CM Questions

Jo Jo Shehebar loaned his mechutan, Isaac Dwek, $2,000 for 30 days, but for the next ten years, Jo Jo repeatedly asked Isaac to repay the loan, but Isaac continually pushed him off. Eventually, Jo Jo brought the matter before the Great Neck Beis Din.

“I’m happy to repay the loan,” Isaac said, openly admitting that he had indeed borrowed the money. “But only if Jo Jo can prove that he wrote a pruzbul. If he didn’t, then the loan was automatically cancelled at the last Shemitah year.”

“Of course I wrote a pruzbul!” Jo Jo replied. But since the most recent Shemitah year had ended about five years earlier, he no longer had any written proof, nor did he have witnesses who could testify that he had executed a pruzbul.

How should the Beis Din rule?

1. Make Isaac pay — The Beis Din will obligate Isaac to repay the loan since he admitted to the loan and we believe Jo Jo when he said he did execute a pruzbul.
2. Do not make Isaac pay — The Beis Din will rule that the loan was cancelled by Shemitah due to lack of proof of a pruzbul.

The Shulchan Aruch rules that a pruzbul should be written at the end of the Shemitah year, just before Rosh Hashanah of the eighth year, because loans are cancelled only after Shemitah concludes. However, the Tur writes the opposite: a pruzbul should be written at the end of the sixth year, before the Shemitah year begins, since he holds that loans are cancelled as soon as Shemitah starts.

If so, why does the Rama in the Shulchan Aruch not cite the Tur’s opinion, and why is there no mention anywhere in the Shulchan Aruch of writing a pruzbul at the end of the sixth year?

1. The Rama holds that the Tur’s opinion was rejected by all later authorities, so he omits it entirely.
2. The Rama believed that writing a pruzbul before Shemitah is invalid, so he intentionally avoided mentioning the Tur’s view.
3. The Rama notes that in his time people were not writing any pruzbul at all; since he did not want to burden them with writing two pruzbuls, he followed the Shulchan Aruch’s simpler ruling and mentioned only the seventh‑year pruzbul.
4. The Rama held that the laws of pruzbul apply only in Eretz Yisrael, so the Tur’s earlier timing was irrelevant to most communities.

A kesubah written before marriage is a valid halachic contract that obligates the groom to his wife. Such a contract is fully enforceable in beis din and even creates a lien on all of the groom’s assets. The Shulchan Aruch lists five requirements that a document must meet in order to be considered a valid, enforceable contract of this type. What are the five conditions that make a contract—such as a kesubah—halachically valid in the eyes of a beis din?

Reb Yudel Ehrenreich had been investing in real estate in Kings County for many years, despite never having learned to read English and being able to speak only a few simple English phrases. People would say about him, “Er redt Yidish vi fun der heym — un lebt vi a meylekh” (“He speaks Yiddish like from the old home — and lives like a king”).

When a promising property became available, Reb Yudel needed a $100,000 down payment. He approached “Ruby” Kashnow, a well‑known local lender who trusted Yudel’s financial reliability — after all, he drove a pristine 1992 Rolls‑Royce Corniche IV, and Ruby was envious.

Ruby’s lawyer drafted a multi‑page loan agreement in English so it would be enforceable in any Kings County courthouse. Hidden in the middle of page 3 was a clause stating that if the $100,000 was not repaid on time, Ruby could immediately take possession of the Rolls‑Royce Corniche IV and sell it to satisfy the debt.

A year passed, and the Kings County housing market collapsed. Reb Yudel was unable to repay the loan. Ruby brought the case to the Kings County Beis Din. Reb Yudel explained that he had no available cash. Ruby pointed out the clause regarding the Rolls‑Royce and presented an appraisal from “Rolls‑Royce of Kings County” valuing the car at $100,000 — exactly the amount of the loan.

“Voslche shtikl inem kontrakt?!” Reb Yudel shouted. His translator showed him the clause in the contract, and Reb Yudel cried out, “Mayn tayere Rolls‑Royce!” insisting that he never would have signed the contract had he understood it. The translator explained to the Beis Din that Reb Yudel was not able to read the contract and assumed it was a simple loan document without hidden conditions that could cost him his beloved car.

How will the Beis Din rule?

1. They will take away Reb Yudel’s Rolls‑Royce to repay the loan.
2. They will not take away the car, since Reb Yudel did not understand the English‑language loan document.

“Ruby” Kashnow held two loan documents in his hands. The first was for a loan to Moshe’s Pizza and was signed by Moshe along with two kosher Jewish witnesses. The second was for a loan to Reb Yudel Ehrenreich; it bore Reb Yudel’s signature and was notarized by a notary public commissioned by the State of New York.

From a halachic standpoint, which document is stronger in Beis Din?

1. The document with witnesses
2. The notarized document
3. Both documents are equally valid

Given the following two documents, which one carries greater halachic validity?

Contract 1: Moishe gave Hudy a slice of pizza with lots of extra cheese. Hudy then wrote a handwritten note stating, “I owe Moishe’s Pizza $4 for a slice of pizza,” including the date but without a signature.

Contract 2: Levi had his secretary type up a $250,000 loan contract for Elisha’s forthcoming bicycle shop. Elisha signed and dated the document at the bottom.

Which of the following is correct?

1. Contract 1 has greater halachic validity.
2. Contract 2 has greater halachic validity.
3. Both contracts have equal halachic standing.

Moishe of Moishe’s Pizza was plotzing. It was past midnight, and he still needed $20,000 for his daughter’s wedding that very afternoon. At last, Ruby Kashnow—a well-known local lender—knocked on his window. Ruby agreed to lend the money, but added, “Listen, Moishe, I love your pizza, but I can’t pay my accountant with slices. I need a formal loan document with two witnesses.”

Ruby pulled out the document and began filling in the details.

“But it’s almost two in the morning! Where am I supposed to find witnesses now?” Moishe protested.

Ruby didn’t budge.

So Moishe tried again: “How about I sign the document and write next to my signature, ‘My signature should be considered the same as 100 witnesses’? Then even if something goes wrong, you'll be able to collect in Beis Din without any questions.”

Is Moishe’s offer too good for even Ruby to refuse?

1. Yes — Ruby should accept Moishe’s proposal because the statement will make the document halachically the same as if there were two witnesses.
2. No — Ruby should insist on proper witnesses.

"Ruby" Kashnow presented the signed loan agreement to the Yorkville Beis Din.

“Honorable judges, I helped Moishe when he was in a tight spot, but he didn’t show the same kindness and pay me back on time.”

Moishe immediately protested. “What are you talking about? I never took a loan from you! That document has no witnesses, and the signature must be a forgery!”

Ruby responded, “Then I would like to present Mr. Gideon Epstein, a certified forensic document examiner, who will testify that the signature on the document is indeed Mr. Moishe’s.”

Based on all the evidence presented, how will the Beis Din rule?

1. Moishe is exonerated — he does not need to pay anything.
2. Moishe must pay half of the amount claimed.
3. Moishe must pay two‑thirds of the amount claimed.
4. Moishe must pay the full amount claimed.
5. The Beis Din may assess the reliability of all the evidence and issue a ruling for an amount different from any of the options above, based on their evaluation.

"Ruby" Kashnow presented the signed loan agreement to the Yorkville Beis Din.

“Honorable judges, I helped Moishe when he was in a tight spot, but he didn’t show the same kindness and pay me back on time.”

Moishe immediately protested. “What are you talking about? That document doesn't have witnesses on it, and even if it did, I paid that loan back already!”

Ruby responded, “Then why would I still have the contract? You should have demanded it back when you paid and then destroyed it.”

Based on all the evidence presented, how will the Beis Din rule?

1. Moishe is exonerated — he does not need to pay anything.
2. Moishe must pay half of the amount claimed.
3. Moishe must pay two‑thirds of the amount claimed.
4. Moishe must pay the full amount claimed.
5. The Beis Din may assess the reliability of all the evidence and issue a ruling for an amount different from any of the options above, based on their evaluation.

On the first day of their children’s sheva brochos, Isaac Dwek approached his mechutan, Jo Jo Shehebar.

“Jo Jo, I’m hosting Shabbos Sheva Brochos, and I’m a bit tight on cash. Can you loan me $2,000?”

Jo Jo happily agreed and lent him the money without any conditions and without anything in writing.

When is the loan halachically due, and if it is not paid on time, when is the earliest Jo Jo may take his mechutan to the Great Neck Beis Din?

1. The loan would be due at 30 days, but Jo Jo could not go to Beis Din until a year had passed without payment.
2. The loan would be due at 30 days, and Jo Jo could go to Beis Din the same day if it was not paid.
3. The loan would be due immediately, but Jo Jo could not go to Beis Din until 30 days had passed.
4. The loan would be due at 90 days, and Jo Jo could go to Beis Din only after giving a formal warning.

Isaac Dwek contacted Negin of Negin’s Persian Kitchen to provide authentic Persian food at the Shabbos Sheva Brochos in his home, with a $2,000 budget (Isaac would have his own housekeeper and other daughters deal with the serving and cleanup). Isaac and Negin did not discuss any payment terms. On Motza’ei Shabbos, all the guests had nothing but rave reviews for the food, especially the Fesenjan and Ghormeh Sabzi served for Shabbos lunch .

When is the latest that Mr. Dwek is halachically obligated to pay Negin, and if it is not paid on time, when is the earliest Negin may take Mr. Dwek to the Great Neck Beis Din?

1. The payment would be due at 30 days, but Negin could not go to Beis Din until a year had passed without payment.
2. The payment would be due at 30 days, and Negin could go to Beis Din the same day if it was not paid.
3. The payment would be due immediately, but Negin could not go to Beis Din until 30 days had passed.
4. The payment would be due at 90 days, and Negin could go to Beis Din only after giving a formal warning.

“Oy, Harry, I can’t take the heat. You have to get someone here right away to fix the air conditioner,” said Leah Brochstein as she woke up covered in sweat.

Harry called Boca Air and Repair for an emergency service, and Shemarya Carrier arrived within the hour. He worked from the morning until 2 p.m., and by then the A/C was running again.

“A mechaya,” Leah exclaimed, thrilled with the service — even though the emergency repair cost $1,000.

When is the latest that Harry is halachically obligated to pay Shemarya

1. The payment would be due immediately upon completion of the work.
2. The payment would be due before nightfall.
3. The payment would be due at 30 days.
4. Since a payment schedule was not negotiated first, the payment would be due according to the custom of the city of Boca.

Question: Mr. X's neighbor knocks on his door and asks to borrow a hammer.

“Harry, can I borrow your cordless nail gun? I have a few loose panels on the wooden fence around my pool that need fixing,” Ted Geffner asked.

Harry Brochstein agreed and lent Ted his Ryobi One+ 18V Cordless Brad Nailer (P320).

Two hours later, Harry realized that his groundskeeper, Carlos, needed the nail gun immediately. He went back to Ted and asked for it back.

“But I haven’t used it yet! Can I hold onto it a bit longer and then return it?” Ted protested.

According to the S.A., how much longer is Ted permitted to keep the nail gun before returning it

1. No time — he must return it immediately.
2. He may keep it until he completes his task, and then must return it right away.
3. He may keep it for up to 30 days.
4. Since there is no contract, he may keep it for as long as he wants.

Levi lent Elisha $250,000 to start his bicycle store. To ensure repayment, Levi drafted a detailed loan contract, signed by two kosher witnesses. The loan was executed on July 1 and was due on December 31.

At the Tisha B’Av break‑fast at Congregation Shaarei Shamayim, Levi bumped into Elisha. “Don’t worry,” Elisha said. “My store is already open, and I expect to pay you in full by December 31.” “I appreciate that,” Levi replied. “But honestly, I don’t need the money right now. You can even take a full year to pay me back. Relax — build up your store and your client base.” Elisha was very grateful.

But just before Chanukah, the markets took a downturn and Levi suddenly needed cash. He approached Elisha and asked him to pay by the original due date. Elisha refused.

On the morning of December 31, Levi took Elisha to Beis Din. “I have a signed contract with two witnesses stating the loan is due today. I need the money now, and Elisha is refusing to pay!”

Elisha responded, “Yes, the contract says December 31. But Levi told me at the break‑fast that I had a full year to pay, not just six months.”

The judges turned to Levi, who was turning red. “Yes, I did say that,” he admitted. “But at the time I didn’t need the money. I was just trying to be nice. Still, a contract is a contract, and I need the money now.”

How will the Beis Din rule

1. They will require Elisha to repay the loan today, December 31, as stated in the written contract.
2. They will allow Elisha to keep the money for another six months, based on Levi’s verbal extension at the break‑fast.

Lenny (the "Louse”) borrowed $1,000 from Reuven, with repayment due on March 31. But March 31 came and went, and Lenny did not repay the loan.

Reuven eventually took Lenny to the Yorkville Beis Din, where the judges asked Lenny for his side of the story.

“Yes, I borrowed the money,” Lenny admitted, “but that no‑goodnik isn’t getting a penny back. He was the chairman of this year’s shul dinner, and I was supposed to be the man of honor. Instead, nothing! I wasn’t even on the dais. So I’m keeping the $1,000 in my drawer and letting Reuven suffer.”

The Beis Din thanked Lenny for his honesty and ruled that he was obligated to pay Reuven the $1,000. Lenny still refused.

According to the Shulchan Aruch, how many lashes may the Beis Din administer to Lenny (the “Louse”)

1. None — lashes are inappropriate in this case.
2. 39 lashes.
3. 40 lashes.
4. As many lashes as necessary until Lenny either pays back the loan or dies from the punishment.

After benching at a wedding at the luxurious Lakeville Country Club, Mr. Khodedadian realized he had no cash to tip the waiters or valets.

“Can you lend me $100?” he asked Mr. Dwek, who agreed and handed him two $50 bills. “Just please pay me back in a month.”

But a month passed, and Mr. Khodedadian did not repay the loan.

When Mr. Dwek later bumped into him at the Great Neck Sefardi Synagogue and asked for the money, Mr. Khodedadian claimed he owed only $50 and didn’t even have cash on him.

Mr. Dwek wanted to recover the full $100, but he knew that if he took Mr. Khodedadian to the Great Neck Beis Din, the judges would not require a modeh b’miktzas oath and would instead try to arrange a compromise. At that moment, he realized that if he claimed he had lent $125 or even $150, the Beis Din would likely compromise somewhere near $100. And if he received more than $100, he could return the excess to Mr. Khodedadian afterward.

Is Mr. Dwek permitted to lie in order to “ensure justice” and recover the full $100 he is owed?

After benching at a wedding at the luxurious Lakeville Country Club, Mr. Khodedadian realized he had no cash to tip the waiters or valets.

“Can you lend me $50?” he asked Mr. Dwek, who agreed and handed him a $50 bill. “Just please pay me back in a month.”

At the end of the month, Mr. Dwek bumped into Mr. Khodedadian at the Great Neck Sefardi Synagogue and asked for his $100. “But I only borrowed $50,” Mr. Khodedadian insisted, and refused to pay anything unless Mr. Dwek acknowledged that $50 was the full amount.

So Mr. Dwek summoned Mr. Khodedadian to the Great Neck Beis Din and demanded $100. Mr. Khodedadian realized that the judges would not require a modeh b’miktzas oath and would instead try to arrange a compromise. At that moment, he thought: if he claimed he didn’t borrow any money at all, the Beis Din would likely compromise and require him to pay $50 — which is, in fact, the correct amount.

Is Mr. Khodedadian permitted to lie in order to “ensure justice” and pay only the $50 that he actually owes

After benching at a wedding at the luxurious Lakeville Country Club, Mr. Khodedadian realized he had no cash to tip the waiters or valets.

“Can you lend me $150?” he asked Mr. Dwek. “Sorry, I only have $50,” Mr. Dwek replied.

But Mr. Aminoff and Mr. Shehebar overheard and each offered to lend him $50 as well. “Please pay us back in a month,” they all said.

A month passed, and Mr. Khodedadian did not repay any of them.

When Mr. Dwek later bumped into him at the Great Neck Sefardi Synagogue and mentioned the loan, Mr. Khodedadian denied receiving any money from him. “And what about the $50 from Mr. Aminoff and Mr. Shehebar?” asked Mr. Dwek. “I have no idea what you’re talking about,” Mr. Khodedadian insisted.

After synagogue, Mr. Dwek called Mr. Aminoff and Mr. Shehebar. “What can we do?” he asked. “If we take him to Beis Din, he’ll deny everything. They won’t make him take a modeh b’miktzas oath, and the best we’ll get is a compromise — maybe $25 each.”

Mr. Aminoff had an idea: “Why don’t you claim he borrowed $150 from you, and we’ll testify as witnesses? With two witnesses, the Beis Din will force him to pay $150. Then we’ll split it three ways and each get back exactly the $50 we’re owed — not a penny more.”

“Right!” said Mr. Shehebar. “We don’t want to steal — we just want justice!”

May the three men carry out this plan and lie in front of the Great Neck Beis Din in order to recover the money they are owed?

It was 2:00 a.m., just hours before Moishe needed to pay the caterer for his daughter’s wedding later that day. Fortunately, “Ruby” Kashnow agreed to lend him $20,000 and even arrived with an official loan document.

“Listen, Moishe,” Ruby said, “I love your pizza, but I can’t pay my accountant with slices. I need two witnesses.”

But at this hour the city was asleep. Only Rachamim was still around, cleaning the floors of the pizza shop. “Can you call a friend so we can have two witnesses?” both men asked.

Rachamim tried, but the only friend who answered refused to come out at 2 a.m.

Ruby took pity on Moishe and gave him the loan anyway, with only one witness. The caterer was paid, and the wedding was a success.

Six months later, when the loan came due, Ruby went to Moishe’s Pizza to collect his money — but Moishe denied ever taking a loan. Ruby then summoned Moishe and Rachamim to the Yorkville Beis Din.

Rachamim was in a bind. He knew that as a single witness, his testimony would not be accepted. That meant Moishe could lie and deny the loan, and Ruby would recover only half of what he was owed. Then Rachamim had an idea: he would bring the same friend who refused to come at 2 a.m. and they would together testify that they both witnessed the loan. With two witnesses, Beis Din would force Moishe to pay the full $20,000.

In Rachamim’s mind, this plan accomplished two mitzvos:

1. Ensuring Ruby received the full amount he was owed.
2. Preventing Moishe from lying in Beis Din, since the judges would not even allow him to deny the loan once two witnesses testified to its existence.

“So many good deeds from just one lie,” he thought.

May Rachamim bring his friend and lie in front of the Yorkville Beis Din by claiming they both witnessed the loan