16,374
edits
Taking Interest: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Heter Iska
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
<p class="indent">One condition of the agreement is that the borrower isn’t trusted to say that he lost money unless he proves it with acceptable witnesses and he isn’t trusted to say that he didn’t profit unless he makes a Shevuah (biblical oath) that he didn’t profit. Another condition is that if the borrower pays the agreed amount (above the original capital) he doesn’t need to prove that he didn’t make any more money. Therefore, at the end of term, the receiver returns the half which is a loan (while keeping the profit made from that half) and returns the deposit along with the profit he made from that half up to the amount agreed upon (and if he didn’t profit that amount unless he proves it he must still pay the agreed upon amount, and if he profited more, he’s exempt from paying more). </p> | <p class="indent">One condition of the agreement is that the borrower isn’t trusted to say that he lost money unless he proves it with acceptable witnesses and he isn’t trusted to say that he didn’t profit unless he makes a Shevuah (biblical oath) that he didn’t profit. Another condition is that if the borrower pays the agreed amount (above the original capital) he doesn’t need to prove that he didn’t make any more money. Therefore, at the end of term, the receiver returns the half which is a loan (while keeping the profit made from that half) and returns the deposit along with the profit he made from that half up to the amount agreed upon (and if he didn’t profit that amount unless he proves it he must still pay the agreed upon amount, and if he profited more, he’s exempt from paying more). </p> | ||
<p class="indent">There are many other conditions and one must consult with a reliable orthodox rabbi regarding each situation and how to draw up a Heter Iska. <ref> Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 66:1-6. See Ribit Halacha LeMaseh chapter 20. One can see this [http://www.bethdin.org/docs/PDF15-Shtar_Iska.pdf shtar isko] on the website of the Beth Din of America. | <p class="indent">There are many other conditions and one must consult with a reliable orthodox rabbi regarding each situation and how to draw up a Heter Iska. <ref> Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 66:1-6. See Ribit Halacha LeMaseh chapter 20. One can see this [http://www.bethdin.org/docs/PDF15-Shtar_Iska.pdf shtar isko] on the website of the Beth Din of America. | ||
* Jewish Agent: According to Rashi (cited by Rama 160:16) that there’s no prohibition of ribbit when done through a shaliach perhaps that can permit using a bank loan since the teller is merely an agent of the bank. Bet Yosef 160:16 and Taz vehemently argue that this is completely forbidden and a ruse. Rather this citation of Rashi was made a mistaken student. Rama and Shach defend Rashi. | |||
* Non-Jewish Agent: Rabbenu Tam (cited by Tosfot 71b s.v. kgon) held it was permitted to lend with interest to a Jew using a non-Jewish agent since there's no concept of agency between a Jew and a non-Jew. Therefore, even though one Jew asked another Jew to get a loan with interest from another Jew it is permitted since the non-Jew is acting on his own. Most rishonim disagree with the Rabbenu Tam. | |||
* Non-Jewish Agent with a Security Deposit: The Ri held that it was permitted to send a non-Jew with a security deposit to another Jew through a non-Jewish agent in order to borrow with interest. The non-Jew is considered to have acquired the deposit and so it is as though there's a separate loan between the borrower Jew and the non-Jew and another one with the non-Jew and the lender Jew. | |||
* "Witness Clause Heter Iska": The Levush 167:1 writes extensively against the Heter Iska of his time that required bringing witnessed to testify that the investment didn't make the expected gain. He claims that it is a Biblical violation of Ribbit since it is known that with this condition one can specify not to trust any witnessed besides two witnesses on opposite sides of the world and make it impossible for the borrower to be exempt from having to pay the interest. Furthermore, the lender has no right to say that he is certain that the borrower made the gains they expected. Often he knows that it isn't the case and still he is collecting the interest. He distinguishes between ensuring you get back the capital with a clause of having to bring witnesses and that is based on the Trumat Hadeshen 302. However, he would not allow adding a condition to allowing the borrower to exempt himself from paying for the expected gain when he didn't gain money. Shach 167:1 and Taz 167:1 cite and agree with the Levush. Shach adds that one could ask the borrower for a vow that he in fact didn't gain money but he may not ask for witnesses. Taz adds that the witness clause for the capital has to be reasonable to allow for witnesses that could reasonably know about the state of the borrower's business. Lastly, both the Taz and Shach make it obvious that the measure that the Trumat Hadeshen allowed to ensure the return of the capital is only permitted when it is otherwise only a rabbinic interest such as an iska, half loan and half investment, but not for a case of pure loan. | * "Witness Clause Heter Iska": The Levush 167:1 writes extensively against the Heter Iska of his time that required bringing witnessed to testify that the investment didn't make the expected gain. He claims that it is a Biblical violation of Ribbit since it is known that with this condition one can specify not to trust any witnessed besides two witnesses on opposite sides of the world and make it impossible for the borrower to be exempt from having to pay the interest. Furthermore, the lender has no right to say that he is certain that the borrower made the gains they expected. Often he knows that it isn't the case and still he is collecting the interest. He distinguishes between ensuring you get back the capital with a clause of having to bring witnesses and that is based on the Trumat Hadeshen 302. However, he would not allow adding a condition to allowing the borrower to exempt himself from paying for the expected gain when he didn't gain money. Shach 167:1 and Taz 167:1 cite and agree with the Levush. Shach adds that one could ask the borrower for a vow that he in fact didn't gain money but he may not ask for witnesses. Taz adds that the witness clause for the capital has to be reasonable to allow for witnesses that could reasonably know about the state of the borrower's business. Lastly, both the Taz and Shach make it obvious that the measure that the Trumat Hadeshen allowed to ensure the return of the capital is only permitted when it is otherwise only a rabbinic interest such as an iska, half loan and half investment, but not for a case of pure loan. | ||
* "Derisha's Heter Iska": Derisha 167:1 seems to allow setting up an iska half loan and half investment which evolves into a complete loan after the iska reaches a certain percent of gain. The lender needs to pay a small amount to the borrower in order to pay him for his work investing the half investment. Then the lender can buy the "call option" from the borrower that if the investment doesn't reach the percent gain specified then the borrower will pay the difference between the actual price of the investment and the specified price. They can adjust the price of this option to a small amount. However, the Taz 167:1 points out that this approach is complete incorrect and is a violation of Biblical interest. He brings many proofs including the Rosh responsa 88:2 who explicitly rejects this idea. The Shaarei Bracha 167:1 cites the Maharam Chaviv 23 who agrees with the Taz. He also cites the Radvaz 946 who says the same. | * "Derisha's Heter Iska": Derisha 167:1 seems to allow setting up an iska half loan and half investment which evolves into a complete loan after the iska reaches a certain percent of gain. The lender needs to pay a small amount to the borrower in order to pay him for his work investing the half investment. Then the lender can buy the "call option" from the borrower that if the investment doesn't reach the percent gain specified then the borrower will pay the difference between the actual price of the investment and the specified price. They can adjust the price of this option to a small amount. However, the Taz 167:1 points out that this approach is complete incorrect and is a violation of Biblical interest. He brings many proofs including the Rosh responsa 88:2 who explicitly rejects this idea. The Shaarei Bracha 167:1 cites the Maharam Chaviv 23 who agrees with the Taz. He also cites the Radvaz 946 who says the same. | ||
