Shemot

Shemot, 25 Tevet 5781

One More Look at Timing in Tanach Harav Yosef Carmel

We have been dealing with p’sukim that are unclear about the timing of certain events in Tanach. The example of the

Ibn Ezra with which we will deal now is the opening prophecy of Yechezkel during “the 30th year” (Yechezkel 1:1), with the question again being: 30th year from what? The next p’sukim continue with the opening of a prophecy “in the fifth year from the exile of King Yehoyachin, in the Land of the Kasdim on the River Kvar.” Rashi explains that these p’sukim are not part of the prophecy but were added to the book with ruach hakodesh. There are other examples of counting from the time of the exile of Yehoyachin elsewhere – in Melachim II, 25:27 and Yirmiyahu 52:31 – in the 37th year since his exile, Yehoyachin was removed from prison.

In Seder Olam Rabba (ch. 26), our opening of Yechezkel’s prophecy is explained to be 30 years from the finding of the sefer Torah in the Beit Hamikdash, and this is the way Targum Yonatan translates this pasuk. The finding of the sefer Torah was a traumatic event, described in Melachim II, 22. The officers of the righteous King Yoshiyahu found it, and this helped arouse the king and his officers to repent, with the help of the prophetess Chulda. This took place during the eighteenth year of Yoshiyahu’s reign, which also was yovel (the jubilee year). Mahari Kra, a disciple of Rashi, makes the calculation, based on the dating we know of the various kings, that the fifth year of Yehoyachin’s exile was 30 years since the event of finding the sefer Torah. Rashi also finds a hint of the connection between the timing of Yechezkel’s prophecies and the timing of the yovel in the pasuk: “It was in the 25th year of our exile, on Rosh Hashana on the tenth of the month” (Yechezkel 40:1). Rashi cites the Rabbis as saying that only during the yovel year do we have a beginning of the year that takes place on the tenth of the month (see Vayikra 25:9).

Let us now turn to the general question – why does Tanach employ dating that at times does not clarify the timing but confuses it and does not always maintain chronological consistency? It is possible that all of these unusual phenomena hint to us that Tanach is a work in which time is not the determining factor. Tanach is a written in a lofty manner, whose source is divine, and deals with truths that are connected to lofty spiritual worlds, which are above the physical world. Time is part of the material world, whereas prophecy is above it. When we are discussing how Hashem runs the world, there is no difference between the past, the present, and the future. Prophecies that are dealing with events from the distant past are prophecies that are dealing with lessons that impact us for future generations and transcend the rules of time.

In this material world, we will continue to thank Hashem for the miracles that happened to our fathers and to us in those days at these times.

Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the memory of:

Eretz Hemdah's beloved friends and Members of Eretz Hemdah's Amutah

Mr. Moshe Wasserzug z"l Tishrei 20, 5781

Mr. Shmuel & Esther Shemesh z"l Sivan 17 / Av 20

Rav Reuven Aberman z”l Tishrei 9, 5776

Rav Shlomo Merzel z”l Iyar 10, 5771

R' Meir ben Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld z"l

& Mrs. Sara Brachfeld z"l Tevet 16, 5780

Mrs. Sara Wengrowsky bat R’ Moshe Zev a”h

10 Tamuz, 5774

R' Eliyahu Carmel z"l Rav Carmel's father

Iyar 8, 5776

R' Yaakov ben Abraham & Aisha and

Chana bat Yaish & Simcha Sebbag z"l

Hemdat Yamim is endowed by Les & Ethel Sutker of Chicago,

Illinois, in loving memory of Max and Mary Sutker & Louis and

Lillian Klein z”l

R' Benzion Grossman z"l

Tamuz 23, 5777 R' Abraham & Gitta Klein z"l

Iyar 18 / Av 4

Rav Yisrael Rozen z"l Cheshvan 13, 5778

Rav Asher & Susan Wasserteil z"l

Kislev 9 / Elul 5780

Mrs. Shirley Rothner, Sara Rivka bat Yaakov Tzvi HaCohen z”l Tevet 15 5768

Those who fell in wars for our homeland. May Hashem avenge their blood!

Shemot

by Rav Daniel Mann

Is Rounding Up Ribbit?

Question: I was told that the "Paybox" app that allows sending money enables payments only of full shekalim. So

when my wife and many others use it to repay a friend who bought something at the grocery that has an agurot element, they must round the numbers. Is rounding up a problem of ribbit?

Answer: [For those who are unfamiliar with Paybox (an Israeli company), it resembles Paypal but is mainly for non-

commercial payments, as people make groups (of various sizes – similar to WhatsApp) for different payment purposes.] Torah-level Ribbit applies only if it was stipulated at the time the loan was made that the borrower must pay back

more than he received. However, it is Rabbinically prohibited for the borrower to decide later to give more (ribbit meucheret – Bava Metzia 75b).

A pertinent leniency exists regarding a different case of Rabbinical ribbit. It is forbidden to lend an amount of a commodity with the stipulation that he will return the same amount of that commodity (se’ah b’se’ah - Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 162:1). The reason it is forbidden is due to the possibility that the commodity’s price will go up (perhaps even sharply) and the borrower will be compelled to return more, value-wise, than he received. Among the leniencies of se’ah b’se’ah (see ibid. 1-3), the relevant one for us is that people may lend a loaf of bread for a loaf of bread (Rama, YD 162:1, based on Bava Metzia 75a). Rashi (ad loc.) implies that this is a special leniency for the Rabbinic se’ah b’se’ah, raising the question as to whether it applies to other Rabbinic ribbit cases. However, the Rama (ibid.) cites the explanation (as does Mishna Berura 450:2) that people do not care about small amounts of fluctuations. Realize that regarding ribbit, much depends on intentions and assumptions about them. On the one hand, if one demands interest, it is forbidden by Torah law to take even less than a peruta worth (which is rarely a halachically significant value) of interest (Shulchan Aruch, YD 161:1). In contrast, in some cases when it is clear that the ostensible interest is not being given out of a duty to compensate the lender, ribbit is not violated (see Bava Metzia 75a).

Should we then say that an innocuous, small amount of ribbit meucheret (like our case) should be permitted? The problem is that direct ribbit meucheret might be worse than se’ah b’se’ah. The latter does not look like ribbit, as one returns the same thing he took. In contrast, here, a clearly larger amount, even if only by a little, is being given during repayment (see Brit Yehuda 5:8), which may make it assur. Still, after a long analysis, the Minchat Yitzchak IX:88 says that one who does not have exact change may give more than owed if the difference is insignificant. (The Minchat Yitzchak still suggests to tell the lender to give the change to tzedaka on the borrower’s behalf). While recent sefarim cite the Minchat Yitzchak in more strict (Torat Ribbit 45:12) and more lenient (The Laws of Ribbis (Reisman) p. 43) manners, we can assume that nowadays rounding up a half a shekel between friends is insignificant. Since intention and how things look are important, if indeed Paybox requires its users to round to the shekel and still people happily use it, then for these people, it is clearly insignificant (see Bava Metzia 75a, regarding talmidei chachamim for whom it is clear it is not being given as ribbit).

The only question is in a case, where at the time of the “loan,” it was known that payment was going to need rounding, e.g., they always pay each other with Paybox, and they always round up (i.e., even by more than half a shekel) because it is not nice to borrow and then pay back less. There, one could get into Torah-level ribbit of a small amount. In those cases, it would be right for the recipient to give to tzedaka (as above) or say that the overly reimbursed owes change at some point and keep an at least loose accounting. But if everyone truly is not makpid on small amounts, then it is best and natural to simply follow the regular rules of rounding.

.

Do not hesitate to ask any question about Jewish life, Jewish tradition or Jewish law. SEND NOW!

Shemot

Departure of an Uncle to Eretz Yisrael Vol. I, #1, p. 1-2 – part II Date and Place: Monday of Parashat R’ei 5688 (1888), Zaumel

Recipient: The True gaon, the Prince of Torah, the great tzaddik, Rav Mordechai Gimpel, the Chief Rabbi of Rozhinai

(Rav Kook’s great uncle)

[Last time we saw that Rav Kook found out from his father’s cousin that his great uncle was leaving for Eretz Yisrael. He explained that his mind would not allow his heart to be sad to lose him in their region.]

May Hashem increase your strength and have you flourish there into a ripe old age. May the air of Eretz Yisrael add on to your years of life and may you have added strength for the Torah and serving Hashem for many years. Your illustrious son-in-law’s letter awakened me to something that I should have realized myself – that I want now very much to see your holy face before you travel to the desired land. It is upsetting to me, though, that I am shackled, by necessity, to my work with Hashem’s nation here, who are my responsibility. This prevents me from traveling now because of serious community responsibilities that have arisen at this time, and if I do not take care of them, they may melt away.

Additionally, I have to work on Itturei Sofrim (a rabbinic journal, which Rav Kook founded and edited), which will apparently be finished this week, and the first issue will come off the press. This will force me not to leave my place and keep vigilant. Actually, I have an urgent need to travel to Vilna on behalf of Itturei Sofrim, but I cannot do it due to my communal work, to which my responsibility is qualitatively higher.

Therefore, I will now request the great blessing of the righteous, as if my desire to see you would have been realized, as I had prayed. May the merit of my brilliant great-grandfather (Rav Dov Ber), your father, stand by me so that you will intercede on my behalf before Hashem in the land of life (Eretz Yisrael) at the holy sites. [Please pray] that Hashem will grant me wisdom and understanding of His Torah and in how to fear Him. More than that I will not request.

As I conclude, let me point out that it might be possible that you will be able to most fully promote something for the benefit of our Holy Land, in which you will be living, by publicizing your holy thought through the medium of Itturei Sofrim.

May I bless my master, the great Torah giant, that Hashem shall lead you over peaceful water, and bring you in peace to the place of rest and inheritance (Devarim 12:9) – to see Zion, our Holy City, and the Land of the Deer (Daniel 11:16). May you rejoice when Hashem returns the captives of His nation, when you will see the whole nation of Hashem return to Zion in joyous song.

Sign off: With a feeling of one spirit between the grand master, the glory of Israel, shlita, and that of a young servant

who bows from a distance with honor and awe, I end off with a blessing, Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen

Shemot

Why Was the Etrog Order Changed? – part II (based on ruling 74026 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)

entative of is a repres )def). The defendant (=AM(= arba minim) is an Israeli merchant of plThe plaintiff (= :CaseCompany P (=CP), which sells in several places abroad. Def and pl signed a contract for specific amounts and prices of AM (in the thousands), with pl arranging where and how def would receive merchandise. The sides had disagreements about several things, including the quality of the lulavim and etrogim, due to which def did not pay pl in full. Mr. S, an AM appraiser, who represented CP, worked out a new deal between the orchard owner (oo) and CP, which was written down and signed a week later. Therefore, def claims that pl does not deserve any cut in the eventual etrog sale. [Those issues were easily adjudicated by beit din]. Def is countersuing for damages that pl caused, primarily because oo, who was supposed to provide the etrogim, did not give def as many etrogim and of the right type as he requested. Since CP ordered sales rooms and advertised for a larger quantity than they received, CP is making def pay damages ($85,000), and def is demanding that amount from pl. Def blames pl for not making a written agreement with oo or coming to the orchard to make sure the agreement went through.

Last time we saw that pl was not negligent in not signing a contract with oo or coming to help def negotiate with [ :Rulinghim.] There were conflicting testimonies in beit din regarding the question if oo was willing to go along with the agreement that he and pl had worked out. Mr. S said that because oo thought it was too much merchandise to trust CP to pay for, oo refused to give that which was promised. Mr. P (pl’s brother) said that oo did not trust that pl had ordered wisely, considering it was for the Diaspora, and that maybe had pl been present he could have solved the problem. Therefore, he said, the deal was only made possible by oo’s confidante, Mr. T. Mr. A also said that oo had not prepared merchandise for def, as he does for buyers he takes seriously. Oo testified that while he was surprised, he was willing to do the sale as discussed, but that he thought that CP would want a different arrangement. Actually, the claim that it was a totally new deal is something that def never raised in his letters to beit din; he raised it for the first time in the hearing. There was a contradiction in Mr. S’s testimony, who def brought as a witness, as he later said that he ignored pl’s order and pushed in a new order of his own volition. Perhaps the strongest evidence that pl’s contribution was not forgotten, is that the delivery order that oo prepared said, “for pl or Mr. S in the name of CP,” and Mr. S signed that order. Mr. S said that he did not consider that accurate but only signed about the number received. The gemara (Ketubot 24b) relates to the question if one who signs on a document affirms everything written in it or only its critical elements. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 49:7) rules that we view it in a limited manner; the Shach (ad loc. 7) views it more broadly. We cannot base ourselves strongly on Mr. P’s testimony, as he is a relative of a party, nor on Mr. S’s testimony, as he contradicted himself. [Next time, we will discuss the status of oo’s testimony and complete our treatment of the case.]

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

We daven for a complete and speedy refuah for:

Nir Rephael ben Rachel Bracha

Yisrael ben Rivka

Rivka Reena bat Gruna Natna

Meira bat Esther

Together with all cholei Yisrael

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

Comments or questions regarding articles can be sent to: info@eretzhemdah.org

Eretz Hemdah is the premier institution for training young rabbis to take the Israeli Rabbinate's rigorous Yadin Yadin examinations. Eretz Hemdah, with its distinctive blend of Religious Zionist philosophy and scholarship combined with community service, ensures that its graduates emerge with the finest training, the noblest motivations resulting in an exceptionally strong connection to Jewish communities worldwide.

Shemot