Administrator, Baltimore Bais Din
Reviewed By Rabbi Mordechai Shuchatowitz, Head of the
Baltimore Bais Din
In
a previous article, we discussed some fundamentals of the prohibition of ribbis, interest. To summarize, ribbis is a prohibition that applies
when someone takes a loan, and then returns the principal amount of the loan to
the lender and adds on some extra as payment for the loan. We discussed that
the most common case of ribbis is for
a loan of money, where the borrower spends the money and then returns the
principal amount with interest. However, the prohibition of ribbis applies to anything that is consumed.
The most common example of this is lending food. For example, if the lender
gave a loan of one pound of flour, and the borrower returned two pounds of
flour, that would be a prohibition of ribbis.
If the interest of the extra food was stipulated at the time of the loan, that
would be prohibited by Torah law. This is called ribbis ketzutzah, stipulated ribbis.
However, if the borrower returns more on his own because of the loan, this
would be prohibited by rabbinic law, called ribbis
me’ucheres, ribbis given by the borrower on his own, and is discussed in
the Gemara Bava Metzia 75B.
* * *
Situations where
one borrows food and then pays back more food are somewhat common. We will
explore this topic more with a case study, an adaptation of a situation that
actually happened:
Rochel is baking
chocolate chip cookies. She thinks that she has all the ingredients but then
realizes she is slightly short of the amount of chocolate chips she needs. She
sends a group message to the women on her block, asking if anyone can lend her
some chocolate chips. Leah responds that she has half a bag of chocolate chips,
which she is happy to lend. Rochel picks up the half bag of chocolate chips
from Leah and tells Leah clearly that she will repay what she borrowed.
A few days later,
Rochel goes to the store and buys a bag of chocolate chips to repay Leah. Leah
is happy to take the repayment of chocolate chips but asks whether this is a
problem of ribbis. After all, she lent
Rochel half a bag and is getting repaid a full bag.
Is this a problem?
Let us explore the
halacha. At face value, this does indeed seem to be an issue of ribbis as Rochel is returning more
chocolate chips than she borrowed. Even though this will not be ribbis by Torah law since the returning
of extra chocolate chips was not stipulated, it potentially can be a rabbinic
prohibition of ribbis, ribbis me’ucheres, where ribbis is given by the borrower on his
own.
Nevertheless,
there is room for leniency in the above situation. Let’s give some thought to
why Rochel is returning a full bag. Very possibly, Rochel’s reason is for her
own convenience. It is easier for Rochel to return a full bag rather than
opening up a bag and measuring out the equivalent of what she borrowed. Where
Rochel’s intention is for the sake of her own convenience, and not for the sake
of paying back extra, and it is a small amount, then this type of addition is
permitted according to some poskim (halachic
authorities).[1]
* * *
Let’s explore
another scenario that would also have grounds for the leniency mentioned above.
Imagine a case where two yeshiva boys – let’s call them Yaakov and Moshe – go to
the store to purchase a few food items. When they reach the checkout line,
Yaakov realizes that he does not have cash on him or any other way of paying.
Moshe graciously offers to lay out the money for Yaakov’s purchase. When
checking out, the tab for Yaakov’s purchase comes to $9.87, which Moshe pays
for.
Yaakov and Moshe
then return to the yeshiva dorm. Yaakov wishes to hand Moshe a $10 bill. Moshe
protests, claiming that the extra 13 cents are ribbis. Moshe says he does not have 13 cents of change to give back
to Yaakov. He would like to be repaid but does not want to violate any
prohibition of ribbis.
Using the above
reasoning, it is permitted for Yaakov to give Moshe a $10 bill. It is very
clear that the purpose of the payment of the extra cents is only for the sake
of convenience. Yaakov does not have the exact amount of the loan, and it is
easiest for him to repay with a $10 bill. Because Yaakov is only doing this
overpayment to save himself the bother of having to find exact change, and it
is a small amount, this is permitted according to the poskim mentioned above.
* * *
Let’s now return
to the topic at the beginning of this article. We mentioned that ribbis does not just apply to a loan of
money but even to a loan of food or any item that gets consumed. There is another case of a loan that does not
involve money where there is a problem of ribbis.
The Mishna in Bava Metzia (75A) describes the following situations: Reuven does
work in Shimon’s field without pay but stipulates that Shimon will “pay back”
by working for Reuven in Reuven’s field. The Mishna says that if Shimon does
work that is harder than the work that Reuven did, this is a problem of ribbis. The reason is that Reuven
“loaned” his work to Shimon, and if Shimon pays Reuven back later with harder
work, there is a problem of ribbis.
This would also be
true if Reuven worked for one day in Shimon’s field, and Shimon paid back by
doing the exact same work in Reuven’s field for two days. Because Shimon paid
back two days of work for one day of work, this is a prohibition of ribbis.
Let’s now
illustrate this in practical terms. Let’s imagine that Chana and Sara are two
mothers in the same carpool. Chana drives Monday and Tuesday mornings, and Sara
drives Wednesday and Thursday mornings. One week, Chana has a doctor’s
appointment on Tuesday morning. Chana asks Sara to drive her Tuesday morning
drive and makes up to “pay her back” by driving Sara’s Wednesday morning drive.
This is fine, because Sara is doing one drive, and Chana is doing one drive in
return. The work being done, a carpool drive, is the same. However, let’s say
they made up that Sara will drive the Tuesday morning drive, and Chana will
“pay back” by driving two drives for Sara: the Wednesday and Thursday morning
drives. This will be a problem of ribbis,
as Chana is paying back two drives for one drive.
These cases are just a small sample
of possible scenarios. As always, one should seek rabbinical guidance for any halachic
questions that arise.
Rabbi Rosenfeld is the Administrator of the Baltimore
Bais Din. He can be reached at RYR@Baltimorebaisdin.org
