Interest with Non-Jews: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Selling a Non-Jew's Debt to Another Jew
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
#If one Jew lent money to a non-Jew with interest he can then sell that loan to another Jew and he should stipulate that this is a complete sale of the loan and they will no longer have any claims upon each other. Thereby the buyer becomes the new lender to the non-Jew and can collect interest.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 168:18. When there is no security deposit, the Shach 168:62 explains that the mechanism isn't exactly a sale since one can't really sell the debt to another Jew. Rather one is forgiving the non-Jew from paying him back. Then the non-Jew can pay the second Jew as he is "considered" according to their intention to be the new lender. In Shach 168:63 he clarifies that he doesn't need to inform the non-Jew of that which he forgave. Netivot Shalom 168:18:9 explains that even though the non-Jew will be paying the second Jew in error he can collect it. Shach 168:63 is in disagreement with the Bach who thinks that it is necessary to alert the non-Jew.</ref> When there is a security deposit from the non-Jew that would have to be transferred to the second Jew with the same stipulation that it is a complete sale and they have no claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18</ref> According to Ashkenazim it isn't necessary to make such a clear stipulation since it is assumed that this is the stipulation.<ref>Rama 168:18 following the Mordechai and Rosh teshuva</ref> | #If one Jew lent money to a non-Jew with interest he can then sell that loan to another Jew and he should stipulate that this is a complete sale of the loan and they will no longer have any claims upon each other. Thereby the buyer becomes the new lender to the non-Jew and can collect interest.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 168:18. When there is no security deposit, the Shach 168:62 explains that the mechanism isn't exactly a sale since one can't really sell the debt to another Jew. Rather one is forgiving the non-Jew from paying him back. Then the non-Jew can pay the second Jew as he is "considered" according to their intention to be the new lender. In Shach 168:63 he clarifies that he doesn't need to inform the non-Jew of that which he forgave. Netivot Shalom 168:18:9 explains that even though the non-Jew will be paying the second Jew in error he can collect it. Shach 168:63 is in disagreement with the Bach who thinks that it is necessary to alert the non-Jew.</ref> When there is a security deposit from the non-Jew that would have to be transferred to the second Jew with the same stipulation that it is a complete sale and they have no claims upon each other.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18</ref> According to Ashkenazim it isn't necessary to make such a clear stipulation since it is assumed that this is the stipulation.<ref>Rama 168:18 following the Mordechai and Rosh teshuva</ref> | ||
#A Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest can sell the non-Jew's loan from a certain date going forward. The first Jew would collect the interest until that date and the second from that date and on.<ref>Tur 168:18</ref> | #A Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest can sell the non-Jew's loan from a certain date going forward. The first Jew would collect the interest until that date and the second from that date and on.<ref>Tur 168:18</ref> | ||
#A Jew who lent a non-Jew for a certain percent he can sell that loan at a lower percent. For example, if the first Jew lent a non-Jew $100 for 10% a year and then resold that debt to another Jew for 5% a year.<ref> | #A Jew who lent a non-Jew for a certain percent he can sell that loan at a lower percent. For example, if the first Jew lent a non-Jew $100 for 10% a year and then resold that debt to another Jew for 5% a year.<ref>Rama 168:18, Chelkat Binyamin 168:204</ref> | ||
#A Jew who lent a non-Jew money for interest can then resell it to a Jew but he may not sell a portion of that loan to a Jew.<ref>Shach (Nekudat Hakesef on Taz 168:28) and | #A Jew who lent a non-Jew money for interest can then resell it to a Jew but he may not sell a portion of that loan to a Jew.<ref>Shach (Nekudat Hakesef on Taz 168:28) and Derisha 168:16</ref> Others allow even selling a portion of it.<ref>Taz 168:18, Chavot Daat Chidushim 168:53. This is also the implication of the Trumat Hadeshen 303, Bet Yosef 168:18 s.v. vkatuv, and Darkei Moshe 168:16. Chelkat Binyamin 168:204 cites both opinions.</ref> | ||
#A Jew who lent a non-Jew money for interest can't stipulate the buyer resell it to him.<ref>Although the Rama 168:18 is lenient, both the Shach 168:57 and Taz 168:27 disagree.</ref> | #A Jew who lent a non-Jew money for interest can't stipulate the buyer resell it to him.<ref>Although the Rama 168:18 is lenient, both the Shach 168:57 and Taz 168:27 disagree.</ref> | ||
#A Jew who lent a non-Jew money for interest can sell that debt to a Jew but can't stipulate that he'll sell that debt if the Jew also gives him an additional interest free loan.<ref>The Taz 168:24 in disagreeing with the Levush forbids this. Shach in Nekudat Hakesef and Chachmat Adam cited by Chelkat Binyamin 168:151 are lenient. Netivot Shalom 168:18:14:1 questions the Shach from Shulchan Aruch 166:3 and answers it. Chavot Daat 168:34 forbids because of Shulchan Aruch 160:23 and 172:4. Chelkat Binyamin thinks that even the Shach accepts part of the argument of the Chavot Daat and would forbid anytime that sale of the debt is at a lower price because of the fact that he is also receiving an interest free loan.</ref> | #A Jew who lent a non-Jew money for interest can sell that debt to a Jew but can't stipulate that he'll sell that debt if the Jew also gives him an additional interest free loan.<ref>The Taz 168:24 in disagreeing with the Levush forbids this. Shach in Nekudat Hakesef and Chachmat Adam cited by Chelkat Binyamin 168:151 are lenient. Netivot Shalom 168:18:14:1 questions the Shach from Shulchan Aruch 166:3 and answers it. Chavot Daat 168:34 forbids because of Shulchan Aruch 160:23 and 172:4. Chelkat Binyamin thinks that even the Shach accepts part of the argument of the Chavot Daat and would forbid anytime that sale of the debt is at a lower price because of the fact that he is also receiving an interest free loan.</ref> | ||
