Q&A: Supermarket Shopping and Interest
Supermarket Shopping and Interest
Question
Hello Rabbi,
My brother and I live in the same neighborhood, and for many years we’ve had the practice of doing each other favors and buying things for one another at the supermarket.
Sometimes, in the course of a Friday when I have several stops to make, I don’t write down every expense he asked me to cover exactly,
and then when he asks me how much he owes me, I tell him the amount approximately.
We always say that we waive a few shekels for each other one way or the other.
Let’s say it happened that I charged him a few shekels more than what it actually cost me, but neither of us is particular about the exact amount.
In addition, we don’t always even ask each other to pay, on the assumption that these are small sums and that it can be considered a gift.
Very often we say there is no need to pay, and we are not particular about these amounts.
I saw an answer online that when it comes to a similar case of a mother and son,
and the mother rounds the amount upward when paying back, there is no prohibition of interest here, since it is common for parents to give gifts to their children.
The answer appears at the following link:
https://keter.org.il/keter_questions/%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%97%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%9C-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9B%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A7%D7%A6%D7%AA/
Is there a prohibition of interest here?
And when it is said that someone who lends with interest will not rise at the resurrection of the dead, does that refer to rabbinic interest or Torah-level interest?
Answer
I am too insignificant to understand what will happen at the resurrection of the dead. I assume other people don’t understand that either.
As for your actual question, it seems there is no prohibition here, as in the case of a mother and her son. Especially since there certainly was no fixed stipulation here, so this is rabbinic interest. And in any case, there is a doubt about interest here, which makes it a case of rabbinic doubt, especially if there was waiver from the outset.
Discussion on Answer
Here there is only the mother-based leniency, not the rule of doubt. Still, it seems fine.
That you need to ask him.
I’m asking the Rabbi
what he would rule in the case I mentioned of brothers:
“That my brother and I do not need to change our practice of not settling accounts down to the last shekel, so long as we waive small amounts for each other.
And does this also apply if I tell him it cost 36 shekels and he gives me 40 shekels because he has no change, and tells me that the 4 shekels are a gift?”
In general, what does the Rabbi rule regarding settling accounts between acquaintances and friends over small amounts, where it is clear that all sides waive small offsets?
You’re trolling me.
I ask forgiveness and pardon; I did not mean to troll on this matter, only to look for an answer to a problem that was bothering me.
I answered, and you keep asking again, in my opinion. I wrote what I think.
Thank you to the Rabbi for the answer.
So I understand from the Rabbi that my brother and I do not need to change our practice of not settling accounts down to the last shekel, so long as we waive small amounts for each other.
And does this also apply if I tell him it cost 36 shekels and he gives me 40 shekels because he has no change, and tells me that the 4 shekels are a gift?
It’s clear to me that the Rabbi, or anyone else, doesn’t know what will be at the resurrection of the dead.
What I meant was: where does this aggadic statement about lending with interest come from,
and if someone claims there is no resurrection for one who takes interest at the resurrection of the dead, is he claiming that about all interest, or only Torah-level interest?