Iets wat my al jaare lank pla hoekom eis Christenne Rente op n verband of op n leening , hoe Christelik is dit !!!! Usury - charging interest - is equivalent to atheism. Ribis: A Halachic Anthology Rabbi Joseph Stern Do not charge interest (Ribis) while lending money or food. Do not cause your fellow Jew to charge interest (i.e. do not pay interest in return for a loan - a prohibition against the debtor paying interest). Do not act as an accomplice to the charging of interest (an injunction against even consigning or certifying any usurious financial transaction). A usurious creditor violates six biblical prohibitions. Usury - charging interest - is equivalent to atheism. An entrepreneur who lends money with interest will suffer financial reverses. The usurer will not experience Resurrection. The above verses and rabbinic dicta express the issur of Ribis the giving or receiving of any sort of profit for the loan of money or food. Few committed Jews would deliberately lend (or borrow) money in violation of the injunction against charging interest. And yet some very commonplace business transactions pose serious halahic problems. This article will suggest some contemporary applications of the Ribis principle and discuss proposed remedies for each situation. A second section will focus on the status of banks, corporations, and other organizations that may be exempt from the Ribis prohibition. A third and closing section will discuss the evolution of the Heter Iska (a document structuring a loan as an investment proposal) and its feasibility for modern business exigencies. The purpose of this paper is to explore the parameters of the Ribis laws, rather than to offer authoritative psak. Any halachic verdict must be rendered by competent rabbinic authories . PART 1 Contemporary Business Applications A. Terms of Trade One of the most common business practices is to offer a discount for early payment. Perhaps the most popular procedure is to allow a 2% discount for payment within 10 days. If such prompt payment is not possible, the full amount is due within a month (2/10 net 30). The basic halachic principle concerning terms of trade can be derived from Tosafots resolution of two dichotomous Talmudic statements: Rav Nachman seems to prohibit any type of consideration for early payment or penalty for delayed payment. In affect, it is paying a premium for use of his funds, a form of Ribis. A charge for the debtors use of the creditors fund in the course of trade is Ribis. As an example of a forbidden transaction, Rav Nachman suggests the following scenario: Someone prepays a peddler of wax. As a result of this advance infusion of funds, the grateful merchant offers 5 cases of wax for the price of four. This transaction is prohibited unless the vendor is currently in possession of the merchandise (but is unwilling or unable to provide for immediate delivery). However, the following mishna seems to limit Rav Nachmans ruling: () . One is not permitted to discount a commoditys selling price (because of early payment). For example, a field is sold for 12 maneh if payment is delayed until the harvest season. If, however, immediate payment is rendered, the seller specifies that 1000 zuz (a lesser amount) would be sufficient. Such a practice is considered to be usurious. The text seems to imply that discounting is only prohibited when the terms of trade are explicitly mentioned. To compound the problem, Rav Nachman himself, commenting on the mishna, says . It is permitted to charge more for delayed payment (or to deduct for early payment), provided these conditions are only implied, not explicitly mentioned. Tosafot resolves the apparent contradiction by distinguishing between commodities bearing a set (fixed) market price and those having no set value. Items bearing a set market value (in contemporary times, gold, platinum, anything traded on a commodity exchange) may not be discounted on the basis of early payment. On the other hand, anything that has no precise price (Tosafots example - a cow, a cloak) may be implicitly discounted. Under no circumstances may the terms of trade be explicitly mentioned. Tosafots formulation assumes the form of normative halacha () in the ShuIchan Aruchs ruling. In essence, one may only discount items (or charge a premium for late payment) that have no set market price. Even then, the terms of trade may not be specified. Are all terms of trade acceptable? The Shulchan Aruch (citing the Ramban) only tolerates a small amount of consideration granted for early payment. If it is apparent to all that the debtor pays less - that would be prohibited. Rabbi Yaakov of Lisa suggests that a discount or premium greater than 1/6 would be excessive. Rabbi Mordechai Yaakov Breish, in a special section of his responsa (Chelkas Yaakov) devoted to contemporary Ribis applications, considers the halachic status of 2/10 net 30. Seemingly, such explicit consideration (even if not verbalized, the terms are at least written on the invoice) would be Avak Ribis, (a rabbinic form of usury). If at all possible, a Heter Iska should be arranged or the vendor should avoid writing down the credit terms. Rav Breishs Mechuten, Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchak Weisz (author of the responsa Minchas Yitzchok), proposes restructuring the business transaction to overcome the Ribis problem. Basing himself on the opinion of the Chavas Daas, he suggests that the vendor first price the commodity on the assumption of immediate payment. If the customer then insists on delayed payment, cancel the initial deal and arrange for a new transaction, this time at a premium. Similarly, if the customer desires a discount for each payment, withdraw the first proposition (e.g. 150 at the conclusion of the month) and substitute a new offer (130 for immediate cash). Too often, the above suggestions are not feasible, nor is the customer (a non-observant Jew) willing to abide by a Heter Iska. Cognizant of the need for business credit: Rav Breish cites the opinion of the Imrei Yosher, who considers a premium for delayed payment to be no more than a hedge against inflation, not Ribis. He draws an analogy between borrowing money and renting utensils. The renter is permitted to pay a fee for depreciation - why not allow a debtor to pay for currencys depreciation? (In a marginal note, Rav Breishs sons dissent, noting that the debtor is not liable to reimburse his creditor for inflation - nor should he. Compensating the lender $120 for a loan of $100 (even assuming a 20% inflation rate) would be tantamount to (a biblical prohibition of Ribis). Only if a particular currency has been removed from circulation (e.g. Confederate money) must the debtor pay his creditor according to current market values. Rav Breish himself offers an ingenious solution to the problem. He draws an analogy between renting real estate and contemporary terms of trade. The mishna permits a discount for prepayment of rent. If the years rent is paid in advance, 10 selaim is sufficient. On the other hand, if you pay on a monthly basis, the rent will be one sela per month. This is permissible. Why is this permissible? Rent is only due at the end of every month. Charging more for not paying in advance is not a premium - Ribis - for use of the renter funds, but rather a free market price. It is the landlords prerogative to waive some of the rent () for early payment. Most business transactions - at least in Talmudic times - were payable immediately. Any price differential for later payment would be, in effect, charging the purchaser for temporary use of the sellers fund - Ribis. According to the above reasoning, it may follow that in todays business environment, terms of trade would no longer pose halachic problems. Few if any transactions are immediately payable. Credit is an accepted part of the business milieu. 2/10 net 30 is not a fee for 20 days borrowing, but rather a partial waiver of the purchase price, a rebate granted for early payment. Ribis only exists if an obligation to pay is delayed in exchange for some consideration to the creditor. Here no financial obligation exists till the end of the month. Yet, despite all possible justifications for the practice, Rav Breish advocates use of the traditional Heter Iska wherever possible.
Posted on: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:35:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015