Sunday, June 28, 2009

Daf Digest for this month has been generously sponsored in loving memory of Mrs. Ann Ruben, and Mrs. Florence Bodanis o.b.m.
, ' ,

OVERVIEW of the Daf

Distinctive INSIGHT

1) R Nachmans three interest rulings (cont.)

R Acha the son of Rava asks whether R Nachmans ruling
that a borrower is permitted to keep the additional money the
lender gave him applies even if the lender is known to be stingy
and does not normally give gifts.
R Ashi answers that even in this case the borrower is permitted to keep the additional funds and cites a Beraisa that
supports his reasoning.
Another unsuccessful challenge to R Nachmans ruling is
presented.

Where the lender lives in a dwelling owned by the borrower

2) Payment in advance
R Kahana reports about Ravs ruling regarding a certain
case of one who wishes to pay a farmer in advance.
The novelty of Ravs ruling is explained and a Beraisa is
cited that supports this explanation.
Two different conclusions are drawn from the last case of
the Beraisa.
The second conclusion is unsuccessfully challenged.
Abaye issues a ruling related to making a payment in advance for wine.
R Sheravya unsuccessfully challenges this ruling.
3) MISHNAH: The Mishnah rules that a lender is not permitted to derive benefit from the borrowers property.
4) Living on the borrowers property
R Yosef bar Minyomi in the name of R Nachman rules
that a lender may not live on the borrowers property even
though one is normally permitted to live on the property of
another without paying rent.
The Gemara clarifies what R Nachman teaches that wasnt
already taught in the Mishnah.
A second slightly different version of R Nachmans teaching is presented.
The difference between the two versions is explained.
The Gemara presents an incident in which Rava challenges the practice of his father, R Yosef bar Chama, of taking
the slaves of borrowers who owe him money.
Todays Daf Digest is dedicated by the Zimmerman family
in loving memory of their sister
", '

Todays Daf Digest is dedicated by the Silverstein family

in loving memory of their father
", ' '

av Yosef b. Minyumi in the name of R Nachman teaches

that if Reuven lends money to Shimon, Reuven is not allowed to
live in a house owned by Shimon without paying rent, as this
would constitute a form of collecting interest for his having advanced a loan. In fact, this is true even if Reuven has access to
other lodging and he is not in need of a rented room, and
Shimon is not looking to rent out his dwelling. Although Reuven is not receiving any financial gain and Shimon is not providing any financial benefit, this is still prohibited. This seems to be
a case of , as when the loan was given no stipulation
was set that the lender expected this consideration as a condition
to the loan.
explains that when the Gemara states the lender
must pay rent, it does not mean that the court will force him to
pay, as the court only acts to reverse collection of formal interest
() . Rather, this is a case of rabbinic interest, and in
order to be in compliance with his heavenly obligations (
)the lender should not accept free usage of the dwelling.
Rambam (Hilchos Malveh vLoveh 6:2) rules according to
this opinion, and, as understood by Gra (Y.D. 166:#3), the need
for the lender to pay is not to be enforced by the court. It is due
even after the lender already resided in the house of the borrower, and it is for the lender himself to pay in order to fulfill his
obligations to heaven.
Ramban, however, writes that the intent of the Gemara is
that it appears as the lender is collecting interest ( ) as
long as he dwells in a house owned by the borrower, unless he
pays as he goes. Because this consideration is only due to the
situations appearing improper, if the lender already lived there
without paying and has now departed, there is no longer any
need for him to pay back for the rental of his previous stay, even
. This is in contrast to other cases of ,
rabbinic interest, where there is a requirement for the lender to
return the money in order to be . The difference is
that in general, the lender has collected money or benefit at the
expense of the borrower, so he must return it. Here, however,
the lender has simply dwelled in a house owned by the borrower,
and no financial loss was sustained by the borrower.
Ramban concludes that his explanation seems most reasonable, as the Gemara later (65a) clearly states that the reason the
lender should not live in the dwelling of the borrower is that it
appears as he is collecting interest.

Number 1581

HALACHA Highlight

Is it permissible for a Gemach to only lend money to paying

members of the Gemach?

Since he did not have this in mind when he originally gave him the loan
(the additional benefit of living on the borrowers property) is not an issue

oskim discuss the permissibility of setting up a Gemach

that is structured in a way that in order to get a loan one has to
be a member of that Gemach and pay the monthly Gemach
membership fee. Rav Moshe Shternbuch1 ruled that loans
granted under such conditions are considered prearranged
loans and are prohibited. Shulchan Aruch2 ruled that it is prohibited for a lender to stipulate that the borrower must give
money to Ploni. Although the additional money is not given to
the lender it is nevertheless categorized as interest since the borrower is giving away additional money as a result of the loan. A
permitted way to make this type of Gemach is for the Gemach
to stipulate that membership, which is given to join the mitzvah
of making funds available for those in need and not to secure a
future loan, does not assure that the Gemach will grant a loan.
It will only accept applications from members but some members may be rejected. If it is structured according to these parameters it would be, at worst, only Rabbinically prohibited
interest which is permitted when performing a mitzvah.
Sefer Bris Yehudah3 permits a Gemach to be set up so

STORIES off the Daf

A Loan with Interest
"... "

odays daf discusses transactions that

are prohibited because they are, or appear
to be, interest.
It is hard to imagine the poverty of
yeshivah bochurim of earlier generations.
By the time the zeman was over most had
not one penny to pay their traveling expenses home. In Mir, the administration
had a system to deal with this problem.
The bochurim would take a loan from Rav
Yerucham Levovitz, ztl, the famed Mirrer
Mashgiach, and repay it at the beginning of
the new zeman.
At the end of the first zeman, Rav
Shimon Schwab, ztl, found himself with-

REVIEW and Remember

1. Does one returning stolen money have to inform his victim
that he is returning the stolen money ?
________________________________________________
2. What type of prepayment arrangement did Abaye permit ?
________________________________________________
3. What did R Nachman teach that was not already taught in
the Mishnah ?
________________________________________________
4. What practice of his father did Rava question?
______________________________________________

that it will only grant loans to members. The only restriction is

that the Gemach may not demand a payment at the time a
member applies for a loan. Rav Shmuel Halevi Wosner4 also
addresses the issue and suggests another approach. If a Gemach
is going to be formed with members paying a monthly fee the
following stipulations must be in place. The bylaws must stipulate that membership is not a guarantee for a loan. Additionally, it must be understood that one who takes a loan is not obligated to continue his membership in the Gemach. Lastly, there
has to be an option for the Gemach to grant loans to nonmembers.

out money to travel home and asked the

mashgiach for a loan. Rav Yerucham gave
him the money and Rav Schwab naturally
thanked him.
To the young mans surprise, this common courtesy upset the normally softspoken mashgiach. Dont you know that
it is forbidden to say thank you for a loan?
Rav Yerucham asserted. Do you think
that because of your yekkish mentality
you are permitted to violate an explicit
halachah in Shulchan Aruch?
At the end of his second zeman, Rav
Schwab once again required a loan to get
home. But this time when he received the
money he understood not to thank the
mashgiach.
To his surprise, the mashgiach, a
mechanech par excellence, was once again
upset at him. Arent you ashamed? You
receive a loan and you fail to show any interest in thanking me? Does this not reveal

. " " ' "1

. " " ' " ' "2
. " ' "3
. " ' "4

a lack of the most basic derech eretz and

manners?
This time, Rav Schwab was at a loss to
understand what the mashgiach meant.
Last time the mashgiach said that expressing gratitude is a blatant violation of the
Shulchan Aruch and must be suppressed.
And now the mashgiach states that a failure to say thank you betrays a lack of basic
menschlichkeit?
Rav Yerucham explained. It should
be apparent on your face that you would
like to say thank you since it is only common decency to thank another for any
kindness granted, but in this case you cannot because the Shulchan Aruch forbids it.
But looking at your face it was clear that
you received this loan with the feeling that
you have fulfilled your entire obligation by
merely refraining from saying thank you.
This error must be corrected!1
' ", ", 1