CCAR RESPONSA
Contemporary American Reform Responsa
8. Debts Versus a Gift
QUESTION: A man’s in-laws have sent him a catalogue from a prestigious department store and encouraged him to order one thousand dollars worth of clothing and merchandise as a Hanukkah present for himself, and to charge it to their account. The man is aware that the recent affluence of his in-laws enable them to offer such a gift. He also knows that they owe many times this amount to other family members who had made extensive loans during more difficult times. The man feels that these large debts should be repaid before he becomes the recipient of such largesse. For this reason, he wishes to refuse the gift. Should he accept the gift for the sake of shalom bayit, or should he refuse? (Rabbi R. A., Florida)ANSWER: Let us begin this rather complex matter by looking at loans through the eyes of tradition. In the Talmudic period, there was some debate over whether the repayment of a loan is a mitzvah or a legal obligation. R. Papa felt it was a mitzvah, while R. Huna Ben Joshua considered it a legal obligation. Both lines of reasoning are continued in the later literature (B. B. 174a; Kid. 13b; Ket. 86a; Semag Aseh #93). In the final analysis, most scholars feel that there is a legal obligation, and that the concept of the repayment as a mitzvah refers to oral loans only (Rashban to B. B. 174a). Anyone who does not repay a loan is considered a wicked person (Ps. 37.21). Generally, when no period is specified in a loan, it is considered repayable after thirty days or less (Yad Hil. Malveh Veloveh 13.5; Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 73.1). Both lending money to the poor (Ex. 22.24; Shab. 63a; Yad Hil. Malveh Veloveh 1.1; Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 97.1), and its repayment, are mitzvot. Everything possible has been done to encourage both of these mitzvot. Loans were stimulated through the institution of the prosbul, which protected lenders from the approaching sabbatical year which would normally have canceled the loan (Shev. 10.3; Git. 37a, 50a). It was specified that loans could be contracted before a court of three lay people, who were not experts in law (San. 3a), in order to further encourage them. Repayment has always been enforced by the courts. It is incumbent upon the member of the family to encourage repayment in keeping with the Biblical command not to “incur guilt” on account of a neighbor (Lev. 19.17 The other issue which we must consider is the matter of honor due to in-laws. There are general statements of both aggadic and halakhic nature which deal with this subject. However, most of them refrain from specifics in this area full of potential conflict and misunderstanding. There are clear obligations to care for sick or indigent in-laws, as well as the obligation to show them proper respect and honor (M. Sotah 9:15; Ket. 61b; M. K. 20b; Yalkut toI Sam. 24:11; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 240:24; W. Jacob, American Reform Responsa, “Responsibility of Children to Their Parents,” #53). In the case which you have cited, it is the religious duty of the son-in-law to respectfully thank his in-laws for their demonstration of love, but he should remind them of their duty to repay their debts; this is both an obligation and a mitzvah. He should encourage them to perform that mitzvah.November 1984
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.