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...
The Recitation of “Emet Ve’yasib” After the Morning Shema
Answering “Amen” to a Beracha After Completing “Hashkibenu” at Arbit
Does Minha Precede Musaf if One Did Not Recite Musaf Until the Afternoon?
Reciting the Verse “Yiheyu Le’rason” After the Amida
Laws of Kaddish
Halachot Relevant to Reciting the Verse “Hashem Melech”
Answering to Kadish, Barechu, Kedusha or Berachot During Baruch She’amar
May One Answer “Amen” During Pesukeh De’zimra?
If One is Praying the Amida When the Hazan Reaches Nakdishach
If One Mistakenly Recited Al Ha’mihya Instead of Birkat Ha’mazon
The Latest Time to Recite the Morning Amida, Baruch She’amar and Yishtabah
May a Kohen Interrupt Pesukeh De’zimra or Shema to Participate in Birkat Kohanim?
Upon Arriving Late To Minyan of Arbit
One Who Did Not Recite Minha the Day Before We Begin Reciting “Barech Alenu”
If One Mistakenly Recited “Barechenu” Instead of “Barech Alenu” on the Night of December 4th
Page of 239
3585 Halachot found