[Avodah] haaramah

[Michael Makovi]

> In a slightly different vein I have never understood heter iska when there is no
> business involved, eg taking out a loan to finance a mortgage or a car loan
> or even to go on vacation. According to this classification is this
> still something positive?
>
> --
> Eli Turkel

In The Humanity of Jewish Law by Dayan M. S. Lew, it is pointed out
that the prozbul and heter iska were not only for the sake of the
general continued operation of the economy (although that is a large
consideration), nor was it only for the sake of preventing (via
loophole) an averah by the lenders (although that too was a large
consideration).

A third major consideration was in play: were the prozbul and heter
iska not available, the rich creditors simply wouldn't lend, period.
Who would lose out? The poor.

End of Dayan Lew. Now me:

Without heter iska, the rich would live in houses and drive cars,
while the middle and lower classes would never be able to afford
either in a lump sum; and without any credit, they'd have to live in
huts and drive bicycles. It seems to me, based on Dayan Lew's logic,
that heter iska ought to be extended to houses and cars and such, not
for the sake of the banks, but rather for the sake of the common man.

Otherwise, a law (viz. the prohibition of interest) designed to
benefit the commoner (by prohibiting an increase on his debt) would in
actuality be to his detriment.

Mikha'el Makovi