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