A life changing book #Bekhokotai#parashathashavua#devartorah

Recently I came across an article describing what constitutes great literature. The author suggested that great literature “changes you. When you are done reading, you’re a different person.”

In that light, we shall always classify the Torah as great literature. Reading the Torah challenges us to be better. Stories of biblical heroes inspire us to be courageous and persevering. The legal portions shape our character by orienting our minds and lives to holy living. As we mediate upon the words of the Torah its mitzvot, they become powerful agents for change in our lives. No wonder when commenting upon the phrase “If you follow My laws” (Lev. 26:3) in this week’s Torah portion Bechukotai, Rashi explains this phrase to mean that you should labor in the Torah by diligently studying it.

The author of Psalm 119 loved the Torah for its transforming influence in his life. He recognized that the Torah handed down from Moses made him wise and more understanding than his teachers (v. 99). It kept him from evil (v. 101). No wonder he exclaimed, “Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long,” and “How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (vv. 97, 103).

Welcome to the joy of loving great literature, especially the life-changing power of the Torah! 

My devar Torah is a timely reminder because in just 10 days we shall celebrate the holiday of Shavuot, the giving of the Torah from upon Mt. Sinai  Saturday night beginning with Minkha at 7:45 P.M. A dairy dinner, Ma’ariv, and our annual L’al Tikkun Shavuot will follow. 

Why doesn’t the principle kam lay mederabah menay, קם ליה מדרבה מיניה, apply here? TB Baba Metzia 91

The halakhic principle kam lay mederabah menay, קם לימדרבה מיניה, dictates when a person is liable for two punishments for a single offense, he only receives the more severe of the two. A baraita on today’s daf TB Baba Metzia 91 presents a case when the above principle doesn’t apply. Each of the three amoraim give a different reason why the above rule doesn’t apply. First some background information is needed. The Torah commands that a person may not muzzle his animal on the threshing floor. The animal is allowed to eat while he is working. Secondly, the punishment for violating this negative commandment is lashes. Now the case:

“The Sages taught: One who muzzles a cow and threshes with it is flogged, and in addition he must pay the owner of the cow four kav for a cow, the usual amount it consumes while threshing, and three kav for a donkey.” The Gemara asks why doesn’t the rule kam lay mederabah menay, קם ליה מדרבה מיניה, apply here. “The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a principle that an offender is not flogged and also punished by death, and likewise he is not flogged and rendered liable to pay? One who transgresses a prohibition is liable to receive only one punishment for a single offense.” (Sefaria.org translation)

1.    “Abaye said: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is that of Rabbi Meir, who says in general that one can be flogged and be liable to pay.” (Sefaria.org translation) We shall learn in massekhet TB Makkot 4a Rabbi Meir doesn’t hold this this rule of kam lay mederabah menay at all.

2.    “Rava said that there is a difference between the transgression itself, which is between the offender and God, for which he is liable to be flogged, and the loss he caused the owner of the cow, for which he must pay restitution. The Torah prohibits one from bringing as an offering an animal given as the payment to a prostitute for services rendered (Deuteronomy 23:19); and this prohibition applies even if the man in question engaged in intercourse with his own mother, which is a capital offence. Although this man would certainly not be rendered liable to pay compensation by a court, as he is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, nevertheless, since he is technically liable to pay compensation, the money is subject to the prohibition as well. In this case too, despite the fact that the court cannot compel one to pay for the produce his cow ate, he does owe this sum. Furthermore, if the owner of the produce were to seize this sum from him, the court would not force him to return the money.” (Sefaria.org translation) In other words, the person is still liable for both penalties; however, the court can only impose one. It is up to the heavenly court to ensure all punishments are meted out.

3.    “Rav Pappa stated a different answer: From the time of his pulling of the cow to rent it for threshing he was rendered obligated to provide its sustenance when it threshes, but as for flogging, he is not liable to be flogged until the actual time of muzzling. In other words, he was liable to pay the monetary payment before he incurred liability to receive lashes, which means that they are two separate liabilities.” (Sefaria.org translation) For Rav Pappa to liabilities have to occur simultaneously for the rule kam lay mederabah menay to apply.

When God lies TB Baba Metzia 87

 What is one of the most dreaded questions a husband hears? “Honey, does this dress make me look fat?” How should a husband respond? Tomorrow’s daf TB Baba Metzia 87 shares some advice to preserve harmony within the family.

Before we take out the Torah on Shabbat mornings we pray “…Not in man do I put my trust, nor do I rely on any angel; but only in the God of heaven Who is the true God, Whose Torah is truth, Whose prophets are true, and Who performs many deeds of goodness and truth.” God’s seal is truth. When we tell the truth we can say that we have God’s seal of approval. But are their times a little white lie is appropriate? Answer is yes.

In the beginning of parashat Vayera, Genesis 18, Abraham and Sarah are informed and year from then they will have a child. This is a really unbelievable message because Sarah was 89 years old and Abraham was 99 years old according to the Torah. It was so improbable, that Sarah laughed at the possibility.

“The Gemara analyzes the verses that describe Sarah at the time: “And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: After I am waxed old [veloti] shall I have pleasure [edna]” (Genesis 18:12)…

“It is written that Sarah said: “And my lord is old” (Genesis 18:12), and it is written: “And the Lord said to Abraham: Why did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I certainly bear a child, and I am old?” (Genesis 18:13). This verse indicates that the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not repeat to Abraham that which Sarah actually said, that her husband is old. Why did God change the wording of her statement so that she was referring to herself?

"The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Peace is of such great importance that even the Holy One, Blessed be He, altered the truth for the sake of preserving peace, as it is stated: ‘And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, and my lord is old,; and it is written: ‘And the Lord said to Abraham: Why did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I certainly bear a child, and I am old?’”

To preserve peace and harmony within the family, we can follow God’s lead and tell a little white lie.

God fulfills a mitzvah TB Baba Metzia 86

I dedicate today’s daf to Zoey Diamond, my great-niece’s bat mitzvah.

God’s example teaches us an important mitzvah on today’s daf TB Baba Kama 86. Visiting the sick is a great mitzvah. The rabbis saw the connection between the very end of parashat Lekh Lekh, chapter 17 and the very beginning of parashat Vayera, chapter 18. At the end of chapter 17, Abraham immediately fulfills God’s commandment of circumcising all the males in his camp including himself. When God appears to Abraham in chapter 18 what else could God be doing except visiting the sick?!

“§ The Gemara expounds another verse involving Abraham: “And the Lord appeared to him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day” (Genesis 18:1). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “the heat of the day”? Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: That day was the third day after Abraham’s circumcision, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, came to inquire about the well-being of Abraham. The Holy One, Blessed be He, removed the sun from its sheath in order not to bother that righteous one with guests, i.e., God made it extremely hot that day to allow Abraham to recover from his circumcision, as he would not be troubled by passing travelers whom he would invite into his tent.” (Sefaria.org translation) As we know from the rest of the story this gambit didn’t work.

The rabbis teach that every time you visit the sick, you remove 1/60 of the illness. I know how important visiting the sick is especially after my bicycle accident. All those visits in the hospital and rehab really helped me on my road to recovery. Those visits showed me how much people really cared about me and demonstrated that I wasn’t abandoned all by myself during the most difficult time in my life. These visits lifted my spirits because of the conversations we had and their thoughtfulness. Some came to study Torah with me while others brought delicious food because the meals the institution served left much to be wanting. Before he left, a colleague recited the prayer for healing over me. That prayer meant so much to me. Now after every visit before I leave, I always recite a prayer for healing praying for a complete and speedy healing on behalf of the person I am visiting.

 

The only person you can change in a relationship is you TB Baba Metzia 85

Today’s daf TB Baba Metzia 85 contrast Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Both suffered great afflictions. “The Gemara says: But even so, the afflictions of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, were greater than those of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The reason is that whereas the afflictions of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, came upon him out of love, and left him out of love, i.e., they were solely the result of his own request, not because he deserved them (see yesterday’s daf for the entire story-gg), those of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came upon him due to an incident and left him due to another incident.” (Sefaria.org translation)

“The Gemara stated that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s suffering came upon him due to an incident. What was that incident that led to his suffering? The Gemara answers that there was a certain calf that was being led to slaughter. The calf went and hung its head on the corner of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s garment and was weeping. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to it: Go, as you were created for this purpose. It was said in Heaven: Since he was not compassionate toward the calf, let afflictions come upon him.

“The Gemara explains the statement: And left him due to another incident. One day, the maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was sweeping his house. There were young weasels [karkushta] lying about, and she was in the process of sweeping them out. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: Let them be, as it is written: “The Lord is good to all; and His mercies are over all His works” (Psalms 145:9). They said in Heaven: Since he was compassionate, we shall be compassionate on him, and he was relieved of his suffering.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The moral of the story is clear. God treats human beings as human beings treats their fellow persons. During the High Holidays if we want God to be merciful towards us and forgive us we in turn first must be merciful and forgive those who have wronged us.

This is true in all relationships. The only person we can change in any relationship is us, but paradoxically the other changes as well. If you want your significant other to love you, you must love him/her first. When you do, he/she will return that love. If you want the other person to be kind, you must be kind first. When you do, he/she will return the kindness. If you want the other person to be helpful, you must be helpful first. When you do, he/she will reciprocate and be helpful.

What we love, we protect #parashatbehar#devartorah#parashathashavua

The Owyhee River is a 346-mile-long tributary of the Snake River that begins in northern Nevada and flows through southwestern Idaho, before finishing its route in Oregon. In the fall Brown trout begin their fall nesting ritual. You can see them excavating their nests in the gravelly shallows.

Wise fishermen know that fish are spawning and try not to disturb them. They avoid walking on gravel bars where they might trample the eggs, or wading upstream from the nests where they might dislodge debris that can smother them. And they don’t fish for these trout, though it’s tempting to do so as they rest near their nests.

These precautions are part of an ethic that governs responsible fishing. But there is a deeper and a better cause.

This week’s Torah portion Behar stress the fact that we are only God’s tenants here on earth. “for the land is mine—; for you are sojourners and resident-settlers with me;” (Leviticus 25:23) The earth is ours to use, but we must use and care for it because it is only on loan to us.

I marvel the work of God’s hands every morning when I walk around Cunningham Park. The men and women who take care of the park do an awesome job. I love seeing all those trees with their pink blossom in the Spring as well as all the beautiful colorful flowers that change season to season. When I see trash to spoiling the beauty of the park, I don’t hesitate picking up and throwing it in the trash receptacle.

What we love, we protect.

 

A good debate shouldn’t devolve into insults TB Baba Metzia 84

Today’s daf TB Baba Metzia 84 recounts the famous relationship between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish.

The Gemara relates: One day, Rabbi Yoḥanan was bathing in the Jordan River. Reish Lakish saw him and jumped into the Jordan, pursuing him. At that time, Reish Lakish was the leader of a band of marauders. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: Your strength is fit for Torah study. Reish Lakish said to him: Your beauty is fit for women. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: If you return to the pursuit of Torah, I will give you my sister in marriage, who is more beautiful than I am. Reish Lakish accepted upon himself to study Torah. Subsequently, Reish Lakish wanted to jump back out of the river to bring back his clothes, but he was unable to return, as he had lost his physical strength as soon as he accepted the responsibility to study Torah upon himself.

Rabbi Yoḥanan taught Reish Lakish Bible, and taught him Mishna, and turned him into a great man. Eventually, Reish Lakish became one of the outstanding Torah scholars of his generation. One day the Sages of the study hall were engaging in a dispute concerning the following baraita: With regard to the sword, the knife, the dagger [vehapigyon], the spear, a hand sickle, and a harvest sickle, from when are they susceptible to ritual impurity? The baraita answers: It is from the time of the completion of their manufacture, which is the halakha with regard to metal vessels in general.

These Sages inquired: And when is the completion of their manufacture? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is from when one fires these items in the furnace. Reish Lakish said: It is from when one scours them in water, after they have been fired in the furnace. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: A bandit knows about his banditry, i.e., you are an expert in weaponry because you were a bandit in your youth. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: What benefit did you provide me by bringing me close to Torah? There, among the bandits, they called me: Leader of the bandits, and here, too, they call me: Leader of the bandits. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I provided benefit to you, as I brought you close to God, under the wings of the Divine Presence.

As a result of the quarrel, Rabbi Yoḥanan was offended, which in turn affected Reish Lakish, who fell ill. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s sister, who was Reish Lakish’s wife, came crying to Rabbi Yoḥanan, begging that he pray for Reish Lakish’s recovery. She said to him: Do this for the sake of my children, so that they should have a father. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to her the verse: “Leave your fatherless children, I will rear them” (Jeremiah 49:11), i.e., I will take care of them. She said to him: Do so for the sake of my widowhood. He said to her the rest of the verse: “And let your widows trust in Me.”

Ultimately, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Reish Lakish, died. Rabbi Yoḥanan was sorely pained over losing him. The Rabbis said: Who will go to calm Rabbi Yoḥanan’s mind and comfort him over his loss? They said: Let Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat go, as his statements are sharp, i.e., he is clever and will be able to serve as a substitute for Reish Lakish.

Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat went and sat before Rabbi Yoḥanan. With regard to every matter that Rabbi Yoḥanan would say, Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat would say to him: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraita that supports your opinion. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Are you comparable to the son of Lakish? In my discussions with the son of Lakish, when I would state a matter, he would raise twenty-four difficulties against me in an attempt to disprove my claim, and I would answer him with twenty-four answers, and the halakha by itself would become broadened and clarified. And yet you say to me: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraita that supports your opinion. Do I not know that what I say is good? Being rebutted by Reish Lakish served a purpose; your bringing proof to my statements does not. (Sefaria.org translation)

This story raises a lot of difficult questions. Yitchak Blau answers some of these difficulties in his book Fresh Fruit and Vintage Wine. I would like to share with you his comment on their harsh responses to each other while discussing a fine point in halakha.

“I believe that the key to the story lies in the exchange between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar . The latter tries to console Rabbi Yoḥanan by citing proofs for everything Rabbi Yoḥanan says. Rabbi Yoḥanan is incredulous that Rabbi Elazar thinks this will replace Reish Lakish. It was precisely the ongoing argumentation between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish that led to a flowering of Torah. This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan feels cannot be replaced. Rabbi Yoḥanan is teaching us that the ideal chavruta is not the person who quickly endorses everything his study partner says. On the contrary! The ideal chuvruta challenges one’s ideas. This process generates growth in learning. We should add the same principle also applies to other forms of friendship. Instead of looking for friends who will always agree with us, we should seek out those who are willing to tell us when they think we have erred, whether intellectually, ethically, or religiously.

“Assuming that the preceding idea reflects the essential theme of the story, we can now understand the harsh exchange. If the ideal study partnership involves argument, then there is a lurking danger that the arguing will get out of hand. In the heat of a verbal dispute, people will say things that they later regret that can no longer take back. Thus, the very strength of the partnership of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish was the source of his downfall, as they temporally lost themselves the passion of the music debate…

“The possibility of having such productive interactions without resorting to harsh or insulting words is a challenge beckoning to all of us.” (pages 66-68)

Primary elections have confirmed that the 2024 elections will be a rematch between Pres. Biden and past Pres. Trump. When we vote in November for the next president of the United States, this story of Rabbi Yoḥanan, Rabbi Elazar , and Reish Lakish teaches us before we vote we should not only look at these two men, but who will be their advisors as well. We need people to challenge the President’s decisions to make sure that he hasn’t erred intellectually, ethically, and legally. A president who only wants loyal sycophants who always agree with him as advisors will surely will lead our country to disaster. Such a man is a danger to our democracy as well.

 

Is this the halakha? You betcha TB Baba Metzia 83

 Today we finish the sixth chapter of our masekhet with daf TB Baba Metzia 83. It concludes with a very famous story which teaches an important lesson. Albeit the law is the law, sometimes one has to go beyond the letter law to do what is right and good.

“The Gemara relates an incident involving Rabba bar Ḥanan: Certain porters broke his barrel of wine after he had hired them to transport the barrels. He took their cloaks as payment for the lost wine. They came and told Rav. Rav said to Rabba bar Ḥanan: Give them their cloaks. Rabba bar Ḥanan said to him: Is this the halakha? Rav said to him: Yes, as it is written: “That you may walk in the way of good men” (Proverbs 2:20). Rabba bar Ḥanan gave them their cloaks. The porters said to Rav: We are poor people and we toiled all day and we are hungry and we have nothing. Rav said to Rabba bar Ḥanan: Go and give them their wages. Rabba bar Ḥanan said to him: Is this the halakha? Rav said to him: Yes, as it is written: “And keep the paths of the righteous” (Proverbs 2:20).” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Elliott Dorff writes:

                         Thus, while the Torah and the rabbinic tradition help make justice a

                        reality by giving it concrete expression in law, Jewish law itself recognizes

                        that justice sometimes demands more than the law does, the moral duties

                        go beyond the letter of the law. Moreover, such moral duties sometimes

                        require reshaping the law itself so that in each new age it can continue

                        to be the best approximation of justice.

 

                        The underlying conviction that pushes Jewish law not to stop with defining

                        justice in his procedural and substantive aspects but to insist instead that we

go beyond the letter of the law, if necessary, to achieve justice is the belief that God requires us to aspire to a moral and theological ideal. All Israelites are obligated to aspire to a life of holiness: “You shall be holy, for I, the Lord

your God, am holy.” (Leviticus 19:2) In the verse that follows this divine

demand, the Torah specifies that holiness requires providing for the poor

and the stranger; issuing theft and fraud; rendering fair and impartial decisions

in court; treating the blind, the deaf, and the stranger fairly; and ensuring

honest weights and measures. These are all components of the society that has both procedural and substantive justice and even more-namely, generosity

and caring. We are to treat each other as members of one extended family.

To the decree that we can and at least in some areas, then, holiness requires that we go beyond insisting on or do look instead it was seems to be good results

for everyone concerned. (To Do the Right and the Good: a Jewish Approach to Modern Social Ethics, page 118)

 

Many commentators explain that paying the workers is an attribute of piety (midat hasidut-מידת חסידות) that goes above and beyond the law. There those who say that for an important person like Rabba bar Ḥanan the attribute of piety is not optional response, but what the law requires of him.

I think that were all important people since each individual is created in God’s image. Consequently, we should go above the letter of the law when necessary.

 

                       

Tzedaka at its best #Emor#devartorah#parashathashavua

 The three hundred middle and high school students of the small town of Neodesha, Kansas, filed into a surprise school assembly. They then sat in disbelief upon hearing that a couple with ties to their town had decided to pay college tuition for every Neodesha student for the next twenty-five years. The students were stunned, overjoyed, and tearful.

Neodesha had been hard hit economically, which meant many families worried about how to cover college expenses. The gift was a generational game-changer, and the donors hoped it would immediately impact current families but also incentivize others to move to Neodesha. They envision their generosity igniting new jobs, new vitality—an entirely different future for the town.

God desired His people to be generous by not only tending to their own acute needs but also by envisioning a new future for their struggling neighbors. God’s directions were clear: “If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them” (Leviticus 25:35) The generosity wasn’t only about meeting basic physical needs but also about considering what their future life together as a community would require. “Help them,” God said, “so they can continue to live among you” (v. 35).

The deepest forms of giving reimagine a different future. God’s immense, creative generosity encourages us toward that day when we’ll all live together in wholeness and plenty.

 

When is the employer obligated to pay the employees? TB Baba Metzia 76-77

We began yesterday the sixth chapter of our massekhet with daf TB Baba Metzia 76. This chapter discusses employer-employee ethical responsibilities towards one another.

When contracting work to be done there can be three different outcomes. The best outcome is when work is contracted by the employer and is completed by the employee. The employer pays the employee the wages due. The second outcome can be called retraction with grievances (תַּרְעוֹמֶת). This case is when either the employer or the employee negate the contract before any work is done. No wages need be paid leaving one side with grievances. The third outcome is when in the middle of work one side refuses to complete the job, wages are due.

Rava provides four case studies on wage liability. “This is like that which Rava said: With regard to one who hires laborers to till, and rain fell and filled his land with water, preventing the laborers from performing the work, if he surveyed his land the night before and did all he could, this is the laborers’ loss, as it is a consequence of their misfortune. But if he did not survey his land the night before, it is the employer’s loss, and he gives them the wages of an idle laborer.

“And Rava further said: With regard to this one who hires laborers to draw water from a river or a trench to irrigate his field, and rain fell, so that he no longer needs laborers, this is the laborers’ loss. The employer does not need to pay them, as he could not have known ahead of time that this would happen. But if the river comes up and irrigates the field, this is the employer’s loss, as he should have taken this possibility into consideration. And therefore he gives them the wages of an idle laborer.

“And Rava says: With regard to this one who hires laborers to draw water from a river or a trench to irrigate his field, and the flow of the part of the river used to irrigate the field stopped midday, the halakha depends on the circumstance. If it is not prone to stopping, this is the laborers’ loss, a consequence of their misfortune. If it is prone to stopping, then one acts in accordance with this consideration: If the workers are residents of that city and know that this might happen, it is the laborers’ loss; if the laborers are not residents of that city and are not aware that this is a likely occurrence, it is the employer’s loss.

“And Rava says: With regard to this one who hires laborers to perform a specific task and the task is completed by midday, if he has another task that is easier than the first one, he may give it to them. Alternatively, if he has other work that is similar to the first one in difficulty, he may assign it to them. But if he has other work that is more difficult than it, he may not assign it to them, and he gives them their full wages.  The Gemara asks: Why must he pay them their full wages? Let him pay them for the additional time at most as an idle laborer. The Gemara answers: When Rava said his ruling in this case, he was referring to workers [be’akhlushei] of Meḥoza, who become weak if they do not work. These laborers were accustomed to steady, strenuous work, and therefore sitting idle was difficult, not enjoyable, for them.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Ritba [1] formulated the following rules based upon the four above case studies. If both the employer and employee have equal knowledge or lack of knowledge of the circumstances, the worker suffers the loss of wages. Similarly, if the worker had knowledge of the circumstances but not the employer, the employee’s suffer the loss of wages.

The only time the employer is obligated to pay is when he has the information or knowledge of the circumstances and the employee doesn’t. He should have informed the employee; consequently, he is obligated to pay the wages of an idle worker, meaning the amount of money the employee would want not to work.

---

[1] For his biography see https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/yom-tov-ben-abraham-ishbili 

An important reminder TB Baba Metzia 75

Today we finish the fifth chapter of our massekht and usury has been the main topic. Not only actual interest on a loan is forbidden, the rabbis forbade anything that looked like or smelled like interest. Today’s daf TB Baba Metzia concludes with some words of musar. We have to be careful what we do and what we say not to embarrass the borrower.

“It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: From where is it derived with regard to one who is owed one hundred dinars by another, and the borrower is not accustomed to greeting that lender, that it is prohibited to start greeting him after being granted the loan? The verse states: “Interest of any matter [davar] that is lent with interest” (Deuteronomy 23:20), which can also be read as indicating that even speech [dibbur] can be prohibited as interest…When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said: From where is it derived that with regard to one who is owed one hundred dinars by another and knows that the borrower does not have the funds to repay him, that it is prohibited for him to pass before the borrower, so as not to embarrass the borrower and cause him discomfort? The verse states: “Do not be to him as a creditor” (Exodus 22:24). Even if he does not claim the debt from the borrower, his presence reminds the latter of the debt, which distresses him…Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi both say that if one upsets another in this way, it is as though he sentences him to two types of punishments, as it is stated: “You have caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water” (Psalms 66:12). As the one in control, a creditor is regarded as though he had brought the debtor through fire and water.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Money does strange things to people. Wealthy people may begin to think they are better than the common people and treat them accordingly. Our chapter concludes with an important reminder. Just because we loan somebody money, we should be careful not to put the lender in an obsequious and subservient uncomfortable position. In all our business dealings we need to remember that everybody is created in God’s image and were obligated to maintain his/her dignity.

 

The Tosefot find a way to get around a rabbinic prohibition TB Baba Metzia 70-71

The Torah prohibits one Jew from lending another Jew with interest. “If your kin, being in straits, come under your authority, and are held by you as though resident aliens, let them live by your side: do not exact advance or accrued interest, but fear your God. Let your kin live by your side as such. Do not lend your money at advance interest, nor give your food at accrued interest. I YHVH am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God.” (Leviticus 25:35-38) Nevertheless, this law does not apply to loans between Jews and non-Jews.

On today’s dappim TB Baba Metzia 70-71, Rav Naḥman argues that rabbinically Jews are forbidden to lend money to non-Jews with interest. “Apropos the discussion concerning the halakhot of interest, the Gemara cites several aggadic statements on the subject. The verse states: “He who augments his substance by interest [beneshekh] and increase [vetarbit] gathers it for him who has pity on the poor” (Proverbs 28:8). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase “him who has pity on the poor”? How does this money ultimately reach someone who has pity on the poor?... Rav Naḥman said: Rav Huna said to me that this verse is necessary only to state that even interest that a Jew took from a gentile will ultimately reach the government treasury, and the one who took it will not be successful.” (Sefaria.org translation)

“Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman based on another difficulty in the Mishna (TB Baba Metzia 70b-gg), which teaches: One may borrow money from them and one may lend money to them with interest. And similarly, with regard to a ger toshav, one may borrow money from him and lend money to him with interest, since he is not a Jew. The mishna indicates that a Jew may lend money with interest to a gentile ab initio. (Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna now answers this difficulty-gg)

“Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, said: This ruling of the mishna is necessary only to teach that one may lend money with interest to a ger toshav only to the extent required to provide a livelihood to the lender, but not to do so as a regular business.

(Ravina provides a different answer to solve this contradiction “Ravina said: Here in the mishna we are dealing with Torah scholars, for whom it is permitted to lend money to a gentile with interest. The Gemara explains: What is the reason the Sages decreed that one should not lend money to a gentile with interest? The reason is that perhaps the Jew will learn from the gentile’s actions. Continuous interactions with gentiles for the sake of financial dealings may have a negative influence on a Jew. And since in this case the lender is a Torah scholar, he will not learn from the gentile’s actions.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara cites Rav Naḥman holding the complete opposite position that a Jew may loan money to a non-Jew with interest. “The Master said above: If one of My people and a gentile come to you for a loan, My people take precedence. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Is there any reason to think that a gentile would take precedence over a Jew? Rav Naḥman said that Rav Huna said to me: It is necessary only to teach that even if the choice is to lend money to a gentile with interest or to a Jew for free, without interest, one must still give preference to the Jew and lend the money to him, even though this will entail a lack of profit.” (Sefaria.org translation)

As you may well know during the Middle Ages in Europe Jews were forbidden from guilds and owning land. As life became urbanized loans became essential for the continued prosperity. Since Christians believed that they were the new Israel, they were forbidden to loan money to other Christians with interest. One occupation a Jew could become was moneylending because there’s no prohibition for Jews to lend money to Christians with interest from the church’s point of view.

But as we learned from Rav Naḥman’s first statement, lending money to non-Jews is prohibited from the Jewish point of view. Tosefot ד"ה תַּשִּׁיךְ לָא סַגִּי דְּלָאו הָכִי gave three reasons why Jews could be the Christians money lenders.

1.    They can poskin like Rav Naḥman’s second statement which is the more lenient position.

2.    Lending money to the non-Jew was necessary because it was required to provide a livelihood for the Jew as per Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna’s statement.

3.    Jews live now in Galut, the diaspora, amongst the Christians and have business dealings with them.  They were not afraid that these dealings will have a negative influence on the Jewish businessmen. If this is the case, there is no difference between having business dealings with them and lending them money.

Problem solved.

Using your unique gifts#parashatkedoshim#devartorah#parashathshavua

 Decades ago, I went to a rabbinic retreat where everyone was talking about a personality test. “I’m an ISTJ!” one said. “I’m an ENFP,” another chirped. I was mystified. “I’m an ABCXYZ,” I joked.  

Since then, I’ve learned a lot about that test (the Myers-Briggs) and others such as the DiSC assessment. I find them fascinating because they can help us understand ourselves and others in helpful, revealing ways—shedding light on our preferences, strengths, and weaknesses. Provided we don’t overuse them, they can be a useful tool to help us grow.

Although our classical texts don’t offer us personality tests, they do affirm each person’s uniqueness in God’s eyes. The following Mishna is just one example how unique and important each human being is. “(In the beginning God created Adam) And this serves to tell of the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as when a person stamps several coins with one seal, they are all similar to each other. But the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, stamped all people with the seal of Adam the first man, as all of them are his offspring, and not one of them is similar to another. Therefore, since all humanity descends from one person, each and every person is obligated to say: The world was created for me, as one person can be the source of all humanity, and recognize the significance of his actions.” (Sanhedrin 4:5,Sefaria.org translation)

This week’s Torah portion, Kedoshim,  begins with the commandment to be holy. “You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God am holy.” (Leviticus 19:2)  To be holy means to be separate, pure, unadulterated, and whole according to the anthropologist Mary Douglas. “It should also be noted that the mitzvot of Leviticus 19, the laws of holiness, cut across all categories of life. They deal with ritual, with business ethics, with proper behavior toward the poor and the afflicted, and with family relations. The modern distinction between  ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ is unknown to the Torah. Everything we do has the potential being holy.” (Etz Hayim commentary below the line, page  693)

God equips all of us with a unique personality and unique gifts to serve Him and our fellow human beings. Helping others isn't a chore; it is one of the greatest gifts there is.

 

Elevating yourself#parashatakhreimot#devartorah#parashathashavua

I remember watching my young grandson and his friends play T-Ball. I smiled from ear to ear because it was very entertaining. In this version of baseball, young players often run to the wrong base or don’t know what to do with the ball if they happen to catch it.  If we were watching a professional baseball game, these mistakes would not be so funny.

It’s okay for young athletes to struggle—not knowing what to do or not getting everything exactly right. They are trying and learning. Practices can be hard and difficult, but absolutely necessary. The key to become a better ballplayer is elevating your game at every practice.

This week’s Torah portion Akhrai Mot teaches us we should never stop and growing and becoming the person we aspire to be. The Ktav Sofer commenting on the verse “My ordinances you shall do, and my statues you shall observe, to walk with them, I am the Lord, I am your God” (Leviticus 18:4) explains that “to walk with them” means a person needs to walk from one level to the next. That is, a person should constantly keep on growing and elevating himself.

Rabbi Zelig Pliskin writes: “It is not enough to keep on the same level that you were on the previous day. Rather, each day should be a climb higher than the day before. When difficult tests come your way, you might not always appreciate them. But the only way to keep on elevating yourself is to keep passing more and more difficult life-tests. View every difficulty as a means of elevating yourself by applying the appropriate principles. At the end of each day, ask yourself, ‘What did I do today to elevate myself a little higher?’ If you cannot find an answer, ask yourself, ‘What can I plan to do tomorrow to elevate myself?’” (Growth through Torah, page 270)

Now that Passover is over, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are only six months away. What better time than now to take a six-month review of the promises to become the person you truly aspire to be that you made to yourself. If you’re growing, keep on growing. If not, is not too late to make a course change and get back on track to elevate yourself each and every day.

 

 

A definitive definition of the two categories of interest (ribit-רִבִּית TB Baba Metzia 67 (also daf 61b)

So far the entire fifth chapter starting back on daf TB Baba Metzia 60 discusses the prohibition of collecting interest on a loan based on the following verses “If your kin, being in straits, come under your authority, and are held by you as though resident aliens, let them live by your side: do not exact advance or accrued interest, but fear your God. Let your kin live by your side as such. Do not lend your money at advance interest, nor give your food at accrued interest. I YHVH am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God.” (Leviticus 25:35-38)

There are two categories of interest (ribit-רִבִּית). The Gemara calls the interest forbidden by Torah law ribit ketzetza (רִבִּית קְצוּצָה). The Gemara calls the interest forbidden by rabbinic law avak ribit (אֲבַק רִבִּית), “literally the dust of interest.” Even though not forbidden by Torah law, the rabbis forbid any appearance or hint of interest. Daf TB Baba Metzia 67 finally provides a clear definition of ribit ketzetza.

"Abaye said to Rava: With regard to a mortgage, if the borrower pledged a field to the lender, who worked the field and consumed its produce during the term of the loan without any agreement allowing him to do so, what is the halakha? There, in the previous case, what is the reason it is merely a hint of interest? Is it because the seller did not fix a particular sum for the buyer as interest? Here too, the lender did not fix a particular sum for the borrower, and accordingly, this would also be merely a hint of interest. Or perhaps the key issue is that there, it is a sale, whereas here, it is a loan, with regard to which there is a greater concern about interest.

“Rava said to him: There, what is the reason it is merely a hint of interest? It is considered a hint of interest because the seller did not fix a particular sum for the buyer as interest. Here too, the lender did not fix a particular sum for the borrower, and therefore this is not fixed interest.”

For interest to fall into the Torah forbidden category, a fixed amount must be clearly stipulated at the outset of the loan. If no fixed amount is stipulated, the interest is only forbidden rabbinically. Even though both categories of are forbidden, there is a significant halakhic outcome when the person charges interest. If it is a fixed interest, prohibited by Torah law, it can it be removed from the lender by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges. If it is considered like a hint of interest, prohibited by rabbinic law, and therefore it cannot be removed from the lender by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges.

Daf TB Baba Metzia 61b why the Torah concludes the prohibition of charging interest with the phrase “. I YHVH am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,”

“Rava says: Why do I need the mention of the exodus from Egypt that the Merciful One wrote in the context of the halakhot of the prohibition against interest (see Leviticus 25:37–38), and the mention of the exodus from Egypt with regard to the mitzva to wear ritual fringes (see Numbers 15:39–41), and the mention of the exodus from Egypt in the context of the prohibition concerning weights (see Leviticus 19:35–36)?

“Rava explains: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn, and I killed only the firstborn. I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who attributes ownership of his money to a gentile and thereby lends it to a Jew with interest. Even if he is successful in deceiving the court, God knows the truth. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who buries his weights in salt, as this changes their weight in a manner not visible to the eye. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who hangs ritual fringes dyed with indigo [kala ilan] dye on his garment and says it is dyed with the sky-blue dye required in ritual fringes. The allusion to God’s ability to distinguish between two apparently like entities is why the exodus is mentioned in all of these contexts.” (Sefaria.org translation)

In other words you can’t pull the wool over God’s eyes and trick Him