16,374
edits
Interest with Non-Jews: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Selling a Non-Jew's Debt to Another Jew
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
# It is permitted for the buyer of the debt to leave the non-Jew's security deposit in the hands of the original Jewish lender. The responsibility of the security deposit is now upon the second Jew but if they stipulated that the first Jew would have responsibility then he does.<ref>Rama 168:18. Shach 168:58 notes that in such a case it is necessary to do a formal sale of the loan in order for him to leave the security deposit with the first Jew.</ref> | # It is permitted for the buyer of the debt to leave the non-Jew's security deposit in the hands of the original Jewish lender. The responsibility of the security deposit is now upon the second Jew but if they stipulated that the first Jew would have responsibility then he does.<ref>Rama 168:18. Shach 168:58 notes that in such a case it is necessary to do a formal sale of the loan in order for him to leave the security deposit with the first Jew.</ref> | ||
#It is forbidden to say that one wants to borrow from another Jew with interest on or in exchange for a non-Jew’s collateral which was given to the first Jew because of a interest loan.<Ref>Rosh responsa 108:28 writes that if a Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest asks another Jew to lend him money with interest on the collateral he received from the non-Jew that is considered taking interest. What exactly is the issue with this formulation? The Shach contends that as long as one says that one wants to borrow from another Jew with interest on a non-Jewish collateral we can’t reinterepert his words and since he said he wanted to borrow with interest that is how we view his transaction. However, if he wouldn’t explain the transaction at all, we would explain him to mean that he intended to buy it since we’d prefer to say he did something permitted. Chelkat Binyamin 168:236 sides with the Shach. He explains that there’s a fundamental difference between a sale and a loan. A sale is where the first Jew is completely removed from any dealings with the non-Jew and if he collects anything from the non-Jew he must give it to the second Jew. A loan is where the first Jew must pay the second Jew whether or not the non-Jew will pay. The Bach 168:26 disagrees and explains that there is a minhag to be lenient even if one says that one intends to borrow because we reinterpret it to mean to buy. Taz seems to agree. The Bet Yosef and Taz imply that the reason for the Rosh isn’t because of his incriminating words but rather because of his motivation. If the Jewish lender would have borrowed on that collateral for the benefit of the non-Jew it wouldn’t be considered a Jewish loan. However, as long as the motivation is for the needs of the Jew we understand that transaction between the two Jews to be a loan and not a sale.</ref> | #It is forbidden to say that one wants to borrow from another Jew with interest on or in exchange for a non-Jew’s collateral which was given to the first Jew because of a interest loan.<Ref>Rosh responsa 108:28 writes that if a Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest asks another Jew to lend him money with interest on the collateral he received from the non-Jew that is considered taking interest. What exactly is the issue with this formulation? The Shach contends that as long as one says that one wants to borrow from another Jew with interest on a non-Jewish collateral we can’t reinterepert his words and since he said he wanted to borrow with interest that is how we view his transaction. However, if he wouldn’t explain the transaction at all, we would explain him to mean that he intended to buy it since we’d prefer to say he did something permitted. Chelkat Binyamin 168:236 sides with the Shach. He explains that there’s a fundamental difference between a sale and a loan. A sale is where the first Jew is completely removed from any dealings with the non-Jew and if he collects anything from the non-Jew he must give it to the second Jew. A loan is where the first Jew must pay the second Jew whether or not the non-Jew will pay. The Bach 168:26 disagrees and explains that there is a minhag to be lenient even if one says that one intends to borrow because we reinterpret it to mean to buy. Taz seems to agree. The Bet Yosef and Taz imply that the reason for the Rosh isn’t because of his incriminating words but rather because of his motivation. If the Jewish lender would have borrowed on that collateral for the benefit of the non-Jew it wouldn’t be considered a Jewish loan. However, as long as the motivation is for the needs of the Jew we understand that transaction between the two Jews to be a loan and not a sale.</ref> | ||
==Managing Someone Else's Money== | ==Managing Someone Else's Money== | ||
