- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part II
Case: The plaintiff (=pl) is a lender who lent 500,000 NIS to a contractor (=def) to carry out a Tama 38 project (a special plan to strengthen and improve a building in return for the right to add stories to it). They used the heter iska used by Bank Mizrachi, and the rate of interest was 18% annually plus punitive interest of $200 a day for late payment. Def gave three checks and three promissory deeds, and put certain properties in a lien to pl. Def paid 527,000 NIS but late, so that some interest was outstanding. Pl made a claim of 390,360 NIS with Hotza’ah Lapo’al, which def opposed, and the courts transferred the case to beit din. Pl claims that since def owed 135,000 NIS and it has been over three years, def owes 61% interest plus around a quarter million dollars for the punitive interest. Def claims that since he already paid more than the principal he took, he cannot be subject to punitive interest, and that it is enough to pay 18,000 NIS for outstanding interest.
Ruling: [Last time we saw that the regular interest in this case could have been permitted but the punitive interest made the total interest too high.]
More fundamentally, interest as a penalty for late payment, which does not fit into the legal logic of a heter iska, is forbidden, as we shall explain. A penalty payment that increases by the day (as opposed to a one-time penalty) is classic ribbit, as it is agar natar (reward for waiting) (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 177:16). The Rama (ad loc.) cites those who are lenient regarding a penalty, but most disagree, and the Shach (ad loc. 33) and the Shulchan Aruch Harav posit that it is a Torah-level prohibition. The Shach is lenient in the case where there is a heter iska, but Brit Yehuda (38:9) writes that this is only regarding a one-time penalty. While there might be room for leniency regarding a corporate entity, like a bank, here we are dealing with an individual, and therefore one must not be lenient in this case.
We calculate that after def’s last payment, he owed 33,237 NIS, which increased to 37,369 NIS by the time pl went to Hotza’ah Lapo’al. After this point, interest should no longer be accrued for two reasons. First, def should not have been expected to pay because pl sued for an exaggerated amount of money. Second, a heter iska is based on the expectation that the recipient is investing the money, whereas in a case in which the "lender" is demanding the money immediately, it is apparently forbidden to invest anymore, and therefore there is no justification for the amount to increase.
Ruling: [Last time we saw that the regular interest in this case could have been permitted but the punitive interest made the total interest too high.]
More fundamentally, interest as a penalty for late payment, which does not fit into the legal logic of a heter iska, is forbidden, as we shall explain. A penalty payment that increases by the day (as opposed to a one-time penalty) is classic ribbit, as it is agar natar (reward for waiting) (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 177:16). The Rama (ad loc.) cites those who are lenient regarding a penalty, but most disagree, and the Shach (ad loc. 33) and the Shulchan Aruch Harav posit that it is a Torah-level prohibition. The Shach is lenient in the case where there is a heter iska, but Brit Yehuda (38:9) writes that this is only regarding a one-time penalty. While there might be room for leniency regarding a corporate entity, like a bank, here we are dealing with an individual, and therefore one must not be lenient in this case.
We calculate that after def’s last payment, he owed 33,237 NIS, which increased to 37,369 NIS by the time pl went to Hotza’ah Lapo’al. After this point, interest should no longer be accrued for two reasons. First, def should not have been expected to pay because pl sued for an exaggerated amount of money. Second, a heter iska is based on the expectation that the recipient is investing the money, whereas in a case in which the "lender" is demanding the money immediately, it is apparently forbidden to invest anymore, and therefore there is no justification for the amount to increase.

P'ninat Mishpat (663)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
681 - Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part I
682 - Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part II
683 - Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part III
Load More

Demand of Top-Quality Merchandise from Supplier
based on ruling 81005 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Sivan 28 5782

An Abrupt End to a Rental
Various Rabbis | Tevet 5768

Falling Asleep Behind the Steering Wheel
Various Rabbis | 5774

Backing Out of a Rental After Checks Were Given
Various Rabbis | 28 Shvat 5768

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

Effective Matchmaking?
based on ruling 80111 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Shvat 29 5782

Overlapping Rentals
based on ruling 71007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Tamuz 28 5780

Halachic Shmita Guide from Eretz Hemdah
Elul 8 5781

Unartistic Material for Artistic Work – part II
based on ruling 80036 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Adar 17 5781
The Laws of Torah Study
Part 3
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5761
Faith and Trust in G-d's Plan Is Happiness
Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed | Tammuz 2 5782

There Are No Shortcuts
Rabbi Yossef Carmel | Tammuz 2 5782
