“Agreement Rabbi (Mr) Moshe Meisels and Rabbi (Mr) Menachem Lichtman” Substance: “Rabbi Moshe Meisels has transferred to the bank account of Yitav Lev the sum of £120,443.39 to be given over in the land of Israel in United States dollars in accordance with the rate of exchange received by me, immediately and without delay. Rabbi Meisels has transferred to the Yitav Lev another amount of £202,000 which he is to receive back from the accountant as a loan. Agreed and signed on the 5th day of the week of Vayechi in the year 5765” 38. Certain of the choices of words made by Mr. Greenblatt can be clarified and corrected by the subsequent agreement of the parties and in the light of his examination and cross examination by the First Defendant via video link from Jerusalem. The Claimant refers to himself as a rabbi while the First Defendant does not and the English “Mr” is an acceptable alternative meaning in context of the Hebrew word. The Hebrew date can be rendered as 23rd December 2004. Whereas the word loan is clearly used in respect of this second part of the agreement, “matana” the Hebrew word for gift is never used in any part of it, 39. Mr Gleenblatt agreed that were certain difficulties in translating this document that looked as if it had been written in a hurry and certain matters are not ideally phrased for rendering the intended sense. He said that whilst he preferred to insert the comma before the phrase “immediately and without delay” an alternative sense could be to delete the comma so “without delay” qualifies the exchange rate rather than the giving over. The literal meaning of the Hebrew words that he renders as “to be given over” is “to give” but the passive voice seemed more appropriate in context. The literal rendering of the words preceding loan are “in the form of” but “as a” equally captures the sense of the text. The author could have used another word for a loan if the parties had been intending that the payment should be returned on demand. The language used is of the sort that might be found in a legal document. 40. Both parties submit that the meaning of the document is to be construed in the light of the intentions of the parties as revealed in their discussions contemporaneous with the writing of this document. Both submit that properly construed the agreement assists their contentions. There were significant divergences however in the central evidence of the Claimant and the First Defendant as to what was agreed, in what order and for what purpose. 41. Summarising the rival contentions of the parties on this central issue, the following emerges. The Claimant says: i. Having been approached again by the First Defendant shortly before the 23rd December he agreed to offer the charity further assistance in approximately the same sum as previously. Again this sum was to be by way of a loan to the charity.