Corporations and Partnerships with Respect to Ribbit: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
Corporations and Partnerships with Respect to Ribbit (view source)
Revision as of 19:34, 16 June 2020
, 16 June 2020→Iska for Commodities
(→Iska) |
|||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
====Wages for an Iska Worker==== | ====Wages for an Iska Worker==== | ||
# Poel batel's wage is defined as asking that the person would take as a salary not to have to work at all. This price would vary depending on their job.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 177:31 and Milvah Hashem 2:12:4 follow the opinion of Tosfot either because Shulchan Aruch didn't clarify and we can be lenient since it is only rabbinic or because it is the simplest explanation in the words of Shulchan Aruch and the Bet Yosef elaborated upon that opinion. Chavot Daat 177:3 also holds that opinion.</ref> | # Poel batel's wage is defined as asking that the person would take as a salary not to have to work at all. This price would vary depending on their job.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 177:31 and Milvah Hashem 2:12:4 follow the opinion of Tosfot either because Shulchan Aruch didn't clarify and we can be lenient since it is only rabbinic or because it is the simplest explanation in the words of Shulchan Aruch and the Bet Yosef elaborated upon that opinion. Chavot Daat 177:3 also holds that opinion.</ref> | ||
===Terms of the Iska=== | |||
# The agent investing the money on behalf of the investor is considered a paid watchman ([[shomer]]) since he is being paid for his work.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 177:5</ref> | |||
# It is permitted to create whatever conditions the investor would like upon the agent and if the agent doesn't follow those conditions then the agent takes responsibility for all of the losses and the gains continue to be split as before. Indeed it is permitted for the gent to not follow these conditions.<ref>Rama Y.D. 177:5. It isn't considered as though the agent stole the money since he is doing so for the benefit of the investor (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 177:5, Taz 177:10). </ref> It isn't considered more beneficial to the investor (''karov lsachar vrachok mhefsed'') since he can only gain and not lose because the original made it possible that it would been a regular iska.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 177:5. Shach 177:17 clarifies that this is only permitted since an iska is only rabbinic interest to begin with.</ref> | |||
## If the agent explicitly states that he is [[steal]]ing the funds for himself,<ref>Taz 177:11 notes that it is only effective if the agent states that he is stealing it at the time that he used it for himself, however, afterwards he isn't trusted to say he stole it as opposed to merely used it for the benefit of the investor against the conditions of the investor. Although Nekudat Hakesef 177:5 disagrees the Bear Heitiv 177:12 points out that this Nekudat Kesef is very difficult to understand. Chelkat Binyamin 177:83 agrees with Taz.</ref> then all the loses and gains accrue to the agent and not the investor. To avoid this it is advisable to stipulate that if the agent steals the money for himself then he must repay it to the investment. Thereby all profits will continue to accrue to the investor. If the practice is allow the agent to take money for himself and repay it then it isn't necessary to make such a stipulation explicit.<ref>Rama Y.D. 177:5</ref> | |||
===Iska for Commodities=== | ===Iska for Commodities=== | ||
# If someone takes a job to improve and sell the merchandise or livestock of someone else and he accepts all responsibility of its losses and also agrees to pay its original price if it is destroyed or dies that is forbidden as interest. Even though the worker gains from a percent of the profits of the merchandise or livestock the deal is considered to have more potential for the owner to gain than lose (''karov lsachar vrachok mhefsed''). The only reason that the worker would accept such a deal is because the owner is extending him a loan, the commodity, through which the worker can gain.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 68a, 70b, Rashi 68a s.v. ein, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 177:1</ref> | # If someone takes a job to improve and sell the merchandise or livestock of someone else and he accepts all responsibility of its losses and also agrees to pay its original price if it is destroyed or dies that is forbidden as interest. Even though the worker gains from a percent of the profits of the merchandise or livestock the deal is considered to have more potential for the owner to gain than lose (''karov lsachar vrachok mhefsed''). The only reason that the worker would accept such a deal is because the owner is extending him a loan, the commodity, through which the worker can gain.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 68a, 70b, Rashi 68a s.v. ein, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 177:1</ref> | ||
===Iska that Completely Benefits the Owner=== | ===Iska that Completely Benefits the Owner=== | ||
# If someone is doing an investment<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 177:19 writes that although the discussion of Rama 177:1 is about property it can also apply to money.</ref> entirely for the benefit of the investor and doesn't take any profits from the investments or has other benefits, he is considered an agent of the investor and not a borrower. In such a case it is permitted even for the agent to accept responsibility for the investment that if it depreciates that he will nonetheless return the capital since he is merely a guard with a lot of responsibility and not a borrower.<ref>Sh"t Ran 73 cites the Chachmei Lunil who said that if an investor has an agent invest his money and all the profits go to the investor, then the agent isn't considered a borrower. If so, he can take responsibility for the capital. He quotes that originally the Raavad argued with this leniency but seems to have retracted later. In the Ran himself he says that the agent can even be paid for his work. The Rama 177:1 cites this leniency as the halacha. Based on the Yerushalmi b"m 5:3 the Gra 177:5 supports this Rama but limits it to where the investor doesn't benefit. Chelkat Binyamin 177:16 writes that we are only lenient with this leniency if the borrower gains no benefit from the investment. That is, he isn't gaining a better reputation or is interested in getting another investment in the future with which he can make profits for himself. If he is gaining then he isn't an agent but rather a borrower since he is doing it for himself partially. In the Biurim he cites the Tiferet Lmoshe 170:2 who holds that even if there's any tangential benefit that the agent gains it is forbidden as we see from the case of a guarantor who doesn't personally gain from the loan but may not pay interest (S"A CM 170:1). Chelkat Binyamin disagrees.</ref> | # If someone is doing an investment<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 177:19 writes that although the discussion of Rama 177:1 is about property it can also apply to money.</ref> entirely for the benefit of the investor and doesn't take any profits from the investments or has other benefits, he is considered an agent of the investor and not a borrower. In such a case it is permitted even for the agent to accept responsibility for the investment that if it depreciates that he will nonetheless return the capital since he is merely a guard with a lot of responsibility and not a borrower.<ref>Sh"t Ran 73 cites the Chachmei Lunil who said that if an investor has an agent invest his money and all the profits go to the investor, then the agent isn't considered a borrower. If so, he can take responsibility for the capital. He quotes that originally the Raavad argued with this leniency but seems to have retracted later. In the Ran himself he says that the agent can even be paid for his work. The Rama 177:1 cites this leniency as the halacha. Based on the Yerushalmi b"m 5:3 the Gra 177:5 supports this Rama but limits it to where the investor doesn't benefit. Chelkat Binyamin 177:16 writes that we are only lenient with this leniency if the borrower gains no benefit from the investment. That is, he isn't gaining a better reputation or is interested in getting another investment in the future with which he can make profits for himself. If he is gaining then he isn't an agent but rather a borrower since he is doing it for himself partially. In the Biurim he cites the Tiferet Lmoshe 170:2 who holds that even if there's any tangential benefit that the agent gains it is forbidden as we see from the case of a guarantor who doesn't personally gain from the loan but may not pay interest (S"A CM 170:1). Chelkat Binyamin disagrees.</ref> | ||
