I think that this is 100% ribb because this is ausab he's only getting the right not to be fired because of the fact that he extended the loan. Therefore he says that clearly would be that clearly would be problematic. Now when this sort of thing happens, how much has to actually be paid in terms of any kind of compensation? So here there's a marsham. The Maharasham actually figures out a um a formula that's a source your dollar in the materials um where there was a malame that loan money to Balabias um and he um and it was on uh on condition uh that the that the sons of this Balabias who were currently learning with a different Muhammad would switch over and learn with this Muhammad so this Muhammad would make more money even though he's just getting paid for. He goes into the question maybe it's only Scott but at the end of the day says he's getting paid he's getting paid for the service that he's providing it's an arms length transaction but he's getting paid for something he wasn't doing before and he's getting additional business so we say getting the additional business would for sure be problematic so he says look at the third paragraph he says that it would only be according to that what what amount needs to be discouraged. It's not the entire amount that was paid because given that it was an arms length transaction and at the end of the day the Muhammad taught the children he was entitled to be paid whatever was at the market going rate he can keep that market going rate. The only thing that he would have to return is the TBA which is what a let's say that you are in a particular business you're a malamid you are a lawyer you're a doctor you're a businessman you're whatever a financial adviser and you normally would pay a certain amount of money to a broker in order to bring you business. So whatever amount was saved, he says it's either 1% or 2%, you know, of the total amount that would typically be given to the broker. Whatever the fee would be, that's the amount that it would have to be discouraged. But he says the rest, it's not as if after this transaction has taken place and the Mamid has learned with the mouth with the um with the children of the of the Lov that the Lova would have the right to say at that point in time, hey Ribbus, I'm not paying you anything. He has to pay for the services that were rendered. You know, he goes and he fixes the the kitchen sink. He still has to the LO still has to pay for the services that were rendered, but you can just subtract from that amount whatever would have been the sky sour whatever would be an amount that would be typically paid to a broker in the middle. Rabbi Riceman points out that this really only this whole formula and the requirement to pay anything would only set in if you held and this see appears to be from the Marsham. If you hold the to if you hold the tovas and so then really if you can stop the transaction from occurring in the first place from the teaching arration from taking place you stop it but once it's already taking place so then the money would have to be paid at that point in time and there wouldn't be any deduction made if a lisa the service was actually provided and then the amount would have to be paid. Um, so now I just want to spend a few minutes on what I call the sister case, which has always been a case that intrigued me a lot, which is the loan for loan transaction that we say that if it is sort of a service for service transaction, somebody just came over to me this morning, right after Davening, somebody came over to me. They asked me a question. They said that um they needed a ride to the airport and it was very hard to get. It was like very early in the morning or whatever. And they said, "Listen, if you give me a ride to LaGuardia at 4 in the morning, I'll drive you, you know, a couple of days and know you have to go to the airport and I'll drive you to Newark." Uh, so he said, "Was that would that be user? Is that a problem or vibbis?" It didn't occur to him. Um, so I said, "Yeah, I'll pipe that's a problem or vibbis because you're providing for you're making a condition if you would say I'll take you to LaGuardia. Um, and when the time comes, you'll also take me to LaGuardia." So I said, "That would be okay. that would m be okay if the seasons and the times were roughly equal in in terms of you know the ta and and the amount of time and so forth. But here clearly going to Newark is a much more um arduous and lengthy journey than driving to LaGuardia. So he said that taco would be very pro would be would be problematic. He said so what should I do? He said I I I I I really needed it and he already took me. So you know but now I need to return favor. So so what could I do? I said you have to potter him. You have to potter him. you have to tell him that he's exempt, that he doesn't have to take you to to to um uh to to Newark. Uh so he said, "But uh but what am I uh but but now we're going to be stuck." I really like that was the whole point, you know. So I said, "What? You're stuck. You're stuck." I said, "If out of the if you have a friendly relationship that you always do nice things for each other anyway, of the generosity of his heart, he decides that he wants to take you. So maybe there's one to discuss. But first, you have to let him off the hook and make it clear that he's not obligated to do." So he found that so intriguing. Okay, he said he didn't it would not have occurred to him would not have occurred to him that there there such a hal but there okay but if it's a tip for tat service for service transaction so then generally speaking it's going to be permissible I'll plow your field today you'll plow my field tomorrow generally speaking we're going to say that's okay so why is it not okay to say I'm going to loan you today and you're going to loan me tomorrow so according to some postumas of the opinion it is okay it is okay and basically based on the same argument that we find with respect back to the case of the um of the field that the Mava is allowed to uh to to keep on under his possession based on a Tanai that if the Lova wants to sell it, he'll sell it to the MAV for the amount of the original loan because as the Radbas says there's no there's no tapio says the same idea with respect to this transaction. He says that when a new loan is being extended, Ma is not getting anything. He's going to have to return that loan money. So therefore there's no neshik and there's no tabis and therefore it should be perfectly fine. The morai thought that this is mamish ribbiskuta and why would it be ribbkutsa because you're mamish getting something extra because unlike the transaction where one person's providing a service and then the payment so to speak is that the other person provides a service here the payment of the original loan that the ma provided to loa was that lova paid back the loan and it was finished but the ma is saying pay back the loan plus I want you to do something else. What's the something else I want you to do? I want you to extend me alone. That's something else. I but that something else doesn't have neshik doesn't have tab. So the na points out that there are really three different opinions as to what the uh as to how we view this transaction. Look in source. He says either it's ribbkus like the morai said or it's mut like the satuma says but really probably the best explanation and this is the one that's adopted by the grub or the vagon if you look in source above is that it's essentially like ribbum that it's a form of ribbarim that just like you can't have even though there may not be no value there may not be any value to that nobody would pay any money for the lov to say shalom to me in the street but it's something that he's doing before that he wouldn't have had to do have done otherwise so so too is going to extend the loan to me. He wouldn't have extended this loan to me otherwise um if not for the fact that I'm extending this loan to him today something in addition to the repayment of the loan that he is doing. So therefore it's going to be just as bad as but the ends with the following and they look in source he says that of he says that he says is the going to be prohibited and why is it going to be prohibited so the gross says because after all even ribbons is our but it's only if the borrower wouldn't have lended him otherwise and if you think about it makes a lot of sense because the lender you know loans some money to the borrower does that mean that the borrower is going to be permanently prohibited from ever extending a loan to the lender no it can't be it's only going to be a problem of ribbis farm but this idea of what he says that that it's only going to be a problem if he wouldn't have done it otherwise It sounds a little bit like the from the beer a gr you could tell me you know your own interpretation of this. It sounds a little bit the bra because since we're talking about actual stipulation case we're talking about an actual stipulation case and the way that um this and the ram himself quotes that you know yom that it's user and yim that it's um that it's mut. So it's not like the rama himself is bringing you know multiple opinions over here even though we're going to follow the opinion that y to user but the gross seems to be saying that we're going to be make even in a case of stipulation if the borrower was had a type of relationship with the lender or with the world that he would have extended the loan otherwise. So then we're going to consider this stipulation to be low level. It's interesting does anybody actually say that? Um, so the Taurus ribbis jumps to the occasion again and says, "Hey, you know, um, I'm the one going out on a limb in these cases. I'll go on a limb over here." The Taurus ribbis actually says that even if there's an a stipulation that the way we would pass, the lender stipulates to the borrower, I'm going to loan you today and you're going to loan me a month from now. If it's royal that they had the type of relationship where they're extending loans for each other regularly, even if it's actually stipulated, it's going to uh it's going to be mut. This is more sweeping than the case of where we don't find anybody who really says this. But that's what um that's what the billon says. Um now if there is no stipulation if there is no stipulation so then if I say that the only problem over here is basically a problem of so then it should follow that once a loan is repaid. If the borrower out of his own generosity and good heart thinks to himself, okay, well, the lender paid me money, loan me money, and now I'm going to, you know, do the same thing for the lender, but it wasn't stipulated that he had to do it. There's more room to be make in this case based on the ribbon consideration. In fact, that's how you look in the source. He quotes from the say but if I have a situation then it's to me he says that there would be no is in this case if there was no stipulation and the borrower afterwards decides that he wants to extend the loan to the lender. So then that should be perfectly that should be perfectly permissible and that would seem to be consistent as well with the ruling of the who says that if only dealing with a deran concern and obviously when there's no there's it's only a deran concern. So then he says that there is a movement to be make in the case. So I think that's also that's also consistent um with what we said. How much would have to be repaid um in the amount that there if if I'm going to assume like the morai that this is actual ribbiskutuds. So how much would have to be repaid in this particular case? So it's a very intriguing Rabbi Akiba Ager. Rabi Akiba Ager says that well we're dealing over here with a sort of what's the value when the borrower is going to extend a loan in return to the lender. So he's just losing his money for that period of time. But we don't generally view that as having any kind of intrinsic value per se in terms of collectibility you know type of cost. So he says it's only the amount of actual profit that the lender was able to receive from the funds that he got from the borrower afterwards if he invested and profited it. So it's that profit amount that would have to be discouraged. Why is that not considered to be ribbus out of the amount that's being given from the borrower to the lender in terms of the second loan? So he says because it's not really being given by loan. It's being given as a bettor a repayment um or a condition of the original loan. Um, so he says it was and therefore it wasn't the borrower's intention to loan him money. The original loan itself was just ribbis that he had to make this additional loan as ribbis and therefore it's not considered to have a to have a a status of hva altogether according to rabiker I find that to be a tremendous a tremendous finish but um but that's what he says and um you could also say that the even if I would characterize the second payment as a real loan the when The Amalva is giving back whatever profit he made at that point in time. He's not giving that amount back as ribbis but he's giving that amount back as a way out of the problem that he had created a ribbus situation and whenever money is being given not by tourist ribbis but for some other reason legitimate reason so you can say that therefore that would obiate the ribbis problem but Rabi Kger himself has this different formulation. I found it intriguing that quoted Rabi Kger as just saying that he pays back the time value of money. But if you look at the actual lion of Rabikar, he clearly says that it's only in the event that there was rebuk that was made by the mal from the money at the time that it was loan. The last thing that the post can talk about is the long ruda on this inflame base is with respect to these types of organizations. they were kind of organizations or credit union type organizations you can argue where the people would contribute money into the organization. So, and lots of people would contribute and part of what you would get the right to do as a result of contributing money is that you would be allowed to borrow money from this organization and whenever you wanted to leave the organization then you would be allowed to take your money out. So why isn't this considered to be a hey I'm going to loan to you and you loan to me so maybe this should be problematic and the quotes of Maram Shik about this and he says that the Maram Shik says that as long as whatever is being loaned is without ribbis he thinks that that it's not problematic because there is no specific it's not it's not that every single person who puts the money in is necessarily going to have a need to take out a loan in the end. It could be that certain people will only be borrowers and then when the time comes that they're going to need a loan, there won't be funds available necessarily to give them loan and it's not necessarily the case in either direction that if you take a loan that you're going to then be giving a loan or that if you give a loan you're going to eventually be taking a loan and therefore his conclusion is that these um organizations okay you look in the tourist ribbies who has a much more tourist explanation says vatam that we don't worry about these things is Let's say there's no money left because everybody else rushed to take a loans before this other person who had contributed money had contributed his money. So he's only entitled to take a loan if there's money available in the coffers. There's no additional obligation other than the initial contribution for the others to obtain additional money. So it's clear that the mere fact that I'm loaning to you does not give you uh the recipient of the funds the obligation to then go back and to loan more money to me um if there is no money available in the coffers. So therefore the tendency of the postgame is to be make on this case and one of the other reasons may be because it was arguable as to to whether this really was a problematic to begin with. As we said we have all these different shtos of when um given the fact that there really was no ness and no tabis and essentially it's probably more like the bill neon says that we're dealing with something that probably is no more serious than a ribbus devarin type of type of situation. Uh so the bottom line is uh that we don't allow either of these arrangements. Not the arrangement that that Mauve can loan money to Lov with a condition that the Lov is going to um give his um his his work and his business to to the Malv even though there's going to be fair market paid for whatever business is going to be performed. And even if it's the MA is saying, I want you to patronize my store. Um, that is a general rule, we do not allow it, particularly if it's going to be explicit. And so too, in the case of a MA who loans money to a borrower um on condition for the borrower to then extend the loan to the lender if it's something that they always did anyway. So there's a possible um header that the Taurus ribbus reads into the villag in general. Um, but we're not going to assume it would have been done anyway because who knows what they really would have done anyway. But otherwise, assuming that there is no actual stipulation, there is much more wiggle room in these types of cases. Number one, we're generally not dealing with a situation that's more than ribbon. Certainly in the latter case, the understands that it's that it's ribbis. In the first case, we generally of the of the we generally assume to in therefore there's more room to be make when you have a ruggal type of situation where the person had where had patronized the business the lo patronized the business of the ma beforehand for example or they already had this type of relationship beforehand. There's more room to be make when the initiative um for the transaction is coming from the LOV. there's more room to be make certainly in the business transaction when the there was no stipulation altogether and particularly when the Malv started out with money in his possession and he is simply going to stipulate that he's going to pay money for the Lov to do something for him or he's going to buy from the Lov and um whenever um it's not clearly going to be a tit fortat situation where there's going to be a clear-cut obligation like in the cases of these credit unions and the like. There's also room to be makeel and obviously since we're dealing with ribbro button when we're dealing with gamach and stock organizations also more leeway when it comes to these situations. And that's the basic summary of this topic. Thank you very much. Okay. For what? Something like said five years ago if I remember distribution real estate whatever I don't remember talking about it part we're not talking about um emails that you answer questions to try. Oh, that could be in terms of I had three problems. I had three problems with it from what I recall. Um one is that there's an obligation even when the event that there is no actual profit. I think that was one of the problems. I saw in the email that was good. Yeah. And I remember there were two other problems. I don't remember what the two of the problems were distinction was or cumulative. Okay, that was that was that first problem, right? That's that that's the problem. That's the problem that I most readily remember. I don't remember the other ones. interest is from not worried if there is when there is rebound the first problem that I identified would not exist um if it's only right I don't remember the other problem I have to reme I have to remind myself what the other problems were that's the only problem that I remember off the top of my head yeah that was probably that was probably the most obvious one there's different right then it seems to me that there might be more room to be Yeah. Yeah. I brought all the problems, but but I was mostly concerned about the first problem. That was that's my recollection.