It was a cold and rainy day today as the Jewish community of Istanbul buried the six members of the community who were killed in the synagogue bombings last Shabbat. I went to the funerals with both Chief Rabbis of Israel, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yonah Metzger, and the Rishon le-Zion Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar; the speaker of the Knesset Ruby Rivlin; two other members of the Knesset, Eli Yishai and Binyamin ("Fouad") Ben Eliezer; Rabbi Yechiel Wassermann and several other officials from the Jewish Agency; Rabbi Arthur Schneier of New York's Park East Synagogue; and Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt of Moscow. The funeral service was held outdoors in the rain at the cemetery; generally, funerals are held at the Neve Shalom Synagogue, but that was now destroyed. It was poignant, to say the least, to see all around us individuals with multiple bandages, clearly covering wounds they had sustained in the bombings. The funeral itself was understated-the only speakers were the Chief Rabbi of the community, Rav Isak Haleva and a community lay leader. The speeches focused on the solidarity of the Jewish community worldwide and on the confidence the speakers had in the secure place that the Jewish community has in Turkish society. In the afternoon, we had the opportunity to visit the site of the Neve Shalom Synagogue. It is impossible to describe the level of destruction. The synagogue had previously been bombed one day in 1986 at 9:17am, and the community had left in place a clock which had stopped at that time. Eerily, the bombing this Shabbat happened at 9:27am. There had been a bar mitzvah at the shul on Shabbat and the only thing seemingly untouched was the special chair the bar mitzvah boy used. You can imagine how that boy felt after the bombing, especially since some of his family were injured. It was therefore truly inspirational when we met with theboy, his parents and his sister, and when the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Yonah Metzger, gave him a gift of a Chanuka menora and invited him and his family to come to Israel to re-celebrate his bar mitzva at the Kotel. I spoke to several survivors of the bombing, some of whom felt it was a clear miracle that they survived. Rav Haleva himself told me that he had dropped his siddur and bent to pick it up just as the bombing happened. The blast went over him but seriously injured his son. Wherever I went and whomever I spoke to
was tremendously appreciative that the Orthodox Union had come to share
their pain and their distress, and to demonstrate our achdut (unity) with
the Turkish Jewish community. I was moved by their appreciation, and by
the realization that we truly are one. Q Shimon lent Levi $100, and then Levi worked for Shimon and deserved $100 for his work. If Shimon disputes the fee for his work, can Levi claim that the two financial obligations offset each other, and he is exempt from paying the loan, or must Levi pay back the loan and then make efforts to receive payment for the work? A It is unclear from the question if
there is an actual case which depends on the answer to this question, or
if it is asked out of a thirst for Torah knowledge. We may not help one
side get an upper hand in a financial dispute (see Choshen Mishpat 17).
However, we have a responsibility to answer someone as to whether what he
wants to do is permissible. 1) the obligations offset each other; The gemara (Ketubot 110a) brings two opinions if, in a case where two people borrowed money from each other, both have to pay or neither does. The gemara explains that when the payments are totally identical, it is ridiculous to just have payment change hands. It also rules that when there is a difference between the terms of the payments, the one who has the preferable terms can demand that each pay the other according to their rules. The relatively local machloket is whether there is a difference between the payments in the given case. We see then that the two opposing obligations do not simply cancel each other out. There are complex discussions of this rule's applications. Here is one example. If a defendant responds to an unproved claim by saying that he is unsure whether he ever became obligated, he is exempt. But if he was obligated and is unsure if he paid, then he must pay. What if he is unsure if the definite obligation waspreceded by an equal obligation of his counterpart to him? The K'tzot Hachoshen (75:5) says that because of the rule that obligations do not cancel each other out, we obligate the defendant to pay the definite obligation, and he loses the doubtful counter claim. We do not say that because he may have been owed first, hemay never have been obligated. The Netivot (75:5) argues that the rule of not offsetting does not apply here. He seems to contradict himself in 59:1, and the solutions are complex (see Pitchei Teshuva 75:10). If there is no canceling, then Levi should ostensibly have to pay, as you suggest. However, the Shulchan Aruch (75:7) rules that if one responds to a monetary claim with the counter claim that the plaintiff owes him also, he is exempt if neither has proof, as in effect he denies the claim that he owes money. Doesn't this undisputed halacha contradict what we have already seen? The answer seems to be based on the concept of tefisa (grabbing). There are times that one can "take the law into his own hands" and grab from the person who owes him in order to ensure payment. If nobody sees the claimant do so, the tefisa may even improve his chances in the Din Torah (court case) (see Shach 4:2). On the other hand, there are limitations on when and to what extent one is allowed to take the law into his own hands, for practical and moral reasons (see Tumim 4:2 and many other sources, ad loc.). The details are well beyond our scope. However, you (and the Shulchan Aruch 75:7) describe a case where Levi does not have to grab. Rather he can temporarily withhold payment until the other party properly addresses his claims. This is permitted even though he owes money (we do not offset obligations), as withholding facilitates his attempt to receive money he (thinks he) knows he deserves. If this is a real case, we cannot rule
if Levi deserves payment for his work. That needs to be worked out by
agreement, or by a rav or a Beit Din, authorized by both parties to
adjudicate, after hearing the claims of each. P'ninim Y'karim asks how it was that a
person like Lavan should give such a beautiful blessing to his sister, a
blessing used to this day to bless a Jewish bride.He theorizes that Lavan
was aware that children often resemble the mother's brother. His bracha to
Rivka was that she should produce many children who would be just like
Lavan - in looks and personality. Why was Avraham so adamant? Surely a committed Jew like Yitzchak would be able to set up a community with all the necessary institutions and live a full Jewish life in Mesopotamia! We are told that when Ya'akov descended to Egypt, he sent his son Yehuda ahead L'HOROT L'FANAF GOSHNA, "to show the way before him to Goshen" (Bereishit 46:28). The Midrash, quoted by Rashi, comments on these words: "To set up a house of study from which instruction would issue forth." The Jewish people in all their wander- ings demonstrated their unique ability to establish communal institutions within a short time. Look at the American Jewish community with its magnificent yeshivot, day schools, synagogues, and mikva'ot - thriving Orthodox communities rarely seen in past generations. Yet even today, Avraham would not be swayed. His words would again ring forth, "On no account shall you take my son back there!" Generations later, the Rabbis of the Mishnah imposed the status of ritual impurity on all lands outside Israel. Their reasoning was simple. In the Golah, Torah study may be profound, prayer may be intense, charitable behavior may be significant. Over all these wonderful elements, however, there hovers an oppressive cloud of foreign values and influence that spreads its insidious poison into our spiritual lives and those of our children. Only in Israel does the possibility exist, difficult as it may be, to create an all-encompassing world of Torah for ourselves, our children and generations beyond. Rabbi Sender Shizgal, Ramot, Jerusalem To purchase his chosen plot, Avraham needed the cooperation of the descendants of Chet, then the leading persona in the region. The wealthy and powerful Avraham to whom Hashem had promised the Land diminishes himself in their eyes by addressing them as, "an alien and resident in your midst". To which the Almighty responds: "Since you humiliated yourself before them, I shall make you a lord and a prince over them" (Midrash Gadol). Avraham, sensitive to the distinguished
Efron, does not ask to buy his cave outright. He implores the people of
the city to act as middlemen; he ignores the fact that Efron's previous
public offer of a present now became a purchase. Moreover Avraham adds the
surrounding field to the acquisition which he now calls a gift, even
though later he will pay prime shekels. [The Parshat Chayei Sara Homepage]
|
