Buying on Credit - Revision history

YitzchakSultan1: /* Return Policies */

2025-03-18T21:01:13Z

Return Policies

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 18 March 2025
Line 35:		Line 35:
	## The language of the return policy should clearly state that if someone wants to return an item within a certain period of time the seller will buy it back. This language makes it evident that the original sale was complete and never voided even in the event that the buyer wants to return it.<ref>Chavot Daat 174:1, Machaneh Efraim 13, Nodeh Beyehuda 2:75, and Kereti 168:10 and 18. Pitchei Teshuva 174:1 cites Nodeh Beyehuda. Har Tzvi YD 139 disagrees with the Chavot Daat because it is contradicted by the Ritva 63a. The dispute in essence is whether the language that the original sale be a complete sale and then later it should be sold back completely avoids interest or perhaps language isn't sufficient if the transaction as a whole results in a situation of interest and the Torah understands it to be a case of a loan. Chelkat Binyamin 174:7 cites many poskim on both sides and concludes that one who is lenient like the Chavot Daat has what to rely upon. Laws of Interest p. 40 also concludes that way. Horah Brurah 174:4 and Malveh Hashem 2:10:16 are strict. Brit Yehuda 28:8 cites the dispute but in fnt. 22 he writes that majority of poskim are strict. Ritva 63a is a proof that even if you specify al menat it is nonetheless a loan and forbidden, unlike Chavot Daat. However, he cites the Mahara Sason 49 who is lenient when they specify that the original sale was complete as long as it is up to the buyer to decide whether or not to return it and in that case the original sale was a sale. </ref>		## The language of the return policy should clearly state that if someone wants to return an item within a certain period of time the seller will buy it back. This language makes it evident that the original sale was complete and never voided even in the event that the buyer wants to return it.<ref>Chavot Daat 174:1, Machaneh Efraim 13, Nodeh Beyehuda 2:75, and Kereti 168:10 and 18. Pitchei Teshuva 174:1 cites Nodeh Beyehuda. Har Tzvi YD 139 disagrees with the Chavot Daat because it is contradicted by the Ritva 63a. The dispute in essence is whether the language that the original sale be a complete sale and then later it should be sold back completely avoids interest or perhaps language isn't sufficient if the transaction as a whole results in a situation of interest and the Torah understands it to be a case of a loan. Chelkat Binyamin 174:7 cites many poskim on both sides and concludes that one who is lenient like the Chavot Daat has what to rely upon. Laws of Interest p. 40 also concludes that way. Horah Brurah 174:4 and Malveh Hashem 2:10:16 are strict. Brit Yehuda 28:8 cites the dispute but in fnt. 22 he writes that majority of poskim are strict. Ritva 63a is a proof that even if you specify al menat it is nonetheless a loan and forbidden, unlike Chavot Daat. However, he cites the Mahara Sason 49 who is lenient when they specify that the original sale was complete as long as it is up to the buyer to decide whether or not to return it and in that case the original sale was a sale. </ref>
	## The seller specifies that the buyer can't return it before a certain period of time.<ref>Sama CM 207:11, Brit Yehuda 28:6</ref>		## The seller specifies that the buyer can't return it before a certain period of time.<ref>Sama CM 207:11, Brit Yehuda 28:6</ref>
	## According to most poskim one ~~can~~ rely on the first method. According to others one can rely on the second method. Ideally a person would use both languages to be strict for both ~~sides~~.<ref>Laws of Interest p. 41</ref>		## According to most poskim, one may rely on the first method. According to others one can rely on the second method. Ideally a person would use both languages to be strict for both approaches.<ref>Laws of Interest p. 41</ref>
	# Some poskim hold that it is permitted because the seller lets the buyer use the product merely in order to interest the buyer to buy the product. Since the seller is not granting this right to try on or use it temporarily because of the time-value of money it is permitted with whatever language they use. However, even according to this opinion if there is a large sale and the time-value of money plays a role, such as if the seller is interested in using the money between the time of the sale and the return, then it is problematic.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 174:3. He cites Chut Shani ch. 13 and Kuntres Kitzur Dinei Ribbit Hametzuyim 9:5 to support this approach.</ref>		# Some poskim hold that it is permitted because the seller lets the buyer use the product merely in order to interest the buyer to buy the product. Since the seller is not granting this right to try on or use it temporarily because of the time-value of money it is permitted with whatever language they use. However, even according to this opinion if there is a large sale and the time-value of money plays a role, such as if the seller is interested in using the money between the time of the sale and the return, then it is problematic.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 174:3. He cites Chut Shani ch. 13 and Kuntres Kitzur Dinei Ribbit Hametzuyim 9:5 to support this approach.</ref>
			# Some poskim hold that it is permitted because the buyer completely bought the item and could do anything he wants with it. Even if he ends up returning the object it is considered as though the company is buying it back and that doesn't invalidate the sale retroactively.<ref>Horah Brurah (Shaar Hatziyun 174:1) writes that if it is up to the buyer to decide if he wants to buy back the item that's considered as though he completely bought the item and then resells it if he actually returns it. However, when it is up to the seller if he wants to return it, once it is resold then it is retroactively like a loan.</ref> Many poskim disagree.
	# If someone sells a field or any product on condition that the seller can buy it back when he wants to that isn't a sale, rather it is considered a loan.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 65b, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5, Rashba 3:435, Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 174:1. Netivot Shalom Ribbit 174:3:2 infers from the Taz that when Shulchan Aruch writes it isn't a sale he means that if the buyer ends up returning the item otherwise it is considered a complete sale.</ref> Therefore, it is forbidden for the buyer to use the field or product. Doing so would be either biblical interest or rabbinic interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch 174:1 based on Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5 write that it is biblical interest to eat the fruit of a field that was sold conditionally. Shach 174:1 writes that those who hold that eating the fruit of a mashkon is only rabbinic interest would say the same in this case. See however, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5-7 and Even Haezel 6:4 s.v. vheneh biyarnu who seem to imply otherwise. Taz 174:1 writes that those who think that interest that is conditional upon someone's choice, ''Sad Echad Bribbit'', is rabbinic would deem this rabbinic as well.</ref>		# If someone sells a field or any product on condition that the seller can buy it back when he wants to that isn't a sale, rather it is considered a loan.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 65b, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5, Rashba 3:435, Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 174:1. Netivot Shalom Ribbit 174:3:2 infers from the Taz that when Shulchan Aruch writes it isn't a sale he means that if the buyer ends up returning the item otherwise it is considered a complete sale.</ref> Therefore, it is forbidden for the buyer to use the field or product. Doing so would be either biblical interest or rabbinic interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch 174:1 based on Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5 write that it is biblical interest to eat the fruit of a field that was sold conditionally. Shach 174:1 writes that those who hold that eating the fruit of a mashkon is only rabbinic interest would say the same in this case. See however, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5-7 and Even Haezel 6:4 s.v. vheneh biyarnu who seem to imply otherwise. Taz 174:1 writes that those who think that interest that is conditional upon someone's choice, ''Sad Echad Bribbit'', is rabbinic would deem this rabbinic as well.</ref>
	#After the original sale if the buyer decides on his own violation to let the seller buy it back, he can do so and he can even grant that right to the seller with an acquisition. That wouldn't invalidate the original sale and the buyer would be permitted to use that product.<ref>Rashba (Teshuvot Chadashot 1:85), Shulchan Aruch 174:2</ref>		#After the original sale if the buyer decides on his own violation to let the seller buy it back, he can do so and he can even grant that right to the seller with an acquisition. That wouldn't invalidate the original sale and the buyer would be permitted to use that product.<ref>Rashba (Teshuvot Chadashot 1:85), Shulchan Aruch 174:2</ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Return Policies */

2025-03-17T22:01:08Z

Return Policies

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, 17 March 2025
Line 33:		Line 33:
	==Return Policies==		==Return Policies==
	# If a seller has a regular return policy in which the buyer can use the item<ref>Even though Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 174:1 which is the basis for this law is discussing real estate, it applies equally to movable items. This is pointed out by Laws of Interest p. 40 and Malveh Hashem 2:10:16</ref> and return it within a certain amount of time<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 174:2 cites Bet Efraim YD 42 who contemplated the question of whether a sale that was on condition of return for a certain period of time if it would mature into a full sale after that time expired. He concludes that it isn't a complete sale either way.</ref> or forever that is considered interest. Since the buyer has paid already and in the event that he returns it the sale is voided then we view the purchase money as a loan. Once the buyer has already used the item once and benefited from it if the seller returns him all his money the buyer is receiving interest upon his loan. This can be solved with one of two ways:<ref>Laws of Interest p. 40</ref>		# If a seller has a regular return policy in which the buyer can use the item<ref>Even though Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 174:1 which is the basis for this law is discussing real estate, it applies equally to movable items. This is pointed out by Laws of Interest p. 40 and Malveh Hashem 2:10:16</ref> and return it within a certain amount of time<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 174:2 cites Bet Efraim YD 42 who contemplated the question of whether a sale that was on condition of return for a certain period of time if it would mature into a full sale after that time expired. He concludes that it isn't a complete sale either way.</ref> or forever that is considered interest. Since the buyer has paid already and in the event that he returns it the sale is voided then we view the purchase money as a loan. Once the buyer has already used the item once and benefited from it if the seller returns him all his money the buyer is receiving interest upon his loan. This can be solved with one of two ways:<ref>Laws of Interest p. 40</ref>
	## The language of the return policy should clearly state that if someone wants to return an item within a certain period of time the seller will buy it back. This language makes it evident that the original sale was complete and never voided even in the event that the buyer wants to return it.<ref>Chavot Daat 174:1, Machaneh Efraim 13, Nodeh Beyehuda 2:75, and Kereti 168:10 and 18. Pitchei Teshuva 174:1 cites Nodeh Beyehuda. Har Tzvi YD 139 disagrees with the Chavot Daat because it is contradicted by the Ritva 63a. The dispute in essence is whether the language that the original sale be a complete sale and then later it should be sold back completely avoids interest or perhaps language isn't sufficient if the transaction as a whole results in a situation of interest and the Torah understands it to be a case of a loan. Chelkat Binyamin 174:7 cites many poskim on both sides and concludes that one who is lenient like the Chavot Daat has what to rely upon. Laws of Interest p. 40 also concludes that way. Horah Brurah 174:4 and Malveh Hashem 2:10:16 are strict. Brit Yehuda 28:8 cites the dispute but in fnt. 22 he writes that majority of poskim are strict. However, he cites the Mahara Sason 49 who is lenient when they specify that the original sale was complete as long as it is up to the buyer to decide whether or not to return it and in that case the original sale was a sale.</ref>		## The language of the return policy should clearly state that if someone wants to return an item within a certain period of time the seller will buy it back. This language makes it evident that the original sale was complete and never voided even in the event that the buyer wants to return it.<ref>Chavot Daat 174:1, Machaneh Efraim 13, Nodeh Beyehuda 2:75, and Kereti 168:10 and 18. Pitchei Teshuva 174:1 cites Nodeh Beyehuda. Har Tzvi YD 139 disagrees with the Chavot Daat because it is contradicted by the Ritva 63a. The dispute in essence is whether the language that the original sale be a complete sale and then later it should be sold back completely avoids interest or perhaps language isn't sufficient if the transaction as a whole results in a situation of interest and the Torah understands it to be a case of a loan. Chelkat Binyamin 174:7 cites many poskim on both sides and concludes that one who is lenient like the Chavot Daat has what to rely upon. Laws of Interest p. 40 also concludes that way. Horah Brurah 174:4 and Malveh Hashem 2:10:16 are strict. Brit Yehuda 28:8 cites the dispute but in fnt. 22 he writes that majority of poskim are strict. Ritva 63a is a proof that even if you specify al menat it is nonetheless a loan and forbidden, unlike Chavot Daat. However, he cites the Mahara Sason 49 who is lenient when they specify that the original sale was complete as long as it is up to the buyer to decide whether or not to return it and in that case the original sale was a sale. </ref>
	## The seller specifies that the buyer can't return it before a certain period of time.<ref>Sama CM 207:11</ref>		## The seller specifies that the buyer can't return it before a certain period of time.<ref>Sama CM 207:11, Brit Yehuda 28:6</ref>
	## According to most poskim one can rely on the first method. According to others one can rely on the second method. Ideally a person would use both languages to be strict for both sides.<ref>Laws of Interest p. 41</ref>		## According to most poskim one can rely on the first method. According to others one can rely on the second method. Ideally a person would use both languages to be strict for both sides.<ref>Laws of Interest p. 41</ref>
	# Some poskim hold that it is permitted because the seller lets the buyer use the product merely in order to interest the buyer to buy the product. Since the seller is not granting this right to try on or use it temporarily because of the time-value of money it is permitted with whatever language they use. However, even according to this opinion if there is a large sale and the time-value of money plays a role, such as if the seller is interested in using the money between the time of the sale and the return, then it is problematic.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 174:3. He cites Chut Shani ch. 13 and Kuntres Kitzur Dinei Ribbit Hametzuyim 9:5 to support this approach.</ref>		# Some poskim hold that it is permitted because the seller lets the buyer use the product merely in order to interest the buyer to buy the product. Since the seller is not granting this right to try on or use it temporarily because of the time-value of money it is permitted with whatever language they use. However, even according to this opinion if there is a large sale and the time-value of money plays a role, such as if the seller is interested in using the money between the time of the sale and the return, then it is problematic.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 174:3. He cites Chut Shani ch. 13 and Kuntres Kitzur Dinei Ribbit Hametzuyim 9:5 to support this approach.</ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Buying on Credit */

2025-03-12T21:09:17Z

Buying on Credit

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:09, 12 March 2025
Line 11:		Line 11:
	# It is forbidden even if the seller doesn't need the money now and even if he is charging for buying on credit because it costs him more to buy from his suppliers on credit.<ref>Torat Ribbit 8:4</ref>		# It is forbidden even if the seller doesn't need the money now and even if he is charging for buying on credit because it costs him more to buy from his suppliers on credit.<ref>Torat Ribbit 8:4</ref>
	# If in a certain market the majority or all of the sales are down on credit and the standard price is the credit price then it can established that the regular price is the credit price and paying up front can be discounted.<ref>Torat Ribbit 8:15 based on Imrei Yosher 1:107, Vaomer Yizchak YD 56, Bet Avi YD 131, Brit Yehuda 22:8, Kitzur Dinei Ribbit of Rav Shternbuch 7:7. He explains that since this market is paid on credit it is considered like a rental (see Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 175:6).</ref>		# If in a certain market the majority or all of the sales are down on credit and the standard price is the credit price then it can established that the regular price is the credit price and paying up front can be discounted.<ref>Torat Ribbit 8:15 based on Imrei Yosher 1:107, Vaomer Yizchak YD 56, Bet Avi YD 131, Brit Yehuda 22:8, Kitzur Dinei Ribbit of Rav Shternbuch 7:7. He explains that since this market is paid on credit it is considered like a rental (see Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 175:6).</ref>
	# If a Jewish store has a different price for buying with a credit card than if you buy with cash it is forbidden to buy at that store with a credit card.<~~Ref~~>Torat Ribbit 17:29 based on Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 173:1, Mishpatei Ribbit 1:26:6. The reason to forbid it is that when paying with a credit card the payment is delayed to the seller and certainly for the buyer. Therefore charging more for buying on credit is rabbinic interest. However, see Rav Yehuda Aryeh Diner in Mayim Chayim p. 28 who permits paying more with credit card since when there is a sale with a credit card it is effectuated and transferred to the seller immediately. It is only a loan between the credit card company and the buyer. Kuntres Ezrat Eliezer Ribbit p. 11 points out that in reality the money is not immediately transferred to the seller. [https://www.creditcardprocessing.com/2013/12/long-take-merchant-receive-funds/ creditcardprocessing.com] describes it as taking between 24 and 72 hours. Rav Zeev Cohen in Kuntres Poalim BShabbat by Chicago Kollel p. 10 writes that there is no problem to charge extra for the credit card fee since the seller isn't charging less for buying on credit but rather because they are paid less by the credit card companies and to offset that they charge extra.</ref>		# If a Jewish store has a different price for buying with a credit card than if you buy with cash it is forbidden to buy at that store with a credit card.<ref>Torat Ribbit 17:29 based on Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 173:1, Mishpatei Ribbit 1:26:6. The reason to forbid it is that when paying with a credit card the payment is delayed to the seller and certainly for the buyer. Therefore charging more for buying on credit is rabbinic interest. However, see Rav Yehuda Aryeh Diner in Mayim Chayim p. 28 who permits paying more with credit card since when there is a sale with a credit card it is effectuated and transferred to the seller immediately. It is only a loan between the credit card company and the buyer. Kuntres Ezrat Eliezer Ribbit p. 11 points out that in reality the money is not immediately transferred to the seller. [https://www.creditcardprocessing.com/2013/12/long-take-merchant-receive-funds/ creditcardprocessing.com] describes it as taking between 24 and 72 hours. Rav Zeev Cohen in Kuntres Poalim BShabbat by Chicago Kollel p. 10 writes that there is no problem to charge extra for the credit card fee since the seller isn't charging less for buying on credit but rather because they are paid less by the credit card companies and to offset that they charge extra. Check Bhalacha pp. 677 holds it is forbidden for a Jewish store to charge more for credit card purchases more than the processing fee for the credit card. For example, if the merchant charges 3% extra but a certain credit card company only deducts 2.8% that is forbidden.</ref>
	===Undetermined Price (Tarsha)===		===Undetermined Price (Tarsha)===
	# If an item doesn't have a fixed price then one can charge more for it when the buyer pays later than the delivery date. The reason is that since there's no established price the seller can set the price of the item at the higher price that the buyer will pay later. However, if there is a market price that is known<ref>Tosfot b"m 63b, Rosh b"m 5:22</ref> or the seller specifies a price for the item if one wanted to pay now and another price for buying on credit it is forbidden.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 65a</ref> Therefore, having a two tiered pricing system for buying regularly and buying on credit is interest and forbidden between two Jews.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 173:1</ref>		# If an item doesn't have a fixed price then one can charge more for it when the buyer pays later than the delivery date. The reason is that since there's no established price the seller can set the price of the item at the higher price that the buyer will pay later. However, if there is a market price that is known<ref>Tosfot b"m 63b, Rosh b"m 5:22</ref> or the seller specifies a price for the item if one wanted to pay now and another price for buying on credit it is forbidden.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 65a</ref> Therefore, having a two tiered pricing system for buying regularly and buying on credit is interest and forbidden between two Jews.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 173:1</ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Discounted for Subscriptions */

2025-03-03T21:38:28Z

Discounted for Subscriptions

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 3 March 2025
Line 41:		Line 41:

	==Discounted for Subscriptions==		==Discounted for Subscriptions==
	# A Jewish journal or magazine which offers a discount for those who purchase a subscription in advance should present it as the price for a year and not that it is the price for paying in advance.<ref>Brit Yehuda (ch. 23 fnt. 20), Milveh Hashem 1:9:40, Chelkat Binyamin 173:99, Chut Shani (Ribbit p. 98)</ref> If ~~they present it~~ clearly as having two prices one for the subscription and one for the newsstand price and or if they state that one price is an early subscription price that could be an issue of interest. ~~Some~~ poskim forbid paying the subscription price, ~~while many poskim permit even in that case.~~<ref>Brit Yehuda (ch. 23 fnt. 20) writes that if the subscription is stated in a clear fashion that there are two prices, one for paying up front and one for paying later, that is an issue of interest. Even though it is possible that they're giving a discount for paying early because it removes an inconvenience of dealing with the sales and processing or it gives them the benefit of having guaranteed customers, Brit Yehuda is not willing to rely on that alone since it isn't obvious that is the reason for the discount. He is only willing to be lenient if they only specify one subscription price and don't mention two prices. Milveh Hashem 1:9:40 agrees. He adds that ideally a person should do a heter iska for such a subscription, unless it is a Torah journal that doesn't make any money for which it is impossible to do a heter iska (since they don't have any money invested or aren't selling anything for profit). ~~However,~~ Chelkat Binyamin 173:99 is ~~more~~ lenient. He holds that the reason the company gives a discount for a subscription is to ensure that they have buyers and isn't interest. Chut Shani (Ribbit p. 98) is also lenient. ~~However~~, Chut Shani writes that it is a problem if the price of the magazine changes during the subscription. If the price of the weekly prices increases and the subscribers can continue to pay the old price that they originally got when they signed up that is considered interest. If that happens it would only be permitted to pay the higher price.</ref>		# A Jewish journal or magazine which offers a discount for those who purchase a subscription in advance should present it as the price for a year and not that it is the price for paying in advance. This is permitted according to many poskim.<ref>Brit Yehuda (ch. 23 fnt. 20), Milveh Hashem 1:9:40, Chelkat Binyamin 173:99, Chut Shani (Ribbit p. 98)</ref> However, some poskim are stricter and don't even allow this type of stipulation. They always forbid paying in advance for a subscription.<ref>Lhorot Natan 6:74, Torat Ribbit 10:65 p. 177, Kitzur Dinei Ribbit Hametzuyim of Rav Shternbuch 5:4 p. 26, The Laws of Ribbis pp. 158-9, Avnei Yishfeh 1:158 quoting Rav Elyashiv, Ribit L'or Hahalacha pp. 323-4</ref>
			# If the magazine presents the prices clearly as having two prices, one for the subscription and one for the newsstand price, and or if they state that one price is an early subscription price that could be an issue of interest. Many poskim forbid paying the subscription price,<ref>Brit Yehuda (ch. 23 fnt. 20) writes that if the subscription is stated in a clear fashion that there are two prices, one for paying up front and one for paying later, that is an issue of interest. Even though it is possible that they're giving a discount for paying early because it removes an inconvenience of dealing with the sales and processing or it gives them the benefit of having guaranteed customers, Brit Yehuda is not willing to rely on that alone since it isn't obvious that is the reason for the discount. He is only willing to be lenient if they only specify one subscription price and don't mention two prices. Milveh Hashem 1:9:40 agrees. He adds that ideally a person should do a heter iska for such a subscription, unless it is a Torah journal that doesn't make any money for which it is impossible to do a heter iska (since they don't have any money invested or aren't selling anything for profit). </ref> while many poskim permit even in that case.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 173:99 is lenient. He holds that the reason the company gives a discount for a subscription is to ensure that they have buyers and isn't interest. Chut Shani (Ribbit p. 99) is also lenient in the general case of subscriptions but has a caveat if the price increases, as is described below.</ref>
			#If the price of the newsstand price goes up during the course of a person's subscription according to many poskim it is forbidden to continue to get the magazine at the original low price and it is necessary to pay the newsstand price going forward. If a person doesn't do so he is going to receive the benefit of locking in the original cheaper price because he paid in advance, which is interest.<ref>Chut Shani (Ribbit p. 98) is lenient in general to charge less for a subscription but has a big caveat. Chut Shani writes that it is a problem if the price of the magazine changes during the subscription. If the price of the weekly prices increases and the subscribers can continue to pay the old price that they originally got when they signed up that is considered interest. If that happens it would only be permitted to pay the higher price.</ref>
	==Transactions Established with Interest==		==Transactions Established with Interest==
	#If someone set up a transaction with interest, such as a sale with a later payment that included interest, the sale is valid in a way that doesn't require the payment of interest. This only applies if they did a formal [[kinyan]]. If there was no [[kinyan]] and it was only establish verbally then it is voided if it includes interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 175:8. Rosh Bava Metsia 5:19 quotes Rav Hai Goan to say that if one made a sale with ribbit the sale is valid; just one doesn't have to pay the ribbit.		#If someone set up a transaction with interest, such as a sale with a later payment that included interest, the sale is valid in a way that doesn't require the payment of interest. This only applies if they did a formal [[kinyan]]. If there was no [[kinyan]] and it was only establish verbally then it is voided if it includes interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 175:8. Rosh Bava Metsia 5:19 quotes Rav Hai Goan to say that if one made a sale with ribbit the sale is valid; just one doesn't have to pay the ribbit.

YitzchakSultan1: /* Discounted for Subscriptions */

2025-03-03T01:25:28Z

Discounted for Subscriptions

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:25, 3 March 2025
Line 41:		Line 41:

	==Discounted for Subscriptions==		==Discounted for Subscriptions==
	# A Jewish journal or magazine which offers a discount for those who purchase a subscription in advance should present it as the price for a year and not that it is the price for paying in advance.<ref>Brit Yehuda (ch. 23 fnt. 20), Milveh Hashem 1:9:40, Chelkat Binyamin 173:99, Chut Shani (Ribbit p. 98)</ref> If they present it clearly as having two prices one for the subscription and one for the newsstand price and or if they state that one price is an early subscription price that could be an issue of interest. Some poskim forbid paying the subscription price, while many poskim permit even in that case.<ref>Brit Yehuda (ch. 23 fnt. 20) writes that if the subscription is stated in a clear fashion that there are two prices, one for paying up front and one for paying later, that is an issue of interest. Even though it is possible that they're giving a discount for paying early because it removes an inconvenience of dealing with the sales and processing or it gives them the benefit of having guaranteed customers, Brit Yehuda is not willing to rely on that alone since it isn't obvious that is the reason for the discount. He is only willing to be lenient if they only specify one subscription price and don't mention two prices. Milveh Hashem 1:9:40 agrees. He adds that ideally a person should do a heter iska for such a subscription, unless it is a Torah journal that doesn't make any money for which it is impossible to do a heter iska (since they don't have any money invested or aren't selling anything for profit). However, Chelkat Binyamin 173:99 is more lenient .</ref>		# A Jewish journal or magazine which offers a discount for those who purchase a subscription in advance should present it as the price for a year and not that it is the price for paying in advance.<ref>Brit Yehuda (ch. 23 fnt. 20), Milveh Hashem 1:9:40, Chelkat Binyamin 173:99, Chut Shani (Ribbit p. 98)</ref> If they present it clearly as having two prices one for the subscription and one for the newsstand price and or if they state that one price is an early subscription price that could be an issue of interest. Some poskim forbid paying the subscription price, while many poskim permit even in that case.<ref>Brit Yehuda (ch. 23 fnt. 20) writes that if the subscription is stated in a clear fashion that there are two prices, one for paying up front and one for paying later, that is an issue of interest. Even though it is possible that they're giving a discount for paying early because it removes an inconvenience of dealing with the sales and processing or it gives them the benefit of having guaranteed customers, Brit Yehuda is not willing to rely on that alone since it isn't obvious that is the reason for the discount. He is only willing to be lenient if they only specify one subscription price and don't mention two prices. Milveh Hashem 1:9:40 agrees. He adds that ideally a person should do a heter iska for such a subscription, unless it is a Torah journal that doesn't make any money for which it is impossible to do a heter iska (since they don't have any money invested or aren't selling anything for profit). However, Chelkat Binyamin 173:99 is more lenient. He holds that the reason the company gives a discount for a subscription is to ensure that they have buyers and isn't interest. Chut Shani (Ribbit p. 98) is also lenient. However, Chut Shani writes that it is a problem if the price of the magazine changes during the subscription. If the price of the weekly prices increases and the subscribers can continue to pay the old price that they originally got when they signed up that is considered interest. If that happens it would only be permitted to pay the higher price.</ref>
	==Transactions Established with Interest==		==Transactions Established with Interest==
	#If someone set up a transaction with interest, such as a sale with a later payment that included interest, the sale is valid in a way that doesn't require the payment of interest. This only applies if they did a formal [[kinyan]]. If there was no [[kinyan]] and it was only establish verbally then it is voided if it includes interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 175:8. Rosh Bava Metsia 5:19 quotes Rav Hai Goan to say that if one made a sale with ribbit the sale is valid; just one doesn't have to pay the ribbit.		#If someone set up a transaction with interest, such as a sale with a later payment that included interest, the sale is valid in a way that doesn't require the payment of interest. This only applies if they did a formal [[kinyan]]. If there was no [[kinyan]] and it was only establish verbally then it is voided if it includes interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 175:8. Rosh Bava Metsia 5:19 quotes Rav Hai Goan to say that if one made a sale with ribbit the sale is valid; just one doesn't have to pay the ribbit.

YitzchakSultan1: /* Discounted for Subscriptions */

2025-03-02T22:34:37Z

Discounted for Subscriptions

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 2 March 2025
Line 41:		Line 41:

	==Discounted for Subscriptions==		==Discounted for Subscriptions==
	# A Jewish journal or magazine which offers a discount for those who purchase a subscription in advance should present it as the price for ~~a year or half~~ a year and not that it is the price for paying in advance. ~~A newspaper which uses~~ the ~~money~~ for ~~investments should offer~~ the ~~subscriptions with a [[heter iska]]~~.<ref>~~Malveh~~ Hashem 1:9:40</ref>		# A Jewish journal or magazine which offers a discount for those who purchase a subscription in advance should present it as the price for a year and not that it is the price for paying in advance.<ref>Brit Yehuda (ch. 23 fnt. 20), Milveh Hashem 1:9:40, Chelkat Binyamin 173:99, Chut Shani (Ribbit p. 98)</ref> If they present it clearly as having two prices one for the subscription and one for the newsstand price and or if they state that one price is an early subscription price that could be an issue of interest. Some poskim forbid paying the subscription price, while many poskim permit even in that case.<ref>Brit Yehuda (ch. 23 fnt. 20) writes that if the subscription is stated in a clear fashion that there are two prices, one for paying up front and one for paying later, that is an issue of interest. Even though it is possible that they're giving a discount for paying early because it removes an inconvenience of dealing with the sales and processing or it gives them the benefit of having guaranteed customers, Brit Yehuda is not willing to rely on that alone since it isn't obvious that is the reason for the discount. He is only willing to be lenient if they only specify one subscription price and don't mention two prices. Milveh Hashem 1:9:40 agrees. He adds that ideally a person should do a heter iska for such a subscription, unless it is a Torah journal that doesn't make any money for which it is impossible to do a heter iska (since they don't have any money invested or aren't selling anything for profit). However, Chelkat Binyamin 173:99 is more lenient .</ref>
	==Transactions Established with Interest==		==Transactions Established with Interest==
	#If someone set up a transaction with interest, such as a sale with a later payment that included interest, the sale is valid in a way that doesn't require the payment of interest. This only applies if they did a formal [[kinyan]]. If there was no [[kinyan]] and it was only establish verbally then it is voided if it includes interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 175:8. Rosh Bava Metsia 5:19 quotes Rav Hai Goan to say that if one made a sale with ribbit the sale is valid; just one doesn't have to pay the ribbit.		#If someone set up a transaction with interest, such as a sale with a later payment that included interest, the sale is valid in a way that doesn't require the payment of interest. This only applies if they did a formal [[kinyan]]. If there was no [[kinyan]] and it was only establish verbally then it is voided if it includes interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 175:8. Rosh Bava Metsia 5:19 quotes Rav Hai Goan to say that if one made a sale with ribbit the sale is valid; just one doesn't have to pay the ribbit.

YitzchakSultan1: /* Return Policies */

2024-12-03T20:58:28Z

Return Policies

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 3 December 2024
Line 36:		Line 36:
	## The seller specifies that the buyer can't return it before a certain period of time.<ref>Sama CM 207:11</ref>		## The seller specifies that the buyer can't return it before a certain period of time.<ref>Sama CM 207:11</ref>
	## According to most poskim one can rely on the first method. According to others one can rely on the second method. Ideally a person would use both languages to be strict for both sides.<ref>Laws of Interest p. 41</ref>		## According to most poskim one can rely on the first method. According to others one can rely on the second method. Ideally a person would use both languages to be strict for both sides.<ref>Laws of Interest p. 41</ref>
	# Some poskim hold that ~~since generally the fact that~~ the seller lets the buyer use the product is merely in order to interest ~~him in order buying~~ it ~~and there's no~~ time-value of money ~~because of the fact that the seller had the buyer's money in the meantime~~ it is permitted with whatever language they use. However, even according to this opinion if it is a large sale and the time-value of money ~~does play~~ a role ~~and~~ the seller is interested in using the money ~~of the buyer~~ between the time of the sale and the return then it is problematic.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 174:3. He cites Chut Shani ch. 13 and Kuntres Kitzur Dinei Ribbit Hametzuyim 9:5 to support this approach.</ref>		# Some poskim hold that it is permitted because the seller lets the buyer use the product merely in order to interest the buyer to buy the product. Since the seller is not granting this right to try on or use it temporarily because of the time-value of money it is permitted with whatever language they use. However, even according to this opinion if there is a large sale and the time-value of money plays a role, such as if the seller is interested in using the money between the time of the sale and the return, then it is problematic.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 174:3. He cites Chut Shani ch. 13 and Kuntres Kitzur Dinei Ribbit Hametzuyim 9:5 to support this approach.</ref>
	# If someone sells a field or any product on condition that the seller can buy it back when he wants to that isn't a sale, rather it is considered a loan.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 65b, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5, Rashba 3:435, Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 174:1. Netivot Shalom Ribbit 174:3:2 infers from the Taz that when Shulchan Aruch writes it isn't a sale he means that if the buyer ends up returning the item otherwise it is considered a complete sale.</ref> Therefore, it is forbidden for the buyer to use the field or product. Doing so would be either biblical interest or rabbinic interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch 174:1 based on Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5 write that it is biblical interest to eat the fruit of a field that was sold conditionally. Shach 174:1 writes that those who hold that eating the fruit of a mashkon is only rabbinic interest would say the same in this case. See however, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5-7 and Even Haezel 6:4 s.v. vheneh biyarnu who seem to imply otherwise. Taz 174:1 writes that those who think that interest that is conditional upon someone's choice, ''Sad Echad Bribbit'', is rabbinic would deem this rabbinic as well.</ref>		# If someone sells a field or any product on condition that the seller can buy it back when he wants to that isn't a sale, rather it is considered a loan.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 65b, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5, Rashba 3:435, Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 174:1. Netivot Shalom Ribbit 174:3:2 infers from the Taz that when Shulchan Aruch writes it isn't a sale he means that if the buyer ends up returning the item otherwise it is considered a complete sale.</ref> Therefore, it is forbidden for the buyer to use the field or product. Doing so would be either biblical interest or rabbinic interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch 174:1 based on Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5 write that it is biblical interest to eat the fruit of a field that was sold conditionally. Shach 174:1 writes that those who hold that eating the fruit of a mashkon is only rabbinic interest would say the same in this case. See however, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5-7 and Even Haezel 6:4 s.v. vheneh biyarnu who seem to imply otherwise. Taz 174:1 writes that those who think that interest that is conditional upon someone's choice, ''Sad Echad Bribbit'', is rabbinic would deem this rabbinic as well.</ref>
	#After the original sale if the buyer decides on his own violation to let the seller buy it back, he can do so and he can even grant that right to the seller with an acquisition. That wouldn't invalidate the original sale and the buyer would be permitted to use that product.<ref>Rashba (Teshuvot Chadashot 1:85), Shulchan Aruch 174:2</ref>		#After the original sale if the buyer decides on his own violation to let the seller buy it back, he can do so and he can even grant that right to the seller with an acquisition. That wouldn't invalidate the original sale and the buyer would be permitted to use that product.<ref>Rashba (Teshuvot Chadashot 1:85), Shulchan Aruch 174:2</ref>

YitzchakSultan1: Text replacement - "Shulchan Aruch says" to "Shulchan Aruch writes"

2023-07-13T16:58:48Z

Text replacement - "Shulchan Aruch says" to "Shulchan Aruch writes"

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 13 July 2023
Line 37:		Line 37:
	## According to most poskim one can rely on the first method. According to others one can rely on the second method. Ideally a person would use both languages to be strict for both sides.<ref>Laws of Interest p. 41</ref>		## According to most poskim one can rely on the first method. According to others one can rely on the second method. Ideally a person would use both languages to be strict for both sides.<ref>Laws of Interest p. 41</ref>
	# Some poskim hold that since generally the fact that the seller lets the buyer use the product is merely in order to interest him in order buying it and there's no time-value of money because of the fact that the seller had the buyer's money in the meantime it is permitted with whatever language they use. However, even according to this opinion if it is a large sale and the time-value of money does play a role and the seller is interested in using the money of the buyer between the time of the sale and the return then it is problematic.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 174:3. He cites Chut Shani ch. 13 and Kuntres Kitzur Dinei Ribbit Hametzuyim 9:5 to support this approach.</ref>		# Some poskim hold that since generally the fact that the seller lets the buyer use the product is merely in order to interest him in order buying it and there's no time-value of money because of the fact that the seller had the buyer's money in the meantime it is permitted with whatever language they use. However, even according to this opinion if it is a large sale and the time-value of money does play a role and the seller is interested in using the money of the buyer between the time of the sale and the return then it is problematic.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 174:3. He cites Chut Shani ch. 13 and Kuntres Kitzur Dinei Ribbit Hametzuyim 9:5 to support this approach.</ref>
	# If someone sells a field or any product on condition that the seller can buy it back when he wants to that isn't a sale, rather it is considered a loan.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 65b, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5, Rashba 3:435, Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 174:1. Netivot Shalom Ribbit 174:3:2 infers from the Taz that when Shulchan Aruch ~~says~~ it isn't a sale he means that if the buyer ends up returning the item otherwise it is considered a complete sale.</ref> Therefore, it is forbidden for the buyer to use the field or product. Doing so would be either biblical interest or rabbinic interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch 174:1 based on Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5 write that it is biblical interest to eat the fruit of a field that was sold conditionally. Shach 174:1 writes that those who hold that eating the fruit of a mashkon is only rabbinic interest would say the same in this case. See however, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5-7 and Even Haezel 6:4 s.v. vheneh biyarnu who seem to imply otherwise. Taz 174:1 writes that those who think that interest that is conditional upon someone's choice, ''Sad Echad Bribbit'', is rabbinic would deem this rabbinic as well.</ref>		# If someone sells a field or any product on condition that the seller can buy it back when he wants to that isn't a sale, rather it is considered a loan.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 65b, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5, Rashba 3:435, Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 174:1. Netivot Shalom Ribbit 174:3:2 infers from the Taz that when Shulchan Aruch writes it isn't a sale he means that if the buyer ends up returning the item otherwise it is considered a complete sale.</ref> Therefore, it is forbidden for the buyer to use the field or product. Doing so would be either biblical interest or rabbinic interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch 174:1 based on Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5 write that it is biblical interest to eat the fruit of a field that was sold conditionally. Shach 174:1 writes that those who hold that eating the fruit of a mashkon is only rabbinic interest would say the same in this case. See however, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5-7 and Even Haezel 6:4 s.v. vheneh biyarnu who seem to imply otherwise. Taz 174:1 writes that those who think that interest that is conditional upon someone's choice, ''Sad Echad Bribbit'', is rabbinic would deem this rabbinic as well.</ref>
	#After the original sale if the buyer decides on his own violation to let the seller buy it back, he can do so and he can even grant that right to the seller with an acquisition. That wouldn't invalidate the original sale and the buyer would be permitted to use that product.<ref>Rashba (Teshuvot Chadashot 1:85), Shulchan Aruch 174:2</ref>		#After the original sale if the buyer decides on his own violation to let the seller buy it back, he can do so and he can even grant that right to the seller with an acquisition. That wouldn't invalidate the original sale and the buyer would be permitted to use that product.<ref>Rashba (Teshuvot Chadashot 1:85), Shulchan Aruch 174:2</ref>

Unknown user: Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical"

2020-12-03T18:12:24Z

Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical"

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:12, 3 December 2020
Line 6:		Line 6:
	# Using advanced discounted payments for a yeshiva or non-profit tzedaka organization is permitted since this is only a rabbinic form of interest.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/900500/rabbi-hershel-schachter/dinei-ribbis/ Rav Hershel Schachter (Dinei Ribbis approx min 40)]</ref>		# Using advanced discounted payments for a yeshiva or non-profit tzedaka organization is permitted since this is only a rabbinic form of interest.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/900500/rabbi-hershel-schachter/dinei-ribbis/ Rav Hershel Schachter (Dinei Ribbis approx min 40)]</ref>
	==Buying on Credit==		==Buying on Credit==
	#Generally it is forbidden<ref>Rambam Malveh Vloveh 8:1 clarifies that it is only rabbinically forbidden to charge more for buying on credit since it is presented as a sale not a loan. Shach 173:4 agrees. Brit Yehuda 12:2 based on Shach 173:6 writes that many poskim hold that it is considered ~~Biblical~~ interest if they specified that there is a higher price for buying on credit.</ref> to charge someone extra for buying on credit.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 65a, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 173:1, Brit Yehuda 12:1, Torat Ribbit 8:1</ref>		#Generally it is forbidden<ref>Rambam Malveh Vloveh 8:1 clarifies that it is only rabbinically forbidden to charge more for buying on credit since it is presented as a sale not a loan. Shach 173:4 agrees. Brit Yehuda 12:2 based on Shach 173:6 writes that many poskim hold that it is considered biblical interest if they specified that there is a higher price for buying on credit.</ref> to charge someone extra for buying on credit.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 65a, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 173:1, Brit Yehuda 12:1, Torat Ribbit 8:1</ref>
	#It is forbidden to make up a contract that if the buyer pays at the end he should pay a certain amount and if he wants he can pay earlier less.<ref>Torat Ribbit 8:2</ref>		#It is forbidden to make up a contract that if the buyer pays at the end he should pay a certain amount and if he wants he can pay earlier less.<ref>Torat Ribbit 8:2</ref>
	# Even if the two tiered pricing is set up that the on time payment is called a discount and buying on credit as the regular price that is still forbidden.<ref>Torat Ribbit 8:3</ref>		# Even if the two tiered pricing is set up that the on time payment is called a discount and buying on credit as the regular price that is still forbidden.<ref>Torat Ribbit 8:3</ref>
Line 37:		Line 37:
	## According to most poskim one can rely on the first method. According to others one can rely on the second method. Ideally a person would use both languages to be strict for both sides.<ref>Laws of Interest p. 41</ref>		## According to most poskim one can rely on the first method. According to others one can rely on the second method. Ideally a person would use both languages to be strict for both sides.<ref>Laws of Interest p. 41</ref>
	# Some poskim hold that since generally the fact that the seller lets the buyer use the product is merely in order to interest him in order buying it and there's no time-value of money because of the fact that the seller had the buyer's money in the meantime it is permitted with whatever language they use. However, even according to this opinion if it is a large sale and the time-value of money does play a role and the seller is interested in using the money of the buyer between the time of the sale and the return then it is problematic.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 174:3. He cites Chut Shani ch. 13 and Kuntres Kitzur Dinei Ribbit Hametzuyim 9:5 to support this approach.</ref>		# Some poskim hold that since generally the fact that the seller lets the buyer use the product is merely in order to interest him in order buying it and there's no time-value of money because of the fact that the seller had the buyer's money in the meantime it is permitted with whatever language they use. However, even according to this opinion if it is a large sale and the time-value of money does play a role and the seller is interested in using the money of the buyer between the time of the sale and the return then it is problematic.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 174:3. He cites Chut Shani ch. 13 and Kuntres Kitzur Dinei Ribbit Hametzuyim 9:5 to support this approach.</ref>
	# If someone sells a field or any product on condition that the seller can buy it back when he wants to that isn't a sale, rather it is considered a loan.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 65b, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5, Rashba 3:435, Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 174:1. Netivot Shalom Ribbit 174:3:2 infers from the Taz that when Shulchan Aruch says it isn't a sale he means that if the buyer ends up returning the item otherwise it is considered a complete sale.</ref> Therefore, it is forbidden for the buyer to use the field or product. Doing so would be either ~~Biblical~~ interest or rabbinic interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch 174:1 based on Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5 write that it is ~~Biblical~~ interest to eat the fruit of a field that was sold conditionally. Shach 174:1 writes that those who hold that eating the fruit of a mashkon is only rabbinic interest would say the same in this case. See however, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5-7 and Even Haezel 6:4 s.v. vheneh biyarnu who seem to imply otherwise. Taz 174:1 writes that those who think that interest that is conditional upon someone's choice, ''Sad Echad Bribbit'', is rabbinic would deem this rabbinic as well.</ref>		# If someone sells a field or any product on condition that the seller can buy it back when he wants to that isn't a sale, rather it is considered a loan.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 65b, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5, Rashba 3:435, Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 174:1. Netivot Shalom Ribbit 174:3:2 infers from the Taz that when Shulchan Aruch says it isn't a sale he means that if the buyer ends up returning the item otherwise it is considered a complete sale.</ref> Therefore, it is forbidden for the buyer to use the field or product. Doing so would be either biblical interest or rabbinic interest.<reF>Shulchan Aruch 174:1 based on Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5 write that it is biblical interest to eat the fruit of a field that was sold conditionally. Shach 174:1 writes that those who hold that eating the fruit of a mashkon is only rabbinic interest would say the same in this case. See however, Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:5-7 and Even Haezel 6:4 s.v. vheneh biyarnu who seem to imply otherwise. Taz 174:1 writes that those who think that interest that is conditional upon someone's choice, ''Sad Echad Bribbit'', is rabbinic would deem this rabbinic as well.</ref>
	#After the original sale if the buyer decides on his own violation to let the seller buy it back, he can do so and he can even grant that right to the seller with an acquisition. That wouldn't invalidate the original sale and the buyer would be permitted to use that product.<ref>Rashba (Teshuvot Chadashot 1:85), Shulchan Aruch 174:2</ref>		#After the original sale if the buyer decides on his own violation to let the seller buy it back, he can do so and he can even grant that right to the seller with an acquisition. That wouldn't invalidate the original sale and the buyer would be permitted to use that product.<ref>Rashba (Teshuvot Chadashot 1:85), Shulchan Aruch 174:2</ref>

Unknown user: Text replacement - ". " to "."

2020-07-12T19:52:52Z

Text replacement - ". <ref>" to ".<ref>"

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 12 July 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Discounts==		==Discounts==
	# Usually it is considered a rabbinic prohibition of taking interest to have a two tiered system in which the buyer could either pay a lower price now and receive the merchandise or can get the merchandise now and only pay later but at a higher price. <ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 173:7, The Laws of Ribbis p. 132, [https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/900500/rabbi-hershel-schachter/dinei-ribbis/ Rav Hershel Schachter (Dinei Ribbis min 40)]</ref>		# Usually it is considered a rabbinic prohibition of taking interest to have a two tiered system in which the buyer could either pay a lower price now and receive the merchandise or can get the merchandise now and only pay later but at a higher price.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 173:7, The Laws of Ribbis p. 132, [https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/900500/rabbi-hershel-schachter/dinei-ribbis/ Rav Hershel Schachter (Dinei Ribbis min 40)]</ref>
	# It is common in some businesses to require a deposit when a customer places a sale to ensure that the seller follows through with the sale. It is permitted for the seller to charge a lower price to the buyer who makes a deposit since the seller’s intent in requiring a deposit isn’t to charge interest but to ensure that the sale takes place. <ref>The Laws of Ribbis p. 133</ref>		# It is common in some businesses to require a deposit when a customer places a sale to ensure that the seller follows through with the sale. It is permitted for the seller to charge a lower price to the buyer who makes a deposit since the seller’s intent in requiring a deposit isn’t to charge interest but to ensure that the sale takes place.<ref>The Laws of Ribbis p. 133</ref>
	# It is forbidden to pay a camp an early bird special or discounted price if you pay early.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/900500/rabbi-hershel-schachter/dinei-ribbis/ Rav Hershel Schachter (Dinei Ribbis approx min 40)]</ref>		# It is forbidden to pay a camp an early bird special or discounted price if you pay early.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/900500/rabbi-hershel-schachter/dinei-ribbis/ Rav Hershel Schachter (Dinei Ribbis approx min 40)]</ref>
	# It is forbidden to pay for a sefer in advance before the printer published the sefer.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/900500/rabbi-hershel-schachter/dinei-ribbis/ Rav Hershel Schachter (Dinei Ribbis approx min 40)]</ref>		# It is forbidden to pay for a sefer in advance before the printer published the sefer.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/900500/rabbi-hershel-schachter/dinei-ribbis/ Rav Hershel Schachter (Dinei Ribbis approx min 40)]</ref>