Categories of Ribbit: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Definition of Interest
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Lending money on interest is one of the more severe prohibitions in the torah. <ref> The Gemara BM 71a says that one who lends with interest becomes poor and never recovers. The Rambam Hilchot Malveh Viloveh 4:2 delineates six biblical prohibitions which could potentially be violated in any particular loan transaction. Ramban Sefer Hamitzvot Shoresh 6 adds a 7th. </ref> The lender, the borrower, the guarantor, the witnesses, and even the scribe violate when engaging in an interest-bearing loan. <ref> Mishna Bava Metzia 75b. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 160:1</ref> | Lending money on interest is one of the more severe prohibitions in the torah. <ref> The Gemara BM 71a says that one who lends with interest becomes poor and never recovers. The Rambam Hilchot Malveh Viloveh 4:2 delineates six biblical prohibitions which could potentially be violated in any particular loan transaction. Ramban Sefer Hamitzvot Shoresh 6 adds a 7th. </ref> The lender, the borrower, the guarantor, the witnesses, and even the scribe violate when engaging in an interest-bearing loan. <ref> Mishna Bava Metzia 75b. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 160:1</ref> | ||
==Definition of Interest== | ==Definition of Interest== | ||
# In any case where a person owes a debt to another Jew whether it is because he borrowed money or because he hired him and owes him or because he rented something and didn’t pay yet, it is forbidden to pay more than the actual debt because of the prohibition of taking interest. <Ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 176:6, Rama Y.D. 161:1, The gemara Bava Metsia 63b explains that as long as one is paying extra to be able to hold the money for longer, it would be a violation of this prohibition. </ref> | # In any case where a person owes a debt to another Jew whether it is because he borrowed money or because he hired him and owes him or because he rented something and didn’t pay yet, it is forbidden to pay more than the actual debt because of the prohibition of taking interest.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 176:6, Rama Y.D. 161:1, The gemara Bava Metsia 63b explains that as long as one is paying extra to be able to hold the money for longer, it would be a violation of this prohibition. </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> | # 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. <Ref> The Weekly Halachah Discussion (vol 2, pg 348 | # 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> | ||
#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 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> | ===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> | |||
===Judging by the Time of Stipulation=== | ===Judging by the Time of Stipulation=== | ||
# It is considered Biblical ribbit to lend 100 items to get 120 items in return, even if at the time of the return those 120 items afterwards are the same price as the 100 items were at the time of the original loan.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 60b, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 160:21</ref> | # It is considered Biblical ribbit to lend 100 items to get 120 items in return, even if at the time of the return those 120 items afterwards are the same price as the 100 items were at the time of the original loan.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 60b, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 160:21</ref> | ||
# It is considered rabbinic ribbit to lend 100 items to get 100 items in return even if at the time of the return those 100 items are worth more than the price of the 100 items were originally.<ref> The reason that this is only rabbinic ribbit and not Biblical ribbit is because we judge the situation whether something is ribbit or not based on the stipulation at the time of the loan. That is the ruling of the Shach YD 160:35 and Gra 160:53. This is also the opinion of the Ritva 61b s.v. vtisbara, Ran, and Talmid Harashba cited by Bet Yosef 160:21. However, the Hagahot Ashri 6:1 writes that this was the doubt of the gemara whether we judge the deal from the stipulation or the time of the return and if we judge it by the time of the return it is considered ribbit. This case might therefore be ribbit Biblically. The Granat explains that even the Hagahot Ashri only considers it Biblical ribbit if it is an exchange of currency which is uncommon but not with actual commodities which is certainly rabbinic. </ref> | # It is considered rabbinic ribbit to lend 100 items to get 100 items in return even if at the time of the return those 100 items are worth more than the price of the 100 items were originally.<ref> The reason that this is only rabbinic ribbit and not Biblical ribbit is because we judge the situation whether something is ribbit or not based on the stipulation at the time of the loan. That is the ruling of the Shach YD 160:35 and Gra 160:53. This is also the opinion of the Ritva 61b s.v. vtisbara, Ran, and Talmid Harashba cited by Bet Yosef 160:21. However, the Hagahot Ashri 6:1 writes that this was the doubt of the gemara whether we judge the deal from the stipulation or the time of the return and if we judge it by the time of the return it is considered ribbit. This case might therefore be ribbit Biblically. The Granat explains that even the Hagahot Ashri only considers it Biblical ribbit if it is an exchange of currency which is uncommon but not with actual commodities which is certainly rabbinic. </ref> | ||
===Involvement with Interest=== | ===Not Having Involvement with Interest=== | ||
#Anyone involved in the interest transaction, such as the lender, buyer, witnesses, scribe, or another intermediary is violating the halacha of ribbit.<ref>Bava Metsia 75b, Tur and Shulchan 160:1, Shach 160:1</ref> | #Anyone involved in the interest transaction, such as the lender, buyer, witnesses, scribe, or another intermediary is violating the halacha of ribbit.<ref>Bava Metsia 75b, Tur and Shulchan 160:1, Shach 160:1</ref> | ||
