[Avodah] Haarama

[Zev Sero]

Rich, Joel wrote:

> Question. Where would pruzbol fit into this classification scheme?  Are 
> there any other classification schemes?  There are other obvious 
> interesting implications this year but I'd rather stick to the 
> classification issue for now.

Tosfos in Gittin explains that this is exactly what it means that Hillel
relied on the fact that shmitta bizman hazeh is derabbanan.  Not that
the haarama of pruzbul wouldn't have worked when shmita was deoraita,
but that had it been deoraita he would never have endorsed this haarama
to get around it.  But in his days, as in ours, it was derabbanan, and
yet no reputable BD would have anything to do with this haarama until
Hillel saw the necessity, and decided that the Rabbanan would never
have wanted their takana to lead to such results, so he endorsed the
pruzbul.


Eli Turkel <eliturkel at gmail.com> wrote:
> In a slightly different vein I have never understood heter iska when
> there is no business involved, eg taking out a loan to finance a
> mortgage or a car loan or even to go on vacation.

The term "heter iska" nowadays is used for all arrangements that get
around the prohibition on ribbit regardless of whether it involves
an actual iska.  There are many much simpler arrangements that don't
involve an iska, and which earlier generations simply didn't think of.


> According to this classification is this still something positive?

Yes, so long as the money being lent would not otherwise have been
used for gemach or tzedaka.  If someone has money that they intend
to use for business, to earn money for himself, then without a way
around the ribbit laws he must simply decline to give this money
to a Jew, and must instead invest it with a goy.  How can that be
a good thing?  Who benefits from that?  A "heter iska" allows him to
do business with a yid instead, helping him not in the role of
tzedaka or chesed but as a normal business transaction, which thus
helps his self-esteem.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas