Interest with Non-Jews - Revision history

YitzchakSultan1: /* When the Collateral was Taken Forcibly */

2025-01-16T22:48:06Z

When the Collateral was Taken Forcibly

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:48, 16 January 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The Torah recognizes the time value of money and therefore permits charging a non-Jew interest ~~for a loan~~. However, ~~with respect to~~ a fellow Jew the Torah demands that a person do a kindness and lend them for free.<ref>Ramban Devarim 23:21 writes that even though it is forbidden to steal from a non-Jew it is permitted to charge them interest for a loan since it is given willingly. Nonetheless, with one's fellow Jew it is forbidden to charge interest since that it is a kindness that the Torah demands us to do. This sentiment is echoed in Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 573). See Ralbag (Toaliyot Vayikra 25:35) who writes that the Torah forbids taking interest because it wants us to stay away from the negative drive of lusting money. In trying to amass wealth a person is tempted to use any ruse possible and to prevent this the Torah forbids a person from taking interest.</ref> Therefore, the Torah<ref>Vayikra 25:36-37</ref> forbids a Jew from taking or paying interest to another Jew, but it is permitted to take interest or pay interest to a non-Jew.		The Torah recognizes the time value of money and therefore permits charging a non-Jew interest. However, for a fellow Jew the Torah demands that a person do a kindness and lend them for free.<ref>Ramban Devarim 23:21 writes that even though it is forbidden to steal from a non-Jew it is permitted to charge them interest for a loan since it is given willingly. Nonetheless, with one's fellow Jew it is forbidden to charge interest since that it is a kindness that the Torah demands us to do. This sentiment is echoed in Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 573). See Ralbag (Toaliyot Vayikra 25:35) who writes that the Torah forbids taking interest because it wants us to stay away from the negative drive of lusting money. In trying to amass wealth a person is tempted to use any ruse possible and to prevent this the Torah forbids a person from taking interest.</ref> Therefore, the Torah<ref>Vayikra 25:36-37</ref> forbids a Jew from taking or paying interest to another Jew, but it is permitted to take interest or pay interest to a non-Jew.

	==Interest with a Non-Jew==		==Interest with a Non-Jew==

YitzchakSultan1: /* When the Collateral was Taken Forcibly */

2025-01-16T22:44:21Z

When the Collateral was Taken Forcibly

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 16 January 2025
Line 57:		Line 57:
	#If the non-Jew never comes to pay the loan the lender can sell the collateral and keep the value. The agent can't stop the lender from doing so out of fear of the non-Jew since the lender isn't really incumbent to the agent or the non-Jew.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:15, Rosh responsa 108:6</ref> Some say that if the agent was originally appointed by the lender to do this loan with the non-Jew, then if the agent is afraid of the ramifications of the lender selling the collateral, then the lender must listen and if he doesn't then he must pay for damages to the agent.<ref>Levush 168:15, Shach 168:50, Chelkat Binyamin 168:156. The explanation of the Levush is that essentially since the agent isn't a borrower he can tell the lender to do or not do something and that poses no issue. The lender should be cautious of the damages that can occur to the agent, however, if the agent arranged with the non-Jew and not the lender, then the lender doesn't have to be concerned. It is the responsibility of the agent. If the agent was originated commissioned by the Jewish lender then it is a concern for the lender that he doesn't cause a damage to the agent. The Taz 168:20 and Bet Meir disagree with the Levush. They hold that the lender doesn't have to listen to the agent in any event. They explain that the source for this halacha is the Rosh and he held that the borrower shouldn't take any responsibility for the collateral and yet he writes that he doesn't need to listen to the agent. Shach in Nekudat Hakesef 168:14 answers that these are two separate statements of the Rosh. The Bet Meir doesn't understand the Shach since the Rosh either way would discuss a permissible case according to his opinion.</ref>		#If the non-Jew never comes to pay the loan the lender can sell the collateral and keep the value. The agent can't stop the lender from doing so out of fear of the non-Jew since the lender isn't really incumbent to the agent or the non-Jew.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:15, Rosh responsa 108:6</ref> Some say that if the agent was originally appointed by the lender to do this loan with the non-Jew, then if the agent is afraid of the ramifications of the lender selling the collateral, then the lender must listen and if he doesn't then he must pay for damages to the agent.<ref>Levush 168:15, Shach 168:50, Chelkat Binyamin 168:156. The explanation of the Levush is that essentially since the agent isn't a borrower he can tell the lender to do or not do something and that poses no issue. The lender should be cautious of the damages that can occur to the agent, however, if the agent arranged with the non-Jew and not the lender, then the lender doesn't have to be concerned. It is the responsibility of the agent. If the agent was originated commissioned by the Jewish lender then it is a concern for the lender that he doesn't cause a damage to the agent. The Taz 168:20 and Bet Meir disagree with the Levush. They hold that the lender doesn't have to listen to the agent in any event. They explain that the source for this halacha is the Rosh and he held that the borrower shouldn't take any responsibility for the collateral and yet he writes that he doesn't need to listen to the agent. Shach in Nekudat Hakesef 168:14 answers that these are two separate statements of the Rosh. The Bet Meir doesn't understand the Shach since the Rosh either way would discuss a permissible case according to his opinion.</ref>

	===~~Lending~~ with Interest from a ~~Non-~~Jew with a Jewish Agent using a Collateral===		===Borrowing with Interest from a Jew with a non-Jewish Agent using a Collateral===
	[[Image:Taking Mashkon from Non-Jew.png\|300px\|right]]		[[Image:Taking Mashkon from Non-Jew.png\|300px\|right]]
	[[Image:Returning Mashkon to Non-Jew.png\| 350px\| right]]		[[Image:Returning Mashkon to Non-Jew.png\| 350px\| right]]
Line 76:		Line 76:
	#A Jewish agent brought a collateral from a non-Jew to another Jew in order to borrow with interest. After the loan is due, the Jewish lender can ask the agent to show him which non-Jew he lent to but can not ask the agent to pay to redeem the non-Jew’s collateral and pay for the loan.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:27 cites the Rashba 3:47 who speaks of a case where a Jew brought a collateral from a non-Jew to another Jew in order to borrow with interest, then the lender Jew asked the agent to redeem the non-Jew’s collateral and pay for the loan. The Rashba rules that it is forbidden for the agent Jew to pay the loan and interest since he is merely an agent. He must though indicate to the lender Jew who is the non-Jew who borrowed the money. Shulchan Aruch YD 168:27 codifies the Rashba. Shach 168:83 explains that the agent has no responsibility to sell or buy the collateral from the lender.</ref>		#A Jewish agent brought a collateral from a non-Jew to another Jew in order to borrow with interest. After the loan is due, the Jewish lender can ask the agent to show him which non-Jew he lent to but can not ask the agent to pay to redeem the non-Jew’s collateral and pay for the loan.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:27 cites the Rashba 3:47 who speaks of a case where a Jew brought a collateral from a non-Jew to another Jew in order to borrow with interest, then the lender Jew asked the agent to redeem the non-Jew’s collateral and pay for the loan. The Rashba rules that it is forbidden for the agent Jew to pay the loan and interest since he is merely an agent. He must though indicate to the lender Jew who is the non-Jew who borrowed the money. Shulchan Aruch YD 168:27 codifies the Rashba. Shach 168:83 explains that the agent has no responsibility to sell or buy the collateral from the lender.</ref>

	====Borrowing on Behalf of a Community====		=== Borrowing on Behalf of a Community ===

	#A few Jewish administrators of a community or communal institution borrowed with interest from a non-Jew on behalf of the community and then they lent the money to the community with interest. That is forbidden since ultimately the non-Jew will hold the Jewish administrators responsible.<ref>Rashba responsa 5:259 writes that he heard that in many communities they will have the administrators of a community borrow with interest from a non-Jew on behalf of the community and then he lends it out with interest to the rest of the congregation. Rashba writes vehemently that there is nothing to rely upon. Rama 168:17 ambiguously quotes this practice without endorsing it or dismissing it.</ref>		#A few Jewish administrators of a community or communal institution borrowed with interest from a non-Jew on behalf of the community and then they lent the money to the community with interest. That is forbidden since ultimately the non-Jew will hold the Jewish administrators responsible.<ref>Rashba responsa 5:259 writes that he heard that in many communities they will have the administrators of a community borrow with interest from a non-Jew on behalf of the community and then he lends it out with interest to the rest of the congregation. Rashba writes vehemently that there is nothing to rely upon. Rama 168:17 ambiguously quotes this practice without endorsing it or dismissing it.</ref>
	#If an administrator for a community borrows from a non-Jew in order to pay for a communal construction project, according to some, he may be paid back by the community including the interest.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 168:4 cites Chatom Sofer YD 135 who writes that once an administrator of the community borrowed from a non-Jew with interest for building a communal building for guests. Then he charged the community to each pay their share of the cost. He cites the Ranach 58 who permitted a contractor who borrowed with interest from non-Jews to be repaid by the community since they are essentially paying for the building and not interest for a loan.</ref>		#If an administrator for a community borrows from a non-Jew in order to pay for a communal construction project, according to some, he may be paid back by the community including the interest.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 168:4 cites Chatom Sofer YD 135 who writes that once an administrator of the community borrowed from a non-Jew with interest for building a communal building for guests. Then he charged the community to each pay their share of the cost. He cites the Ranach 58 who permitted a contractor who borrowed with interest from non-Jews to be repaid by the community since they are essentially paying for the building and not interest for a loan.</ref>

			=== Non-Jewish Lender who Borrows from Jew Using another Jew's Collateral ===

	====When the Collateral was Taken Forcibly====		====When the Collateral was Taken Forcibly====

	#If a non-Jew took a collateral from a Jew forcibly and then used it to borrow with interest from another Jew, ~~that~~ second ~~jew~~ may collect interest from the non-Jew but may not ~~collect interest~~ from the first Jew.<ref>Smak 260, Kol Bo 84, Mordechai 338 citing Riva, Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 all quoted by the Bet Yosef 168:10</ref> Some disagree and allow collecting the interest.<ref>Rosh cited by Tur 168:10</ref>		#If a non-Jew took a collateral from a Jew forcibly and then used it to borrow with interest from another Jew, the second Jew may collect interest from the non-Jew but may not from the first Jew.<ref>Smak 260, Kol Bo 84, Mordechai 338 citing Riva, Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 all quoted by the Bet Yosef 168:10</ref> Some ''poskim'' disagree and allow collecting the interest.<ref>Rosh cited by Tur 168:10</ref>
	#However, under the following two circumstances one may collect the interest according to everyone:		#However, under the following two circumstances one may collect the interest according to everyone:
	##If the ~~force and~~ responsibility of the loan rests upon the non-Jew ~~besides for the collateral~~ then it is permitted to collect the interest from the first Jew.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:10 based on the Baal Hatrumot</ref>		##If the responsibility of the loan beyond the value of the collateral rests upon the non-Jew, then it is permitted to collect the interest from the first Jew.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:10 based on the Baal Hatrumot</ref>
	##Additionally, if the first Jew didn't know that his collateral was going to be used to borrow from a Jew with interest it isn't any question of interest for him to pay the second Jew the interest to redeem his item.<ref>Maharik 16 cited by Bet Yosef 168:10</ref>		##Additionally, if the first Jew didn't know that his collateral was going to be used to borrow from a Jew with interest it isn't any question of interest for him to pay the second Jew the interest to redeem his item.<ref>Maharik 16 cited by Bet Yosef 168:10</ref>

	====When the Collateral was Given to the Non-Jew Properly====		====When the Collateral was Given to the Non-Jew Properly====

	#If a Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with interest and gave him a collateral. If the non-Jew takes that collateral and uses it to borrow from another Jew with interest some ~~say~~ that one may not take interest from that transaction, while others ~~say~~ that one ~~can~~. Generally we are lenient except in the following two circumstances:<ref>Shulchan Aruch 168:10, 20</ref>		#A Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with a collateral and then the non-Jew for his own purposes borrowed from another Jew with the same collateral, it is permitted for the second Jew to collect interest from the non-Jew. This is true even if the non-Jew will in turn force the first Jew to pay interest.<ref>Tur 168:20 quotes the Baal Haitur that if a Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with a collateral and now the non-Jew is borrowing from another Jew with the same collateral the second Jew may not accept the interest from the non-Jew since it is as though it is coming from the Jew. However, the Rosh Pesachim 2:10 and Rashba 3:229 disagree. Once the Jew borrows from the non-Jew it is completely permitted and if the non-Jew then borrows from another Jew that is disconnected. The Bet Yosef 168:20 cites the Ran b”m 71b s.v. veharamban and Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 who side with the Baal Haitur. Yet, the Baal Hatrumot adds that if the non-Jew accepts responsibility for the loan he’s taking from the second Jew it is permitted. Shulchan Aruch 168:20 cites the Rosh and Rashba as the main opinion and the Baal Haitur as some say.</ref>
			#A Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with interest and gave him a collateral. If the non-Jew takes that collateral and uses it to borrow from another Jew with interest some ''poskim'' hold that one may not take interest from that transaction, while others argue that one may. Generally, we are lenient except in the following two circumstances:<ref>Shulchan Aruch 168:10, 20</ref>
	##If the non-Jew forcibly took the collateral from the first Jew then we assume that the collateral wasn't really acquired by the non-Jew and so when it is used to borrow against another Jew it is like there's a deal between the two Jews.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:10 in his second answer, Shach 168:26, 67, Taz 168:11. Gra 168:23 disagrees.</ref>		##If the non-Jew forcibly took the collateral from the first Jew then we assume that the collateral wasn't really acquired by the non-Jew and so when it is used to borrow against another Jew it is like there's a deal between the two Jews.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:10 in his second answer, Shach 168:26, 67, Taz 168:11. Gra 168:23 disagrees.</ref>
	##Additionally, if the non-Jew immediately took that collateral from the first Jew and used it to borrow from the second Jew then it appears that he did so only to create a loan between two Jews. However, if he held onto it for some time for himself then it isn't an issue.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:10 in his first answer, Shach 168:67</ref>		##Additionally, if the non-Jew immediately took that collateral from the first Jew and used it to borrow from the second Jew then it appears that he did so only to create a loan between two Jews. However, if he held onto it for some time for himself then it isn't an issue.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:10 in his first answer, Shach 168:67</ref>

	~~===Jew Borrowed from Non-Jew and then Non-Jew Borrows from Jew===~~

	#If a Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with a collateral and then the non-Jew for his own purposes borrowed from another Jew with the same collateral it is permitted for the second Jew to collect interest from the non-Jew, even if the non-Jew will in turn force the first Jew to pay interest.<ref>Tur 168:20 quotes the Baal Haitur that if a Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with a collateral and now the non-Jew is borrowing from another Jew with the same collateral the second Jew may not accept the interest from the non-Jew since it is as though it is coming from the Jew. However, the Rosh Pesachim 2:10 and Rashba 3:229 disagree. Once the Jew borrows from the non-Jew it is completely permitted and if the non-Jew then borrows from another Jew that is disconnected. The Bet Yosef 168:20 cites the Ran b”m 71b s.v. veharamban and Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 who side with the Baal Haitur. Yet, the Baal Hatrumot adds that if the non-Jew accepts responsibility for the loan he’s taking from the second Jew it is permitted. Shulchan Aruch 168:20 cites the Rosh and Rashba as the main opinion and the Baal Haitur as some say.</ref>

	==Buying Debt==		==Buying Debt==

YitzchakSultan1: /* Interest with a Non-Jew */

2025-01-16T22:31:36Z

Interest with a Non-Jew

Show changes

YitzchakSultan1: /* Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt */

2025-01-15T21:53:34Z

Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 15 January 2025
Line 107:		Line 107:
	#If a non-Jew borrowed money from a Jew with interest, theoretically the Jew can sell that loan to another Jew. Doing so will make the Jewish buyer like the new lender and he can collect the interest from the non-Jew. However, this has to be a complete sale of the loan and they will no longer have any claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18 explains that the Jew can sell the collateral to another Jew with halachic means of acquisition. When there is no collateral and it is impossible to effectively sell the debt, Shulchan Aruch writes that the debt is transferred by having the Jewish lender forgive the non-Jew of his debt. See further for details.</ref> Practically, for this to be effective a binding ''kinyan'' (acquisition) is necessary to transfer the non-Jew's debt to the Jewish purchaser.		#If a non-Jew borrowed money from a Jew with interest, theoretically the Jew can sell that loan to another Jew. Doing so will make the Jewish buyer like the new lender and he can collect the interest from the non-Jew. However, this has to be a complete sale of the loan and they will no longer have any claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18 explains that the Jew can sell the collateral to another Jew with halachic means of acquisition. When there is no collateral and it is impossible to effectively sell the debt, Shulchan Aruch writes that the debt is transferred by having the Jewish lender forgive the non-Jew of his debt. See further for details.</ref> Practically, for this to be effective a binding ''kinyan'' (acquisition) is necessary to transfer the non-Jew's debt to the Jewish purchaser.
	##Some ''poskim'' hold that this sale can be effectuated by a mechanism that local businessman accept as a binding acquisition (''kinyan situmta'') and is enforceable by secular law.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 255 writes that one may rely on the opinion of Ben Ish Chai (V'etchanan 23) that a non-Jew's debt can be sold with a ''kinyan situmta''. </ref>		##Some ''poskim'' hold that this sale can be effectuated by a mechanism that local businessman accept as a binding acquisition (''kinyan situmta'') and is enforceable by secular law.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 255 writes that one may rely on the opinion of Ben Ish Chai (V'etchanan 23) that a non-Jew's debt can be sold with a ''kinyan situmta''. </ref>
	##If there is a loan document, according to many ''poskim'' the debt can be halachically sold by giving over the loan document and writing a new document for this sale.<ref>Gilyon Maharsha to 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:24. However, this is unlike the Shach 168:61 and Shulchan Aruch Harav (69) who hold that it is impossible to sell the debt of a non-Jew even when there is a loan document.</ref>		##If there is a loan document, according to many ''poskim'' the debt can be halachically sold by giving over the loan document and writing a new document for this sale.<ref>Panim Meirot 2:22, Gilyon Maharsha to 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:24, Horah Brurah 168:151 based on C.M. 61:1. However, this is unlike the Shach 168:61 and Shulchan Aruch Harav (69) who hold that it is impossible to sell the debt of a non-Jew even when there is a loan document. Chelkat Binyamin 168:228 quotes both opinions but doesn't take a side.</ref>
	##According to some poskim the above solutions are ineffective and even for the above poskim in a case where there is no loan document and no method accepted by local businessman. Accordingly, it is impossible to transfer the debt between the two Jews.<ref>Mordechai (Bava Batra n. 614) quotes Maharam who writes that it is impossible to sell a non-Jew's debt with any halachic mechanism. It is not sold with chalipin, maamad sheloshtan, or agav. Therefore, the purchaser of the non-Jew's debt doesn't actually own the debt or interest that accrues and it would be forbidden for the seller to give him it. Since the sale is ineffective it is essentially a loan. If the seller, who is effectively a borrower, gives the interest to the buyer, who is effectively a lender, that would be interest. To avoid this Maharam suggests that the lender forgive the non-Jew of his debt. Then, the first Jew can forward the interest from the non-Jew to the second Jew (without acquiring it in between) and it isn't considered interest since the non-Jew didn't actually owe him that money. Maharik 119 follows this opinion. Bet Yosef 168:18 is bothered why Maharam would hold this opinion in opposition to Rabbenu Tam and many other rishonim who held that it is possible to sell a collateral. Therefore, he explains that really they're discussing a loan without any collateral and then it is necessary to resort to a method of transferring the loan by means of forgiving the debt. In that case it is impossible to sell the loan, but if there was a collateral that item could be sold. </ref> However, there are other solutions for how to accomplish the same result as selling the debt.		##According to some poskim the above solutions are ineffective and even for the above poskim in a case where there is no loan document and no method accepted by local businessman. Accordingly, it is impossible to transfer the debt between the two Jews.<ref>Mordechai (Bava Batra n. 614) quotes Maharam who writes that it is impossible to sell a non-Jew's debt with any halachic mechanism. It is not sold with chalipin, maamad sheloshtan, or agav. Therefore, the purchaser of the non-Jew's debt doesn't actually own the debt or interest that accrues and it would be forbidden for the seller to give him it. Since the sale is ineffective it is essentially a loan. If the seller, who is effectively a borrower, gives the interest to the buyer, who is effectively a lender, that would be interest. To avoid this Maharam suggests that the lender forgive the non-Jew of his debt. Then, the first Jew can forward the interest from the non-Jew to the second Jew (without acquiring it in between) and it isn't considered interest since the non-Jew didn't actually owe him that money. Maharik 119 follows this opinion. Bet Yosef 168:18 is bothered why Maharam would hold this opinion in opposition to Rabbenu Tam and many other rishonim who held that it is possible to sell a collateral. Therefore, he explains that really they're discussing a loan without any collateral and then it is necessary to resort to a method of transferring the loan by means of forgiving the debt. In that case it is impossible to sell the loan, but if there was a collateral that item could be sold. </ref> However, there are other solutions for how to accomplish the same result as selling the debt.
	##When there is a moveable collateral from the non-Jew it is possible to sell the collateral and not the actual debt. The collateral is simple to make an acquisition upon; it is just physically transferred to the second Jew with the stipulation that it is a complete sale and they have no claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:15</ref> According to Ashkenazim, it isn't necessary to make a clear stipulation that it is a complete sale since it is assumed that this is the agreement.<ref>Rama 168:18 following the Mordechai and Rosh teshuva</ref> The purchasing Jew makes a ''[[Acquisition\|kinyan]]'' on the collateral by taking the actual collateral item.<ref>Rama 168:18</ref> If the Jewish purchaser pays money to buy the collateral but does not actually take the collateral whether he acquired the collateral for purposes of collecting interest is subject to debate.<ref>Bet Yosef and Rama 168:18 hold that it is acceptable to use kinyan kesef to purchase the mashkon of a goy from another Jew since from the Torah a kinyan kesef is effective. However, Gra 168:62 disagrees with this suggestion. He holds that fundamentally the rabbis invalidated the acquisition of kinyan kesef (Tosfot Avoda Zara 63a s.v. vha). Also, even if it is a kinyan on a Torah level and not midrabbanan it would be forbidden to use this kinyan to collect interest as the rabbis introduced stringencies in the world of interest and not leniencies. Chelkat Binyamin 168:215 writes that a person should not rely on this initially but after the fact one may rely upon it. </ref>		##When there is a moveable collateral from the non-Jew it is possible to sell the collateral and not the actual debt. The collateral is simple to make an acquisition upon; it is just physically transferred to the second Jew with the stipulation that it is a complete sale and they have no claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:15</ref> According to Ashkenazim, it isn't necessary to make a clear stipulation that it is a complete sale since it is assumed that this is the agreement.<ref>Rama 168:18 following the Mordechai and Rosh teshuva</ref> The purchasing Jew makes a ''[[Acquisition\|kinyan]]'' on the collateral by taking the actual collateral item.<ref>Rama 168:18</ref> If the Jewish purchaser pays money to buy the collateral but does not actually take the collateral whether he acquired the collateral for purposes of collecting interest is subject to debate.<ref>Bet Yosef and Rama 168:18 hold that it is acceptable to use kinyan kesef to purchase the mashkon of a goy from another Jew since from the Torah a kinyan kesef is effective. However, Gra 168:62 disagrees with this suggestion. He holds that fundamentally the rabbis invalidated the acquisition of kinyan kesef (Tosfot Avoda Zara 63a s.v. vha). Also, even if it is a kinyan on a Torah level and not midrabbanan it would be forbidden to use this kinyan to collect interest as the rabbis introduced stringencies in the world of interest and not leniencies. Chelkat Binyamin 168:215 writes that a person should not rely on this initially but after the fact one may rely upon it. </ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt */

2025-01-15T21:49:57Z

Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, 15 January 2025
Line 108:		Line 108:
	##Some ''poskim'' hold that this sale can be effectuated by a mechanism that local businessman accept as a binding acquisition (''kinyan situmta'') and is enforceable by secular law.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 255 writes that one may rely on the opinion of Ben Ish Chai (V'etchanan 23) that a non-Jew's debt can be sold with a ''kinyan situmta''. </ref>		##Some ''poskim'' hold that this sale can be effectuated by a mechanism that local businessman accept as a binding acquisition (''kinyan situmta'') and is enforceable by secular law.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 255 writes that one may rely on the opinion of Ben Ish Chai (V'etchanan 23) that a non-Jew's debt can be sold with a ''kinyan situmta''. </ref>
	##If there is a loan document, according to many ''poskim'' the debt can be halachically sold by giving over the loan document and writing a new document for this sale.<ref>Gilyon Maharsha to 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:24. However, this is unlike the Shach 168:61 and Shulchan Aruch Harav (69) who hold that it is impossible to sell the debt of a non-Jew even when there is a loan document.</ref>		##If there is a loan document, according to many ''poskim'' the debt can be halachically sold by giving over the loan document and writing a new document for this sale.<ref>Gilyon Maharsha to 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:24. However, this is unlike the Shach 168:61 and Shulchan Aruch Harav (69) who hold that it is impossible to sell the debt of a non-Jew even when there is a loan document.</ref>
	##According to some poskim the above solutions are ineffective and even for the above poskim in a case where there is no loan document and no method accepted by local businessman. Accordingly, it is impossible to transfer the debt between the two Jews. However, there are other solutions for how to accomplish the same result as selling the debt.		##According to some poskim the above solutions are ineffective and even for the above poskim in a case where there is no loan document and no method accepted by local businessman. Accordingly, it is impossible to transfer the debt between the two Jews.<ref>Mordechai (Bava Batra n. 614) quotes Maharam who writes that it is impossible to sell a non-Jew's debt with any halachic mechanism. It is not sold with chalipin, maamad sheloshtan, or agav. Therefore, the purchaser of the non-Jew's debt doesn't actually own the debt or interest that accrues and it would be forbidden for the seller to give him it. Since the sale is ineffective it is essentially a loan. If the seller, who is effectively a borrower, gives the interest to the buyer, who is effectively a lender, that would be interest. To avoid this Maharam suggests that the lender forgive the non-Jew of his debt. Then, the first Jew can forward the interest from the non-Jew to the second Jew (without acquiring it in between) and it isn't considered interest since the non-Jew didn't actually owe him that money. Maharik 119 follows this opinion. Bet Yosef 168:18 is bothered why Maharam would hold this opinion in opposition to Rabbenu Tam and many other rishonim who held that it is possible to sell a collateral. Therefore, he explains that really they're discussing a loan without any collateral and then it is necessary to resort to a method of transferring the loan by means of forgiving the debt. In that case it is impossible to sell the loan, but if there was a collateral that item could be sold. </ref> However, there are other solutions for how to accomplish the same result as selling the debt.
	##When there is a moveable collateral from the non-Jew it is possible to sell the collateral and not the actual debt. The collateral is simple to make an acquisition upon; it is just physically transferred to the second Jew with the stipulation that it is a complete sale and they have no claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:15</ref> According to Ashkenazim, it isn't necessary to make a clear stipulation that it is a complete sale since it is assumed that this is the agreement.<ref>Rama 168:18 following the Mordechai and Rosh teshuva</ref> The purchasing Jew makes a ''[[Acquisition\|kinyan]]'' on the collateral by taking the actual collateral item.<ref>Rama 168:18</ref> If the Jewish purchaser pays money to buy the collateral but does not actually take the collateral whether he acquired the collateral for purposes of collecting interest is subject to debate.<ref>Bet Yosef and Rama 168:18 hold that it is acceptable to use kinyan kesef to purchase the mashkon of a goy from another Jew since from the Torah a kinyan kesef is effective. However, Gra 168:62 disagrees with this suggestion. He holds that fundamentally the rabbis invalidated the acquisition of kinyan kesef (Tosfot Avoda Zara 63a s.v. vha). Also, even if it is a kinyan on a Torah level and not midrabbanan it would be forbidden to use this kinyan to collect interest as the rabbis introduced stringencies in the world of interest and not leniencies. Chelkat Binyamin 168:215 writes that a person should not rely on this initially but after the fact one may rely upon it. </ref>		##When there is a moveable collateral from the non-Jew it is possible to sell the collateral and not the actual debt. The collateral is simple to make an acquisition upon; it is just physically transferred to the second Jew with the stipulation that it is a complete sale and they have no claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:15</ref> According to Ashkenazim, it isn't necessary to make a clear stipulation that it is a complete sale since it is assumed that this is the agreement.<ref>Rama 168:18 following the Mordechai and Rosh teshuva</ref> The purchasing Jew makes a ''[[Acquisition\|kinyan]]'' on the collateral by taking the actual collateral item.<ref>Rama 168:18</ref> If the Jewish purchaser pays money to buy the collateral but does not actually take the collateral whether he acquired the collateral for purposes of collecting interest is subject to debate.<ref>Bet Yosef and Rama 168:18 hold that it is acceptable to use kinyan kesef to purchase the mashkon of a goy from another Jew since from the Torah a kinyan kesef is effective. However, Gra 168:62 disagrees with this suggestion. He holds that fundamentally the rabbis invalidated the acquisition of kinyan kesef (Tosfot Avoda Zara 63a s.v. vha). Also, even if it is a kinyan on a Torah level and not midrabbanan it would be forbidden to use this kinyan to collect interest as the rabbis introduced stringencies in the world of interest and not leniencies. Chelkat Binyamin 168:215 writes that a person should not rely on this initially but after the fact one may rely upon it. </ref>
	##If the loan between the Jew and the non-Jew was oral and without any collateral or loan document the loan cannot be transferred from the first Jew and the second Jew. Therefore, it is necessary to resort another method of transferring the debt. This debt involves the first Jew forgiving the non-Jew completely and the second Jew collecting from the non-Jew that which he's owed.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:23. Shach 168:62 explains that the mechanism isn't exactly a sale since one can't really sell a non-Jew's debt to another Jew. Rather, one is forgiving the non-Jew from paying him back. Then, the non-Jew can pay the second Jew as he is "considered" according to their intention to be the new lender. In Shach 168:63, he clarifies that he doesn't need to inform the non-Jew of that which he forgave. In practice the non-Jew will pay the second Jew because he seems to have bought the debt. It isn't considered as though the non-Jew is paying interest to the second Jew on behalf of the first Jew because once the first Jew exempted the non-Jew nothing needs to be paid on his behalf. If it is paid to the second Jew that's from the initiative of the non-Jew and not for the first Jew. Netivot Shalom 168:18:9 explains that even though the non-Jew will be paying the second Jew in error, the second Jew may collect it. Shach 168:63 is in disagreement with the Bach who thinks that it is necessary to alert the non-Jew of this forgiving mechanism. Chavot Daat 168:41 endorses another approach. He explains that this transaction is absolutely a sale in secular law and so the non-Jew can treat it as a sale. However, halacha does not recognize the sale and so it is considered forgiving a loan with respect to Jews. Therefore, he concludes that the first Jew may not go and reacquire the loan from the non-Jew once he forgave it, which is binding in secular law. Seemingly, this is contradicted by Rama C.M. 66:25 who writes that a sale that in effective in secular law with a non-Jew is also effective in halacha when it effectuates a sale between a Jew and non-Jew. However, Chavot Daat might explain that this means that this is effective in secular law and Jews must follow this as well. Yet, since it is not objectively a sale in halacha it cannot solve an interest issue and it is necessary to resort to the solution of forgiving the loan.</ref>		##If the loan between the Jew and the non-Jew was oral and without any collateral or loan document the loan cannot be transferred from the first Jew and the second Jew. Therefore, it is necessary to resort another method of transferring the debt. This debt involves the first Jew forgiving the non-Jew completely and the second Jew collecting from the non-Jew that which he's owed.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:23. Shach 168:62 explains that the mechanism isn't exactly a sale since one can't really sell a non-Jew's debt to another Jew. Rather, one is forgiving the non-Jew from paying him back. Then, the non-Jew can pay the second Jew as he is "considered" according to their intention to be the new lender. In Shach 168:63, he clarifies that he doesn't need to inform the non-Jew of that which he forgave. In practice the non-Jew will pay the second Jew because he seems to have bought the debt. It isn't considered as though the non-Jew is paying interest to the second Jew on behalf of the first Jew because once the first Jew exempted the non-Jew nothing needs to be paid on his behalf. If it is paid to the second Jew that's from the initiative of the non-Jew and not for the first Jew. Netivot Shalom 168:18:9 explains that even though the non-Jew will be paying the second Jew in error, the second Jew may collect it. Shach 168:63 is in disagreement with the Bach who thinks that it is necessary to alert the non-Jew of this forgiving mechanism. Chavot Daat 168:41 endorses another approach. He explains that this transaction is absolutely a sale in secular law and so the non-Jew can treat it as a sale. However, halacha does not recognize the sale and so it is considered forgiving a loan with respect to Jews. Therefore, he concludes that the first Jew may not go and reacquire the loan from the non-Jew once he forgave it, which is binding in secular law. Seemingly, this is contradicted by Rama C.M. 66:25 who writes that a sale that in effective in secular law with a non-Jew is also effective in halacha when it effectuates a sale between a Jew and non-Jew. However, Chavot Daat might explain that this means that this is effective in secular law and Jews must follow this as well. Yet, since it is not objectively a sale in halacha it cannot solve an interest issue and it is necessary to resort to the solution of forgiving the loan.</ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Selling Debt */

2025-01-15T21:39:21Z

Selling Debt

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:39, 15 January 2025
Line 98:		Line 98:
	#If a Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with a collateral and then the non-Jew for his own purposes borrowed from another Jew with the same collateral it is permitted for the second Jew to collect interest from the non-Jew, even if the non-Jew will in turn force the first Jew to pay interest.<ref>Tur 168:20 quotes the Baal Haitur that if a Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with a collateral and now the non-Jew is borrowing from another Jew with the same collateral the second Jew may not accept the interest from the non-Jew since it is as though it is coming from the Jew. However, the Rosh Pesachim 2:10 and Rashba 3:229 disagree. Once the Jew borrows from the non-Jew it is completely permitted and if the non-Jew then borrows from another Jew that is disconnected. The Bet Yosef 168:20 cites the Ran b”m 71b s.v. veharamban and Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 who side with the Baal Haitur. Yet, the Baal Hatrumot adds that if the non-Jew accepts responsibility for the loan he’s taking from the second Jew it is permitted. Shulchan Aruch 168:20 cites the Rosh and Rashba as the main opinion and the Baal Haitur as some say.</ref>		#If a Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with a collateral and then the non-Jew for his own purposes borrowed from another Jew with the same collateral it is permitted for the second Jew to collect interest from the non-Jew, even if the non-Jew will in turn force the first Jew to pay interest.<ref>Tur 168:20 quotes the Baal Haitur that if a Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with a collateral and now the non-Jew is borrowing from another Jew with the same collateral the second Jew may not accept the interest from the non-Jew since it is as though it is coming from the Jew. However, the Rosh Pesachim 2:10 and Rashba 3:229 disagree. Once the Jew borrows from the non-Jew it is completely permitted and if the non-Jew then borrows from another Jew that is disconnected. The Bet Yosef 168:20 cites the Ran b”m 71b s.v. veharamban and Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 who side with the Baal Haitur. Yet, the Baal Hatrumot adds that if the non-Jew accepts responsibility for the loan he’s taking from the second Jew it is permitted. Shulchan Aruch 168:20 cites the Rosh and Rashba as the main opinion and the Baal Haitur as some say.</ref>

	==~~Selling~~ Debt==		==Buying Debt==
	===Non-Jew Selling Jew's Debt===		===Non-Jew Selling Jew's Debt===
	#A Jew may not buy debt if the borrower is Jewish and lender is non-Jewish. If he does so it is like the Jewish purchaser is the new lender to the Jewish borrower and may not collect any interest that did not yet accrue from the Jew from the time of the purchase.<ref>Rashba (responsa 1:764 cited by Darkei Moshe 168:6, Bedek Habayit 168:27) writes that a Jew may buy a debt of a Jew to a non-Jew from a non-Jew. Nonetheless, the Jew may not directly collect the interest from the Jew because of the gravity of the sin of interest. Rather, if the non-Jew collects the interest and then turns it to over to the Jewish buyer it is permitted. This is codified by Rama 168:10 and Knesset Hagedola (Bet Yosef 168:44). While this is the simple interpretation of Rashba's words, the commentaries of Shulchan Aruch explain Rashba differently. Taz argues that obviously a Jew may not buy debt of another Jew and collect interest. Once he buys the debt off of the non-Jewish lender it is like he's the lender. In that case he may not collect any interest that did not yet accrue while the loan was in the property of the non-Jew. Taz therefore explains that the case of Rashba is not where there is actually a sale. Rather, the Jewish purchaser gave money to the non-Jew and the non-Jew ensured him that he would receive profits from the loan. However, since the loan was not actually transferred and the non-Jew could back out of the deal and just repay the Jewish purchaser's money, the Jewish purchaser may collect the interest. However, because of the gravity of the sin of interest Rashba does not allow the purchaser to take the interest directly from the Jewish borrower but only from the non-Jew. If the non-Jew collects and hands it over to the purchaser that is permissible. However, if there is actually a sale of the debt it is forbidden to collect any interest that did not accrue to the non-Jew while the debt was in his property. Shach (Nekudat Hakesef 168:10) agrees fundamentally to Taz that a complete sale would be forbidden but explains that the case is where the sale was valid in secular law and not in halacha. In such a case the non-Jew would be obligated to his law system to give the money received from the loan to the purchaser, but according to halacha it isn't formally a sale. However, Chelkat Binyamin (Biurim 168:10 s.v. v'h'akum) notes that Shach's position is difficult. According to Rama C.M. 66:25 a sale with a non-Jew that is valid in secular law is also valid according to halacha. Therefore, Chelkat Binyamin 168:91, Laws of Ribbis p. 317, and Horah Brurah 168:54 accept the view of Taz. </ref>		#A Jew may not buy debt if the borrower is Jewish and lender is non-Jewish. If he does so it is like the Jewish purchaser is the new lender to the Jewish borrower and may not collect any interest that did not yet accrue from the Jew from the time of the purchase.<ref>Rashba (responsa 1:764 cited by Darkei Moshe 168:6, Bedek Habayit 168:27) writes that a Jew may buy a debt of a Jew to a non-Jew from a non-Jew. Nonetheless, the Jew may not directly collect the interest from the Jew because of the gravity of the sin of interest. Rather, if the non-Jew collects the interest and then turns it to over to the Jewish buyer it is permitted. This is codified by Rama 168:10 and Knesset Hagedola (Bet Yosef 168:44). While this is the simple interpretation of Rashba's words, the commentaries of Shulchan Aruch explain Rashba differently. Taz argues that obviously a Jew may not buy debt of another Jew and collect interest. Once he buys the debt off of the non-Jewish lender it is like he's the lender. In that case he may not collect any interest that did not yet accrue while the loan was in the property of the non-Jew. Taz therefore explains that the case of Rashba is not where there is actually a sale. Rather, the Jewish purchaser gave money to the non-Jew and the non-Jew ensured him that he would receive profits from the loan. However, since the loan was not actually transferred and the non-Jew could back out of the deal and just repay the Jewish purchaser's money, the Jewish purchaser may collect the interest. However, because of the gravity of the sin of interest Rashba does not allow the purchaser to take the interest directly from the Jewish borrower but only from the non-Jew. If the non-Jew collects and hands it over to the purchaser that is permissible. However, if there is actually a sale of the debt it is forbidden to collect any interest that did not accrue to the non-Jew while the debt was in his property. Shach (Nekudat Hakesef 168:10) agrees fundamentally to Taz that a complete sale would be forbidden but explains that the case is where the sale was valid in secular law and not in halacha. In such a case the non-Jew would be obligated to his law system to give the money received from the loan to the purchaser, but according to halacha it isn't formally a sale. However, Chelkat Binyamin (Biurim 168:10 s.v. v'h'akum) notes that Shach's position is difficult. According to Rama C.M. 66:25 a sale with a non-Jew that is valid in secular law is also valid according to halacha. Therefore, Chelkat Binyamin 168:91, Laws of Ribbis p. 317, and Horah Brurah 168:54 accept the view of Taz. </ref>
Line 105:		Line 105:

	===Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt===		===Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt===
	#If a non-Jew borrowed money from a Jew with interest, the Jew can sell that loan to another Jew. ~~He should stipulate that~~ this is a complete sale of the loan and they will no longer have any claims upon each other~~. Thereby, the buyer becomes the new lender to the non-Jew and can collect interest~~.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18~~. When there is no collateral, the Shach 168:62~~ explains that the ~~mechanism isn't exactly a sale since one~~ can~~'t really~~ sell the ~~debt~~ to another Jew. ~~Rather, one~~ is ~~forgiving the non-Jew from paying him back. Then the non-Jew can pay the second Jew as he~~ is ~~"considered" according~~ to ~~their intention to be~~ the ~~new lender. In Shach 168:63~~, ~~he clarifies~~ that ~~he doesn't need to inform~~ the ~~non-Jew of that which he forgave. Netivot Shalom 168:18:9 explains that even though the non-Jew will be paying the second Jew in error he can collect it. Shach 168:63~~ is ~~in disagreement with~~ the ~~Bach who thinks that it is necessary to alert~~ the non-Jew. See Chavot Daat 168:41 who endorses another approach; he explains that this transaction is a sale in secular law and so the non-Jew can treat it as a sale. However, halacha does not recognize the sale and so it is considered forgiving a loan with respect to Jews. Therefore, he concludes that the first Jew may not go and reacquire the loan from the non-Jew that he forgave. Seemingly, this is contradicted by Rama C.M. 66:25 who writes that a sale that in effective in secular law with a non-Jew is also effective in halacha when it effectuates a sale between a Jew and non-Jew. However, Chavot Daat might explain that this means that this is effective in secular law and Jews must follow this as well. Yet, since it is not objectively a sale in halacha it cannot solve an interest issue and it is necessary to resort to the solution of forgiving the loan.</ref> ~~However~~, for this to be effective a binding ''kinyan'' (acquisition) is necessary to transfer the non-Jew's debt to the Jewish purchaser.		#If a non-Jew borrowed money from a Jew with interest, theoretically the Jew can sell that loan to another Jew. Doing so will make the Jewish buyer like the new lender and he can collect the interest from the non-Jew. However, this has to be a complete sale of the loan and they will no longer have any claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18 explains that the Jew can sell the collateral to another Jew with halachic means of acquisition. When there is no collateral and it is impossible to effectively sell the debt, Shulchan Aruch writes that the debt is transferred by having the Jewish lender forgive the non-Jew of his debt. See further for details.</ref> Practically, for this to be effective a binding ''kinyan'' (acquisition) is necessary to transfer the non-Jew's debt to the Jewish purchaser.
	##Some ''poskim'' hold that this sale can be effectuated by a mechanism that local businessman accept as a binding acquisition (''kinyan situmta'') and is enforceable by secular law.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 255 writes that one may rely on the opinion of Ben Ish Chai (V'etchanan 23) that a non-Jew's debt can be sold with a ''kinyan situmta''. </ref>		##Some ''poskim'' hold that this sale can be effectuated by a mechanism that local businessman accept as a binding acquisition (''kinyan situmta'') and is enforceable by secular law.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 255 writes that one may rely on the opinion of Ben Ish Chai (V'etchanan 23) that a non-Jew's debt can be sold with a ''kinyan situmta''. </ref>
	##If there is a loan document, according to many ''poskim'' the debt can be halachically sold by giving over the loan document and writing a new document for this sale.<ref>Gilyon Maharsha to 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:24. However, this is unlike the Shach 168:61 and Shulchan Aruch Harav (69) who hold that it is impossible to sell the debt of a non-Jew even when there is a loan document.</ref>		##If there is a loan document, according to many ''poskim'' the debt can be halachically sold by giving over the loan document and writing a new document for this sale.<ref>Gilyon Maharsha to 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:24. However, this is unlike the Shach 168:61 and Shulchan Aruch Harav (69) who hold that it is impossible to sell the debt of a non-Jew even when there is a loan document.</ref>
	##When there is a moveable collateral from the non-Jew ~~that could~~ transferred to the second Jew with the stipulation that it is a complete sale and they have no claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:15</ref> According to Ashkenazim, it isn't necessary to make a clear stipulation that it is a complete sale since it is assumed that this is the agreement.<ref>Rama 168:18 following the Mordechai and Rosh teshuva</ref> The purchasing Jew ~~can make~~ a ''[[Acquisition\|kinyan]]'' on the collateral by taking the actual collateral item.<ref>Rama 168:18</ref> If the Jewish purchaser pays money to buy the collateral but does not actually take the collateral whether he acquired the collateral for purposes of collecting interest is subject to debate.<ref>Bet Yosef and Rama 168:18 hold that it is acceptable to use kinyan kesef to purchase the mashkon of a goy from another Jew since from the Torah a kinyan kesef is effective. However, Gra 168:62 disagrees with this suggestion. He holds that fundamentally the rabbis invalidated the acquisition of kinyan kesef (Tosfot Avoda Zara 63a s.v. vha). Also, even if it is a kinyan on a Torah level and not midrabbanan it would be forbidden to use this kinyan to collect interest as the rabbis introduced stringencies in the world of interest and not leniencies. Chelkat Binyamin 168:215 writes that a person should not rely on this initially but after the fact one may rely upon it. </ref>		##According to some poskim the above solutions are ineffective and even for the above poskim in a case where there is no loan document and no method accepted by local businessman. Accordingly, it is impossible to transfer the debt between the two Jews. However, there are other solutions for how to accomplish the same result as selling the debt.
	##If the loan between the Jew and the non-Jew was oral and without any collateral or loan document the loan cannot be transferred from the first Jew and the second Jew. Therefore, it is necessary to resort another method of transferring the debt. This debt involves the first Jew forgiving the non-Jew completely and the second Jew collecting from the non-Jew that which he's owed.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:23</ref>		##When there is a moveable collateral from the non-Jew it is possible to sell the collateral and not the actual debt. The collateral is simple to make an acquisition upon; it is just physically transferred to the second Jew with the stipulation that it is a complete sale and they have no claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:15</ref> According to Ashkenazim, it isn't necessary to make a clear stipulation that it is a complete sale since it is assumed that this is the agreement.<ref>Rama 168:18 following the Mordechai and Rosh teshuva</ref> The purchasing Jew makes a ''[[Acquisition\|kinyan]]'' on the collateral by taking the actual collateral item.<ref>Rama 168:18</ref> If the Jewish purchaser pays money to buy the collateral but does not actually take the collateral whether he acquired the collateral for purposes of collecting interest is subject to debate.<ref>Bet Yosef and Rama 168:18 hold that it is acceptable to use kinyan kesef to purchase the mashkon of a goy from another Jew since from the Torah a kinyan kesef is effective. However, Gra 168:62 disagrees with this suggestion. He holds that fundamentally the rabbis invalidated the acquisition of kinyan kesef (Tosfot Avoda Zara 63a s.v. vha). Also, even if it is a kinyan on a Torah level and not midrabbanan it would be forbidden to use this kinyan to collect interest as the rabbis introduced stringencies in the world of interest and not leniencies. Chelkat Binyamin 168:215 writes that a person should not rely on this initially but after the fact one may rely upon it. </ref>
			##If the loan between the Jew and the non-Jew was oral and without any collateral or loan document the loan cannot be transferred from the first Jew and the second Jew. Therefore, it is necessary to resort another method of transferring the debt. This debt involves the first Jew forgiving the non-Jew completely and the second Jew collecting from the non-Jew that which he's owed.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:23. Shach 168:62 explains that the mechanism isn't exactly a sale since one can't really sell a non-Jew's debt to another Jew. Rather, one is forgiving the non-Jew from paying him back. Then, the non-Jew can pay the second Jew as he is "considered" according to their intention to be the new lender. In Shach 168:63, he clarifies that he doesn't need to inform the non-Jew of that which he forgave. In practice the non-Jew will pay the second Jew because he seems to have bought the debt. It isn't considered as though the non-Jew is paying interest to the second Jew on behalf of the first Jew because once the first Jew exempted the non-Jew nothing needs to be paid on his behalf. If it is paid to the second Jew that's from the initiative of the non-Jew and not for the first Jew. Netivot Shalom 168:18:9 explains that even though the non-Jew will be paying the second Jew in error, the second Jew may collect it. Shach 168:63 is in disagreement with the Bach who thinks that it is necessary to alert the non-Jew of this forgiving mechanism. Chavot Daat 168:41 endorses another approach. He explains that this transaction is absolutely a sale in secular law and so the non-Jew can treat it as a sale. However, halacha does not recognize the sale and so it is considered forgiving a loan with respect to Jews. Therefore, he concludes that the first Jew may not go and reacquire the loan from the non-Jew once he forgave it, which is binding in secular law. Seemingly, this is contradicted by Rama C.M. 66:25 who writes that a sale that in effective in secular law with a non-Jew is also effective in halacha when it effectuates a sale between a Jew and non-Jew. However, Chavot Daat might explain that this means that this is effective in secular law and Jews must follow this as well. Yet, since it is not objectively a sale in halacha it cannot solve an interest issue and it is necessary to resort to the solution of forgiving the loan.</ref>
	#A Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest can sell the non-Jew's debt from a certain date going forward. The first Jew would collect the interest until that date and the second Jew would collect from that date and on.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18</ref>		#A Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest can sell the non-Jew's debt from a certain date going forward. The first Jew would collect the interest until that date and the second Jew would collect from that date and on.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18</ref>
	#The Jew can resell the non-Jew's debt for a lower interest rate than the non-Jew is giving him. For example, a Jew who lent a non-Jew $100 for 10% a year may then resell that debt to another Jew for 5% a year.<ref>Rama 168:18, Chelkat Binyamin 168:204</ref>		#The Jew can resell the non-Jew's debt for a lower interest rate than the non-Jew is giving him. For example, a Jew who lent a non-Jew $100 for 10% a year may then resell that debt to another Jew for 5% a year.<ref>Rama 168:18, Chelkat Binyamin 168:204</ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt */

2025-01-15T01:25:59Z

Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:25, 15 January 2025
Line 108:		Line 108:
	##Some ''poskim'' hold that this sale can be effectuated by a mechanism that local businessman accept as a binding acquisition (''kinyan situmta'') and is enforceable by secular law.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 255 writes that one may rely on the opinion of Ben Ish Chai (V'etchanan 23) that a non-Jew's debt can be sold with a ''kinyan situmta''. </ref>		##Some ''poskim'' hold that this sale can be effectuated by a mechanism that local businessman accept as a binding acquisition (''kinyan situmta'') and is enforceable by secular law.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 255 writes that one may rely on the opinion of Ben Ish Chai (V'etchanan 23) that a non-Jew's debt can be sold with a ''kinyan situmta''. </ref>
	##If there is a loan document, according to many ''poskim'' the debt can be halachically sold by giving over the loan document and writing a new document for this sale.<ref>Gilyon Maharsha to 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:24. However, this is unlike the Shach 168:61 and Shulchan Aruch Harav (69) who hold that it is impossible to sell the debt of a non-Jew even when there is a loan document.</ref>		##If there is a loan document, according to many ''poskim'' the debt can be halachically sold by giving over the loan document and writing a new document for this sale.<ref>Gilyon Maharsha to 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:24. However, this is unlike the Shach 168:61 and Shulchan Aruch Harav (69) who hold that it is impossible to sell the debt of a non-Jew even when there is a loan document.</ref>
	##When there is a moveable collateral from the non-Jew that could transferred to the second Jew with the stipulation that it is a complete sale and they have no claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18</ref> According to Ashkenazim, it isn't necessary to make a clear stipulation that it is a complete sale since it is assumed that this is the agreement.<ref>Rama 168:18 following the Mordechai and Rosh teshuva</ref> The purchasing Jew can make a ''[[Acquisition\|kinyan]]'' on the collateral by taking the actual collateral item.<ref>Rama 168:18</ref> If the Jewish purchaser pays money to buy the collateral but does not actually take the collateral whether he acquired the collateral for purposes of collecting interest is subject to debate.<ref>Bet Yosef and Rama 168:18 hold that it is acceptable to use kinyan kesef to purchase the mashkon of a goy from another Jew since from the Torah a kinyan kesef is effective. However, Gra 168:62 disagrees with this suggestion. He holds that fundamentally the rabbis invalidated the acquisition of kinyan kesef (Tosfot Avoda Zara 63a s.v. vha). Also, even if it is a kinyan on a Torah level and not midrabbanan it would be forbidden to use this kinyan to collect interest as the rabbis introduced stringencies in the world of interest and not leniencies. Chelkat Binyamin 168:215 writes that a person should not rely on this initially but after the fact one may rely upon it. </ref>		##When there is a moveable collateral from the non-Jew that could transferred to the second Jew with the stipulation that it is a complete sale and they have no claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:15</ref> According to Ashkenazim, it isn't necessary to make a clear stipulation that it is a complete sale since it is assumed that this is the agreement.<ref>Rama 168:18 following the Mordechai and Rosh teshuva</ref> The purchasing Jew can make a ''[[Acquisition\|kinyan]]'' on the collateral by taking the actual collateral item.<ref>Rama 168:18</ref> If the Jewish purchaser pays money to buy the collateral but does not actually take the collateral whether he acquired the collateral for purposes of collecting interest is subject to debate.<ref>Bet Yosef and Rama 168:18 hold that it is acceptable to use kinyan kesef to purchase the mashkon of a goy from another Jew since from the Torah a kinyan kesef is effective. However, Gra 168:62 disagrees with this suggestion. He holds that fundamentally the rabbis invalidated the acquisition of kinyan kesef (Tosfot Avoda Zara 63a s.v. vha). Also, even if it is a kinyan on a Torah level and not midrabbanan it would be forbidden to use this kinyan to collect interest as the rabbis introduced stringencies in the world of interest and not leniencies. Chelkat Binyamin 168:215 writes that a person should not rely on this initially but after the fact one may rely upon it. </ref>
	##If the loan between the Jew and the non-Jew was oral and without any collateral or loan document ~~according to some poskim~~ the loan cannot be transferred from the first Jew and the second Jew. Therefore, it is necessary to resort another method of transferring the debt. This debt involves the first Jew forgiving the non-Jew completely and the second Jew collecting from the non-Jew that which he's owed.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:23</ref>		##If the loan between the Jew and the non-Jew was oral and without any collateral or loan document the loan cannot be transferred from the first Jew and the second Jew. Therefore, it is necessary to resort another method of transferring the debt. This debt involves the first Jew forgiving the non-Jew completely and the second Jew collecting from the non-Jew that which he's owed.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:23</ref>
	#A Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest can sell the non-Jew's debt from a certain date going forward. The first Jew would collect the interest until that date and the second Jew would collect from that date and on.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18</ref>		#A Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest can sell the non-Jew's debt from a certain date going forward. The first Jew would collect the interest until that date and the second Jew would collect from that date and on.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18</ref>
	#The Jew can resell the non-Jew's debt for a lower interest rate than the non-Jew is giving him. For example, a Jew who lent a non-Jew $100 for 10% a year may then resell that debt to another Jew for 5% a year.<ref>Rama 168:18, Chelkat Binyamin 168:204</ref>		#The Jew can resell the non-Jew's debt for a lower interest rate than the non-Jew is giving him. For example, a Jew who lent a non-Jew $100 for 10% a year may then resell that debt to another Jew for 5% a year.<ref>Rama 168:18, Chelkat Binyamin 168:204</ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt */

2025-01-14T22:56:33Z

Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 14 January 2025
Line 106:		Line 106:
	===Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt===		===Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt===
	#If a non-Jew borrowed money from a Jew with interest, the Jew can sell that loan to another Jew. He should stipulate that this is a complete sale of the loan and they will no longer have any claims upon each other. Thereby, the buyer becomes the new lender to the non-Jew and can collect interest.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18. When there is no collateral, the Shach 168:62 explains that the mechanism isn't exactly a sale since one can't really sell the debt to another Jew. Rather, one is forgiving the non-Jew from paying him back. Then the non-Jew can pay the second Jew as he is "considered" according to their intention to be the new lender. In Shach 168:63, he clarifies that he doesn't need to inform the non-Jew of that which he forgave. Netivot Shalom 168:18:9 explains that even though the non-Jew will be paying the second Jew in error he can collect it. Shach 168:63 is in disagreement with the Bach who thinks that it is necessary to alert the non-Jew. See Chavot Daat 168:41 who endorses another approach; he explains that this transaction is a sale in secular law and so the non-Jew can treat it as a sale. However, halacha does not recognize the sale and so it is considered forgiving a loan with respect to Jews. Therefore, he concludes that the first Jew may not go and reacquire the loan from the non-Jew that he forgave. Seemingly, this is contradicted by Rama C.M. 66:25 who writes that a sale that in effective in secular law with a non-Jew is also effective in halacha when it effectuates a sale between a Jew and non-Jew. However, Chavot Daat might explain that this means that this is effective in secular law and Jews must follow this as well. Yet, since it is not objectively a sale in halacha it cannot solve an interest issue and it is necessary to resort to the solution of forgiving the loan.</ref> However, for this to be effective a binding ''kinyan'' (acquisition) is necessary to transfer the non-Jew's debt to the Jewish purchaser.		#If a non-Jew borrowed money from a Jew with interest, the Jew can sell that loan to another Jew. He should stipulate that this is a complete sale of the loan and they will no longer have any claims upon each other. Thereby, the buyer becomes the new lender to the non-Jew and can collect interest.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18. When there is no collateral, the Shach 168:62 explains that the mechanism isn't exactly a sale since one can't really sell the debt to another Jew. Rather, one is forgiving the non-Jew from paying him back. Then the non-Jew can pay the second Jew as he is "considered" according to their intention to be the new lender. In Shach 168:63, he clarifies that he doesn't need to inform the non-Jew of that which he forgave. Netivot Shalom 168:18:9 explains that even though the non-Jew will be paying the second Jew in error he can collect it. Shach 168:63 is in disagreement with the Bach who thinks that it is necessary to alert the non-Jew. See Chavot Daat 168:41 who endorses another approach; he explains that this transaction is a sale in secular law and so the non-Jew can treat it as a sale. However, halacha does not recognize the sale and so it is considered forgiving a loan with respect to Jews. Therefore, he concludes that the first Jew may not go and reacquire the loan from the non-Jew that he forgave. Seemingly, this is contradicted by Rama C.M. 66:25 who writes that a sale that in effective in secular law with a non-Jew is also effective in halacha when it effectuates a sale between a Jew and non-Jew. However, Chavot Daat might explain that this means that this is effective in secular law and Jews must follow this as well. Yet, since it is not objectively a sale in halacha it cannot solve an interest issue and it is necessary to resort to the solution of forgiving the loan.</ref> However, for this to be effective a binding ''kinyan'' (acquisition) is necessary to transfer the non-Jew's debt to the Jewish purchaser.
	##~~This~~ sale can be effectuated by a mechanism that local businessman accept as a binding acquisition (''kinyan situmta'') and is enforceable by secular law.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 255 writes that one may rely on the opinion of Ben Ish Chai (V'etchanan 23) that a non-Jew's debt can be sold with a ''kinyan situmta''. </ref>		##Some ''poskim'' hold that this sale can be effectuated by a mechanism that local businessman accept as a binding acquisition (''kinyan situmta'') and is enforceable by secular law.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 255 writes that one may rely on the opinion of Ben Ish Chai (V'etchanan 23) that a non-Jew's debt can be sold with a ''kinyan situmta''. </ref>
			##If there is a loan document, according to many ''poskim'' the debt can be halachically sold by giving over the loan document and writing a new document for this sale.<ref>Gilyon Maharsha to 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:24. However, this is unlike the Shach 168:61 and Shulchan Aruch Harav (69) who hold that it is impossible to sell the debt of a non-Jew even when there is a loan document.</ref>
	##When there is a moveable collateral from the non-Jew that could transferred to the second Jew with the stipulation that it is a complete sale and they have no claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18</ref> According to Ashkenazim, it isn't necessary to make a clear stipulation that it is a complete sale since it is assumed that this is the agreement.<ref>Rama 168:18 following the Mordechai and Rosh teshuva</ref> The purchasing Jew can make a ''[[Acquisition\|kinyan]]'' on the collateral by taking the actual collateral item.<ref>Rama 168:18</ref> If the Jewish purchaser pays money to buy the collateral but does not actually take the collateral whether he acquired the collateral for purposes of collecting interest is subject to debate.<ref>Bet Yosef and Rama 168:18 hold that it is acceptable to use kinyan kesef to purchase the mashkon of a goy from another Jew since from the Torah a kinyan kesef is effective. However, Gra 168:62 disagrees with this suggestion. He holds that fundamentally the rabbis invalidated the acquisition of kinyan kesef (Tosfot Avoda Zara 63a s.v. vha). Also, even if it is a kinyan on a Torah level and not midrabbanan it would be forbidden to use this kinyan to collect interest as the rabbis introduced stringencies in the world of interest and not leniencies. Chelkat Binyamin 168:215 writes that a person should not rely on this initially but after the fact one may rely upon it. </ref>		##When there is a moveable collateral from the non-Jew that could transferred to the second Jew with the stipulation that it is a complete sale and they have no claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18</ref> According to Ashkenazim, it isn't necessary to make a clear stipulation that it is a complete sale since it is assumed that this is the agreement.<ref>Rama 168:18 following the Mordechai and Rosh teshuva</ref> The purchasing Jew can make a ''[[Acquisition\|kinyan]]'' on the collateral by taking the actual collateral item.<ref>Rama 168:18</ref> If the Jewish purchaser pays money to buy the collateral but does not actually take the collateral whether he acquired the collateral for purposes of collecting interest is subject to debate.<ref>Bet Yosef and Rama 168:18 hold that it is acceptable to use kinyan kesef to purchase the mashkon of a goy from another Jew since from the Torah a kinyan kesef is effective. However, Gra 168:62 disagrees with this suggestion. He holds that fundamentally the rabbis invalidated the acquisition of kinyan kesef (Tosfot Avoda Zara 63a s.v. vha). Also, even if it is a kinyan on a Torah level and not midrabbanan it would be forbidden to use this kinyan to collect interest as the rabbis introduced stringencies in the world of interest and not leniencies. Chelkat Binyamin 168:215 writes that a person should not rely on this initially but after the fact one may rely upon it. </ref>
			##If the loan between the Jew and the non-Jew was oral and without any collateral or loan document according to some poskim the loan cannot be transferred from the first Jew and the second Jew. Therefore, it is necessary to resort another method of transferring the debt. This debt involves the first Jew forgiving the non-Jew completely and the second Jew collecting from the non-Jew that which he's owed.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18, Brit Yehuda 33:23</ref>
	#A Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest can sell the non-Jew's debt from a certain date going forward. The first Jew would collect the interest until that date and the second Jew would collect from that date and on.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18</ref>		#A Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest can sell the non-Jew's debt from a certain date going forward. The first Jew would collect the interest until that date and the second Jew would collect from that date and on.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18</ref>
	#The Jew can resell the non-Jew's debt for a lower interest rate than the non-Jew is giving him. For example, a Jew who lent a non-Jew $100 for 10% a year may then resell that debt to another Jew for 5% a year.<ref>Rama 168:18, Chelkat Binyamin 168:204</ref>		#The Jew can resell the non-Jew's debt for a lower interest rate than the non-Jew is giving him. For example, a Jew who lent a non-Jew $100 for 10% a year may then resell that debt to another Jew for 5% a year.<ref>Rama 168:18, Chelkat Binyamin 168:204</ref>

YitzchakSultan1: /* Lending with Interest from a Non-Jew with a Jewish Agent using a Collateral */

2025-01-14T22:19:17Z

Lending with Interest from a Non-Jew with a Jewish Agent using a Collateral

Show changes

YitzchakSultan1: /* When the Deposit was Taken Forcibly */

2025-01-14T22:07:41Z

When the Deposit was Taken Forcibly

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:07, 14 January 2025
Line 62:		Line 62:
	#Some permit borrowing from a non-Jew with a collateral so that they can in turn borrow with interest from another Jew with that collateral. This is permitted since the non-Jew takes responsibility for the original loan and it is treated as two loans and not one. Ashkenazim can rely on this opinion.<ref>Ri cited by Rosh b"m 5:55, Rosh responsa 108:11, Rama 168:8 seems to support this approach. Darkei Moshe 168:4 quotes the Mordechai and Hagahot Ashri who held that it is permitted even initially. Darkei Moshe 168:9 cites the Kol Bo 84 and Hagahot Maimoniyot Malveh 5:3 who says that the minhag was like the Ri</ref> Others hold that generally this is forbidden to arrange but if one explicitly tells the non-Jew that he has responsibility for the loan then it is permitted.<ref>Ramban b"m 71b s.v. vbar cited by Tur 168:9, Rashba 7:321, Nemukei Yosef 42a, Talmidei Harashba, and Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 s.v. vkatav alav haramban cited by Bet Yosef 168:9</ref> The Jewish borrower must make sure that the collateral that he gave to the non-Jew was given completely such that the non-Jew could acquire it with a proper [[kinyan]].<ref>Shach 168:20 writes that one needs to make sure that the non-Jew acquired the collateral with a kinyan such as meshicha, pulling it. Chelkat Binyamin 168:63 and 65 explains that there's two approaches for the case of a Jew who borrowed from a non-Jew who in turn borrows from a Jew when there's a collateral. The Gra and Levush say that the collateral doesn't add or detract anything, it all depends on whether the non-Jew was an agent of the original Jew in which case it is forbidden and if not it is permitted. The Shach, Taz, and Chavot Daat 168:12 however, hold that the collateral of the Jew can serve as a Arev Kablan, guarantor for the non-Jew from the original Jew and that is a problem. Another words, since the original Jew's property is held responsible for the interest loan of a non-Jew to the second Jew, it is as though the original Jew is the guarantor of that interest loan. In Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 170:2 it is codified that a Jew may not be a guarantor of a non-Jew's interest loan from a Jew. Therefore, the way to solve that issue is by having the original Jew completely allow the non-Jew to acquire the collateral and his transactions with it afterwards are separate from him. (See Talmidei Harashba cited by Bet Yosef 168:9 who is unconcerned for the collateral being a guarantor since it is considered a Arev Stam.)</ref>		#Some permit borrowing from a non-Jew with a collateral so that they can in turn borrow with interest from another Jew with that collateral. This is permitted since the non-Jew takes responsibility for the original loan and it is treated as two loans and not one. Ashkenazim can rely on this opinion.<ref>Ri cited by Rosh b"m 5:55, Rosh responsa 108:11, Rama 168:8 seems to support this approach. Darkei Moshe 168:4 quotes the Mordechai and Hagahot Ashri who held that it is permitted even initially. Darkei Moshe 168:9 cites the Kol Bo 84 and Hagahot Maimoniyot Malveh 5:3 who says that the minhag was like the Ri</ref> Others hold that generally this is forbidden to arrange but if one explicitly tells the non-Jew that he has responsibility for the loan then it is permitted.<ref>Ramban b"m 71b s.v. vbar cited by Tur 168:9, Rashba 7:321, Nemukei Yosef 42a, Talmidei Harashba, and Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 s.v. vkatav alav haramban cited by Bet Yosef 168:9</ref> The Jewish borrower must make sure that the collateral that he gave to the non-Jew was given completely such that the non-Jew could acquire it with a proper [[kinyan]].<ref>Shach 168:20 writes that one needs to make sure that the non-Jew acquired the collateral with a kinyan such as meshicha, pulling it. Chelkat Binyamin 168:63 and 65 explains that there's two approaches for the case of a Jew who borrowed from a non-Jew who in turn borrows from a Jew when there's a collateral. The Gra and Levush say that the collateral doesn't add or detract anything, it all depends on whether the non-Jew was an agent of the original Jew in which case it is forbidden and if not it is permitted. The Shach, Taz, and Chavot Daat 168:12 however, hold that the collateral of the Jew can serve as a Arev Kablan, guarantor for the non-Jew from the original Jew and that is a problem. Another words, since the original Jew's property is held responsible for the interest loan of a non-Jew to the second Jew, it is as though the original Jew is the guarantor of that interest loan. In Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 170:2 it is codified that a Jew may not be a guarantor of a non-Jew's interest loan from a Jew. Therefore, the way to solve that issue is by having the original Jew completely allow the non-Jew to acquire the collateral and his transactions with it afterwards are separate from him. (See Talmidei Harashba cited by Bet Yosef 168:9 who is unconcerned for the collateral being a guarantor since it is considered a Arev Stam.)</ref>
	## When the non-Jew who lent to a Jew and now comes to borrow from the Jew should borrow in his own name. If he borrows in the name of the first Jew that is certainly interest and is forbidden.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 168:65 and 53 based on Shach 168:34, Chavot Daat 168:10, and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:21. In the rishonim this can be substantiated by Rosh 108:11 and Nemukei Yosef 42a. </ref>		## When the non-Jew who lent to a Jew and now comes to borrow from the Jew should borrow in his own name. If he borrows in the name of the first Jew that is certainly interest and is forbidden.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 168:65 and 53 based on Shach 168:34, Chavot Daat 168:10, and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:21. In the rishonim this can be substantiated by Rosh 108:11 and Nemukei Yosef 42a. </ref>
	#Even according to the strict opinion, a lender to a non-Jew with interest who collected a ~~deposit~~ from him which came originally from a Jew can collect the interest as long as he isn't certain that it was arranged improperly.<ref>Ri, Rosh, Shulchan Aruch 168:9. Chelkat Binyamin 168:63 explains that essentially there's two schools of thought regarding a loan with a collateral from one Jew to another Jew with a non-Jew in between. The Gra and Levush understand that this depends on whether one may set up a non-Jew agent between two Jews who are transacting with interest. The Shach, Taz 168:14, and Chavot Daat 168:12, on the other hand, think that the collateral poses its own problem in that it functionally creates a lien of the Jewish lender upon the original borrower Jew. This could be solved if the non-Jew acquired the collateral from the non-Jew in an absolute fashion.</ref> Some say that he may not collect the interest if he knew that it was a Jewish collateral such as if it is a Jewish article of clothing.<ref>Tur 189:9, Shulchan Aruch 168:9. Bet Yosef 168:9 s.v. yisrael shnatan notes that the Mordechai 338 held within the opinion of Rabbenu Tam that it doesn't matter whether the deposit was clearly Jewish or not.</ref>		#Even according to the strict opinion, a lender to a non-Jew with interest who collected a collateral from him which came originally from a Jew can collect the interest as long as he isn't certain that it was arranged improperly.<ref>Ri, Rosh, Shulchan Aruch 168:9. Chelkat Binyamin 168:63 explains that essentially there's two schools of thought regarding a loan with a collateral from one Jew to another Jew with a non-Jew in between. The Gra and Levush understand that this depends on whether one may set up a non-Jew agent between two Jews who are transacting with interest. The Shach, Taz 168:14, and Chavot Daat 168:12, on the other hand, think that the collateral poses its own problem in that it functionally creates a lien of the Jewish lender upon the original borrower Jew. This could be solved if the non-Jew acquired the collateral from the non-Jew in an absolute fashion.</ref> Some say that he may not collect the interest if he knew that it was a Jewish collateral such as if it is a Jewish article of clothing.<ref>Tur 189:9, Shulchan Aruch 168:9. Bet Yosef 168:9 s.v. yisrael shnatan notes that the Mordechai 338 held within the opinion of Rabbenu Tam that it doesn't matter whether the deposit was clearly Jewish or not.</ref>
	#If the original Jew wants to get his collateral back from the other Jew who lent to the non-Jew and the non-Jew isn't cooperating, the lender Jew doesn't need to work with the borrower Jew since they didn't have any transaction one to another.<ref>Rosh responsa 108:8, Rama 168:9</ref>		#If the original Jew wants to get his collateral back from the other Jew who lent to the non-Jew and the non-Jew isn't cooperating, the lender Jew doesn't need to work with the borrower Jew since they didn't have any transaction one to another.<ref>Rosh responsa 108:8, Rama 168:9</ref>
	#If a Jew has a collateral of a non-Jew in his hands and the non-Jew directs him to use it to borrow from another Jew with interest on his behalf, the first Jew may do so.<ref>Mordechai 337 writes that a Jew can use a non-Jew's collateral to borrow from a Jew with interest if he is instructed so by the non-Jew. The Mordechai seems to apply this even to the case where the Jew didn't have the non-Jew's collateral but instead wanted to gift him a collateral of his own for its value. The Bet Yosef is troubled by this leniency since there's no mechanism by which the non-Jew is actually acquiring the collateral. Taz 168:14 gives a nuanced explanation that it was sold to the second Jew with a condition that the non-Jew could buy it back. Bach 168:13 and Nekudat Hakesef 168:11 explain that once a owner admits to the fact someone else owns his item it halachically belongs to that person (''kinyan odita'') and that is sufficient to remove the prohibition of ribbit. Either way, the Rama 169:11 concludes that we assume that it is impossible to gift a collateral to a non-Jew without him making a physical [[kinyan]] such as meshicha.</ref>		#If a Jew has a collateral of a non-Jew in his hands and the non-Jew directs him to use it to borrow from another Jew with interest on his behalf, the first Jew may do so.<ref>Mordechai 337 writes that a Jew can use a non-Jew's collateral to borrow from a Jew with interest if he is instructed so by the non-Jew. The Mordechai seems to apply this even to the case where the Jew didn't have the non-Jew's collateral but instead wanted to gift him a collateral of his own for its value. The Bet Yosef is troubled by this leniency since there's no mechanism by which the non-Jew is actually acquiring the collateral. Taz 168:14 gives a nuanced explanation that it was sold to the second Jew with a condition that the non-Jew could buy it back. Bach 168:13 and Nekudat Hakesef 168:11 explain that once a owner admits to the fact someone else owns his item it halachically belongs to that person (''kinyan odita'') and that is sufficient to remove the prohibition of ribbit. Either way, the Rama 169:11 concludes that we assume that it is impossible to gift a collateral to a non-Jew without him making a physical [[kinyan]] such as meshicha.</ref>
Line 81:		Line 81:
	#If an administrator for a community borrows from a non-Jew in order to pay for a communal construction project, according to some, he may be paid back by the community including the interest.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 168:4 cites Chatom Sofer YD 135 who writes that once an administrator of the community borrowed from a non-Jew with interest for building a communal building for guests. Then he charged the community to each pay their share of the cost. He cites the Ranach 58 who permitted a contractor who borrowed with interest from non-Jews to be repaid by the community since they are essentially paying for the building and not interest for a loan.</ref>		#If an administrator for a community borrows from a non-Jew in order to pay for a communal construction project, according to some, he may be paid back by the community including the interest.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 168:4 cites Chatom Sofer YD 135 who writes that once an administrator of the community borrowed from a non-Jew with interest for building a communal building for guests. Then he charged the community to each pay their share of the cost. He cites the Ranach 58 who permitted a contractor who borrowed with interest from non-Jews to be repaid by the community since they are essentially paying for the building and not interest for a loan.</ref>

	====When the ~~Deposit~~ was Taken Forcibly====		====When the Collateral was Taken Forcibly====

	#If a non-Jew took a collateral from a Jew forcibly and then used it to borrow with interest from another Jew, that second jew may collect interest from the non-Jew but may not collect interest from the first Jew.<ref>Smak 260, Kol Bo 84, Mordechai 338 citing Riva, Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 all quoted by the Bet Yosef 168:10</ref> Some disagree and allow collecting the interest.<ref>Rosh cited by Tur 168:10</ref>		#If a non-Jew took a collateral from a Jew forcibly and then used it to borrow with interest from another Jew, that second jew may collect interest from the non-Jew but may not collect interest from the first Jew.<ref>Smak 260, Kol Bo 84, Mordechai 338 citing Riva, Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 all quoted by the Bet Yosef 168:10</ref> Some disagree and allow collecting the interest.<ref>Rosh cited by Tur 168:10</ref>
Line 88:		Line 88:
	##Additionally, if the first Jew didn't know that his collateral was going to be used to borrow from a Jew with interest it isn't any question of interest for him to pay the second Jew the interest to redeem his item.<ref>Maharik 16 cited by Bet Yosef 168:10</ref>		##Additionally, if the first Jew didn't know that his collateral was going to be used to borrow from a Jew with interest it isn't any question of interest for him to pay the second Jew the interest to redeem his item.<ref>Maharik 16 cited by Bet Yosef 168:10</ref>

	====When the ~~Deposit~~ was Given to the Non-Jew Properly====		====When the Collateral was Given to the Non-Jew Properly====

	#If a Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with interest and gave him a collateral. If the non-Jew takes that ~~deposit~~ and uses it to borrow from another Jew with interest some say that one may not take interest from that transaction, while others say that one can. Generally we are lenient except in the following two circumstances:<ref>Shulchan Aruch 168:10, 20</ref>		#If a Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with interest and gave him a collateral. If the non-Jew takes that collateral and uses it to borrow from another Jew with interest some say that one may not take interest from that transaction, while others say that one can. Generally we are lenient except in the following two circumstances:<ref>Shulchan Aruch 168:10, 20</ref>
	##If the non-Jew forcibly took the ~~deposit~~ from the first Jew then we assume that the ~~deposit~~ wasn't really acquired by the non-Jew and so when it is used to borrow against another Jew it is like there's a deal between the two Jews.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:10 in his second answer, Shach 168:26, 67, Taz 168:11. Gra 168:23 disagrees.</ref>		##If the non-Jew forcibly took the collateral from the first Jew then we assume that the collateral wasn't really acquired by the non-Jew and so when it is used to borrow against another Jew it is like there's a deal between the two Jews.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:10 in his second answer, Shach 168:26, 67, Taz 168:11. Gra 168:23 disagrees.</ref>
	##Additionally, if the non-Jew immediately took that ~~deposit~~ from the first Jew and used it to borrow from the second Jew then it appears that he did so only to create a loan between two Jews. However, if he held onto it for some time for himself then it isn't an issue.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:10 in his first answer, Shach 168:67</ref>		##Additionally, if the non-Jew immediately took that collateral from the first Jew and used it to borrow from the second Jew then it appears that he did so only to create a loan between two Jews. However, if he held onto it for some time for himself then it isn't an issue.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:10 in his first answer, Shach 168:67</ref>

	===Jew Borrowed from Non-Jew and then Non-Jew Borrows from Jew===		===Jew Borrowed from Non-Jew and then Non-Jew Borrows from Jew===