0:00 / 0:00
Loan Conditions Relating to Arms-Length Transactions - Rav Yona Reiss
33 views
Tovas Hana'ah in Ribbis and relates issues: Mekoros: https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1136080 Weekly Chaburah in the Kollel L'Hora'ah by Rav Yona Reiss, Av Beth Din, @crckosher ; S'gan Av Beth Din, @bethdinofamerica2467 and Rosh Yeshiva, RIETS. @YU-Torah Support the RIETS Yadin Yadin Kollel: https://www.givecampus.com/campaigns/49713/donations/new?value=10031-8 שיעור בכולל להוראה שע"י ישיבת ר יצחק אלחנן בענין טובת הנאה ברבית והמסתעף ממו"ר הרב יונה ריס, רב בין דין, cRc
Categories:
Torah
Comments(0)
Transcript
Auto-generated transcript. Not time-synced to the video.
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.