Interest with Non-Jews: Difference between revisions

##It isn't a solution for the non-Jew to simply tell the first Jew to hand the money over to the second Jew and he'll be exempt since that appears as though the two Jews lent money with interest.<ref>Tosfot Bava Metsia 71b s.v. bishlama, Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:1, Shach 168:4, Taz 168:2. Ran 71b s.v. hanichem and Nemukei Yosef 42a s.v. shenasha agree that it is forbidden. In truth, this is a major dispute between the rishonim. Tosfot notes that the gemara only provided a solution of placing the money on the ground and doesn't suggest that the non-Jew exempt the Jew if he gives the money to the second Jew, thereby implying that doing so is forbidden. Tosfot concludes that doing so is forbidden because it appears like interest from one Jew to another since the first Jew is a borrower and it appears like he's lending the money to a Jew with interest. However, Ramban 71b s.v. ha d'amrinan argues that this case isn't merely forbidden because it looks like interest, rather it is actual (biblical) interest since the first Jew is consuming interest from the second Jew. That is, the first Jew is exempting himself from his loan by indebting a second Jew to pay capital and interest for his loan. That is like the second Jew gave the benefit of his interest to the first Jew. However, later on, Ramban 71b s.v. v'iy kashya quotes an opinion that this is completely permitted and the gemara's solutions were not exhaustive and this case is equivalent to the gemara's case. In paragraph s.v. ubteshuva he identifies that Rabana Moshe ben Rabana Todrus held it is permitted and Ramban proceeds to disagree with him. Rashba 71b s.v. amar rav huna quotes those who say it is permitted and Ramban who says it is forbidden. Rashba isn't certain if it is ribbit deoritta or derabbanan. He suggests that it is deoritta since the second Jew is paying on behalf of the first Jew, however, it could be that since the first Jew is really exempt the second Jew isn't giving interest on behalf of the first Jew on a Torah level. Talmid Harashba 71b s.v. malveh holds that it is ribbit deoritta. Ritva 71b s.v. bishlama also quotes a dispute whether this is permitted, some hold it is permitted and some hold that it appears like ribbit, inline with Tosfot. </ref> However, an acceptable solution is if the non-Jew instructs the first Jew to give the second Jew the money in order to watch and then afterwards it becomes a loan while in the property of the second Jew. Since at the time the first Jew gave the second Jew the money there was no loan between them, if the second Jew later has a loan with the non-Jew and pays interest it is permitted since it isn't and doesn't appear as interest on behalf of the first Jew.<ref>Ran 71b s.v. hanichem, Talmid Harashba 71b s.v. malveh, Nemukei Yosef 42a s.v. shenasha, Bet Yosef 168:1, Rama 168:3, Shach 168:4, Gra 168:7. However, Horah Brurah 168:13 writes that this leniency is only true according to Tosfot that it appears like ribbit to transfer the loan from one Jew to another and exempt the first Jew, but if that case is considered biblical ribbit then this too is forbidden. </ref>

#If a Jew owes money to a non-Jew without interest and then lends money to a Jew on condition that he pay interest to the non-Jew that forbidden as biblical interest.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:1. Even though the first Jew doesn't owe the non-Jew any interest, since he instructed the second Jew, his borrower, to pay the non-Jew interest it is as though the second Jew gave interest to the first Jew. This principle is called ''m'din arev''. Chelkat Binyamin 168:8 notes that this is only true if the first Jew instructs the second Jew to pay the interest to the non-Jew but if he says if you want you can pay interest to the non-Jew that would not be biblical or rabbinic interest. Nonetheless, Chelkat Binyamin isn't certain if it is permitted since maybe it is forbidden since it appears like interest.</ref>

===Lending with Interest with a Non-Jewish Agent===