Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,886
edits
Interest with Non-Jews: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Lending with Interest from a Non-Jew with a Jewish Agent using a Collateral
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
#Some permit borrowing from a non-Jew with a collateral so that they can in turn borrow with interest from another Jew with that collateral. This is permitted since the non-Jew takes responsibility for the original loan and it is treated as two loans and not one. Ashkenazim can rely on this opinion.<ref>Ri cited by Rosh b"m 5:55, Rosh responsa 108:11, Rama 168:8 seems to support this approach. Darkei Moshe 168:4 quotes the Mordechai and Hagahot Ashri who held that it is permitted even initially. Darkei Moshe 168:9 cites the Kol Bo 84 and Hagahot Maimoniyot Malveh 5:3 who says that the minhag was like the Ri</ref> Others hold that generally this is forbidden to arrange but if one explicitly tells the non-Jew that he has responsibility for the loan then it is permitted.<ref>Ramban b"m 71b s.v. vbar cited by Tur 168:9, Rashba 7:321, Nemukei Yosef 42a, Talmidei Harashba, and Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 s.v. vkatav alav haramban cited by Bet Yosef 168:9</ref> The Jewish borrower must make sure that the collateral that he gave to the non-Jew was given completely such that the non-Jew could acquire it with a proper [[kinyan]].<ref>Shach 168:20 writes that one needs to make sure that the non-Jew acquired the collateral with a kinyan such as meshicha, pulling it. Chelkat Binyamin 168:63 and 65 explains that there's two approaches for the case of a Jew who borrowed from a non-Jew who in turn borrows from a Jew when there's a collateral. The Gra and Levush say that the collateral doesn't add or detract anything, it all depends on whether the non-Jew was an agent of the original Jew in which case it is forbidden and if not it is permitted. The Shach, Taz, and Chavot Daat 168:12 however, hold that the collateral of the Jew can serve as a Arev Kablan, guarantor for the non-Jew from the original Jew and that is a problem. Another words, since the original Jew's property is held responsible for the interest loan of a non-Jew to the second Jew, it is as though the original Jew is the guarantor of that interest loan. In Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 170:2 it is codified that a Jew may not be a guarantor of a non-Jew's interest loan from a Jew. Therefore, the way to solve that issue is by having the original Jew completely allow the non-Jew to acquire the collateral and his transactions with it afterwards are separate from him. (See Talmidei Harashba cited by Bet Yosef 168:9 who is unconcerned for the collateral being a guarantor since it is considered a Arev Stam.)</ref> | #Some permit borrowing from a non-Jew with a collateral so that they can in turn borrow with interest from another Jew with that collateral. This is permitted since the non-Jew takes responsibility for the original loan and it is treated as two loans and not one. Ashkenazim can rely on this opinion.<ref>Ri cited by Rosh b"m 5:55, Rosh responsa 108:11, Rama 168:8 seems to support this approach. Darkei Moshe 168:4 quotes the Mordechai and Hagahot Ashri who held that it is permitted even initially. Darkei Moshe 168:9 cites the Kol Bo 84 and Hagahot Maimoniyot Malveh 5:3 who says that the minhag was like the Ri</ref> Others hold that generally this is forbidden to arrange but if one explicitly tells the non-Jew that he has responsibility for the loan then it is permitted.<ref>Ramban b"m 71b s.v. vbar cited by Tur 168:9, Rashba 7:321, Nemukei Yosef 42a, Talmidei Harashba, and Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 s.v. vkatav alav haramban cited by Bet Yosef 168:9</ref> The Jewish borrower must make sure that the collateral that he gave to the non-Jew was given completely such that the non-Jew could acquire it with a proper [[kinyan]].<ref>Shach 168:20 writes that one needs to make sure that the non-Jew acquired the collateral with a kinyan such as meshicha, pulling it. Chelkat Binyamin 168:63 and 65 explains that there's two approaches for the case of a Jew who borrowed from a non-Jew who in turn borrows from a Jew when there's a collateral. The Gra and Levush say that the collateral doesn't add or detract anything, it all depends on whether the non-Jew was an agent of the original Jew in which case it is forbidden and if not it is permitted. The Shach, Taz, and Chavot Daat 168:12 however, hold that the collateral of the Jew can serve as a Arev Kablan, guarantor for the non-Jew from the original Jew and that is a problem. Another words, since the original Jew's property is held responsible for the interest loan of a non-Jew to the second Jew, it is as though the original Jew is the guarantor of that interest loan. In Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 170:2 it is codified that a Jew may not be a guarantor of a non-Jew's interest loan from a Jew. Therefore, the way to solve that issue is by having the original Jew completely allow the non-Jew to acquire the collateral and his transactions with it afterwards are separate from him. (See Talmidei Harashba cited by Bet Yosef 168:9 who is unconcerned for the collateral being a guarantor since it is considered a Arev Stam.)</ref> | ||
## When the non-Jew who lent to a Jew and now comes to borrow from the Jew should borrow in his own name. If he borrows in the name of the first Jew that is certainly interest and is forbidden.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 168:65 and 53 based on Shach 168:34, Chavot Daat 168:10, and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:21. In the rishonim this can be substantiated by Rosh 108:11 and Nemukei Yosef 42a. </ref> | ## When the non-Jew who lent to a Jew and now comes to borrow from the Jew should borrow in his own name. If he borrows in the name of the first Jew that is certainly interest and is forbidden.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 168:65 and 53 based on Shach 168:34, Chavot Daat 168:10, and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:21. In the rishonim this can be substantiated by Rosh 108:11 and Nemukei Yosef 42a. </ref> | ||
#Even according to the strict opinion, a lender to a non-Jew with interest who collected a collateral 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 collateral 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 collateral 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 collateral 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 collateral 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 | #Even according to the strict opinion, a lender to a non-Jew with interest who collected a collateral 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 collateral 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 collateral 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 collateral 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 collateral 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 collateral was clearly Jewish or not.</ref> | ||
#If the original Jew wants to get his collateral 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 collateral 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 collateral 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 collateral 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 collateral but instead wanted to gift him a collateral 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 collateral. 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 collateral to a non-Jew without him making a physical [[kinyan]] such as meshicha.</ref> | #If a Jew has a collateral 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 collateral 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 collateral but instead wanted to gift him a collateral 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 collateral. 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 collateral to a non-Jew without him making a physical [[kinyan]] such as meshicha.</ref> | ||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
===Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt=== | ===Jew Selling Non-Jew's Debt=== | ||
#If a Jew | #If a non-Jew borrowed money from a Jew with interest, the Jew can sell that loan to another Jew. 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 Y.D. 168:18. When there is no collateral, 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. See Chavot Daat 168:41 who endorses another approach; he explains that this transaction is a sale in secular law and so the non-Jew can treat it as a sale. However, halacha does not recognize the sale and so it is considered forgiving a loan with respect to Jews. Therefore, he concludes that the first Jew may not go and reacquire the loan from the non-Jew that he forgave. Seemingly, this is contradicted by Rama C.M. 66:25 who writes that a sale that in effective in secular law with a non-Jew is also effective in halacha when it effectuates a sale between a Jew and non-Jew. However, Chavot Daat might explain that this means that this is effective in secular law and Jews must follow this as well. Yet, since it is not objectively a sale in halacha it cannot solve an interest issue and it is necessary to resort to the solution of forgiving the loan.</ref> However, for this to be effective a binding ''kinyan'' (acquisition) is necessary to transfer the non-Jew's debt to the Jewish purchaser. | ||
##This sale can be effectuated by a mechanism that local businessman accept as a binding acquisition and is enforceable by secular law.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 255 writes that one may rely on the opinion of Ben Ish Chai (V'etchanan 23) that a non-Jew's debt can be sold with a ''kinyan situmta''. </ref> | ##This sale can be effectuated by a mechanism that local businessman accept as a binding acquisition (''kinyan situmta'') and is enforceable by secular law.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 255 writes that one may rely on the opinion of Ben Ish Chai (V'etchanan 23) that a non-Jew's debt can be sold with a ''kinyan situmta''. </ref> | ||
##When there is a moveable collateral from the non-Jew that | ##When there is a moveable collateral from the non-Jew that could transferred to the second Jew with the 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 a clear stipulation that it is a complete sale since it is assumed that this is the agreement.<ref>Rama 168:18 following the Mordechai and Rosh teshuva</ref> The purchasing Jew can make a ''[[Acquisition|kinyan]]'' on the collateral by taking the actual collateral item.<ref>Rama 168:18</ref> If the Jewish purchaser pays money to buy the collateral but does not actually take the collateral whether he acquired the collateral for purposes of collecting interest is subject to debate.<ref>Bet Yosef and Rama 168:18 hold that it is acceptable to use kinyan kesef to purchase the mashkon of a goy from another Jew since from the Torah a kinyan kesef is effective. However, Gra 168:62 disagrees with this suggestion. He holds that fundamentally the rabbis invalidated the acquisition of kinyan kesef (Tosfot Avoda Zara 63a s.v. vha). Also, even if it is a kinyan on a Torah level and not midrabbanan it would be forbidden to use this kinyan to collect interest as the rabbis introduced stringencies in the world of interest and not leniencies. Chelkat Binyamin 168:215 writes that a person should not rely on this initially but after the fact one may rely upon it. </ref> | ||
#A Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest can sell the non-Jew's debt from a certain date going forward. The first Jew would collect the interest until that date and the second Jew would collect from that date and on.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:18</ref> | |||
#A Jew who lent to a non-Jew with interest can sell the non-Jew's | |||
#The Jew can resell the non-Jew's debt for a lower interest rate than the non-Jew is giving him. For example, a Jew who lent a non-Jew $100 for 10% a year may then resell that debt to another Jew for 5% a year.<ref>Rama 168:18, Chelkat Binyamin 168:204</ref> | #The Jew can resell the non-Jew's debt for a lower interest rate than the non-Jew is giving him. For example, a Jew who lent a non-Jew $100 for 10% a year may then resell 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 the entire loan 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> Other ''poskim'' 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 then resell the entire loan 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> Other ''poskim'' 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 that the buyer must 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 that the buyer must 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 only sell that debt if the Jewish purchaser 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 only sell that debt if the Jewish purchaser 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> | ||
#It is permitted for the buyer of the debt to leave the non-Jew's collateral 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 collateral 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 | #It is permitted for the buyer of the debt to leave the non-Jew's collateral 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 collateral 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 collateral with the first Jew. </ref> | ||
#It is forbidden to borrow from another Jew with interest in exchange for a non-Jew’s collateral which was given to the first Jew because of an interest loan. Fundamentally, since the first Jew obligates himself to repay the money of the purchaser together with interest, whether or not the non-Jew pays him this considered interest between two Jews.<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. Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:19 codify the Rosh. What exactly is the issue with this formulation? The Shach 168:64 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 reinterpret 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 pays the interest. Horah Brurah 168:156 agrees. 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 168:28 seems to agree. The Bet Yosef and Taz imply that the reason for the Rosh is because of his motivation. If the Jewish lender would have borrowed from the second Jew in exchange for the collateral for the benefit of the non-Jew, meaning that he took money from the second Jew in order to give that money to the non-Jew, that wouldn’t be considered a Jewish loan. That would be considered like a sale of the non-Jew's debt to the second Jew. However, since the motivation is for the sake of the first Jew it is considered a loan between the two Jews and not a sale of the debt.</ref> This is true irrelevant of how the first Jew owns the collateral.<ref>Shach 168:64 concludes that this issue of stating that one wants to borrow from a Jew with interest on the collateral of a non-Jew is only a problem if the first Jew owns the non-Jew's collateral. He could own the collateral either because the non-Jew stated that it belongs to the Jewish lender retroactively from the time of the loan if it goes unpaid, or if it is clear from the non-Jew's intent that he meant to leave the collateral with the Jewish lender indefinitely. However, if the first Jew doesn't own the collateral it is permitted to lend to a second Jew in exchange for that collateral. However, Chavot Daat 168:41 and Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Shach 168:64 disagree. Horah Brurah (168 fnt. 181) rejects the Shach. See Chelkat Binyamin (Biurim 168:19 s.v. vamar p. 367) who answers their question.</ref> | #It is forbidden to borrow from another Jew with interest in exchange for a non-Jew’s collateral which was given to the first Jew because of an interest loan. Fundamentally, since the first Jew obligates himself to repay the money of the purchaser together with interest, whether or not the non-Jew pays him this considered interest between two Jews.<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. Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:19 codify the Rosh. What exactly is the issue with this formulation? The Shach 168:64 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 reinterpret 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 pays the interest. Horah Brurah 168:156 agrees. 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 168:28 seems to agree. The Bet Yosef and Taz imply that the reason for the Rosh is because of his motivation. If the Jewish lender would have borrowed from the second Jew in exchange for the collateral for the benefit of the non-Jew, meaning that he took money from the second Jew in order to give that money to the non-Jew, that wouldn’t be considered a Jewish loan. That would be considered like a sale of the non-Jew's debt to the second Jew. However, since the motivation is for the sake of the first Jew it is considered a loan between the two Jews and not a sale of the debt.</ref> This is true irrelevant of how the first Jew owns the collateral.<ref>Shach 168:64 concludes that this issue of stating that one wants to borrow from a Jew with interest on the collateral of a non-Jew is only a problem if the first Jew owns the non-Jew's collateral. He could own the collateral either because the non-Jew stated that it belongs to the Jewish lender retroactively from the time of the loan if it goes unpaid, or if it is clear from the non-Jew's intent that he meant to leave the collateral with the Jewish lender indefinitely. However, if the first Jew doesn't own the collateral it is permitted to lend to a second Jew in exchange for that collateral. However, Chavot Daat 168:41 and Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Shach 168:64 disagree. Horah Brurah (168 fnt. 181) rejects the Shach. See Chelkat Binyamin (Biurim 168:19 s.v. vamar p. 367) who answers their question.</ref> | ||
