Interest with Non-Jews: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Lending with Interest from a Non-Jew with a Jewish Agent using a Security Deposit
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
#Even according to the strict opinion, a lender to a non-Jew with interest who collected a deposit from him which came originally from a Jew can collect the interest as long as he isn't certain that it was arranged improperly.<ref>Ri, Rosh, Shulchan Aruch 168:9. Chelkat Binyamin 168:63 explains that essentially there's two schools of thought regarding a loan with a security deposit from one Jew to another Jew with a non-Jew in between. The Gra and Levush understand that this depends on whether one may set up a non-Jew agent between two Jews who are transacting with interest. The Shach, Taz 168:14, and Chavot Daat 168:12, on the other hand, think that the security deposit poses its own problem in that it functionally creates a lien of the Jewish lender upon the original borrower Jew. This could be solved if the non-Jew acquired the deposit from the non-Jew in an absolute fashion.</ref> Some say that he may not collect the interest if he knew that it was a Jewish security deposit such as if it is a Jewish article of clothing.<ref>Tur 189:9, Shulchan Aruch 168:9. Bet Yosef 168:9 s.v. yisrael shnatan notes that the Mordechai 338 held within the opinion of Rabbenu Tam that it doesn't matter whether the deposit was clearly Jewish or not.</ref> | #Even according to the strict opinion, a lender to a non-Jew with interest who collected a deposit from him which came originally from a Jew can collect the interest as long as he isn't certain that it was arranged improperly.<ref>Ri, Rosh, Shulchan Aruch 168:9. Chelkat Binyamin 168:63 explains that essentially there's two schools of thought regarding a loan with a security deposit from one Jew to another Jew with a non-Jew in between. The Gra and Levush understand that this depends on whether one may set up a non-Jew agent between two Jews who are transacting with interest. The Shach, Taz 168:14, and Chavot Daat 168:12, on the other hand, think that the security deposit poses its own problem in that it functionally creates a lien of the Jewish lender upon the original borrower Jew. This could be solved if the non-Jew acquired the deposit from the non-Jew in an absolute fashion.</ref> Some say that he may not collect the interest if he knew that it was a Jewish security deposit such as if it is a Jewish article of clothing.<ref>Tur 189:9, Shulchan Aruch 168:9. Bet Yosef 168:9 s.v. yisrael shnatan notes that the Mordechai 338 held within the opinion of Rabbenu Tam that it doesn't matter whether the deposit was clearly Jewish or not.</ref> | ||
#If the original Jew wants to get his security deposit back from the other Jew who lent to the non-Jew and the non-Jew isn't cooperating, the lender Jew doesn't need to work with the borrower Jew since they didn't have any transaction one to another.<ref>Rosh responsa 108:8, Rama 168:9</ref> | #If the original Jew wants to get his security deposit back from the other Jew who lent to the non-Jew and the non-Jew isn't cooperating, the lender Jew doesn't need to work with the borrower Jew since they didn't have any transaction one to another.<ref>Rosh responsa 108:8, Rama 168:9</ref> | ||
#If a Jew has a security deposit of a non-Jew in his hands and the non-Jew | #If a Jew has a security deposit of a non-Jew in his hands and the non-Jew directs him to use it to borrow from another Jew with interest on his behalf, the first Jew may do so.<ref>Mordechai 337 writes that a Jew can use a non-Jew's security deposit to borrow from a Jew with interest if he is instructed so by the non-Jew. The Mordechai seems to apply this even to the case where the Jew didn't have the non-Jew's deposit but instead wanted to gift him a deposit of his own for its value. The Bet Yosef is troubled by this leniency since there's no mechanism by which the non-Jew is actually acquiring the deposit. Taz 168:14 gives a nuanced explanation that it was sold to the second Jew with a condition that the non-Jew could buy it back. Bach 168:13 and Nekudat Hakesef 168:11 explain that once a owner admits to the fact someone else owns his item it halachically belongs to that person (''kinyan odita'') and that is sufficient to remove the prohibition of ribbit. Either way, the Rama 169:11 concludes that we assume that it is impossible to gift a deposit to a non-Jew without him making a physical [[kinyan]] such as meshicha.</ref> | ||
#If a Jew lent from another Jew and got a collateral for that loan, and specified that if the Jew didn’t pay up on time he would either sell the collateral or borrow against it with interest. If he then borrowed against it with interest from a non-Jew, he isn’t responsible to pay the interest for the loan since that was the stipulation. Instead the Jewish borrower needs to pay the interest in order to redeem his collateral.<ref>Rashba responsa cited by Bet Yosef 168:26 explains that once they stipulated that the lender Jew can borrow with interest against the collateral we understand that to mean that the lender Jew isn’t borrowing from the non-Jew for himself, rather he is doing so as an agent of the other Jew. Therefore, the borrower Jew can repay the interest to the non-Jew and it isn’t interest to the lender Jew since he is neither a lender or a guarantor of the loan, he is simply the agent. Shaar Mishpat 168:13 cites this Rashba but also cites the Maharit YD 46 based on the Maharam who argues that it is an asmachta and isn't binding. Therefore, the lender couldn't lend to the non-Jew with interest on that collateral. Shulchan Gavoha 168:50 cites this Rashba and fundamentally puts it in the same camp as the Rosh which is codified by Shulchan Aruch 168:26. Kovetz Halichot Horah Ribbit v. 5 p. 316-7 explains that it is necessary for the Rashba and Ramban 71a that the lender Jew be the agent of the original borrower as well as the fact that the non-Jew is collecting from the collateral. The reason is that if it was simply that the non-Jew would collect from the collateral but the Jewish lender was never appointed as an agent then he is in essence borrowing for himself with interest and having another Jew repay his interest using his collateral.</ref> | #If a Jew lent from another Jew and got a collateral for that loan, and specified that if the Jew didn’t pay up on time he would either sell the collateral or borrow against it with interest. If he then borrowed against it with interest from a non-Jew, he isn’t responsible to pay the interest for the loan since that was the stipulation. Instead the Jewish borrower needs to pay the interest in order to redeem his collateral.<ref>Rashba responsa cited by Bet Yosef 168:26 explains that once they stipulated that the lender Jew can borrow with interest against the collateral we understand that to mean that the lender Jew isn’t borrowing from the non-Jew for himself, rather he is doing so as an agent of the other Jew. Therefore, the borrower Jew can repay the interest to the non-Jew and it isn’t interest to the lender Jew since he is neither a lender or a guarantor of the loan, he is simply the agent. Shaar Mishpat 168:13 cites this Rashba but also cites the Maharit YD 46 based on the Maharam who argues that it is an asmachta and isn't binding. Therefore, the lender couldn't lend to the non-Jew with interest on that collateral. Shulchan Gavoha 168:50 cites this Rashba and fundamentally puts it in the same camp as the Rosh which is codified by Shulchan Aruch 168:26. Kovetz Halichot Horah Ribbit v. 5 p. 316-7 explains that it is necessary for the Rashba and Ramban 71a that the lender Jew be the agent of the original borrower as well as the fact that the non-Jew is collecting from the collateral. The reason is that if it was simply that the non-Jew would collect from the collateral but the Jewish lender was never appointed as an agent then he is in essence borrowing for himself with interest and having another Jew repay his interest using his collateral.</ref> | ||
#If a Jew lent from another Jew and got a collateral for that loan, he can then use that collateral to borrow with interest from a non-Jew. He should specify to the non-Jew that he is borrowing on behalf of another Jew and he has no responsibility. Alternatively, if the collateral is worth the entire value of the loan he can use it to borrow from the non-Jew with interest. Then the original borrower Jew can pay the non-Jew the interest and redeem his collateral. The Jewish lender was simply the agent of the first Jew to borrow with interest from a non-Jew.<ref>Tashbetz Katan 486 writes that if the Jewish lender specifies to the non-Jew that he is borrowing on behalf of another Jew it is permitted, otherwise it is like he is borrowing for himself and having the original borrower Jew pay the interest is forbidden. Yet, the Bet Yosef 168:26 points out that the Rosh implies that it is permitted for the original borrower to pay the interest even if the lender Jew didn’t make that stipulation. Shulchan Aruch 168:26 simply quotes the case without specifically mentioning that stipulation. Shach 168:82 explains that the Tashbetz Katan and Rosh agree. Either a stipulation is necessary or having a collateral that is worth the entire value of the loan and interest. Otherwise it is forbidden. Chelkat Binyamin 168:291 agrees. Mayin Ganim Abadi YD 9 shows at length that the Bet Yosef thought that there is a dispute between the Tashbetz Katan and Rosh. The Rosh thinks that even without specifying it is assumed that the non-Jew depends on the collateral and there’s no responsibility upon the Jew. However, the Tashbetz Katan thinks that only if the Jew specifies that is it so, otherwise we assume that the non-Jew will hold responsible the Jew who is borrowing from him as well as from the collateral, in which case it would be forbidden for the original borrower to pay the interest. Erech Lechem 168:17 implies this as well. He explains that the Ran cited in Shulchan Aruch 168:17 implies like the Tashbetz Katan, yet, Shulchan Aruch ultimately sided with the Rosh and Rashba unlike the Tashbetz Katan and Ran.</ref> | #If a Jew lent from another Jew and got a collateral for that loan, he can then use that collateral to borrow with interest from a non-Jew. He should specify to the non-Jew that he is borrowing on behalf of another Jew and he has no responsibility. Alternatively, if the collateral is worth the entire value of the loan he can use it to borrow from the non-Jew with interest. Then the original borrower Jew can pay the non-Jew the interest and redeem his collateral. The Jewish lender was simply the agent of the first Jew to borrow with interest from a non-Jew.<ref>Tashbetz Katan 486 writes that if the Jewish lender specifies to the non-Jew that he is borrowing on behalf of another Jew it is permitted, otherwise it is like he is borrowing for himself and having the original borrower Jew pay the interest is forbidden. Yet, the Bet Yosef 168:26 points out that the Rosh implies that it is permitted for the original borrower to pay the interest even if the lender Jew didn’t make that stipulation. Shulchan Aruch 168:26 simply quotes the case without specifically mentioning that stipulation. Shach 168:82 explains that the Tashbetz Katan and Rosh agree. Either a stipulation is necessary or having a collateral that is worth the entire value of the loan and interest. Otherwise it is forbidden. Chelkat Binyamin 168:291 agrees. Mayin Ganim Abadi YD 9 shows at length that the Bet Yosef thought that there is a dispute between the Tashbetz Katan and Rosh. The Rosh thinks that even without specifying it is assumed that the non-Jew depends on the collateral and there’s no responsibility upon the Jew. However, the Tashbetz Katan thinks that only if the Jew specifies that is it so, otherwise we assume that the non-Jew will hold responsible the Jew who is borrowing from him as well as from the collateral, in which case it would be forbidden for the original borrower to pay the interest. Erech Lechem 168:17 implies this as well. He explains that the Ran cited in Shulchan Aruch 168:17 implies like the Tashbetz Katan, yet, Shulchan Aruch ultimately sided with the Rosh and Rashba unlike the Tashbetz Katan and Ran.</ref> | ||
