Returning Interest That Was Wrongly Collected: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
Returning Interest That Was Wrongly Collected (view source)
Revision as of 21:27, 13 July 2020
, 13 July 2020→Biblical Interest
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
# If a borrower who paid interest died there is an opinion that the courts can't force the lender to repay the orphans of that borrower, nonetheless he would be obligated to do so fulfill a mandate from heaven.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 161:6 citing Dagul Mirvava. Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:76 relies upon his comment in the Dagul Mirvava in conjunction with other factors.</ref> | # If a borrower who paid interest died there is an opinion that the courts can't force the lender to repay the orphans of that borrower, nonetheless he would be obligated to do so fulfill a mandate from heaven.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 161:6 citing Dagul Mirvava. Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:76 relies upon his comment in the Dagul Mirvava in conjunction with other factors.</ref> | ||
# If a lender wants to do teshuva the lender should return the interest but the borrower shouldn't accept the interest in order not to prevent the lender from doing teshuva. That is only true if the majority of the lender's business and wealth is due to interest.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 161:7</ref> | # If a lender wants to do teshuva the lender should return the interest but the borrower shouldn't accept the interest in order not to prevent the lender from doing teshuva. That is only true if the majority of the lender's business and wealth is due to interest.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 161:7</ref> | ||
# A transaction about which there is a dispute if it is Biblical interest or rabbinic interest, the lender should not collect it. If the lender collected it the lender should return it, though the Bet Din can't force him to do so.<ref> | # A transaction about which there is a dispute if it is Biblical interest or rabbinic interest, the lender should not collect it. If the lender collected it the lender should return it, though the Bet Din can't force him to do so.<ref>The Mahara Sason in Torat Emet 162 quotes the Maharash Di Medina YD 62 who writes that if there's a dispute if something is avak ribbit or ribbit kesusa we would say that the lender can apply the principle of kim li and bet din wouldn't extract it from him. The Torat Emet disagrees that nonetheless there is a prohibition of ribbit and kim li is irrelevant to the prohibition, therefore, the Bet Din can extract the money. Shach 177:68 concludes that it is a prohibition of ribbit and you have to be strict, however, Bet Din can not extract the money since it is a dispute. See Pitchei Teshuva 177:8 quoting the Brit Avraham YD 49:1 who says that one needs to return the interest since it was wrongly collected either way.</ref> If he decides that he doesn't want to pay it and the borrower grabbed it back, the borrower wouldn't need to return it.<ref>Shach 161:4</ref> | ||
# A transaction about which there is a dispute if it is interest or permitted a person should be strict but after the fact he doesn't need to return the money.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 177:8 quoting the Brit Avraham YD 49:1</ref> | |||
===Rabbinic Interest=== | ===Rabbinic Interest=== | ||
