The difference between a loan and a sale
The former were divided in the chapter on whether the law of interest applies to land, slaves, and bills. When it depends on the question – whether a loan applies to land. Two explanations offered by the latter to explain why land is not included in the category of a loan say this: A. A loan is for something that is consumed in use, and land is not. on. In a loan, one returns it to him without an assessment, which is not the case with land that must be valued before being returned. Therefore, when one returns another piece of land to the “lender”, it is a sale and not a loan. And I was puzzled by these definitions, which seemingly present technical differences without a clear explanation. Therefore, I thought of giving one explanation that includes both definitions together. And the explanation is as follows – a sale is a consideration and a loan is a completion. That is, in a loan, the borrower is not obligated to return the object itself in peace (as in a loan) nor something completely different (as in a sale), but rather to complete it in the same kind as the object itself (or in the same kind as the coins or fruits). To return the same kind in the same measure and in the same weight, more or less. In contrast to a sale, which returns a consideration for what was received in terms of the monetary value of the product received, regardless of the type, measure and weight. Therefore, when it is necessary to specify what is returned (as in the case of slave lands and bills of exchange), this defines the relationship between the giver and the recipient as seller and customer, because the value transferred to him is measured and what he has to return in return, in contrast to the lender and borrower, who clearly and clearly know what he must return, since the obligation is to complete the same object and not to return a consideration for the value received. Therefore, even in the case of a perishable thing, the thing is defined as a loan, since the lender would be interested in the return of the very thing that he lent, if it had not been perishable. And having no choice, he agrees to the return in kind of what he lent. However, in the case of land, which can receive back the same land and still chooses to ask for other land in return, the act proves by itself that it is not a loan and it is not a return, because if it were so – he would demand the same land back. Not only can he demand return in kind of what he lent, he can demand exactly what he lent. And in any case, it is proven from this that he is not interested in the land back as a return for what he lent, but as a return for it.
I was interested in hearing the Rabbi’s opinion regarding Sabra.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A. The definition of a loan according to my system is the lender's desire for the thing itself, which the borrower, having no choice but to take as a kind what he borrowed. Therefore, categorically, land cannot be associated with a loan, because as mentioned, the lender would demand it itself if he were interested in it. Land for sale is more similar, in that he is interested in its value in return, even though the value is limited only to the form of another land. Similar to a person who brings money to a seller in exchange for oranges, whose act is defined as buying and selling even though he is specifically interested in oranges and not in any type of thing worth money. B. Ostensibly, the reason why a loan is defined as giving a gift is not because it is assumed in the lender's mind that he wanted it that way. Otherwise, why would the Torah require him to repay him, how is he different from a regular gift giver? (Accordingly, the definition also does not include a person who declared that he was interested in repayment or a person who lent a million dollars) but we consider him to be a gift giver, because logically a person is not obligated to return something he received with permission. (As far as I understand this innovation that seemingly ignores the "money behind your back" argument.) Therefore, that argument belongs on the ground just as much.
But he does not receive the thing itself, but rather as a kind of thing of the same value. And it is exactly the same as a regular loan. In terms of the same thing, it is exactly like a loan, but also in this respect, even in a regular loan, the same value is required. It is impossible to repay a loan with a similar thing of a different value.
The definition of a loan is a definition of the Torah, not because of the lender's opinion, but if the lender's opinion is not to give a loan but to do something else, then it is not a loan.
Your understanding of "from your back" in a loan is different from your back in exchange. Therefore, I do not ignore this understanding, but rather distinguish between two shades of it. I plan to write a column about it in the future.
I will try anyway.
He always receives the same value, the only question is in what form. If we have to measure and determine how much he returns, then it is a sale. And if he returns an object or anything as it is, then we have not looked here at the consideration and the value, but at the return of an object that stands in the place of the object given. Land is an example of something that stands in the middle. On the one hand, it has the same name as the thing "peace" and on the other hand, it must be determined and perhaps therefore is considered a different species, which must also be measured and determined. I have not yet delved into the depth of the explanation that defines the loan as a gift. If this is a boundary of the Torah without explanation, then the boundary is supposed to also classify land as a gift. The same thing if we assume that something taken with permission is a gift, then the same is true of land taken with permission. And if this is from the perspective of the person, things generally require explanation. Where exactly is the difference between a loan of land and something else? In both, he gives in order to be given back, and in both, all the data is similar (if you ignore the explanations of the divisions I provided).
We repeat ourselves. The words have been said and everyone will draw their own conclusions.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
