The Gemara in 27B questions R'Meir's opinion that you can sell a shule on the condition that the seller can change his mind. The Gemara asks, if the seller changes his mind, it will cause ribbis to occur because it will be as as though the purchaser lent the seller the money and in addition to getting his money back he also had the use of the shule.
1. Why is this scenario treated as a loan. How does that work. Why is it not simply treated as a deal that didn't go through, the seller gets his shule back, the purchaser gets his money back and all the parties are restored to their original positions. why does Ribbis play a role in this scenario at all- it is not at all like the case the gemara brings down of a person who borrows money from his friend and designates a field as the possible repayment of the loan. In that case I can understand the possible Ribbis complications since an actual loan was made. In the case of the Shule it wasn't really a loan, it was a sale that was never finalized- why do we treat that as a loan?
2. I'm sure you will have an answer as to why the case of the shule is treated as a loan. So, my next question is that it seems that the Ribbis the gemara is concerned with is that the purchaser of the shule will not only get his money back ( if the seller backs out)but will have also benefited from the use of the shule during the time that he had it. Why are we not concerned about Ribbis the other way- look at the scenario as though the seller lent the shule to the purchaser. Not only will he get the shule back if he changes his mind, but, he will also have had use of the money that he received. Why do we not look at Ribbis from that angle?
Thanks for your help.
Ari, USA
Dear Ari,
Hello there and thanks for your questions. The explanation is as follows.
1. Since according to R' Meir the buyer is obligated to return the shul in the event that the seller comes up with the money, we view it as if there was no sale at all (as you correctly pointed out). The buyer had use of the shul which did not belong to him, and would normally require monetary compensation. In this case however he does not pay for the usage, but instead the seller had usage of his money. This is pure Ribis. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 174:1) rules this as Ribis Ketzuzah.
2. There is no problem for the seller to receive compensation for the usage of the shul, since the shul was being rented out, and later returns intact minus wear and tear, to the original owner. Regarding the money, the buyer does not get back the original money. It is the seller who bears full responsibility for whatever happens to the money, thus the buyer may not charge compensation for the usage of the money.
I hope this clarifies the issue.
Kol tuv.
Y. Landy
Thanks.
Is there a problem of Ribbis if one jew sells something to another jew and there is a return policy? That would seem to be very similar to the shule case in that the purchaser is getting his money back plus he had the item during the return period?
The one possible distiction I see is that in the case of the shule the seller had the right to rescind whereas in the example of the return policy it is the purchaser who has the right to rescind. Maybe that makes a difference?
Dear Ari,
Hello again.
You raise a very valid point. This indeed would be Ribis. If however the buyer only tried out the item to see if it works properly it would be permissible. If the buyer actually used the item he would be required to pay a fee for using it.
Kol tuv.
Y. Landy