DailyHalacha.com for Mobile Devices Now Available

Click Here to Sponsor Daily Halacha
"Delivered to Over 6000 Registered Recipients Each Day"

      
(File size: 662 KB)
May a Lender Charge a Penalty for a Delayed Payment of the Debt?

The Torah prohibition of Ri'bitt (interest) forbids accepting or giving compensation for the time in which a person retained somebody else's money. The question arises as to whether this prohibition would apply to an interest-free loan given on condition that the borrower must pay a fee – in addition to the amount borrowed – if he pays after the stipulated date. Since the agreement entails additional payment for the extra time in which the borrower retained the lender's money, perhaps this, too, should constitute a violation of Ri'bitt.

Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Israel, 1961-2001), in his work Milveh Hashem (p. 94), wants to rule that such an arrangement does not violate the Torah prohibition of Ri'bitt. On the surface, the extra payment rendered in a case of delayed payment is looked upon by Halacha as a penalty, imposed upon the borrower as an incentive for him to repay on time, rather than as interest on the loan. Indeed, even if the borrower pays the debt a moment after the deadline has passed, he must pay the late-fee, and thus the fee semmingly is not rendered in exchange for the time in which the borrower's money was retained. It rather serves as an incentive for the borrower to pay the debt by the designated deadline.

Nevertheless, Rav Moshe Halevi Z"L writes, although no Torah violation is involved under such an arrangement, the Sages forbade imposing this kind of penalty, as it gives the appearance of Ri'bitt. Furthermore, people might abuse this technique as a means of circumventing the Ri'bitt prohibition. For these reasons, the Sages enacted a law forbidding charging late-fees on interest-free loans.

Similarly, as the Shulhan Aruch establishes in Yoreh Dei'a (177:17), a borrower may not give the lender as collateral an item valued higher than the loan and stipulate that the lender can keep the collateral if the loan is not paid by the designated date. This arrangement, too, could be misused as a technique to avoid the Ri'bitt prohibition, as lenders will simply take costly possessions of borrowers and keep them if the money is not repaid on time. Although no Torah violation is entailed under such an arrangement, the Sages nevertheless forbade this agreement out of concern that it may lead to widespread violation of the Ri'bitt prohibition.

Summary: It is forbidden – by force of Rabbinic enactment – for a person to give an interest-free loan on condition that the borrower will pay an additional fee if he repays the debt after the designated deadline. Similarly, the borrower may not give the lender collateral valued higher than the loan and stipulate that the lender can keep the collateral if the debt is not paid on time.

 


Recent Daily Halachot...
Non-Mevushal Wine Which is Moved or Touched by a Non-Jew (Summary)
May One give a Bottle of Non-Kosher Wine to a Non-Jew?
Is Rice Which is Cooked by A Non-Jew and then Dried-Out Permissible?
Treating Leftover Bread With Respect
An Explanation of Mevushal Wine
Wine Touched by Muslims Who Practice Monotheism
Cooking Dairy in a Meat Pot
The Prohibition of Poultry and Milk Together
The Prohibition of Meat and Milk Together
Kashrut: Deliveries of Fish
If a Non-Jew Pours a Cup of Wine, Does the Wine Remaining in the Bottle Become Forbidden?
If a Non-Jew Touched Kosher Wine Intentionally to Make it Forbidden; The Status of Wine Looked Upon by a Non-Jew
The Status of Kosher Wine That Was Mixed With Non-Jewish Wine
Under What Circumstances Does Wine Becomes Forbidden When it is Handled by a Gentile?
The Definition of Yayin Mebushal and the Status of Pasteurized Wine
Page of 239
3585 Halachot found