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
→Interest with a Non-Jew
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
#It is permitted to lend to and borrow from non-Jews with interest.<ref>The Gemara Bava Metsia 70b states that it is permitted to charge non-Jews ribbit and there is only a rabbinic prohibition to do so. The reason the rabbis forbade it is that they didn’t want people to learn from the non-Jews by interacting with them too much. They only permitted it for a talmid chacham or someone who needs to make money to survive. This is codified by the Rambam and Rif. However, Tosfot 70b s.v. tashich writes that today we lend with interest to non-Jews for three reasons: 1) we follow the opinion that there’s no rabbinic prohibition to lend to non-Jews at all. 2) Due to the high taxes we have to charge non-Jews interest otherwise financially wouldn’t survive and it is considered necessary for our livelihood. 3) Really based on the reason of the prohibition it is prohibited to do any business with non-Jews and if we didn’t do that we wouldn’t survive. Meiri b”m 70b agrees with reason two. Tur YD 159:1 cites the last reason of Tosfot. Shulchan Aruch and Rama Y.D. 159:1 simply writes that nowadays it is permitted to lend non-Jews with interest.</ref> | #It is permitted to lend to and borrow from non-Jews with interest.<ref>The Gemara Bava Metsia 70b states that it is permitted to charge non-Jews ribbit and there is only a rabbinic prohibition to do so. The reason the rabbis forbade it is that they didn’t want people to learn from the non-Jews by interacting with them too much. They only permitted it for a talmid chacham or someone who needs to make money to survive. This is codified by the Rambam and Rif. However, Tosfot 70b s.v. tashich writes that today we lend with interest to non-Jews for three reasons: 1) we follow the opinion that there’s no rabbinic prohibition to lend to non-Jews at all. 2) Due to the high taxes we have to charge non-Jews interest otherwise financially wouldn’t survive and it is considered necessary for our livelihood. 3) Really based on the reason of the prohibition it is prohibited to do any business with non-Jews and if we didn’t do that we wouldn’t survive. Meiri b”m 70b agrees with reason two. Tur YD 159:1 cites the last reason of Tosfot. Shulchan Aruch and Rama Y.D. 159:1 simply writes that nowadays it is permitted to lend non-Jews with interest.</ref> | ||
#Nowadays in Israel it is forbidden to lend non-Jews money with interest since it is possible to do business with Jews exclusively. Yet it would be permitted in order to make a livelihood but not to make oneself wealthy.<ref>Netivot Shalom YD 159:1:16 writes that today in Israel since it is possible to do without lending non-Jews with interest it is unclear if it is permitted to do so nowadays. Additionally, Rav Moshe Halevi in Malveh Hashem 5:3 writes that Jews who live in Israel should be strict not to lend non-Jews with interest since it is possible to transact with Jews and be financially stable. He explains that none of the reasons of Tosfot apply today except that perhaps we don't hold that there's any prohibition which is rejected. Similarly, Rav Shlomo Mazuz in Kerem Shlomo 159:8 is strict. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Halichot Olam v. 8 p. 4-7 writes that we hold that as long as it is difficult to do business only | #Nowadays, for Jews who live in Israel some ''poskim'' hold that it is forbidden to lend non-Jews money with interest since it is possible to do business with Jews exclusively. Yet, it would be permitted to lend to non-Jews with interest in order to make a livelihood but not to make oneself wealthy.<ref>Netivot Shalom YD 159:1:16 writes that today in Israel since it is possible to do without lending non-Jews with interest it is unclear if it is permitted to do so nowadays. Additionally, Rav Moshe Halevi in Malveh Hashem 5:3 writes that Jews who live in Israel should be strict not to lend non-Jews with interest since it is possible to transact with Jews and be financially stable. He explains that none of the reasons of Tosfot apply today except that perhaps we don't hold that there's any prohibition which is rejected. Similarly, Rav Shlomo Mazuz in Kerem Shlomo 159:8 is strict. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Halichot Olam v. 8 p. 4-7 writes that we hold that as long as it is difficult to do business only with Jews it is permitted in accordance with Tosfot. However, he's clear that we do not hold that once the gezerah stopped applying it is nullified completely.</ref> Some ''poskim'' are lenient even in Israel.<ref>Chut Shani 2:1 p. 39 writes that even nowadays it is permitted to lend a non-Jew with interest even though in Israel we can support ourselves without business to non-Jews. Since there is some business with non-Jews and non-religious Jews the leniencies are still relevant. Horah Brurah 159:9 agrees. Chelkat Binyamin 159:10 (written in America) is lenient in all cases. Rav Asher Afello (Asher Chanan 8:46) argues with Malveh Hashem and permits taking interest from non-Jews today in Israel. His reasons are that there are many non-Jews in Israel and many non-religious Jews and it is impossible to avoid business with them. He says that even the minority of people who don't need to do business with non-Jews are nullified by the majority of people. Also, taxes are very high in Israel so it is always considered b'kdey chayav. </ref> | ||
#Even outside Israel one should be strict if one can.<ref>Chachmat Adam 130:6 writes that any honest man who could avoid taking interest from non-Jews should do so.</ref> Some say that for an impersonal bank it is permitted since one hardly interacts with the non-Jews.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 159:1 s.v. vhaidna writes that one doesn’t have to be strict for the Chachmat Adam if one is lending to a bank and one only has to interact with them minimally.</ref> | #Even outside Israel one should be strict if one can.<ref>Chachmat Adam 130:6 writes that any honest man who could avoid taking interest from non-Jews should do so.</ref> Some say that for an impersonal bank it is permitted since one hardly interacts with the non-Jews.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 159:1 s.v. vhaidna writes that one doesn’t have to be strict for the Chachmat Adam if one is lending to a bank and one only has to interact with them minimally.</ref> | ||
#It is permitted to borrow with interest from non-Jews.<ref>Rambam Malveh Vloveh 5:2 explains that they never prohibited it lest one come to learn from their ways since it is normal for a borrower to avoid the lender and not learn from him. Meiri b”m 70b agrees. Chazon Ovadia Shabbat v. 1 p. 7 and Malveh Hashem 5:5 codify this as the halacha.</ref> | #It is permitted to borrow with interest from non-Jews.<ref>Rambam (Malveh Vloveh 5:2) explains that they never prohibited it lest one come to learn from their ways since it is normal for a borrower to avoid the lender and not learn from him. Meiri (b”m 70b) agrees. Horah Brurah 159:4, Chazon Ovadia (Shabbat v. 1 p. 7), and Malveh Hashem 5:5 codify this as the halacha.</ref> | ||
==Interest with a Convert== | ==Interest with a Convert== | ||
# If a Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with interest and then the non-Jew converted the convert may not collect the interest from the Jew even if it accrued before he converted unless it was already established as a loan. That is, if it was already due or prematurely they agreed that the borrower will owe the capital and interest | # If a Jew borrowed from a non-Jew with interest and then the non-Jew converted, the convert may not collect the interest from the Jew even if it accrued before he converted unless it was already established as a loan. That is, if it was already due or prematurely they agreed that the borrower will owe the capital and interest, that establishes it as a loan. Then, it is viewed as a complete interest free loan from that time forward and may be collected.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 171:1</ref> | ||
# If a non-Jew borrowed from a Jew with interest and then converts the convert has to pay for the interest of the loan that accrued before he converted.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 171:1</ref> | # If a non-Jew borrowed from a Jew with interest and then converts, the convert has to pay for the interest of the loan that accrued before he converted.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 171:1</ref> | ||
==Interest with a Non-Religious Jew== | ==Interest with a Non-Religious Jew== | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
(1) Rabbenu Tam explained דקי"ל דמומרין לע"ז היו מורידין ולא מעליו וכיון גופו כן ממונו לא כל שכן. | (1) Rabbenu Tam explained דקי"ל דמומרין לע"ז היו מורידין ולא מעליו וכיון גופו כן ממונו לא כל שכן. | ||
(2) Ramban explains that since they are not religious they aren't considered a religious Jew's brother and the Torah specifies that one may not take interest from one's brother.</ref> Initially this should be avoided.<ref>Rama 159:2</ref> However, it is forbidden to borrow from a non-religious Jew with interest.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 159:2</ref> | (2) Ramban explains that since they are not religious they aren't considered a religious Jew's brother and the Torah specifies that one may not take interest from one's brother.</ref> Initially, this should be avoided.<ref>Rama 159:2</ref> However, it is forbidden to borrow from a non-religious Jew with interest.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 159:2</ref> | ||
#One may not lend a non-religious Jew who | #One may not lend a non-religious Jew who was raised as a non-religious Jew with interest.<ref>Shulchan Aruch and Rama 159:3 forbid lending with ribbit to someone who is a tinok shenishba. Gemara Shabbat 68b clarifies that a child who was captive among non-Jews (tinok shenishba) and didn't know about Shabbat is considered as though he sinned unintentionally. Brit Yehuda 30:12 agree. Rambam Mamrim 3:3 writes that the sons of the karaites who were brought up with the mistakes of their parents aren't considered minim but should be returned in teshuva. (Yet, see the manuscript editions which include another few words that alter the meaning of the Rambam.) Pirush Mishnayot Chullin 1:2 writes that someone who reject tenants of our faith are considered minim. However, someone who was born into a family and background with such thoughts aren't culpable and are similar to a tinok shenishba. Binyan Tzion Chadashot 23 posits that many of the non-religious Jews today are considered tinok shenishba since they're following the ways of their fathers. | ||
*Chazon Ish YD 1:6 writes that once we try to teach him about the Orthodox ways and he turns it down he is considered to be a mumar. The amount of effort necessary to spend in trying to teach him is subjective and is left up to the judgement of the rabbis of each generation. Additionally, once he is aware of the Orthodox Jews and practices even without trying to teach him he can be considered a mumar. However, that too depends on how aware he was of the Orthodox Jews and to what degree and with what intensity his parents taught his otherwise. This is the basis for the dispute whether Karaites are mumarim. | *Chazon Ish YD 1:6 writes that once we try to teach him about the Orthodox ways and he turns it down he is considered to be a mumar. The amount of effort necessary to spend in trying to teach him is subjective and is left up to the judgement of the rabbis of each generation. Additionally, once he is aware of the Orthodox Jews and practices even without trying to teach him he can be considered a mumar. However, that too depends on how aware he was of the Orthodox Jews and to what degree and with what intensity his parents taught his otherwise. This is the basis for the dispute whether Karaites are mumarim. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
##The non-Jew tells the first Jew to leave the money in a certain location and he will be exempt<ref>Although Shulchan Aruch 168:3 hold that it is sufficient for the non-Jew to state that you can leave the money in a certain location for the second Jew and it is understood that he is exempt from the loan obligation, Shach 168:7, Taz 168:3, and Gra 168:6 all hold that it is necessary to state so explicitly.</ref> and then the second Jew takes it from there.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 71b, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:3</ref> | ##The non-Jew tells the first Jew to leave the money in a certain location and he will be exempt<ref>Although Shulchan Aruch 168:3 hold that it is sufficient for the non-Jew to state that you can leave the money in a certain location for the second Jew and it is understood that he is exempt from the loan obligation, Shach 168:7, Taz 168:3, and Gra 168:6 all hold that it is necessary to state so explicitly.</ref> and then the second Jew takes it from there.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 71b, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:3</ref> | ||
##The first Jew returns the money to the non-Jew and he then gives it to the second Jew. No words need to be spoken since it is understood that when the non-Jew took the money from the first Jew he was exempting him from his loan.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 71b, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:2</ref> | ##The first Jew returns the money to the non-Jew and he then gives it to the second Jew. No words need to be spoken since it is understood that when the non-Jew took the money from the first Jew he was exempting him from his loan.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 71b, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:2</ref> | ||
##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> | ##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> | ||
#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> | ##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 is 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> | |||
#It is common that a Jew who doesn't have good credit asks his friend who has good credit to borrow for him. This is problematic since in fact the one with good credit is the borrower from the non-Jew and then is lending that money to another Jew with interest. Even though the Jew without credit pays the non-Jew directly it is forbidden.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 312 fnt. 31</ref> | #It is common that a Jew who doesn't have good credit asks his friend who has good credit to borrow for him. This is problematic since in fact the one with good credit is the borrower from the non-Jew and then is lending that money to another Jew with interest. Even though the Jew without credit pays the non-Jew directly it is forbidden.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 312 fnt. 31</ref> | ||
#A Jew may not assume a mortgage of another Jew. For example, if a Jew has a mortgage with a bank and then sells his house with the mortgage so that the buyer assumes the mortgage and pays off the mortgage directly to the bank, this would be forbidden. The reason is that the seller is truly the borrower from the non-Jew and then that seller is lending money to the buyer with interest. It would be permitted if the mortgage and property are both in the name of the buyer.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 314 citing Chelkat Yakov 3:196:n3, Brit Yehuda 31:n18, and Mishnat Ribbit 18:n:14. </ref> | #A Jew may not assume a mortgage of another Jew. For example, if a Jew has a mortgage with a bank and then sells his house with the mortgage so that the buyer assumes the mortgage and pays off the mortgage directly to the bank, this would be forbidden. The reason is that the seller is truly the borrower from the non-Jew and then that seller is lending money to the buyer with interest. It would be permitted if the mortgage and property are both in the name of the buyer.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 314 citing Chelkat Yakov 3:196:n3, Brit Yehuda 31:n18, and Mishnat Ribbit 18:n:14. </ref> | ||
| Line 39: | Line 40: | ||
[[Image:Non-Jew Transferring Jew's Loan 168-6.jpg|350px|right]] | [[Image:Non-Jew Transferring Jew's Loan 168-6.jpg|350px|right]] | ||
[[Image:Jew Borrowing from Jew through Non-Jew 168-5.jpg|350px|right]] | [[Image:Jew Borrowing from Jew through Non-Jew 168-5.jpg|350px|right]] | ||
#A non-Jew who borrowed from a Jew and is ready to return the money, if he finds another Jew to borrow that money with interest can give it to him with interest. However, if the non-Jew brought the money to the lender Jew he can't lend it to another Jew since that considered a loan between the lender and the other Jew with interest. Obviously | #A non-Jew who borrowed from a Jew and is ready to return the money, if he finds another Jew to borrow that money with interest he can give it to him with interest. However, if the non-Jew brought the money to the lender Jew he can't lend it to another Jew since that considered a loan between the lender and the other Jew with interest. Obviously, if the non-Jew actually gave the money back to the lender that the lender may not lend that money to a Jew with interest. Additionally, it is forbidden if the non-Jew put the money on the ground for the other Jew to pick up and the lender stated that the non-Jew would be exempt once he placed the money on the ground. These are all considered biblical interest.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 71b, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:6</ref> However, if the non-Jew simply hands the money to the Jewish borrower in the presence of the lender Jew, most ''rishonim'' hold that this is rabbinically forbidden since the non-Jew is an agent of the borrower. However, there is a minority opinion in the ''rishonim'' who allows this.<ref>Rashi Bava Metsia 71b s.v. v'im explains that the conclusion of the Gemara was that there is a concept of agency for two Jews to create a loan between them with interest. This is rabbinically forbidden. This is the opinion of the Rif, Ramban, Rashba, Ran, and Nemukei Yosef all cited by the Bet Yosef 168:6. The Rambam Malveh Vloveh 5:4 however holds it is biblically forbidden. On the other hand, Rabbenu Tam held that the gemara backed out of that stringency and so it is permitted. Rosh responsa 108:11 ponders how someone could possibly rule like Rabbenu Tam when it seems that it is forbidden and Rabbenu Tam brought no proofs. Either way, there the Rosh rejects following Rabbenu Tam initially. He is aware of the practice of some people to follow Rabbenu Tam but he argues that it is incorrect and the lender could only accept the interest if he is unaware that the non-Jew is borrowing the money for the other Jew.</ref> The halacha does not accept this minority opinion.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:6 completely rejects Rabbenu Tam's opinion. Rama 168:5 and 7 cites Rabbenu Tam however he says that one should only follow that opinion where there is a minhag. Chelkat Binyamin 168:51 writes that we don't follow the Rabbenu Tam since it is a question of biblical interest.</ref> | ||
#It is forbidden for a Jew to arrange with a non-Jew to lend your money to him in order that he lend it to another Jew with interest.<ref>Rashba teshuva 3:243 writes that it is forbidden to lend your money to him in order that he lend it to another Jew with interest since that is a mere legal fiction and is considered taking interest. Also, there is a concept of shelichut for a non-Jew to be considered a shelichut for purposes of being strict. That is, the rabbis view this transaction as though the non-Jew is an agent of the Jews and it is a loan between two Jews. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:5 rule like the Rashba. The Shach 168:10 points out that the Rama would agree as well. Malveh Hashem 1:5:12 agrees. However, the Netivot Shalom 168:5:5 argues at length that the Rama never accepted this approach of the Rashba who expanded the concept of legal fictions for ribbit. The entire concept of Rabbenu Tam who allowed having a non-Jewish agent to arrange the loan with interest or Rashi's opinion who allowed a Jewish agent to arrange the loan with interest, both of which are cited by the Rama indicate that he was not concerned with the expansions of the Rashba. This is further supported by the fact that the Rama 168:5 implies that the reason for Shulchan Aruch is completely other than the reason of making a legal fiction out of taking interest. Netivot Shalom brings sources that show that there's a fundamental dispute of how far reaching is prohibition of using legal loopholes in interest (haramat ribbit) between the Maharam and Rashba. Netivot Shalom 166:6:13 extends this discussion to that of using a heter iska and the Gra's opinion that it violates haramat ribbit.</ref> After the fact it is forbidden to take the interest since the non-Jewish agent is merely a ruse and it was really a loan with interest from a Jew.<ref>Netivot Shalom 168:5:6 explains that the haramat ribbit that the Rashba was discussing was because the real intention of the parties was to create a loan between the two Jews and so it is completely ribbit, which is forbidden even after the fact. However, the Malveh Hashem 1:5:12 writes that this haramat ribit of the Rashba is purely legal fiction that is valid, though it is forbidden to arrange. Therefore, if it was already collected certainly it doesn't need to be returned.</ref> | #It is forbidden for a Jew to arrange with a non-Jew to lend your money to him in order that he lend it to another Jew with interest.<ref>Rashba teshuva 3:243 writes that it is forbidden to lend your money to him in order that he lend it to another Jew with interest since that is a mere legal fiction and is considered taking interest. Also, there is a concept of shelichut for a non-Jew to be considered a shelichut for purposes of being strict. That is, the rabbis view this transaction as though the non-Jew is an agent of the Jews and it is a loan between two Jews. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:5 rule like the Rashba. The Shach 168:10 points out that the Rama would agree as well. Malveh Hashem 1:5:12 agrees. However, the Netivot Shalom 168:5:5 argues at length that the Rama never accepted this approach of the Rashba who expanded the concept of legal fictions for ribbit. The entire concept of Rabbenu Tam who allowed having a non-Jewish agent to arrange the loan with interest or Rashi's opinion who allowed a Jewish agent to arrange the loan with interest, both of which are cited by the Rama indicate that he was not concerned with the expansions of the Rashba. This is further supported by the fact that the Rama 168:5 implies that the reason for Shulchan Aruch is completely other than the reason of making a legal fiction out of taking interest. Netivot Shalom brings sources that show that there's a fundamental dispute of how far reaching is prohibition of using legal loopholes in interest (haramat ribbit) between the Maharam and Rashba. Netivot Shalom 166:6:13 extends this discussion to that of using a heter iska and the Gra's opinion that it violates haramat ribbit.</ref> After the fact, it is forbidden to take the interest since the non-Jewish agent is merely a ruse and it was really a loan with interest from a Jew.<ref>Netivot Shalom 168:5:6 explains that the haramat ribbit that the Rashba was discussing was because the real intention of the parties was to create a loan between the two Jews and so it is completely ribbit, which is forbidden even after the fact. However, the Malveh Hashem 1:5:12 writes that this haramat ribit of the Rashba is purely legal fiction that is valid, though it is forbidden to arrange. Therefore, if it was already collected certainly it doesn't need to be returned.</ref> | ||
#If the lender didn't know about the fact that the borrower appointed the non-Jew to borrow for him from a Jew with interest he can keep the interest<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:7</ref> and some allow him to even collect the interest once it was arranged.<ref>*Derisha 168:4 explains that it is absolutely forbidden for the lender to make the borrower pay the interest since it is forbidden for the borrower to pay it, however, it already happened then the lender can keep it. | #If the lender didn't know about the fact that the borrower appointed the non-Jew to borrow for him from a Jew with interest he can keep the interest<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:7</ref> and some allow him to even collect the interest once it was arranged.<ref>*Derisha 168:4 explains that it is absolutely forbidden for the lender to make the borrower pay the interest since it is forbidden for the borrower to pay it, however, it already happened then the lender can keep it. | ||
*Shach 168:17 argues that it is permitted for the lender to make the borrower pay the interest since it was done without his knowledge and in such a case it isn't really forbidden for the borrower with respect to the lender. Chelkat Binyamin 168:55 and 57 rules like the Shach and explains that once the lender wasn't aware of the appointment of the non-Jew by the borrower it isn't forbidden for the borrower to pay the interest. The only aspect that was forbidden is the arrangement of the loan. | *Shach 168:17 argues that it is permitted for the lender to make the borrower pay the interest since it was done without his knowledge and in such a case it isn't really forbidden for the borrower with respect to the lender. Chelkat Binyamin 168:55 and 57 rules like the Shach and explains that once the lender wasn't aware of the appointment of the non-Jew by the borrower it isn't forbidden for the borrower to pay the interest. The only aspect that was forbidden is the arrangement of the loan. | ||
| Line 49: | Line 50: | ||
#If a non-Jew asks a Jew to borrow for him from another Jew with interest the Jewish agent may do his job as long as he says clearly that he is borrowing with interest on behalf of a non-Jew or the transaction is happening in the presence of the non-Jew.<ref>Ran b"m 71b s.v. mahu, Nemukei Yosef 42a, Hagaot Ashri 5:42, Rosh responsa 108:5, Raavan 103, and Smak 260 all cited by Bet Yosef 168:13. Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 citing Ramban b"m 71b s.v. vgoy explains that even though the Jewish agent can't halachically become the agent of the non-Jew since there's no agency for non-Jews, the Jewish agent can be the agent of the lender.</ref> | #If a non-Jew asks a Jew to borrow for him from another Jew with interest the Jewish agent may do his job as long as he says clearly that he is borrowing with interest on behalf of a non-Jew or the transaction is happening in the presence of the non-Jew.<ref>Ran b"m 71b s.v. mahu, Nemukei Yosef 42a, Hagaot Ashri 5:42, Rosh responsa 108:5, Raavan 103, and Smak 260 all cited by Bet Yosef 168:13. Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 citing Ramban b"m 71b s.v. vgoy explains that even though the Jewish agent can't halachically become the agent of the non-Jew since there's no agency for non-Jews, the Jewish agent can be the agent of the lender.</ref> | ||
#The agent can't take upon himself responsibility for the capital or the interest. If he takes upon himself responsibility for either one that is considered as though the agent is a borrower and there is interest when the lender takes interest from the borrower.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 168:13. Bet Yosef 168:13 s.v. vda deliberates whether it is problematic to accept responsibility for the capital and not the interest or the interest and not the capital. Ultimately he says that the Tur clearly understood that the Jewish agent may not accept responsibility for either. </ref> According to Ashkenazim it is only necessary for the Jewish lender to accept responsibility for the loan and collateral after the transaction began, which is the time when the money for the loan was transferred to the agent but not from the time that the collateral was picked up to be delivered to the lender.<ref>Darkei Moshe 168:12 clearly thinks that it is unnecessary for the lender to accept responsibility from the time of the collection of the collateral in order to be delivered since the loan didn't begin. Though he agrees that he should accept responsibility from the time that the agent accepted the money in order to return it to the non-Jewish borrower. Shach 168:37 and Taz 168:18 agree with the Darkei Moshe against the Bet Yosef.</ref> | #The agent can't take upon himself responsibility for the capital or the interest. If he takes upon himself responsibility for either one that is considered as though the agent is a borrower and there is interest when the lender takes interest from the borrower.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 168:13. Bet Yosef 168:13 s.v. vda deliberates whether it is problematic to accept responsibility for the capital and not the interest or the interest and not the capital. Ultimately he says that the Tur clearly understood that the Jewish agent may not accept responsibility for either. </ref> According to Ashkenazim, it is only necessary for the Jewish lender to accept responsibility for the loan and collateral after the transaction began, which is the time when the money for the loan was transferred to the agent, but not from the time that the collateral was picked up to be delivered to the lender.<ref>Darkei Moshe 168:12 clearly thinks that it is unnecessary for the lender to accept responsibility from the time of the collection of the collateral in order to be delivered since the loan didn't begin. Though he agrees that he should accept responsibility from the time that the agent accepted the money in order to return it to the non-Jewish borrower. Shach 168:37 and Taz 168:18 agree with the Darkei Moshe against the Bet Yosef.</ref> | ||
#The agent can't take upon himself responsibility for the collateral getting lost or stolen, rather the lender needs to | #The agent can't take upon himself responsibility for the collateral getting lost or stolen, rather the lender needs to assume such responsibility. If the agent takes upon himself the regular type of responsibility as a [[shomer]] would generally take that is permitted. However, he may not take responsibility for unexpected circumstances.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:16 based on the Rosh in disagreement with the Ramah who allowed taking even responsibility for unexpected events. </ref> If they didn't specify this responsibility and it was left unclear, after the fact, we can assume that the Jewish lender and the agent would want to arrange it in the permitted fashion.<ref>Shach 168:36 citing Bach, Baal Hatrumot 46:4:10 citing Ramban</ref> | ||
#If the non-Jew never comes to pay the loan with the interest the agent may not pay it.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:14</ref> | #If the non-Jew never comes to pay the loan with the interest the agent may not pay it.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 168:14</ref> | ||
##Additionally, the lender may not force the agent to buy the collateral for the price of the capital and interest.<ref>Rama 168:14, Shach 168:47, Taz 168:20, Bach 168:15, Chelkat Binyamin 168:148. According to the Taz this is even the opinion of Shulchan Aruch, but according to the Shach and Bach this is only the opinion of the Rama and Shulchan Aruch would disagree.</ref> | ##Additionally, the lender may not force the agent to buy the collateral for the price of the capital and interest.<ref>Rama 168:14, Shach 168:47, Taz 168:20, Bach 168:15, Chelkat Binyamin 168:148. According to the Taz this is even the opinion of Shulchan Aruch, but according to the Shach and Bach this is only the opinion of the Rama and Shulchan Aruch would disagree.</ref> | ||
| Line 60: | Line 61: | ||
[[Image:Returning Mashkon to Non-Jew.png| 350px| right]] | [[Image:Returning Mashkon to Non-Jew.png| 350px| right]] | ||
#Some permit | #Some ''poskim'' permit a Jew to borrow 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 168:9 writes that a person shouldn't protest such a practice. 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 collateral was clearly Jewish or not.</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 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 | #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 Jewish borrower 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> | ||
#If a Jew lent from another Jew and got a collateral for that loan, and specified that if the Jew didn’t pay up on time he would either sell the collateral or borrow against it with interest. If | #If a Jew lent from another Jew and got a collateral for that loan, and specified that if the Jew didn’t pay up on time he would either sell the collateral or borrow against it with interest. If the lender then borrowed against it with interest from a non-Jew, he isn’t responsible to pay the interest for the loan since that was part of their stipulation. Instead, the Jewish borrower needs to pay the interest in order to redeem his collateral.<ref>Rashba responsa cited by Bet Yosef 168:26 explains that once they stipulated that the lender Jew can borrow with interest against the collateral we understand that to mean that the lender Jew isn’t borrowing from the non-Jew for himself, rather he is doing so as an agent of the other Jew. Therefore, the borrower Jew can repay the interest to the non-Jew and it isn’t interest to the lender Jew since he is neither a lender or a guarantor of the loan, he is simply the agent. Shaar Mishpat 168:13 cites this Rashba but also cites the Maharit YD 46 based on the Maharam who argues that it is an asmachta and isn't binding. Therefore, the lender couldn't lend to the non-Jew with interest on that collateral. Shulchan Gavoha 168:50 cites this Rashba and fundamentally puts it in the same camp as the Rosh which is codified by Shulchan Aruch 168:26. Kovetz Halichot Horah Ribbit v. 5 p. 316-7 explains that it is necessary for the Rashba and Ramban 71a that the lender Jew be the agent of the original borrower as well as the fact that the non-Jew is collecting from the collateral. The reason is that if it was simply that the non-Jew would collect from the collateral but the Jewish lender was never appointed as an agent then he is in essence borrowing for himself with interest and having another Jew repay his interest using his collateral.</ref> | ||
#If a Jew lent from another Jew and got a collateral for that loan, he can then use that collateral to borrow with interest from a non-Jew. | #If a Jew lent from another Jew and got a collateral for that loan, he can then use that collateral to borrow with interest from a non-Jew on certain conditions. This is permitted as long as the Jewish lender specifies to the non-Jew that he is borrowing on behalf of another Jew and he has no responsibility. Alternatively, if the collateral is worth the entire value of the loan he can use it to borrow from the non-Jew with interest. Then, the original borrower Jew can pay the non-Jew the interest and redeem his collateral. The Jewish lender was simply the agent of the first Jew to borrow with interest from a non-Jew.<ref>Tashbetz Katan 486 writes that if the Jewish lender specifies to the non-Jew that he is borrowing on behalf of another Jew it is permitted, otherwise it is like he is borrowing for himself and having the original borrower Jew pay the interest is forbidden. Yet, the Bet Yosef 168:26 points out that the Rosh implies that it is permitted for the original borrower to pay the interest even if the lender Jew didn’t make that stipulation. Shulchan Aruch 168:26 simply quotes the case without specifically mentioning that stipulation. Shach 168:82 explains that the Tashbetz Katan and Rosh agree. Either a stipulation is necessary or having a collateral that is worth the entire value of the loan and interest. Otherwise it is forbidden. Chelkat Binyamin 168:291 agrees. Mayin Ganim Abadi YD 9 shows at length that the Bet Yosef thought that there is a dispute between the Tashbetz Katan and Rosh. The Rosh thinks that even without specifying it is assumed that the non-Jew depends on the collateral and there’s no responsibility upon the Jew. However, the Tashbetz Katan thinks that only if the Jew specifies that is it so, otherwise we assume that the non-Jew will hold responsible the Jew who is borrowing from him as well as from the collateral, in which case it would be forbidden for the original borrower to pay the interest. Erech Lechem 168:17 implies this as well. He explains that the Ran cited in Shulchan Aruch 168:17 implies like the Tashbetz Katan, yet, Shulchan Aruch ultimately sided with the Rosh and Rashba unlike the Tashbetz Katan and Ran.</ref> | ||
#If a Jew wants to borrow from a non-Jew with interest and he asks another Jew to be his agent, he can do so. If he gives him a collateral then it isn’t necessary for the agent to specify that he is borrowing on behalf of someone else since the non-Jew is ready to collect from the collateral.<ref>Rosh b”m 5:56, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 168:17. Bet Yosef 168:17 based on the Nemukei Yosef 44a clarifies that it is insufficient to say that the collateral serves as the place where the non-Jew can collect, rather he needs even to specify that he bares no responsibility. Shach 168:52 cites this opinion. Shulchan Aruch 170:1 follows that opinion.</ref> Some say that as long as the collateral is actually worth the value of the loan and interest, then it is automatic that the non-Jew is ready to collect from the collateral and his lien applies to that and not to the Jew.<ref>Shach 168:51</ref> | #If a Jew wants to borrow from a non-Jew with interest and he asks another Jew to be his agent, he can do so. If he gives him a collateral then it isn’t necessary for the agent to specify that he is borrowing on behalf of someone else since the non-Jew is ready to collect from the collateral.<ref>Rosh b”m 5:56, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 168:17. Bet Yosef 168:17 based on the Nemukei Yosef 44a clarifies that it is insufficient to say that the collateral serves as the place where the non-Jew can collect, rather he needs even to specify that he bares no responsibility. Shach 168:52 cites this opinion. Shulchan Aruch 170:1 follows that opinion.</ref> Some say that as long as the collateral is actually worth the value of the loan and interest, then it is automatic that the non-Jew is ready to collect from the collateral and his lien applies to that and not to the Jew.<ref>Shach 168:51</ref> | ||
#If a Jew wants to borrow from a non-Jew with interest and he asks another Jew to be his agent, he can do so. Yet, it is important that the agent specify with the non-Jew that he is indeed borrowing on behalf of another Jew and he bares no responsibility.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch 168:17</ref> | #If a Jew wants to borrow from a non-Jew with interest and he asks another Jew to be his agent, he can do so. Yet, it is important that the agent specify with the non-Jew that he is indeed borrowing on behalf of another Jew and he bares no responsibility.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch 168:17</ref> | ||
#It is an issue if the Jewish agent has any responsibility for the loan even to serve as a guarantor that can be collected from first (Arev Kablan), rather the non-Jew needs to completely be able to collect from the collateral.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:17 cites the Ran (Nemukei Yosef 42a) who holds that it is forbidden to be an Arev Kablan for another Jew.</ref> | #It is an issue if the Jewish agent has any responsibility for the loan even to serve as a guarantor that can be collected from first (Arev Kablan), rather the non-Jew needs to completely be able to collect from the collateral.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:17 cites the Ran (Nemukei Yosef 42a) who holds that it is forbidden to be an Arev Kablan for another Jew.</ref> | ||
====Non-Jew Borrowed from Jew with Collateral and Jewish Agent==== | ====Non-Jew Borrowed from Jew with Collateral and Jewish Agent==== | ||
#A Jewish agent brought a collateral from a non-Jew to another Jew in order to borrow with interest. After the loan is due, the lender | #A Jewish agent brought a collateral from a non-Jew to another Jew in order to borrow with interest. After the loan is due, the Jewish lender can ask the agent to show him which non-Jew he lent to but can not ask the agent to pay to redeem the non-Jew’s collateral and pay for the loan.<ref>Bet Yosef 168:27 cites the Rashba 3:47 who speaks of a case where a Jew brought a collateral from a non-Jew to another Jew in order to borrow with interest, then the lender Jew asked the agent to redeem the non-Jew’s collateral and pay for the loan. The Rashba rules that it is forbidden for the agent Jew to pay the loan and interest since he is merely an agent. He must though indicate to the lender Jew who is the non-Jew who borrowed the money. Shulchan Aruch YD 168:27 codifies the Rashba. Shach 168:83 explains that the agent has no responsibility to sell or buy the collateral from the lender.</ref> | ||
====Borrowing on Behalf of a Community==== | ====Borrowing on Behalf of a Community==== | ||
# | #A few Jewish administrators of a community or communal institution borrowed with interest from a non-Jew on behalf of the community and then they lent the money to the community with interest. That is forbidden since ultimately the non-Jew will hold the Jewish administrators responsible.<ref>Rashba responsa 5:259 writes that he heard that in many communities they will have the administrators of a community borrow with interest from a non-Jew on behalf of the community and then he lends it out with interest to the rest of the congregation. Rashba writes vehemently that there is nothing to rely upon. Rama 168:17 ambiguously quotes this practice without endorsing it or dismissing it.</ref> | ||
#If an administrator for a community borrows from a non-Jew in order to pay for a communal construction project, according to some, he may be paid back by the community including the interest.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 168:4 cites Chatom Sofer YD 135 who writes that once an administrator of the community borrowed from a non-Jew with interest for building a communal building for guests. Then he charged the community to each pay their share of the cost. He cites the Ranach 58 who permitted a contractor who borrowed with interest from non-Jews to be repaid by the community since they are essentially paying for the building and not interest for a loan.</ref> | #If an administrator for a community borrows from a non-Jew in order to pay for a communal construction project, according to some, he may be paid back by the community including the interest.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 168:4 cites Chatom Sofer YD 135 who writes that once an administrator of the community borrowed from a non-Jew with interest for building a communal building for guests. Then he charged the community to each pay their share of the cost. He cites the Ranach 58 who permitted a contractor who borrowed with interest from non-Jews to be repaid by the community since they are essentially paying for the building and not interest for a loan.</ref> | ||
