Anonymous

Corporations and Partnerships with Respect to Ribbit: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia

Corporations and Partnerships with Respect to Ribbit (view source)

Revision as of 01:25, 4 December 2020

No change in size ,  4 December 2020
m
Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical"
m (Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical")
Line 23: Line 23:


==Non-Profits==
==Non-Profits==
#Money that belongs to orphans who aren’t bar or bat mitzvahed can be lent with rabbinic interest<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 70a concludes that it is only permitted to lend money of orphans as interest if the interest is only rabbinic but not if it is Biblical. This is accepted by the poskim and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 160:18.</ref> but not Biblical interest.<ref>Although it was clear from the Bavli Bava Metsia 70a it is forbidden to lend money of orphans with Biblical interest, the Maharil responsa 73 cites a practice to do so and justifies it based on the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 7. However, the Maharil concludes that the practice is completely invalid and should not be followed. The Rama 160:18 cites the maharil that this practice was completely rejected. Shach 160:27 adds that there’s no such practice any more as it was wrong. See Yabia Omer YD 5:13 who cites many rishonim who did explain that the yerushalmi held it was permitted. </ref> This is the practice.<ref>Even though the Shach 160:19 writes that the practice was not to lend orphan’s money with any interest even rabbinic interest, the Nodeh Byehuda YD 40 writes that the practice is completely justified based on the majority of rishonim and Shulchan Aruch. He testified that he did so personally. Pitchei Teshuva 160:20 cites the Nodeh Beyehuda. Chelkat Binyamin 160:200 agreed.</ref>
#Money that belongs to orphans who aren’t bar or bat mitzvahed can be lent with rabbinic interest<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 70a concludes that it is only permitted to lend money of orphans as interest if the interest is only rabbinic but not if it is biblical. This is accepted by the poskim and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 160:18.</ref> but not biblical interest.<ref>Although it was clear from the Bavli Bava Metsia 70a it is forbidden to lend money of orphans with biblical interest, the Maharil responsa 73 cites a practice to do so and justifies it based on the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 7. However, the Maharil concludes that the practice is completely invalid and should not be followed. The Rama 160:18 cites the maharil that this practice was completely rejected. Shach 160:27 adds that there’s no such practice any more as it was wrong. See Yabia Omer YD 5:13 who cites many rishonim who did explain that the yerushalmi held it was permitted. </ref> This is the practice.<ref>Even though the Shach 160:19 writes that the practice was not to lend orphan’s money with any interest even rabbinic interest, the Nodeh Byehuda YD 40 writes that the practice is completely justified based on the majority of rishonim and Shulchan Aruch. He testified that he did so personally. Pitchei Teshuva 160:20 cites the Nodeh Beyehuda. Chelkat Binyamin 160:200 agreed.</ref>
# The is permitted to collect the rabbinic interest even if it is collected after he is bar or bat mitzvahed as long as it was arranged beforehand.<Ref>Pitchei Teshuva 160:23 citign Mishna Lemelech</ref>
# The is permitted to collect the rabbinic interest even if it is collected after he is bar or bat mitzvahed as long as it was arranged beforehand.<Ref>Pitchei Teshuva 160:23 citign Mishna Lemelech</ref>
# If the orphan’s money was indeed lent with Biblical interest, if the borrower invested and in fact made as much as the percent interest that was demanded he needs to pay it.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 160:19. The Rashba responsa 2:174 writes that if the orphan’s money was lent with Biblical interest it must be returned like any case of interest. However, the Maharil responsa 37 tries very hard to allow the orphans to keep it. The Maharam prague edition 969 has another justification.</ref> Some say that he only needs to pay it if he made twice as much as was demanded.<ref>The Bet Yosef 160:19 writes that even according to the Mordechai 332 and Maharam’s leniency that we view the loan with interest as though it was an investment (iska) that is permitted it is at most viewed as an iska transaction. Therefore, since in an iska half of the profits go to the investor the orphans only deserve have of the profits made up to the amount of the percent that they demanded. However, the Mahara Sason 162 argues that the lender has to pay all of his profits to the orphans and not just half. The Shach 160:32, Chachmat Adam 130:10, and Chelkat Binyamin 160:215 cite this dispute and do not offer any resolution.</ref>
# If the orphan’s money was indeed lent with biblical interest, if the borrower invested and in fact made as much as the percent interest that was demanded he needs to pay it.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 160:19. The Rashba responsa 2:174 writes that if the orphan’s money was lent with biblical interest it must be returned like any case of interest. However, the Maharil responsa 37 tries very hard to allow the orphans to keep it. The Maharam prague edition 969 has another justification.</ref> Some say that he only needs to pay it if he made twice as much as was demanded.<ref>The Bet Yosef 160:19 writes that even according to the Mordechai 332 and Maharam’s leniency that we view the loan with interest as though it was an investment (iska) that is permitted it is at most viewed as an iska transaction. Therefore, since in an iska half of the profits go to the investor the orphans only deserve have of the profits made up to the amount of the percent that they demanded. However, the Mahara Sason 162 argues that the lender has to pay all of his profits to the orphans and not just half. The Shach 160:32, Chachmat Adam 130:10, and Chelkat Binyamin 160:215 cite this dispute and do not offer any resolution.</ref>
# Money that is designated for talmud torah, poor people, or a shul can be lent with rabbinic interest.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 160:18. The Rosh, Tur, Rabbenu Yerucham, and Rashba apply the leniency of lending orphan’s money with rabbinic interest to other cases of mitzvah such as talmud torah. The Shulchan Aruch codifies this opinion.</ref>
# Money that is designated for talmud torah, poor people, or a shul can be lent with rabbinic interest.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 160:18. The Rosh, Tur, Rabbenu Yerucham, and Rashba apply the leniency of lending orphan’s money with rabbinic interest to other cases of mitzvah such as talmud torah. The Shulchan Aruch codifies this opinion.</ref>
# Some say that it is permitted to lend money with rabbinic interest in order to have money to spend on a Shabbat meal or Suedat mitzvah.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 160:22 citing the Bear Yakov, Yalkut Yosef 253:4</ref>
# Some say that it is permitted to lend money with rabbinic interest in order to have money to spend on a Shabbat meal or Suedat mitzvah.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 160:22 citing the Bear Yakov, Yalkut Yosef 253:4</ref>
Line 31: Line 31:
# Charity that is designated for an individual poor person can be lent with rabbinic interest.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 160:196 quotes the Bet Yosef within the Rashba says that lending charity with rabbinic interest is only permitted if the money isn’t yet designated for one poor person. However, the achronim hold that it is permitted as long is it is designated for the poor and even an individual.</ref>
# Charity that is designated for an individual poor person can be lent with rabbinic interest.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 160:196 quotes the Bet Yosef within the Rashba says that lending charity with rabbinic interest is only permitted if the money isn’t yet designated for one poor person. However, the achronim hold that it is permitted as long is it is designated for the poor and even an individual.</ref>
# Can you lend money with rabbinic interest to spend that money for a mitzvah? Some poskim hold that it is forbidden,<ref>Mishna Brurah (Shaar Hatziyun 242:15)</ref> while others hold it is permitted.<ref>Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 1 p. 9 writes that it is permitted to lend money with rabbinic interest in order to spend it for a Shabbat meal or seudat mitzvah. This is based on the Magen Avraham 242:2 who says that it is permitted to lend with interest in order to spend for a Shabbat meal.  
# Can you lend money with rabbinic interest to spend that money for a mitzvah? Some poskim hold that it is forbidden,<ref>Mishna Brurah (Shaar Hatziyun 242:15)</ref> while others hold it is permitted.<ref>Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 1 p. 9 writes that it is permitted to lend money with rabbinic interest in order to spend it for a Shabbat meal or seudat mitzvah. This is based on the Magen Avraham 242:2 who says that it is permitted to lend with interest in order to spend for a Shabbat meal.  
* Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 8;2 establishes that it is permitted to lend with interest in order to have money for a meal of a mitzvah such to establish the kiddush hachodesh. Shibolei Haleket 55 applies this also to Shabbat meals. What type of interest is permitted for a mitzvah? Or Zaruah Tzedaka 30 explains that even Biblical interest is permitted to further a mitzvah. Mordechai b”m 287 cites Rabbenu Shmuel who agrees. This opinion is cited in the Aguda b”m 4:73, Maharil 37, and Hagahot Maimoniyot (kushta edition, malveh 4). Mahara Ben Tauba cited in Tashbetz 34 agreed. However, this opinion is rejected by the overwhelming majority of poskim as is evidenced by Bet Yosef 160:18.
* Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 8;2 establishes that it is permitted to lend with interest in order to have money for a meal of a mitzvah such to establish the kiddush hachodesh. Shibolei Haleket 55 applies this also to Shabbat meals. What type of interest is permitted for a mitzvah? Or Zaruah Tzedaka 30 explains that even biblical interest is permitted to further a mitzvah. Mordechai b”m 287 cites Rabbenu Shmuel who agrees. This opinion is cited in the Aguda b”m 4:73, Maharil 37, and Hagahot Maimoniyot (kushta edition, malveh 4). Mahara Ben Tauba cited in Tashbetz 34 agreed. However, this opinion is rejected by the overwhelming majority of poskim as is evidenced by Bet Yosef 160:18.
* Maharam (krimnoa edition 109) holds that it is forbidden to lend money for charity with Biblical interest but it is permitted to lend them with rabbinic interest. This is also the opinion of the Rosh responsa 18:8, Rashba responsa 4:232, Shulchan Aruch 160:18, and Gra 160:43. Radvaz 6:2306 writes that everyone holds that rabbinic interest is permitted for charity.
* Maharam (krimnoa edition 109) holds that it is forbidden to lend money for charity with biblical interest but it is permitted to lend them with rabbinic interest. This is also the opinion of the Rosh responsa 18:8, Rashba responsa 4:232, Shulchan Aruch 160:18, and Gra 160:43. Radvaz 6:2306 writes that everyone holds that rabbinic interest is permitted for charity.
* Magen Avraham 242:2 cites the Shibolei Haleket that it is permitted to lend with interest for a Shabbat meal. The Netiv Chaim explains that this means borrowing with interest from a non-Jew. However, Rav Ovadia (Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 1 p. 7) argues that there is no prohibition to borrow from a non-Jews with interest (Rambam Malveh 5:2). Shulchan Aruch Harav 242:9, Rav Shlomo Kluger in Chachmat Shlomo 242, Kinyan Torah 7:20, Bear Yakov 242 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 160:22, and Chazon Ovadia all hold that it is permitted to lend with rabbinic interest in order to get money for the meals of Shabbat. Shevet Halevi 2:64:1, 8:189 seems also to support this opinion.</ref>
* Magen Avraham 242:2 cites the Shibolei Haleket that it is permitted to lend with interest for a Shabbat meal. The Netiv Chaim explains that this means borrowing with interest from a non-Jew. However, Rav Ovadia (Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 1 p. 7) argues that there is no prohibition to borrow from a non-Jews with interest (Rambam Malveh 5:2). Shulchan Aruch Harav 242:9, Rav Shlomo Kluger in Chachmat Shlomo 242, Kinyan Torah 7:20, Bear Yakov 242 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 160:22, and Chazon Ovadia all hold that it is permitted to lend with rabbinic interest in order to get money for the meals of Shabbat. Shevet Halevi 2:64:1, 8:189 seems also to support this opinion.</ref>
# If a power of attorney or agent lent money of orphans with interest on their behalf and they already took that money the power of attorney or agent doesn’t need to pay it back and the orphans as well can keep it.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 160:20</ref>
# If a power of attorney or agent lent money of orphans with interest on their behalf and they already took that money the power of attorney or agent doesn’t need to pay it back and the orphans as well can keep it.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 160:20</ref>
Line 106: Line 106:


=====An Iska Agreement that was Converted into a Loan=====
=====An Iska Agreement that was Converted into a Loan=====
# An iska agreement that was renegotiated to be a loan with interest obviously is forbidden.<ref>Taz 177:14 points out that whether this is Biblical or rabbinic interest depends on the dispute in Shulchan Aruch 166:2.</ref> However, if the event that the agent continues to invest the money and indeed made the profits that were stipulated by the original iska, after the fact it can be considered as though they continued a permitted iska and the money doesn't need to be returned.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 177:7</ref>
# An iska agreement that was renegotiated to be a loan with interest obviously is forbidden.<ref>Taz 177:14 points out that whether this is biblical or rabbinic interest depends on the dispute in Shulchan Aruch 166:2.</ref> However, if the event that the agent continues to invest the money and indeed made the profits that were stipulated by the original iska, after the fact it can be considered as though they continued a permitted iska and the money doesn't need to be returned.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 177:7</ref>
# In this case if the investor claims that the agent made more profits he can't force the agent to swear.<ref>Shach 177:23, Chelkat Binyamin 177:111. See there for the discussion of the possibility of making the agent swear with a cherem and also the Dagul Mirvava's claim that there would be an obligation to swear because of the joint partnership (see C.M. 93:4).</ref>
# In this case if the investor claims that the agent made more profits he can't force the agent to swear.<ref>Shach 177:23, Chelkat Binyamin 177:111. See there for the discussion of the possibility of making the agent swear with a cherem and also the Dagul Mirvava's claim that there would be an obligation to swear because of the joint partnership (see C.M. 93:4).</ref>
# If the agent claims that the money he already paid to the investor was interest and it should be returned, the investor is believed without swearing to say that he accepted it as iska payments because such payment were due to him according to the original iska as there were indeed specified profits and it was not interest.<ref>Shach 177:23, Chelkat Binyamin 177:111</ref>
# If the agent claims that the money he already paid to the investor was interest and it should be returned, the investor is believed without swearing to say that he accepted it as iska payments because such payment were due to him according to the original iska as there were indeed specified profits and it was not interest.<ref>Shach 177:23, Chelkat Binyamin 177:111</ref>
Anonymous user
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/29185"