Q&A: A Loan Written in the Torah
A Loan Written in the Torah
Question
I saw written in a certain book, as follows: there are obligations that do not arise from reason and the ordinary laws of property, but rather from the force of Torah law. That includes all twenty-four primary categories of damages, and even the liability of a damager in the case of a goring ox is not based on reason and the ordinary laws of property; for although he harmed another person and caused him a loss, that is still not a legal reason to obligate him to pay compensation for it. End quote.
I know a bit about the topic of “a loan written in the Torah.” And I have two questions:
1. Why is a damager’s liability not based on reason? It seems obvious to me, as a matter of reason, that if you damage someone’s property then you have to pay him and make up what you took away from him. What is wrong with that reasoning?
2. This is connected to the first question, but who actually determines what follows from reason and what does not? If I understand some obligation to follow from reason, can I immediately say that this obligation stems from reason?
Answer
A strange question. Nobody determines it. Each person has his own interpretation. Tosafot wrote that it is not based on reason, and that is their interpretation. You can disagree.
As for the reasoning itself, my daughter has an article about this. I’ll try to upload it here.
Discussion on Answer
The question is what exactly “a loan written in the Torah” means. Is there reasoning here? Certainly yes. And still, there is room to say that this is a loan written in the Torah. See my daughter Rivka’s article about it (it was already posted here once, but I can’t find it at the moment. I’m looking for it and then I’ll direct you to it).
It turns out that this was actually an answer to you: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%95%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94
Yes, at first I didn’t know at all what it was. Afterward I stepped away from this learning for a bit, and now I’ve come back to it fresh. I’ll read what you already sent me, thanks. I understood what the concept means, and my question above was whether everyone decides according to his own reasoning what is included in “a loan written in the Torah” and what is not, or whether there are rules in the Talmud and the sages have already instructed us what is included and what is not.
It turns out that it’s up to each person and what he thinks.
What do you think regarding someone who damages another person’s property? Is that a loan not written in the Torah (except that it is later anchored in religious commandments such as “love your neighbor,” “do not place a stumbling block,” “do not steal,” etc.), or is it a loan written in the Torah, such that without the Torah we would have no obligation to pay money to someone whose property we damaged?