Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 65:30

ל: מוּמָר אָסוּר לִלְווֹת מִמֶּנּוּ בְּרִבִּית, וְגַם לְהַלְווֹת לוֹ בְּרִבִּית יֵשׁ לְהַחְמִיר

A [Jewish] apostate — it is prohibited to borrow money from him on interest. And also lending to him on interest, it’s also appropriate to be stringent.


We close the siman on ribbis by getting back to the point. Is the verse’s “achikha” inclusive of every Jew, or only of Jews who believe in Judaism, shomerei Shabbos?

Not that this issue comes up much, since a mumar is someone who rejected a Torah upbringing, not someone who simply wasn’t exposed to the traditional Jewish worldview, or his exposure was in a context where they were prejudiced to reject it. (“See son, this is what those Orthodox people believe, but we know better…”)

Starting Monday, be”H, we will be moving on to iska, the rules of doing business — including some very-close-to-ribis looking deals.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 65:29

כט: שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁצְּרִיכִין לִלְווֹת מָעוֹת בְּרִבִּית מֵעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים, יַעֲשׂוּ שְׁאֵלַת חָכָם אֵיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת. (עַיֵן “טוּרֵי זָהָב” סִימָן ק”ע סָעִיף קָטִן ג’. “חוּוֹת דַּעַת” ֹשָם סָעִיף קָטֹן א’. וּבְֹשֻלְחָן עָרוּך “הַתַּנְיָא” הִלְכוֹת רִבִּת סָעִיף ס”ד)

Partners who need to borrow money with interest from a non-Jew, should ask a sage as to how to do this.


I enjoy seeing a halachic guide say “Ask a rabbi” rather than trying to be everyone’s poseiq on questions that really need case-wize answers. Perhaps I’m just too cynical, but I see the latter as something that unfortunately happens all too often in modern English guides.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 65:28

כח: מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל מֻפְקָדוֹת בְּיַד עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים, וְהִלְוָה אוֹתָם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִבִּית, אִם הָיוּ בְּאַחְרָיוּת הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁאִם יֹאבַד הַחוֹב יִתְחַיֵּב הוּא לְשַׁלֵּם בִּמְעוֹתָיו, מֻתָּר. וְאִם אֵינוֹ בְּאַחְרָיוּת הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים, אָסוּר – קסט. וְלָכֵן בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קְבוּצוֹת מָעוֹת, – קֻפּוֹת חִסָּכוֹן – שפארקאסע וְכַדּוֹמֶה, שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִים חֲלָקִים – מְנָיוֹת – אקְציען שָׁמָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים לֹוִים מִשָּׁם בְּרִבִּית, אַף -עַל -פִּי שֶׁהַמְמֻנִּים הֵמָּה עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים, מִכָּל מָקוֹם נִרְאֶה לִי דְּאִסּוּר גָּמוּר הוּא. וְלָכֵן אָסור לִתֵּן לְשָׁם מָעוֹת, כִּי שֶׁמָּא יִלְוֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן. וְכֵן אָסוּר לִלְווֹת מִשָּׁם, כִּי שֶׁמָּא נָתַן לְֹשָם יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן

A Jew’s money that is deposited into the control of a non-Jew, and he lent them to a Jew with interest, if it was the responsibility of the non-Jew that if the debt is lost he [the non-Jew] would obligate himself to pay the money, it is permitted. And if it is not the responsibility of the non-Jew, it is prohibited.

Therefore, in a place where there are finance companies such, as savings banks and the like, where Jews own part of them, shares in the company, and Jews borrow there with interest, even if the managers are non-Jews, in any event it seems to me that this is totally prohibited. Therefore it is forbidden to deposit money with them, because they may lend to a Jew who is not careful. It is also forbidden to borrow from them, in case a Jew has invested in them, who is not careful.


The first part is another application of the idea that the difference between a proxy and someone who actually takes ownership being a middleman in back-to-back loans is whether the middleman accepts risk in the case of loss. See other examples in se’ifim 25 & 26.

The second part applies this principle to a corporate setting, for example, where the lender is a corporation in which one partner is a Jew. E.g. a savings bank where some of the shares are held by Jews. Since the shares held by the Jew represent a percentage of money for which the responsiibility doesn’t fall to non-Jews, a loan with interest would be prohibited.

R’ Ganzfried is clear that this is his own opinion. I am under the impression that this is not how we rule in practice. Consult your rabbi!

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 65:27

כז:יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִלְוָה לְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים עַל מַשְׁכּוֹן בְּרִבִּית כָּךְ וְכָךְ לְחֹדֶשׁ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לַחֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁהוּא יַלְוֶה לוֹ אֶת הַמָּעוֹת עַל מַשְׁכּוֹן זֶה, וְשֶׁהוּא יִטּוֹל אֶת הָרִבִּית שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה מֵהַיּוֹם עַד הַפֵּרָעוֹן, מֻתָּר. אֲבָל אִם הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל הָרִאשׁוֹן כְּבָר זָקַף אֶת הַקֶּרֶן עִם הָרִבִּית לְכָל זְמַן הַהַלְוָאָה הֲרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא כְּקֶרֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָסוּר לִלְוֹת עַל מַשְׁכּוֹן זֶה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל חֲבֵרוֹ בְּרִבִּית, דַּהֲוֵי כְּאִלּוּ נָתַן אֶת הָרִבִּית מִכִּיסוֹ

A Jew who lends a non-Jew against a collateral with interest of such-and-such a month, and afterward the Jew goes to his friend that he lend him the money on this [same] collateral, and he takes on the interest from today until the final payment date, it is permissable. However, if the first Jew already combined the principal and interest [repackaged into one payment] for the entire duration of the loan [to be paid at the end] then it is all like the Jew’s capital, and it is prohibited to borrow against this collateral from his Jewish friend with interest, because it’s like he gave the interest from his own pocket.


In the previous two laws, we saw that as long as the Jew in the middle has no risk exposure, another Jew can use him as a proxy borrow money from a non-Jew with interest. Here we see another limitation — the interest has to match the currently existing terms of the loan with the non-Jew. If the terms changed in a restructure, than the interest paid between the two Jews constitutes a distinct deal, and is prohibited.

Qitzur Shulchan Arukh – 65:25-26

(I missed Friday, so as to discourage that happening, I’m going to force myself to make it up today. There will be two se’ifim in today’s post.)

כה: עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁאָמַר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לְוֵה בִּשְׁבִילִי מָעוֹת בְּרִבִּית מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל עַל מַשְׁכּוֹן זֶה, אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ מַשְׁכּוֹן אֶלָּא שְׁטַר- חוֹב, וְהַמַּלְוֶה סוֹמֵךְ אֶת עַצְמוֹ רַק עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אוֹ עַל הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁל עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים, וְעַל הַשָּׁלִיחַ אֵין שׁוּם אַחְרָיוּת, מֻתָּר. וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל הַשָּׁלִיחַ מֵבִיא אֶת הָרִבִּית לְהַמַּלְוֶה, מֻתָּר לְקַבְּלָהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה יִגְמֹר זֹאת בְּדַעְתּוֹ, שֶׁכָּל אַחְרָיוּת הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן וְהַמָּעוֹת, בֵּין בַּהֲבָאָה בֵּין בַּחֲזָרָה הַכֹּל עַל אַחְרָיוּתוֹ, וְעַל הַשָּׁלִיחַ לֹא יִהְיֶה שוּם אַחְרָיוּת

A non-Jew who says to a Jew, “Borrow for me money on interest from a Jew upon this collateral” or even if he only gave him a debt contract [IOU] and the lender relies only on this collateral or on the non-Jew’s contract, and there is no responsibility placed on the messenger — it is permitted.

Even if the Jewish messenger delivers the interest to the borrower it is permitted as long as the borrower has this in mind — that all the obligation of the collateral and the money, whether upon delivery or return,are all responsibility [if lost], and there is no responsibility on the messenger.

כו: וְכֵן יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּתַן מַשְׁכּוֹן אוֹ שְׁטַר-חוֹב לְיִשְׂרָאֵל חֲבֵרוֹ, שֶׁיִּלְוֶה בִּשְׁבִילוֹ עַל זֶה מָעוֹת בְּרִבִּית מֵעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים, אִם הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ רַק עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אוֹ עַל הַשְּׁטָר. וְעַל הַשָּׁלִיחַ אֵין שׁוּם אַחְרָיוּת, מֻתָּר. וְכֵן אִם הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל הִלְוָה תְּחִלָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל חֲבֵרוֹ עַל מַשְׁכּוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמַר לְהַמַּלְוֶה, לְוֵה מָעוֹת מֵעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים בְּרִבִּית עַל מַשְׁכּוֹן זֶה וְעָלַי לְשַׁלֵּם הַקֶּרֶן וְהָרִבִּית, אִם הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים סוֹמֵךְ אֶת עַצְמוֹ עַל הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן בִּלְבַד, מֻתָּר

Similarly a Jew who gives a collateral or a debt contract to his fellow Jew, that with it he borrow for him money on interest from a non-Jew, if the non-Jew only relies on the collateral or the contract, and the messenger has no responsibility [for loss], it is permitted.

Also similarly, if a Jew first lend his fellow Jew against a collateral, and afterward tells the lender, “Borrow money with interest from a non-Jew against this collateral, and I will pay the capital and the interest”, if the non-Jews relies on the collateral alone, it is permitted.


We saw the same key principle before in se’ifim 19 and 20. If someone assumes risk for the item, they are the owner. In se’if 19, this meant that a friend helping another sell merchandise who did not assume responsibility for the merchandise was actually a borrower, and any extra the helper makes would be prohibited as interest. In #20, it is the difference between paying a delivery man or paying someone for the time he held an item for you.

Here, it’s the difference between someone being your messenger in a loan to or from a non-Jew, or having two loans– one between two Jews, and one between one of those Jews and a non-Jew, where the Jew in the middle ends up flat, receiving and paying the same amount. However, in the latter situation, where the Jew assumed responsibility for the money, the loan between the two Jews can’t involve interest, and therefore money given to him to be indirectly paid to the non-Jew as interest would be prohibited.