YeshivaThe torah world Gateway
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
- Family and Society
- Financial Laws and Tzedaka
- Contracts and Agreements
[Sarah, whose husband was away for an extended period of time, borrowed money from Reuven, which included payments of expected profits based on a heter iska, which stated that she invested the money she received. Now Sarah claims that she gave the money to one specific person and did not see profits, and so she is not willing to pay the promised profits. Upon the husband’s return, he claimed that he was not obligated to return even the principal, because his wife took the loan without his authorization.]
(Last week we dealt with the husband’s responsibility.)
Regarding the claim that the iska (investment) money Sarah was given did not produce profits, the matter may be affected by the fact that she already made payments. There are two opinions in the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 81:30) concerning a case where one made interim payments on iska money under the assumption that they were for profits and now he claims that there were no profits and the payments should count to reduce the principal. According to the first opinion, he cannot change the purpose of those payments to count toward principal and exempt himself from profit payment by swearing that there were not profits. According to the second opinion, he can now swear that there were no profits and change the nature of the past payments. The Shach (ad loc.) rules like the first opinion that that which was paid as profit is irretrievable.
Here matters are even clearer, as the money was given with a shtar (document). Since the shtar spells out the payment of set assumed profit as a given, one who claims that there was no profit is like one who claims that he has paid and thereby relieved his obligation. As such, the burden of proof is on Sarah. Since the profit was paid and the principal remains and the shtar makes it considered as if the payment has already been made, it is Sarah who is trying to "extract money."
Even as far as future profit is concerned, Sarah’s claim, that she transferred the funds to someone else and that person says there are no profits, is not a good claim. She was given the money to invest and is ultimately responsible for the profit that she pledged to make. Even if we believe her that she gave money to someone else, who is to say that it was the iska funds that she gave to him? Furthermore, Reuven and Sarah are like partners in the iska money in such a way that if the moves that Sarah took caused losses, she is responsible, whereas the profit will be split evenly. If Sarah swears that she did not earn money in any of her investments, then she is believed about future profit but not about that which she already gave.
In this case, Reuven wrote a waiver of his rights to profits payment. However, the waiver is not valid because he told witnesses that he wrote it only so Sarah would agree to make her principal payments. When we know that she indeed made such threats, his apparent concessions are considered coerced and ineffective. Therefore, Sarah should pay all the money that was set forth in the iska contract.
P'ninat Mishpat (829)
Various Rabbis
321 - A Husband’s Obligation in His Wife’s Loan
322 - Iska Obligation With the Claim There Weren’t Profits
323 - Making a Difficult Litigant Pay for Expenses
Load More
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Agricultural Water Rights – part II
based on ruling 84122 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Contractor’s Leaving the Job in the Middle – part III
based on ruling 84013 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part I
based on ruling 84061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
D'varim Judaism’s Social Vision
Re’eh
Giving is more than an act of generosity—it is an essential part of human dignity that belongs to everyone, rich and poor alike. The ultimate goal of help is to empower others to stand on their own.
Kuzari -Rabbi Ari Shvat Kuzari class 9 - "Seeing is Believing" (parag. 21-30)
These paragraphs elaborate on the theme that seeing and knowing is better than any attempt to prove logically, and begins explaining the difference between Israel and gentiles.
Ein Aya Various Universal Stages of the Geula Process
Rav Kook examines the various stages of redemption, explaining how (in addition to the obvious oft-mentioned stages of ingathering the exiles, reviving the Hebrew language, army, state etc.) the messianic dream of world prosperity, the State of Israel and world unity can and are realistically and logically gradually coming true.
Kuzari -Rabbi Ari Shvat Kuzari class 8- "Answering Questions on the Kuzari's Proof from Mass Revelation
How do we know that the "claim" of mass revelation to 2,000,000 witnesses at Mt. Sinai is really true? This important class answers all of the questions skeptics ask about this claim of the Kuzari.
Ein Aya Armies Still Necessary for Balance & the War Against Wars
Rav Kook explains why the world was originally divided into the various seemingly contradicting ideologies and cultures, in order to develop each one respectively. Swords or armies symbolize how each respective ideology defends themselves, as well as deters their opposing ideologies and cultures. On the other hand, the messianic era will be one of peace, and Rav Kook explains the transition to that stage, which mankind is already undergoing.
