Q&A: Benefit of a Loan
Benefit of a Loan
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the Mishnah in Nedarim it says that if someone is forbidden to derive benefit from his fellow, the other may still pay his shekel for him and pay off his debt. And in the Talmud they explain that this is like driving a lion away from another person’s property, which is not included in the category of benefit. How does this fit with the rule that if one betroths a woman through the benefit of a loan, the betrothal is valid? הרי there is no benefit here by which the woman would become betrothed.
Best regards,
Answer
Good question. Perhaps benefit in the form of “driving away a lion” is enough for betrothal. I am not betrothing her with the benefit itself (the waiving of the loan), but with the price I would be willing to pay to obtain it (the benefit of waiving a loan). Still, it needs a bit of further examination why the waiving of the loan itself does not include the benefit of waiving the loan. But that is a difficulty on the Talmudic passage in Kiddushin itself even without the passage about driving away a lion. Seemingly, it is only a matter of intention—what exactly he intends to use for the betrothal. Meaning: indeed, waiving the loan also gives the monetary value of the benefit of waiving the loan (= how much I would pay), but that is not what I intended to use for betrothal; rather, I intended the waiver itself, and with that one cannot effect betrothal.
Discussion on Answer
Oren,
As for the main question, it seems there is no difficulty at all. “Driving away a lion” does not mean that there is no benefit here whatsoever; obviously there is great benefit in the lion being driven away. Rather, the benefit is indirect, and the receipt of the money is not direct.
And therefore, if someone else pays a debt, he is not giving the borrower anything; he is only removing the lender. The borrower did not receive the debt itself, only the prevention of the lender no longer pressing him for payment. But if the lender himself gives the debt to the borrower, the benefit is given directly, because the lender gives the borrower the debt and the monetary right directly.
Oren,
My claim was that he did not give him that benefit. He merely spared him the need for it by waiving the loan. I think that is what Itai meant too (he spoke in terms of indirect and direct, though in that respect I do not see a difference).
I understand. The truth is that this also fits nicely with the rule of “Here is a maneh; be betrothed to So-and-so,” in which the betrothal is valid. In other words, for betrothal there has to be a giving, but not necessarily from the husband to the woman. But in the case of one forbidden to derive benefit, the entire prohibition is only on benefit that comes specifically from the fellow to the one under the vow, and not benefit that comes about on its own.
In my Talmud (Kiddushin 6a) it says that the case is where he gave her more time, and not that he betrothed her with the value of the loan; on the contrary, about that the Gemara explicitly says that she is not betrothed. If so, the question from paying another person’s debt is not understood.
Look at Rashi there: “No, it is needed in a case where he extended her time for the loan, and said to her: Be betrothed to me through this benefit, for you would have given a perutah to a person to appease me for this, or to me; and it is not at all similar even to payment for waiting. And if he specified it to her in this way, she is betrothed. It is only a subterfuge of interest, not actual interest, because he did not stipulate anything with her, and he took nothing from her. All the more so if he forgave her the entire loan and said to her: Be betrothed to me through this benefit of forgiveness, for now he is giving her this perutah of loan-benefit. But when he betroths her with the principal money, he gives her nothing, because it is already in her possession and it is hers.”
I see that Oren already answered.
According to this, if one can effect betrothal with the monetary value of the benefit of waiving the loan, why is it permitted for the fellow of the one forbidden to derive benefit to pay off his debt? After all, he is giving him a benefit of the sort with which one could betroth a woman—that is, a benefit considered money or something of monetary value—and the person under the vow is forbidden to receive any benefit whatsoever from his fellow.