Interest with Non-Jews: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Selling a Non-Jew's Debt to Another Jew
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
#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> | ||
#The Jew can resell the non-Jew's debt for a lower interest rate than the non-Jew is giving him.<ref>Rama 168:18</ref> | #The Jew can resell the non-Jew's debt for a lower interest rate than the non-Jew is giving him.<ref>Rama 168:18</ref> | ||
#It is permitted for the buyer of the debt to leave the non-Jew's security deposit in the hands of the original Jewish lender. The responsibility of the security deposit is now upon the second Jew but if they stipulated that the first Jew would have responsibility then he does.<ref>Rama 168:18. Shach 168:58 notes that in such a case it is necessary to do a formal sale of the loan in order for him to leave the security deposit with the first Jew.</ref> | #It is permitted for the buyer of the debt to leave the non-Jew's security deposit in the hands of the original Jewish lender.<ref>Rama 168:18 clarifies that it is sufficient for the sale of the loan to be effective when the buyer pays for the loan even if he isn't transferred the loan document or the collateral and doesn't do another kinyan. It is evident in the Darkei Moshe 168:17 and Chavot Daat 168:37 that selling a non-Jew's debt is ineffective with merely paying for the debt, the loan document physically needs to be transferred. However, when a collateral is involved it is sufficient to pay for it. Chelkat Binyamin 168:214 clarifies that one should be explicit that one is selling the collateral wherever it is. Ideally, the Rama concludes, one should use a kinyan to sell the collateral and not rely on the payment alone. The Chelkat Binyamin 168:215 explains that meshicha or sudar are good forms of kinyan.</ref> The responsibility of the security deposit is now upon the second Jew but if they stipulated that the first Jew would have responsibility then he does.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:18 s.v. vkatuv, Rama 168:18, Chavot Daat 168:37. Shach 168:58 notes that in such a case it is necessary to do a formal sale of the loan in order for him to leave the security deposit with the first Jew. </ref> | ||
#It is forbidden to say that one wants to borrow from another Jew with interest on or in exchange for a non-Jew’s collateral which was given to the first Jew because of a interest loan.<ref>Rosh responsa 108:28 writes that if a Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest asks another Jew to lend him money with interest on the collateral he received from the non-Jew that is considered taking interest. What exactly is the issue with this formulation? The Shach contends that as long as one says that one wants to borrow from another Jew with interest on a non-Jewish collateral we can’t reinterepert his words and since he said he wanted to borrow with interest that is how we view his transaction. However, if he wouldn’t explain the transaction at all, we would explain him to mean that he intended to buy it since we’d prefer to say he did something permitted. Chelkat Binyamin 168:236 sides with the Shach. He explains that there’s a fundamental difference between a sale and a loan. A sale is where the first Jew is completely removed from any dealings with the non-Jew and if he collects anything from the non-Jew he must give it to the second Jew. A loan is where the first Jew must pay the second Jew whether or not the non-Jew will pay. The Bach 168:26 disagrees and explains that there is a minhag to be lenient even if one says that one intends to borrow because we reinterpret it to mean to buy. Taz seems to agree. The Bet Yosef and Taz imply that the reason for the Rosh isn’t because of his incriminating words but rather because of his motivation. If the Jewish lender would have borrowed on that collateral for the benefit of the non-Jew it wouldn’t be considered a Jewish loan. However, as long as the motivation is for the needs of the Jew we understand that transaction between the two Jews to be a loan and not a sale.</ref> | #It is forbidden to say that one wants to borrow from another Jew with interest on or in exchange for a non-Jew’s collateral which was given to the first Jew because of a interest loan.<ref>Rosh responsa 108:28 writes that if a Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest asks another Jew to lend him money with interest on the collateral he received from the non-Jew that is considered taking interest. What exactly is the issue with this formulation? The Shach contends that as long as one says that one wants to borrow from another Jew with interest on a non-Jewish collateral we can’t reinterepert his words and since he said he wanted to borrow with interest that is how we view his transaction. However, if he wouldn’t explain the transaction at all, we would explain him to mean that he intended to buy it since we’d prefer to say he did something permitted. Chelkat Binyamin 168:236 sides with the Shach. He explains that there’s a fundamental difference between a sale and a loan. A sale is where the first Jew is completely removed from any dealings with the non-Jew and if he collects anything from the non-Jew he must give it to the second Jew. A loan is where the first Jew must pay the second Jew whether or not the non-Jew will pay. The Bach 168:26 disagrees and explains that there is a minhag to be lenient even if one says that one intends to borrow because we reinterpret it to mean to buy. Taz seems to agree. The Bet Yosef and Taz imply that the reason for the Rosh isn’t because of his incriminating words but rather because of his motivation. If the Jewish lender would have borrowed on that collateral for the benefit of the non-Jew it wouldn’t be considered a Jewish loan. However, as long as the motivation is for the needs of the Jew we understand that transaction between the two Jews to be a loan and not a sale.</ref> | ||
