When Is It Permitted to Benefit the Lender: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
When Is It Permitted to Benefit the Lender (view source)
Revision as of 22:10, 6 May 2020
, 6 May 2020→Collateral Fields
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
The Shach 172:1 clarifies that the Shulchan Aruch holds for the contingency of Mashkanta Dsura to be effective it needs to have the language of that the loan will be paid by a certain time and the field will be returned, which implies a sale as opposed to a loan. Additionally, it must be the case that the lender can't force the borrower to repay the loan at any time.</ref> | The Shach 172:1 clarifies that the Shulchan Aruch holds for the contingency of Mashkanta Dsura to be effective it needs to have the language of that the loan will be paid by a certain time and the field will be returned, which implies a sale as opposed to a loan. Additionally, it must be the case that the lender can't force the borrower to repay the loan at any time.</ref> | ||
# Mashkanta Dsura is equally effective for a house as it is for a field.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 172:1, Shach 172:4</ref> | # Mashkanta Dsura is equally effective for a house as it is for a field.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 172:1, Shach 172:4</ref> | ||
# There is no minimum price above a [[pruta]] that the lender has to offer the borrower for the fruits each year.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 172:1 writes a small amount. Shach 172:6 writes that it doesn't need to be the amount set by the Torah to redeem a field which is a sela and a pundiyon for a field the size of a chomer unlike the opinion of the Hagahot Mordechai 436. Netivot Moshe Shach 172:2 writes that perhaps even the Hagahot Mordechai would agree for a Mashkanta Dsura and only held his opinion with respect to a regular collateral. Chelkat Binyamin 172:1 p. 424 s.v. umenakeh based on Radvaz 186 writes that perhaps one couldn't pay such a small amount that it would be evident that it is because of interest. However, | # There is no minimum price above a [[pruta]] that the lender has to offer the borrower for the fruits each year.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 172:1 writes a small amount. Shach 172:6 writes that it doesn't need to be the amount set by the Torah to redeem a field which is a sela and a pundiyon for a field the size of a chomer unlike the opinion of the Hagahot Mordechai 436. Netivot Moshe Shach 172:2 writes that perhaps even the Hagahot Mordechai would agree for a Mashkanta Dsura and only held his opinion with respect to a regular collateral. Chelkat Binyamin 172:1 p. 424 s.v. umenakeh based on Radvaz 186 writes that perhaps one couldn't pay such a small amount that it would be evident that it is because of interest. However, Chelkat Binyamin isn't certain that it applies to Mashkanta Dsura.</ref> | ||
# If the lender eats the fruit of the field of the borrower that was a collateral some say that it is Biblical interest,<Ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 164:4</ref> while others hold it is only rabbinic interest.<ref>Rama 164:4</ref> | # If the lender eats the fruit of the field of the borrower that was a collateral some say that it is Biblical interest,<Ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 164:4</ref> while others hold it is only rabbinic interest.<ref>Rama 164:4</ref> | ||
