Categories of Ribbit: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→=Fungibility and Returning Items of Like Type
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
# It is prohibited to lend with interest even if the borrower is wealthy and willingly agrees to pay the interest.<ref> Shulchan Aruch YD 160:1,4. </ref> It is prohibited even in cases where it seems entirely fair such as reimbursing the lender for the interest he was earning while his money was in a non-Jewish bank.<ref> Iggerot Moshe YD 3:93 </ref> | # It is prohibited to lend with interest even if the borrower is wealthy and willingly agrees to pay the interest.<ref> Shulchan Aruch YD 160:1,4. </ref> It is prohibited even in cases where it seems entirely fair such as reimbursing the lender for the interest he was earning while his money was in a non-Jewish bank.<ref> Iggerot Moshe YD 3:93 </ref> | ||
# If neighbors have a good relationship and commonly borrow without being careful to return everything they borrow, then there is no prohibition of interest as the neighbors aren’t borrowing but rather gifting one another. If they obliged themselves to repay it, orally or if it is understood, then indeed it is a loan and not a gift and interest would apply.<Ref>The Laws of Interest (pg 35), The Weekly Halachah Discussion (vol 2, pg 348) </ref> However, if neighbors do not have such a relationship, then a neighbor who borrows a half a bag of sugar is borrowed only that amount may be returned unless the amount difference is insignificant (about which people don’t care)<Ref> The Weekly Halachah Discussion (vol 2, pg 348) quoting Brit Yehuda (Siman 17 note 6)</ref> or if one is unsure how much one borrowed one may return an amount to be sure the loan is repaid.<Ref> The Weekly Halachah Discussion (vol 2, pg 348) quoting Sh”t Minchat Yitzchak 9:88</ref> | # If neighbors have a good relationship and commonly borrow without being careful to return everything they borrow, then there is no prohibition of interest as the neighbors aren’t borrowing but rather gifting one another. If they obliged themselves to repay it, orally or if it is understood, then indeed it is a loan and not a gift and interest would apply.<Ref>The Laws of Interest (pg 35), The Weekly Halachah Discussion (vol 2, pg 348) </ref> However, if neighbors do not have such a relationship, then a neighbor who borrows a half a bag of sugar is borrowed only that amount may be returned unless the amount difference is insignificant (about which people don’t care)<Ref> The Weekly Halachah Discussion (vol 2, pg 348) quoting Brit Yehuda (Siman 17 note 6)</ref> or if one is unsure how much one borrowed one may return an amount to be sure the loan is repaid.<Ref> The Weekly Halachah Discussion (vol 2, pg 348) quoting Sh”t Minchat Yitzchak 9:88</ref> | ||
===Fungibility and Returning Items of Like Type== | ===Fungibility and Returning Items of Like Type=== | ||
#Some explain that a key factor in determining if something is considered a loan is whether the item is fungible and normally traded; if it is always traded to be kept that is a sale. Another factor that is used is whether the type of item being lent is similar to the item that is being returned; if they’re dissimilar it is like a sale.<ref>Biurim in Chelkat Binyamin 161:1 s.v. dvar wrote that there’s a dispute between the Chavot Daat 161:1 and Mekor Mayim Chayim 161:1 why a loan of slaves isn’t a loan but a sale. Chavot Daat explains that since each slave is unique and needs a significant evaluation it is considered a sale when you trade one for two later. His premise is that there’s no prohibition of a loan of one item for another like apples for oranges. However, the Mekor Mayim Chaim explains that since a person doesn’t give a slave to be loaned out or traded (lhotzah) but rather to be used it isn’t considered or termed a loan but a sale.</ref> | #Some explain that a key factor in determining if something is considered a loan is whether the item is fungible and normally traded; if it is always traded to be kept that is a sale. Another factor that is used is whether the type of item being lent is similar to the item that is being returned; if they’re dissimilar it is like a sale.<ref>Biurim in Chelkat Binyamin 161:1 s.v. dvar wrote that there’s a dispute between the Chavot Daat 161:1 and Mekor Mayim Chayim 161:1 why a loan of slaves isn’t a loan but a sale. Chavot Daat explains that since each slave is unique and needs a significant evaluation it is considered a sale when you trade one for two later. His premise is that there’s no prohibition of a loan of one item for another like apples for oranges. However, the Mekor Mayim Chaim explains that since a person doesn’t give a slave to be loaned out or traded (lhotzah) but rather to be used it isn’t considered or termed a loan but a sale.</ref> | ||
===Judging by the Time of Stipulation=== | ===Judging by the Time of Stipulation=== | ||
