Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 188

Tue, 20 May 2008

• 1. Re: haaramah (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: Prozbul (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Pesach Sheini (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: haaramah (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: kofoi tova (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Fw: [Areivim] CI and RAYHK (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 7. Re: Haarama (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: haaramah (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Haarama (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Lying to protect the simple of faith (Micha Berger)
• 11. prozbul & heter iska (Eli Turkel)

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> In a slightly different vein I have never understood heter iska when there
> is no
> business involved, eg taking out a loan to finance a mortgage or a car loan
> or even to go on vacation. According to this classification is this
> still something positive?
>

I think a house - even a primary residence - is usually seen as  an
investment - and aisi in no way comparable to vacation/car [unless the car
is for business purposes]


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080519/26d7cf11/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolberg@cox.net>
wrote:

> "In an ideal world, we wouldn't have prozbul; the rich would lend to
> the poor without fear of the impending shemitta."
>
> This comment brings up an interesting theological question. If the above is
> the case, then why did God legislate it to begin with?
> In other words, the prozbul could have been built into the torah.
>
>
Great Question:

Here are several related approaches:

   1. Mikra [scripture] is according to Middas hadin, while Oral Law [TSBP]
   stems from middas haorachimim.  This is manifest in ayain tachas Ayin,
   literally taking an eye vs. taking compensation
   2. Mikra is addressing the realm of mind/thought/perception. Really we
   SEE the eye for he eye. TSBP is the pragmatic implmentation, since no 2 eyes
   are of equal value we exact paymetn instead. Same for Prozbol. One perceives
   on a  conscience  plane the ideal of lending before shemitta, while
   prgamaticaly we need Prozbol.
   Thin of Ben Sorrei u'moreh. The visualization o rh th mere threat of this
   law being on the books might prevent rebellious children from going over the
   line, even though Hazl tell us it did not ever happen. It's very severity
   lends itself to being a self-fullfiling prophecy of never happening, it is
   too scary. And like mutual destruction, the mere existence of the nukes
   provided a certain equilibrium.  Draconian measures such as ben Soreir
   u'moreh are similar. Imagine Parents or a community telling a 12 year-old:
   "Watch out lest YOU become one! "
   3. Mikra is more rigid.  Stone Tablets, parchment scripture. TSBP is more
   flexbile -Oral and therefore is less fixed.  Why is this? See above?
   4. The law of Mikra is really immutable.  In a sense  Prozbol is a
   hora'as Sho'oh.  the fact that it  has lasted for the duration of 2,000
   years is only 2 Days in  the Dvivine Eye. We seek the day when it  ca nbe
   safely repealed.   The Mikra permits hora'as sho'oh - e.g. Eliyahu at Mt.
   Carmel.  Vlo yamir dasso,  Prozbol is not a CHANGE to the law, it is
   "workaround "and perhaps a temporary one at that.

Disclarimer: I doubt that Ayyin tachas ayyin would EVER go to a literal
level because no two eyes are of equal value - hence equitable punishment is
VIRTUALLY impossible. However other laws that have been suspended or exist
only "in theory" [eg. ir hanidachas perhaps] COULD come about
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080519/a518018d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 2:49 AM, David E Cohen <ddcohen@gmail.com> wrote:

> If Mashiach were to come between 14 Nisan and 14 Iyar, would everybody
> bring
> the pesach sheini that year?
>
>
>
> --D.C.
>

Question:
Why during Koreich do we quote "al matzos umrorim yochluhu" which is a
passuk from pesach Sheini as opposed to the corresponding passuk of "zli
eish umatzos al merorim yochluhu"?

Answer:
This zecher lemikdash is in anticipation of the restoration of the Mikdash
coming up shortly enabling us to bring Pesach Sheini...

Source:
Shamatti  [I imagine it's in some Haggadah or other, the question is
well-konwn]


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080519/424a3226/attachment-0001.htm>

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com 

>> In a slightly different vein I have never understood heter iska when
>> there is no business involved, eg taking out a loan to finance a
>> mortgage or a car loan or even to go on vacation.

> I think a house - even a primary residence - is usually seen as  an 
> investment - and aisi in no way comparable to vacation/car [unless the 
> car is for business purposes]

But it's not a profit-making venture, so from where is the "investor"
to be paid his capital and dividend?  While there are "heterei iska"
that depend on an imaginary business that both sides stipulate is
being conducted by the "active partner", I think the better answer is
as I said earlier, that the term "heter iska" has become a generic
term for any arrangement that gets around the laws of ribbit, whether
or not there's an actual business involved.  Just as meteorology no
longer involves the study of meteors, and pencil leads are made of
graphite, a "heter iska" may not involve an actual "iska".

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

In the Igrot Moshe HM 2:29 Rav Moshe writes that if someone were able to 
obtain extra funding for a yeshiva through false claims, such an action 
would involve sins suchs as stealing, lieing, geneivat da'at, khilul Hashem 
and disgracing the Torah and its believers, and that there is no heter in 
the world for such an action. Further, anyone who would do such a thing is a 
rodef.

Ben

> From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
>
> There is no chilul Hashem because no normal person cares about the
> law just because it is the law. 

Subject: Re: [Areivim] CI and RAYHK

[del]
> Or perhaps in 1979, it looked one way, and today it's not so clear (or
> we've regressed).
>
> Is it so pashut that something that reishit tzmichat geulateinu [sic]
> can't ever regress (kal v'chomer if you just hold it's a matanah
> tovah)?
>
> -- Mike Miller
> Ramat Bet Shemesh

Many quote Rav Hertzog as saying that it won't regress (when he was advised 
to leave Israel in WWII, he refused to do so saying that the Germans would 
never reach Israel - which turned out to be absolutely true).

Here is a shi'ur with all the sources and it includes references to many
Rabbis who state that this Shivat Tzion is Atchalta D'Geula.
They are not talking about the State (which didn't exist when many of these
Rabbis spoke).

Including:

Chafetz Chaim; Natziv; Ba'al Yeshu'ot Malko; Malbim; Ba'al Torah Temima;
RAYK; R' Hertzog; Rav Uziel; R' Shlomo Zalman Aurbach; R' Y. Landau (Bnei
Brak); Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank; Rav Tikochinsky; Rav Zalman Sorotzkin; Rav
Yechezkel Sarna and more.

(In Hebrew)

http://www.tora.co.il/shiurim/shvat/lo_galot_n.doc

Shoshana L. Boublil

> Question. Where would pruzbol fit into this classification scheme?  
> Are there any other classification schemes?  There are other obvious 
> interesting implications this year but I'd rather stick to the 
> classification issue for now.

Tosfos in Gittin explains that this is exactly what it means that Hillel
relied on the fact that shmitta bizman hazeh is derabbanan.  Not that
the haarama of pruzbul wouldn't have worked when shmita was deoraita,
but that had it been deoraita he would never have endorsed this haarama
to get around it.  But in his days, as in ours, it was derabbanan, and
yet no reputable BD would have anything to do with this haarama until
Hillel saw the necessity, and decided that the Rabbanan would never have
wanted their takana to lead to such results, so he endorsed the pruzbul.
==============================================

So what is the underlying "message/purpose" of shmitat kesafim? Should
one who can afford it not make use of pruzbol?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

>>
>> In a slightly different vein I have never understood heter iska when there
>> is no business involved, eg taking out a loan to finance a mortgage or a car
>> loan or even to go on vacation. According to this classification is this
>> still something positive?
>
> I think a house - even a primary residence - is usually seen as  an
> investment - and is in no way comparable to vacation/car [unless the car
> is for business purposes]
>
which means that the bank has a stake in the gain or loss of the house.
In today's market no small risk


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 04:52:12AM -0400, Rich, R Joel wrote:
: So what is the underlying "message/purpose" of shmitat kesafim? Should
: one who can afford it not make use of pruzbol?

---- Tangent ----
    The gemara I'm about to discuss is a good opportunity to plug my
    QRST notation for shaqla vetarya. It served me in good stead over the
    years since I was bored in 9th grade and invented it for note-taking.

    a-p: statements made in the gemara
         e.g. a - Abayei: ....
    Q: qushya (although in those days it may have been question, or just q
       to make it "QRST", I wasn't using q = quf yet, RSM did that to
       me on Avodah)
       e.g. Qa1: A "kasha" on (a)
            Qa2: a second qushya
    R: ra'ayah
       e.g. Ra2: A ra'yah to (a)
    S: she'eilah
       A "shailah" that has no chance of being an upshlug.
       Note that I am keeping the numbers distinct for qushyos and
       she'eilos, that's intentional. I use T for both kinds of teirutzim
       and Ta1 has to be unambiguously referring to Qa1 or Sa1.
       e.g. Sa4: A she'eilah on (a)
    T: teirutz

    You also get into some uglier notation when asking qushyos on
    teirutzim or the like. e.g.:
    Ta1.1: the first of multiple teirutzim to Qa1
    Q(Ta1.1)2: the second qushya on the abover teirutz. Now this may
               seem ugly, but once you learn the language, in 9 symbols
               the sentence is clearly labeled as "the second qushya on
               the first teirutz to the first qushya on (a).

    It isn't as clear as flowcharting, but contains the same information
    and can be written pretty quickly. And such involved examples are
    rare. But the system's specificity forces disambiguation and avoids
    fuzzy thought. Saying to oneself and one's chavruah that "R' Yishmael
    asks a qasha on it" can hide the fact that you didn't think through
    "Was that a kasha on the teirutz, or on the original statement by R'
    Aqiva?" I have caught myself not realizing I didn't really understand
    the sugya because of things like this.

    A feel for how it works and any value (and whether or not you would
    bother) can be gotten from the discussion below.
---- End Tangent ----

The mechanism of pruzbul is a discussion on Gittien 36a-b. Yes, Hillel's
takanah is a valid preecisting loophole, but how can a taqanah allo the
din to be totally eliminated?

a- Abayei: Shemittah is derabbanan bizman hazeh, as there is no
yoveil. (This may be in turn tied to the machloqes as to whether the
yoveil year is one of the 7, and drifts through the shemittah cycle, or
if shemittah deOraisa is years 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42 and 49 of yoveil,
and thus shemittah today isn't even the same cycle -- having no 8 yr
jump from yr 49 to the next cycle's yr 7.)

Qa1: The gemara is unhappy with this suggestion, since it means that
Hashem allowed loans that BD nullified.

b or Ta1 - Rava: Hefqeir BD hefqeir. Since BD can redistribute wealth
at whim, how can there by a problem?

Whether Rava is proposing an alternative to Abayei's (a) or an answer
tothe qushya is a machloqes rishonim. Thus, I wrote "b or Ta1". By being
forced to label the statement, someone practiced in the system can see
how it's ambiguous.

b - Rava: Unlike Abayei, it's not that shemittas kesafim is
derabbanan. Hillel had the power to uproot shemittah because BD can
redistribute wealth in general. Therefore, this limitation on taqanos
(that they can't uproot the din altogether) doesn't apply to fiscal issue.

OR

Ta1 - Rava: Abayei is right, the taqanah only modifies a derabannan. How
di the rabbanan anull loans that the Torah said were binding? Hefqeir
BD hefqeir.


So, back to RJR's original question of Sun, May 18, 2008 12:14 am
(reformatted into a list):
: Just listened to an interesting shiur by R' Bleich.  He mentions 3
: categories of haarama.

: The first is those where chazal felt negatively - where there was a
: "purpose" being lost (e.g. bringing tvuah in through roof so as to avoid
: matnot - since the purpose was to have a leisure class who could teach).

Tangent: Maaser is for that reason. Terumah, according to the Chinukh,
is giving up to shelukhei HQBH so as to acknowledge His role in the
successful crop. This is why maaser has a minimum, and terumah does not.

: The second was those that chazal were indifferent to (e.g. sale of
: chametz since there was no "mitzvah" to have chametz to get rid of
: [iirc he did mention possible to have just a little for biur]) and

: third those that chazal approved of (e.g. involving non-Jew in
: ownership of cow so as not to have bchor issue where would have to
: let it wander until had mum)

It seems to me that you're saying:

    1- To avoid defying an aggadic value
    2- There is no motive to make life difficult
    3- To implement an aggadic value

The line between 1 and 3 is blurry. "So as not to lose Y" can usually
be equally phrased as "So as to have Z" (where Y and Z are antonyms).

Abayei's (a) would boil down to "hapeh she'asar hu hapeh shehitir". If
shemittah deRabbanan was in Hillel's day, it wouldn't even be a haaramah.
(Kind of like carrying in a karmelis that has an eiruv -- the takanah
was only on non-eiruv bound karmelios.)

And the purpose of it all is to lezeikher the deOraisa, that there is a
concept of shemittas kesafim, which is served by having to make a pruzbul.

If shemittah derabbanan was earlier than Hillel, Abayei would be
explaining pruzbul as 1/3 -- the poor weren't getting help / to help
the poor. Better mortgage interest than never affording a home.

Otherwise, if we say like those rishonim who have Raba saying (b) (the
mechanism of pruzbul is hefqeir BD hefqeir, then it's also 1/3 in the same
way.


However, HBDH might be outside haaramah and mean the power to do a
straight rewrite of fiscal law. Much like our discussion on another thread
of how much of CM is unchanging, and how much is defined by norm. Fiscal
law seems far from etched in stone -- sapphire tablets or otherwise.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 30th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  result in holding back from others?

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 04:44:26PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: Minhas Hinuch (#613) tries to argue your claim, that we assume accuracy
: even with regard to haseros ve'yeseros as long as they are semantically
: significant, but he runs into trouble with the word 'totafos', since
: according to Rashi, the Gemara's D'rashah of the four Parshiyos of
: Tefillin is based on the plene spelling of the word in Parshas Ve'haya
: Im, whereas we have it deficient.

Pewrhaps I'm thinking of the wrong source, but it's not a derashah, it's
peshat.

Tosafos is a hapax legamenon, and its translation was lost. Chazal used
comparison to other languages to try to recapture its roots, and got
"two pairs", ie four. Pulling in another language isn't on anyone's list
of middos shehatorah nidreshes bahem, but it is a tool used by linguists
to decode words.

The Shelah writes that this can work because the bilbul haleshonos was
incomplete, and thus some Hebrew remains in other languages. (Linguists
know that numbers tend to persist between related languages, so that
fits.) And so, two rarer Hebrew words for two-ness survived in some
form in nearby languages.

The Caspian original could be "path", "feth" or even "poonth" for this
to work. Words can take some winding roads; eg:
    Proto Indo European root: *ed- (to bite, from which we also get
        "eat")
    Latin: dent -> dont (as in orthodontist)
    Old German: tanthus
    Old English: toth
    English: tooth

Given such variation, why would a semivowel here or there make a
difference to the conclusion?


BTW, the Caspian names found in Aramaic Papyri from Egypt are
etymologically Iranian. So, Kaspi is likely some derivative of Iranian.
Old Iranian is a title given to two languages, Avestan (used in
Zoroastrianism, whose scriptures are alls "Avesta") and Old Persian.
Both are Indo-European, in the Indo-Iranian branch, thus related to
Sanskrit. Not semitic. A bit difficult to explain how Hebrew would have
a related but infrequently used word for two that is similar. But that's
what Chazal found.

Afriqi doesn't tell you what part of Africa. We know it was nowhere near
Egypt, since Libya is Midian (Yisro's piece) and to the south (Sudan,
Ethiopia and Somalia) is Kush.

In Tosefta Shabbos 8:12 R' Shim'on ben Gamliel says that there is no
nation more fertile than the Emoriim, and so we find that they believed in
the Omnipresent and were cast to Afriqi, and Hashem gave them a beautiful
land like their land; and E"Y was called by their name.

The Y-mi Shevi'is 6:1 (36b) says that one nation, the Girgashi, believed
in Hashem and went to Afriqi.

Which would fit Carthage. Not adjacent to Mitzrayim, and land of
Phoenician and Canaanite refugees. The name "Carthage" is from
the Phoenician Qart Chadasht (cf Aramaic: Qarta Chadashah) -- new
city. Afriqi, like the original Phoenician, was a semitic language.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 30th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  result in holding back from others?

<<A third major consideration was in play: were the prozbul and heter
iska not available, the rich creditors simply wouldn't lend, period.
Who would lose out? The poor. >>

This may have been true once but I don't think reflects modern commerce.
No major company including the rich can continue without bank loans.
The Reichman's needed multi-billion dollar loans to for their projects.

In fact this is one of the old questions - why should the Torah
prohibit interest?
In makes sense it lending to the poor person not in lending to the
multi-billionaire.

<<The term "heter iska" nowadays is used for all arrangements that get
around the prohibition on ribbit regardless of whether it involves
an actual iska.  There are many much simpler arrangements that don't
involve an iska, and which earlier generations simply didn't think of.>>

Can you please give more details. The heter iska put on the walls of Israeli
banks seem to talk about a real business proposition. In fact I seem to recall
a court case where someone sued the Israeli bank to cover his losses based
on the heter iska while the bank claimed it is just a religious document without
any real obligation.

<<This comment brings up an interesting theological question. If the
above is the case, then why did God legislate it to begin with?
In other words, the prozbul could have been built into the torah.>>

The question comes up with regard to shemitta. Why does the Torah have
to promise
that the land will give enough to cover 3 years, the people should
just see this through
experience.
It seems that once the Torah promises something we are supposed to accept it
even when it is not obvious in every day experience. However, most
people are not
reliant on Hashem
When it comes to money matters like shemitta (land and loans), interest etc.
it is hard to be machmir.

-- 
Eli Turkel


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 188
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."