Ribbis Devarim
[A] (halacha 1007)
Question: Can there be a problem of ribbis (interest) in speech? (1)
Answer: The Mishnah in Tractate Bava Metzia1 says: 'Rabbi Shimon says: there is interest of speech; he shall not say to him, "Know that so-and-so has come from such-and-such a place."' And in the Beraisa there: 'It was taught, Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: From where do we know that one who is owed a maneh by his fellow, and is not accustomed to greet him first, that it is forbidden to greet him first - Scripture teaches "neshech kol davar asher yishach" (interest of anything that may be lent on interest) - even speech is forbidden'.
And in the Midrash it states2: 'And how far does the stringency of interest extend, even if he was not accustomed to greet him first, and once he borrowed from him he greets him first, this is interest of speech and is forbidden'.
And the Rambam wrote3: 'One who borrows from his fellow and was not previously accustomed to greet him first, it is forbidden to greet him first, and needless to say to praise him with words or to come early to his door, for it is stated "neshech kol davar" (interest of anything) - even words are forbidden, and likewise it is forbidden for him to teach the lender Scripture or Gemara as long as his money is in his hand if he was not accustomed to this previously, for it is stated "neshech kol davar"'.
> The Rishonim disagreed whether this derivation is either of Torah origin (d'oraisa), or whether it is rabbinic (d'rabbanan) and the derivation is an asmachta, as follows:
There are Rishonim who appear to have held that this is a complete derivation, and it is forbidden by Torah law, as the Tosafos wrote4: 'From where is tzedakah - And if you ask, there is tzedakah from what he returns to him to lie upon it, and one can answer that he derives it from the fact that it is written "and he shall sleep in his garment and bless you," and were he not to acquire it for him, then when the poor man blesses him it would be interest of speech for him'5.
And the Yereim wrote6: 'We learned in the Mishnah, R' Shimon says there is interest of speech, "Know that so-and-so has come from such-and-such a place." It was taught, Rashbi says: From where do we know that one who is owed a maneh by his fellow and is not accustomed to greet him first, that it is forbidden to greet him first - Scripture teaches "neshech kol davar asher yishach," even speech is forbidden'7.
And the Smag wrote8: 'And although money and food are written in the verse, it is not specifically so, for the same applies to anything, for it was taught9: From where do we include anything? Scripture teaches "neshech kol davar asher yishach," and even interest of speech is forbidden, such as greeting first one whom he is not accustomed to greet, or such as if he said to him "Know that so-and-so has come from such-and-such a place"'.
And the Rivash wrote10: 'And surely even to greet him first, if he is not accustomed, is forbidden, since it is written "neshech kol davar asher yishach," even speech is forbidden'11.
On the other hand, there are Rishonim who held that the derivation is an asmachta and the prohibition is rabbinic, as the Rambam wrote in his Commentary on the Mishnah12: 'The words of Rabban Gamliel and R' Shimon are all correct, but you must know that these matters and the like are merely repugnant matters'.
And the Meiri cited him13: 'The Rambam said that what Rabban Gamliel and R' Shimon said is all halacha, but you must know that these matters and the like are matters from which it is fitting merely to distance oneself'.
And in the Sefer HaTerumos he wrote14: 'And likewise the Sages forbade that the lender say to the borrower, "Know if so-and-so has come from such-and-such a place." As we learned in Eizehu Neshech, R' Shimon says there is interest of speech, how so? He shall not say to him, "Know if so-and-so has come from such-and-such a place"'.
And so wrote the Ran15: 'But certainly by rabbinic law, even regarding land and even with less than the value of a perutah, it is forbidden, for it is no less than interest of speech'16.
And Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote17: 'There is advance interest, such as where he set his eyes to borrow from him and sends him gifts and says to him, "in order that you lend to me." And likewise there is delayed interest, such as where he borrowed from him and sends him a gift and said, "on account of your money that lay idle with me," and all this is forbidden, and even interest of speech such as "Know if so-and-so has come from such-and-such a place" is forbidden'18.
And so wrote the Kiryas Sefer19: 'That which we derive "neshech kol davar," even speech is forbidden, it appears that this is an asmachta, for even with money, if he did not fix it, it is not interest of Torah law'20.
> Thus we have seen that there is a prohibition of interest of speech, and the Rishonim disagreed whether this prohibition is of Torah law or rabbinic; in the next halacha we will see the details of the prohibition, and the position of the Alter Rebbe regarding this prohibition
Notes:
1 עה, ב ↩
2 פסיקתא זוטרתא (לקח טוב) משפטים פכ"ב פסוק כד ↩
3 הל' מלוה ולוה פ"ה הי"ב ↩
4 קידושין ח, ב ↩
5 וראה נתיבות סי' עב ביאורים ס"ק טו. קו"ש קידושין אות עז: 'מבואר מדבריהם דריבית דברים אסור מדאורייתא ..' ↩
6 סי' קיח ↩
7 וראה תועפות ראם אות ז: 'מסידור לשון רבינו שכתב מקודם הך דרבית דברים ואח"כ כתב ותולדות הרבית נראה דרבית דברים אסור מן התורה ולכאורה נראה דמאחר שלא קצץ הרבית בשעת ההלוואה לא הוי אלא איסורא דרבנן' ↩
8 לאוין סי' קצא - קצג ↩
9 סא, א ↩
10 שו"ת סי' קמז ↩
11 ראה מקור מים חיים (להר' יעקב מאיר פאדווא) סי' קס סי"א ↩
12 ב"מ פ"ה מי"א ↩
13 ב"מ שם ↩
14 שער מו ח"ג אות יג ↩
15 כתובות טז, ב מדפי הרי"ף ↩
16 ראה מקור מים חיים שם ↩
17 מישרים נתיב ח ח"א כז, ב ↩
18 כתב התועפות ראם שם: 'ולשון רבינו ירוחם .. ורבית מוקדמת ומאוחרת לא הוי אלא דרבנן ומדסיים אח"כ ואפי' רבית דברים ש"מ דזה אינו אלא דרבנן דאל"כ הי' לו לכתוב מקודם רבית דברים שאסור מן התורה ואח"כ דין רבית מוקדמת כו'' ↩
19 הל' מלוה ולוה פ"ה ↩
20 וכ"כ החכמת אדם כלל קלא סי"א ↩
[B] (halacha 1008)
Greeting first
Question: What are the things forbidden because of interest of speech? (1)
Answer: The Gemara in Tractate Bava Metzia1 says: 'It was taught, Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: From where do we know that one who is owed a maneh by his fellow, and is not accustomed to greet him first, that it is forbidden to greet him first'2.
And in the Tosefta3 it states: 'R' Akiva says: interest is grave, for even an inquiry of well-being is interest. How so? He did not inquire of his well-being in his lifetime until he borrowed from him, and he greeted him first with an inquiry of well-being - even an inquiry of well-being is interest'.
And so it is written in the Talmud Yerushalmi4: 'Rabbi Shimon says: interest is grave, for even an inquiry of well-being is interest. He never inquired of his well-being in his days, and because he borrowed from him he greeted him first, this is interest'.
And the Rambam wrote5: 'One who borrows from his fellow and was not previously accustomed to greet him first, it is forbidden to greet him first'.
[Regarding the definition of being accustomed to greet him, the Marbeh Torah (Posek) wrote6: '"Accustomed" in the language of the Shas and the poskim means two or three times .. and therefore there is no leniency unless the borrower greeted him first two or three times, for if only one time, and now he greets him first, and there is room to attribute it both to permissibility and prohibition, it has the appearance of interest in the view of the Shach (s.k. 4), but according to what is written in the Yerushalmi and the Tosefta at the end of their chapter, "and that is where he did not inquire of his well-being in his days," it implies that if he inquired once previously, it is permitted, like the view of the aforementioned Hagahos Mordechai, and it emerges that this is a dispute among the Rishonim'].
It is written in the Hagahos Mordechai7: 'And it is astonishing, for further on in our chapter we say "From where do we know that one who is owed by his fellow and is not accustomed to greet him first etc.," and even though there he did not lend him with that in mind - one can answer that there it is different, such as where he explicitly said to him "I am doing this on account of your money," similar to delayed interest, as we learned [further on] he borrowed from him and returned his money to him and would send [him] and say "on account of your money that lay idle with me" [*etc.]'.
From his words it is understood that the entire prohibition of greeting first is only in a case where he says to him that he is greeting him first because of the loan, but the Beis Yosef wrote8: 'And even though it is written in the Hagahos Mordechai that it is forbidden to greet him first only specifically where he says to him "in reward for your money," this is not implied from the words of the other commentators, but rather it is forbidden in every case'9.
It is written in the Hagahos Maimoniyos10: 'But if he shows him favor and the lender also responds to him and shows him favor, there is nothing in this'.
And so it is written in the Hagahos Mordechai11: 'And it is forbidden to greet him first if he is not accustomed to greet, but if he shows [meaning before the loan] him favor and the lender also treats him kindly and shows him favor, in this there is no objection, so the Ravyah; and it requires examination [and in the chapter] Mi Shemes [we say] the gifts of groomsmen do not involve interest [because it is not] given with that in mind'.
The Beis Yosef there, citing their words, writes: 'And the language of the Beraisa which teaches "it is forbidden to greet him first" is difficult for me, for it implies that even though the lender too responds to him it is forbidden, and furthermore the language "shows him favor" does not apply to giving a greeting, and if we explain this "shows him favor" as giving him favor for having lent to him, it is difficult, for surely it is forbidden, all the more so than greeting first; and furthermore, regarding the lender, what does "shows him favor" apply to, and it requires examination'12.
And as halacha the Mechaber wrote13: 'If he was not accustomed to greet him first, it is forbidden to greet him first'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe14: 'And even to speak a good word on account of the loan or on account of extending the time is forbidden, such as to greet him first if he was not accustomed to greet him from the start'.
And the Maharikash wrote15, cited by the Chida16: 'And surely they said that he must not greet him first only while the lender's money is still in his hand .. and not after repayment, and furthermore, for if you say that even after repayment he may not greet him first if he was not accustomed previously, then anyone who lent his fellow once would be forbidden all his days to greet him first, and this is a thing that has no basis ..'.
The Darkei Teshuvah wrote17: 'See in the Sefer Marbeh Torah there, os 2, who proved that it is forbidden specifically when one says "shalom" with his mouth, but with merely giving a hand as is customary out of respect, one can say there is no concern, see there'.
Some have written18 that in a case where the lender greeted him first, it is permitted to return the greeting19, and even to repeat "shalom shalom" in the manner of those who respond and double "shalom," since this "shalom" that the borrower says is not in exchange for the loan but in exchange for the "shalom" that the lender said to him.
> Thus we have seen that one who was not accustomed to say "shalom" to his fellow, and now says it to him because of the loan, there is in this a prohibition of interest of speech; however, the entire prohibition is during the time that the loan money is with the borrower, but after he has repaid the debt he may inquire of his well-being
--------------
Notes:
1 עה, ב ↩
2 המשנה באבות פ"ד מט"ו אומרת: 'רבי מתיא בן חרש אומר הוי מקדים בשלום כל אדם'. וכתב השלמת חיים יו"ד סי' מ: 'והנה זה חידוש גדול דאם לא היה נזהר מקודם במצוה זה שנאמר לו יחזור ויאכל שום, וגבי ללמוד עם בנו אפשר אחרי דהדרך לקבל שכר אינו מצווה, ברם בספר 'אורות אלים' כתב מהזוה"ק דאינו כדאי להקדים למי שאינו ראוי, אמנם במשנה וגמרא לא נזכר חילוק, וכו'. תשובה: *אדרבה זה מוסר גדול על חומר הריבית, שאפילו בדבר מצוה אם לא היה רגיל מקודם יש בו משום ריבית*, ולאחר שענין הקדמת שלום הוא לברכו, אבל באופן זה לא תחשב לברכה גם להמלוה' ↩
3 ב"מ פ"ו הי"ז ↩
4 ב"מ פ"ה ה"ח ↩
5 הל' מלוה ולוה פ"ה הי"ב ↩
6 יו"ד סי' קס אות ה ↩
7 ב"מ רמז תלג ↩
8 יו"ד סי' קס ↩
9 וראה מש"כ המל"מ הל' מלוה ולוה פ"ה הי"ג. גידולי תרומה שער מו ח"ג או יא ↩
10 הל' מלוה ולוה פ"ה אות ל ↩
11 ב"מ רמז תמא ↩
12 וראה אהלי יעקב למהריק"ש סי' קכו שכתב: 'והמלוה מחזיק לו טובה ג"כ על שפרע לו בנחת ולא אטרוחיה בגביית שלו'. והב"ח יו"ד סי' קס תכב: 'כתב האגודה סו"פ איזהו נשך (סי' קיב) כתב ראבי"ה אם מחזיק לו הלוה טובה יאמר המלוה גם אני אחזיק לך ואין לחוש עכ"ל. פירוש מיירי בעשיית טובה כגון לדבר בשבילו לפני השררה וכיו"ב מענייני גמ"ח וטובת הנאה כשעושה הלוה למלוה איזו טובה אז יאמר לו המלוה גם אני אחזיק לך טובה לפעם אחרת בכיו"ב שעשית לי ואין לחוש ורצונו לומר דאע"פ שלא יעשה לו שום טובה סגי באמירה בעלמא לפי שדרך הוא שזה עושה עם זה טובה כזו ועד"ז הוא הפירוש בהגה"מ פ"ה מהל' מלוה והגהות מרדכי סו"פ איזהו נשך שכתבו אם מחזיק לו טובה והמלוה משיב לו גם הוא ומחזיק לו טובה אין בכך כלום עכ"ל דהיינו לומר שכל אחד מחזיק טובה וגמ"ח לחבירו לפעמים לוה למלוה ולפעמים מלוה ללוה וכ"כ הרב בהגהת שו"ע סו"ס זה (סכ"ג) ונתיישב מה שהיה קשה לב"י' ↩
13 שו"ע יו"ד סי' קס סי"א ↩
14 שו"ע יו"ד הל' ריבית והלכות עיסקא ס"ט ↩
15 נסמן בהערה 12 ↩
16 שיו"ב יו"ד שם ס"ק ו ↩
17 שו"ע יו"ד שם עו ↩
18 ראה דברי סופרים (יברוב) יו"ד שם אות סג ↩
19 ואיתא בברכות ו, ב שמי שאינו מחזיר שלום נק' גזלן ↩
[C] (halacha 1009)
Words of praise
Question: Is it permitted to thank the lender for the loan when he gives the loan?
Answer: The Rambam wrote1: 'One who borrows from his fellow and was not previously accustomed to greet him first, it is forbidden to greet him first, and needless to say to praise him with words'.
And the Beis Yosef wrote2: '.. And if we explain this "shows him favor" as giving him favor for having lent to him, it is difficult, for surely it is forbidden'.
However the Maharikash wrote3: 'However, showing favor at the time he lends to him - such is the way of people regarding any help and assistance that a person finds from his fellow, and it is not agar notar (payment for waiting), for even if he had not waited for him a moment over the money .. it is customary to show him favor over this, and the lender too will surely respond to him with words of greeting, favor, and kindness, and if so, this is like one who is accustomed to greet him first, which is permitted .. This is what appears to me in answer to your question, that at the time of the loan or at the time of repayment, when the lender responds to him, there is no concern in the greeting that the borrower extends first at that time, even if he was not accustomed to do so; it is true that if the lender does not respond to him and acts haughtily toward the borrower by not responding to him with words of greeting, it is because of the money in the borrower's hand, and therefore the Rishonim stipulated that the lender respond to him; however, when not at the time of the loan and not at the time of repayment, even if the lender responds to his words, it is not customary to do so at that time ..'.
And likewise we find poskim who wrote that indeed many people are lenient in this and thank the lender immediately at the time of the loan or at the time of repayment (and they did not mention that this is on condition that the lender responds to him4).
As the Darkei Teshuvah wrote5: 'See in the Sefer Marbeh Torah s.k. 29, who alerts about the common practice that people are lenient and not careful, and one says thank you to the lender immediately after repayment of the free-loan money, and even though the prohibition is only as long as his money is in his hand, nevertheless it is proper to wait some time after repayment of the money, not within the span of a "toch kedei dibbur," and in any case the span of a "kedei dibbur" of four words; but if he sends a messenger to give him thanks (and this is not the messenger for repayment of the money), in this it is more lenient, for there is no concern, since matters are not entrusted to a messenger, see there'.
And in the Torah Temimah he wrote6: 'And it should be noted, whether the practice is correct that people acknowledge thanks to one another for a free-loan, whether there is not in this something of interest of speech, and one can say that since it is a matter of derech eretz to thank one another for the effort, such acknowledgment is not directed at the loan itself but at the effort of the matter'.
And so held at first Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach7: 'But saying thank you, I think there is no prohibition at all in this .. and likewise saying "thank you" is merely as if the lender stipulated with the borrower that he should not be ungrateful to any person, and even to the lender it is clear that heaven forbid the borrower should be as one who denies the kindness that the lender did for him, and he is rightly obligated to show him favor, and to give him priority in a matter that he himself does not lose and also does not cause the lender a monetary gain, and the borrower is also permitted to give a gift to the lender for having lent to him, if the lender does not know at all that the borrower is the giver, and that which it is forbidden to greet first is because it is a blessing, and likewise that which it is forbidden to say "inform me etc." is because he takes effort for him, or as the Taz wrote there, because in this he is commanded over him and submits, which is worse'.
However in the words of the Alter Rebbe8 it is explicit as forbidden: 'And even to speak a good word on account of the loan or on account of extending the time is forbidden .. and needless to say to praise him to his face or to thank, and to show him favor9 or to bless him to his face for having lent to him or for having extended the time for him, for it is stated "neshech kol davar asher yishach," even speech is forbidden. And if he needs to ask him to lend to him or to extend the time for him, he should ask with words of supplication alone and not with words of praise and adulation or other flattering words'.
And so held simply the responsa Igros Moshe10: 'Whether it is permitted to give thanks in his book that he prints to the one who lent him money for the printing of his book .. it appears in my humble opinion that just as in the language of thanks it is forbidden to say to the lender for his loan because of the law of interest of speech, it is also forbidden to write and to print ..'.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach too retracted his words above that he wrote in the Minchas Shlomo, and as it is cited there in his book11, that in a letter he wrote that he retracted, since after he publicized the leniency he became aware of the words of the aforementioned Alter Rebbe, and he was distressed that they had not publicized that he retracted, and that there is no leniency to say thank you for a loan because of interest of speech.
> Thus in practice, according to the Alter Rebbe and other poskim12 one should not say thank you for a loan because of interest of speech; in the next halacha we will see further details in this law.
--------------
Notes:
1 הל' מלוה ולוה פ"ה הי"ב ↩
2 יו"ד סי' קס ↩
3 אהלי יעקב סי' קכו ↩
4 אמנם בשו"ת עשה לך רב ח"ז סי' סא שהזכיר שיש למלווה להשיב כדברי המהריק"ש, וכתב: 'ברור מעתה שאמירת תודה מותרת גם בשעת קבלת ההלואה, וגם בשעת הפרעון, ובלבד שגם המלוה ישמיע באזני הלוה דברי שלום חן וחסד, וכמי שנוהגים בנ"א בזמנינו, שעונים על אמירת תודה 'אין בעד מה', או 'על לא דבר', שבזה מתכוין להקטין את מעשה הטובה שעשה עמו. וכל שכן אם יוסיף דברים להקטין יותר הטובה, כאומר 'בלאו - הכי היו המעות בטלות אצלי' וכדומה, ובודאי שאמירת תודה מותרת. אבל שלא בשעת קבלת ההלואה וכן שלא בשעת הפרעון, פשוט שאין דרך בני אדם להחזיק טובה באותה שעה, ואסור, שאז הוא מחמת המעות שבידיו בלבד, והיא רבית דברים האסורה' ↩
5 יו"ד סי' קס ס"ק פז ↩
6 דברים פכ"ג הערה קה ↩
7 שו"ת מנחת שלמה ח"א סי' כז ↩
8 שו"ע יו"ד הל' ריבית והלכות עיסקא ס"ט ↩
9 ויש שרצו לומר בדעת אדמו"ר הזקן שהאיסור הוא רק בצירוף של להודות ולהחזיק לו טובה, אמנם לכאורה אין זה פשטות כוונתו ↩
10 יו"ד ח"א סי' פ ↩
11 שם הערה 1 ↩
12 סיפור נאה מובא בחשוקי חמד ב"מ עה, ב: 'ר"ש שוואב סיפר שבישיבת מיר בחו"ל היה מנהג שלפני שנסעו הבחורים לביתם בסוף הזמן, היו נכנסים למשגיח ר' ירוחם, מקבלים ממנו הלוואה לנסיעה, וכשחזרו בתחילת הזמן החזירו את ההלוואה. והוא כבחור צעיר ניגש בסוף הזמן הראשון שלו בישיבה לקבל את ההלוואה, ולאחר שקיבל את הכסף אמר 'תודה'. והמשגיח גער בו האם אינך יודע שתודה זו אסורה מדין ריבית דברים. ויהי בסוף הזמן השני, כאשר קיבל רבי שמעון את ההלוואה, לא אמר תודה. ור' ירוחם גער בו שוב, אינך מתבייש, קיבלת הלואה ואינך אומר תודה, הלא יש בכך חוסר נימוס ודרך ארץ. משהתפלא ר' שמעון על ההוראה הסותרת, הסביר לו המשגיח דמיר צריך להיות ברור שהאדם מצד עצמו רוצה לומר תודה, וחייב לומר תודה, על כל טובה שעושים לו. אלא מאי, שהשו"ע פוסק שאסור, וממילא אסור לומר, אבל משהתבוננתי בפניך ראיתי שקיבלת את הוראתי הקודמת כדבר המובן מאליו שלא אומרים תודה וזהו'. בספר עברא דדשא (ח"ב ע' ריא הערה ב) כתב על אביו בעל הפני מנחם: 'בעיני ראיתי מעשה רב אצל כ"ק א"א זצ"ל שפעם החזיר הלוואה ואמר למלוה: 'הרי אסור להודות אבל זו באמת טובה גדולה', ולמדתי מכאן שאין איסור להראות לו שהוא מבין ומרגיש את החסד שעשה עמו, רק אסור לו להודות או לברכו, אבל להראות לו שמכיר לו טובה מותר' ↩
[D] (halacha 1010)
Words of praise
In the previous halacha we saw that it is forbidden to say thank you for the loan because of interest of speech.
Question: What is the law regarding saying words of praise or a blessing to the lender for the loan?
Answer: The Rambam wrote1: 'It is forbidden to greet him first, and needless to say to praise him with words'.
And the Tosafos wrote2: 'And one can answer that he derives it from the fact that it is written (Devarim 24) "and he shall sleep in his garment and bless you," and were he not to acquire it for him, then when the poor man blesses him it would be interest of speech for him'.
And the Chupas Eliyahu wrote3: 'Avak ribbis, such as where his fellow lent him money and when he repays him he says to him "may Hashem repay you the kindness you did with me"'.
As halacha the Alter Rebbe wrote4: 'And needless to say to praise him .. or to bless him to his face5 for having lent to him or for having extended the time for him, for it is stated "neshech kol davar asher yishach," even speech is forbidden'.
> Saying "may you merit mitzvos" or "yasher koach"
The Pele Yoetz wrote6: 'It is forbidden to give interest of speech, such as to greet first one who borrowed from him if he was not accustomed to that beforehand, or to give him favorable words at the time he repays him; in this too one must be careful, only he may say to him "may you merit mitzvos," for his fellow too will respond by blessing him as is customary'.
However Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach wrote7: 'And many therefore have the practice to say in its place "may you merit mitzvos," and in my humble opinion they do not do well, for "may you merit mitzvos" is literally a blessing, and that is interest of speech, as the Tosafos wrote in Kiddushin 8b s.v. tzedakah'.
And in the Bris Yehudah he wrote8: From what the Rav [=the Alter Rebbe] wrote, that it is forbidden to bless him, it appears that likewise it is forbidden to say "yasher koach" to him. However, another blessing not connected to the matter of the loan, such as a blessing of "mazel tov" and the like, there is no concern. And the world has the practice to say "may you merit mitzvos," and some cast doubt on this, since it is forbidden to bless him. And it is possible to find a basis to justify it, for he is not blessing him with this and is not giving him anything of his own, but rather is saying to him that just as he merited the mitzvah of free-loan, may Hashem bless him and may he merit other mitzvos, as they said "one mitzvah draws another mitzvah," and "the reward of a mitzvah belongs to the Lender [i.e., God]"; whereas when he blesses him with another blessing, the blessing of a Jew - even an ordinary person - involves something of his own giving, and even according to this reasoning it appears that it is forbidden to make for him a "Mi Shebeirach" in the synagogue, because there is in this also a matter of honor on the part of the borrower'.
[And in the Chayei HaLevi he wrote9: 'And regarding saying "yasher koach," some have argued to permit it, but in practice it appears that one may say "yasher koach" for the effort, for in this he reveals his intent that it is not for the loan itself'.
But in the Tiferes HaRav (Teitelbaum) on the Shulchan Aruch HaRav10 he wrote that this is correct only in a case where the lender truly took effort in order to give the loan. And even in a case where he took effort, it appears that it is forbidden to say so to him, for after all when he says to him "yasher koach" for the effort, in essence he is saying to him "yasher koach" for the loan. But he concluded that he may say to him "it is forbidden to say yasher koach because of a concern of interest," (and see further there what he was precise to say specifically in this formulation)].
> Thus in practice it appears that although the world has the practice to be lenient in saying "yasher koach" or "may you merit mitzvos," according to the position of the Alter Rebbe it is not proper to be lenient in this.
★ ★ ★
Question: Is it permitted to flatter the lender?
Answer: It is written in the Orchos Tzaddikim11: 'And a person may flatter .. his creditor - so that he not press him'.
However the Alter Rebbe there wrote: 'And if he needs to ask him to lend to him or to extend the time for him, he should ask with words of supplication alone and not with words of praise and adulation or other flattering words'.
And some have understood that in his words he disagrees with the Orchos Chaim, who wrote that one may flatter a creditor so that he not press him, as the Pnei Menachem wrote in his glosses on the Rambam12: 'And see in the Sefer Orchos Tzaddikim Shaar 24, who permitted flattering the lender so that he not press him. And perhaps it speaks there of a non-Jewish lender, and perhaps "so that he not press him" forcibly is different, and it requires great examination. And perhaps it speaks of a creditor where the money did not come from a lender to a borrower. And in the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchos Ribbis, he explicitly forbade flattery to a lender. And behold, the very act of flattery, even not to a lender, is a sin, and this is not the place to elaborate on this'.
However some have written13 to explain that there is no dispute from here, since one must distinguish between flattery merely so that the lender not pursue him, and flattery whose purpose is to receive a loan or to extend the time, which is like a new loan, as explained in the words of the Alter Rebbe with God's help, that is, the prohibition explained in the words of the Alter Rebbe is flattery whose purpose is to receive a loan, whereas the flattery permitted in the Orchos Chaim has as its purpose only to remove the pressure.
> Thus we have seen that there is a prohibition to flatter in order to receive a loan or to postpone repayment; however, some were lenient to flatter provided that the entire purpose is that the lender not pressure the borrower. In the next halacha we will deal with memorializing the lender in the printing of a book.
Notes:
1 הל' מלוה ולוה פ"ה הי"ב ↩
2 קידושין ח, ב ↩
3 סי' לד ↩
4 הל' רבית ועסקא ס"ט ↩
5 מלשון אדמו"ר הזקן דייקו האחרונים (ראה ברית יהודה פי"א הערה סג. ועוד) שכל האיסור בזה הוא רק בפניו ↩
6 ערך דיבור ↩
7 מנחת שלמה ח"א סי' כז ↩
8 פי"א הערה סד ↩
9 ח"ה סי' סט אות ו ↩
10 אות יג ↩
11 שער החניפות ↩
12 הל' מלוה ולוה שם ↩
13 ברית יהודה שם הערה סה ↩
[E] (halacha 1011)
Words of praise
Question: Is it permitted to print a dedication in a book to the lender?
Answer: In the introduction to the Sefer Knesses HaGedolah the author wrote: 'Blessings too shall envelop the wealthy and most exalted man, worthy of praise, desirous of kindness, the honorable Rav Chaim Pinya, may his Rock protect and preserve him, of the inhabitants of Izmir, may Hashem build it, who provided the source of silver and lent from his money a loan of favor of two hundred reales for the printing of this book; may the Master of recompense grant him reward in sons and grandsons to the third and fourth generations, and they shall be wise men of wisdom, and may he live and may He give him of the gold of Sheba unto thousands of myriads, amen'.
And in the responsa Imrei Eish of the Maharam Eish (Eisenstadt), which his sons published, they wrote: 'And these shall stand upon the blessing, may Hashem add to them a thousand times so, and send blessing and success in the work of their hands .. and in particular to our honored one, the renowned philanthropist praised for good, who fears Hashem above many, and whose righteousness endures forever, our teacher Yosef Weinberger of the holy community of Ungvar, may Hashem build it, who provided the source of silver to lend us a certain sum for the printing of the Sefer Imrei Eish ..'.
But in the Erech Shai (Tabak)1 he objected to this: 'According to this it appears to me that what I saw in the responsa Imrei Eish, at the opening of the gate and at the end of the book, where they mentioned there the names of those who lent to them for the purpose of the printing and blessed them, that this is an error, for it is interest of speech, and all the more so in print, to publicize among the masses for posterity; and even though the Rema wrote in siman 172 that it is permitted to borrow with interest for the purpose of a mitzvah, that is because the mitzvah would otherwise be nullified, but after the loan, no'.
> Thus we have seen that there were several of the great ones of Israel who printed in their books words of blessing for the people who lent to them for the purpose of bringing out the printing of the book, and on the other hand there were great ones of Israel who objected to this, that there is in it a prohibition of interest of speech.
Below we will see several considerations and ways in which some have written that one may be lenient:
In the Marbeh Torah he wrote2: 'For we have seen in several books from great rabbis, such as the Imrei Eish, Bigdei Yesha3 and the like, who mentioned in the gate for good those who lent them free-loans for the printing. And I too was drawn after this in the gate of my book Mor VaAhalos, and seemingly it is even worse than interest of speech, which is forbidden. And according to the aforementioned in the previous s.k., that the verse is particular specifically about speech, there is room to settle it4. And further one can say, based on what is written in the introduction to the responsa Divrei Malkiel, that regarding a mitzvah which one wishes to bear fruit, that others too will learn to do likewise, it is a mitzvah to publicize the name of the doer, and likewise regarding communal Torah study, see Berachos 47 that a communal mitzvah is different; if so, it is obvious that it is permitted even where he fixed it at the time of the loan thus, and all the more so where he did not fix it, and one can say that the lender too intends for the mitzvah that others learn from him and not to increase his honor, and whenever there is room to attribute it to permissibility there is likewise no concern, per the aforementioned s.k. 27'.
And in the Darkei Teshuvah he wrote5: 'And it is obvious that when the publisher is the one trading and dealing in the book, and the loan is before him for good for the purpose of his trading to profit from this, then the words of the Rav Erech Shai apply, that it is in the category of interest of speech, but in the case that is common, where the author or the author's heirs give the book to a person to publish it and he sells the books, and since the publisher is a poor man and is unable to print it, certain wealthy men provide him money so that he can bring his plan into actuality and the book thereby comes out into the light of the world, and for this the authors or the authors' heirs or the printer of his own accord print words of praise and acclaim and a mention of thanks to the wealthy men who put into the publisher's purse for the purpose of this mitzvah, without the instruction of the publisher who is the merchant trading and dealing in this, there is no concern in my humble opinion, for it is no less than that which is below in se'if 17, that it is permitted to say to one's fellow "here is a zuz and lend ten zuz to so-and-so"'.
And in the responsa Igros Moshe he wrote6: 'It appears in my humble opinion that just as in the language of thanks it is forbidden to say to the lender for his loan because of the law of interest of speech, it is also forbidden to write and to print, but one may write in the language of a notice that he shall be blessed from heaven, for it is true that he shall be blessed in the merit of his great mitzvah, and it emerges that it is merely a notice and a relating of matters, which it is certainly permitted to publicize, how he borrowed from so-and-so such-and-such a sum, even if the lender will have benefit from it through his kindnesses being publicized, for it is a mitzvah to publicize those who do a mitzvah if they are not particular to conceal it; therefore in writing and print too one may publicize, to write in such a formulation: "A blessing is granted from Hashem to so-and-so who performs kindness and lent for the printing of the book such-and-such," or a similar example of this formulation'7.
And in the responsa Yabia Omer he wrote8: 'And seemingly even in a case where without this the mitzvah would be nullified, such as where they lent on the understanding of being publicized in a book that it would be for them as an eternal remembrance .. it should not be permitted unless we say that interest of speech is forbidden only rabbinically. And the verse that is written "kol davar asher yishach," even speech is forbidden, is merely an asmachta .. and according to the view of those who forbid it from the Torah, there is room to forbid even for the purpose of a mitzvah .. and if so, seemingly if the condition when he lent the money for printing was that he would write his name at the head of the book, there is no concern in this, especially as some say that interest of speech is only a rabbinic prohibition .. And I will not conceal that I saw in the Darkei Teshuvah, who cited in the name of the Sefer Marbeh Torah, who likewise addressed our case and tends to permit based on what the Divrei Malkiel wrote, that regarding a mitzvah which one wishes to bear fruit, that others learn from it to do likewise themselves, it is a mitzvah to publicize the name of the doer for good etc. .. nevertheless in my humble opinion it is difficult to rely on permitting it unless the lender waives part of the loan and gives it as advance payment for the book, for then it is permitted to write him words of praise and blessing .. and it appears that likewise if they repaid the debt it is permitted to write him thanks, if the lender responds to him with words of favor and kindness that the author was willing to record his name as an eternal remembrance, and all the more so if he will also buy a book from him and pay him generously, that the author is permitted to express to him his thanks and blessing'.
And in the responsa Tzitz Eliezer9, in a letter to Rav B. Silber, he wrote: 'When I began to study his second book, Hilchos Sheviis, I saw that on the second page from the title page he mentions for good and for blessing esteemed brothers who lent him money for the printing of the book from funds of a foundation that they established and administer. And therefore I wish to turn the attention of his pure spirit to the fact that there is in this matter a question of interest of speech, which includes also not to bless him .. and the Darkei Teshuvah .. cites in the name of the Sefer Marbeh Torah, who tended to permit based on what is written in the Sefer Divrei Malkiel, that regarding a mitzvah which one wishes to bear fruit, that others learn from it to do likewise themselves, it is a mitzvah to publicize the name of the doer for good etc., see there; and in my humble opinion this is a very forced resolution, and one also needs intent of the heart for this without any other ulterior motive, and the heart knows etc. .. and perhaps in the case of his honor they did not wish to lend to him had he not promised them that he would publicize them for praise and blessing, and the mitzvah of printing would have been nullified, and therefore there is room to say that this is already like before the loan, and it is therefore comparable to the words of the aforementioned Rema that permits for the purpose of a mitzvah'.
> Thus it appears that there is a problem of interest of speech in writing thanks for a loan in a book, [and some have written various ways in which one may permit this: a) when it is for the purpose of a mitzvah and not to increase the honor of the lender. b) when the writer of the blessing is not the one receiving the loan, such as in a case where the book is brought out by a publisher. c) when it is not in the formulation of a blessing from the borrower, but rather the formulation is that for this matter he receives the blessing of Hashem. d) when part of the loan is given as advance payment for receiving the book. e) the printing is after repayment of the loan].
Notes:
1 מהדו"ב להל' רבית דף פט ↩
2 יו"ד סי' קס ס"ק כט (וראה בשו"ת בנו הלל אומר יו"ד סי' עה) ↩
3 שו"ת בגדי ישע להר' שמואל ב"ר יוסף הלוי מביאלסטוק ↩
4 וראה שו"ת יביע אומר ח"ד יו"ד סי' ט ↩
5 סי' קס ס"ק פח ↩
6 יו"ד ח"א סי' פ ↩
7 כתב ביביע אומר ח"ד יו"ד סי' ט: 'ולכאורה קשה דמהיכא פשיט"ל שמותר גם לברכו על הלואתו, והרי מדברי התוס' קידושין (ח:) מתבאר כל בתר איפכא, שאם מברכו הו"ל רבית דברים. והא ודאי שבכל אופן אסור לברכו בין בפניו בין שלא בפניו'. וראה בהלכה 1010 הע' 5 ↩
8 נסמן בהערה 7 ↩
9 ח"ט סי' טו ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project - daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha - Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp Group