Ruvein has a credit card in the name of Shimon. however all correspondents of the card is at Ruvein’s address, because according to the bank Shimon has a moved to Ruveins home. Shimon however still resides at his own address but if anything goes wrong the bank can’t reach Shimon because he officially resides at Ruvein. in addition Ruvein has an additional credit card from Shimons account. on the card statements it says that Ruevein made the purchases. but legally Shimon is the one responsible. However if Shimon fails to respond, the Card company will come after Ruvein. the question is given this circumstances, may Ruevin pay the interest on the card?
Shimon is prepared to pay the interest. say the interest is $200. Shimon will lend Ruvein $500 and make a Iske agreement that shimon ernes $200 from the iska and Ruvein will return Shimon $500 plus $200 iska money. is this correct to do הלכה למעשה?
- If the account is in Shimon’s name then he is the one accountable, and he is the one that took the loan from the credit card company. This is regardless of the fact that the credit card company will have a hard time getting a hold of him, because being able to penalize the person that owes the money doesn’t change who actually borrowed it. Additionally, the additional card that Ruvain has, being that Simon is the primary card holder, that means that again he is the one accountable for the loan, and as if he took the loan from the company. Even though Rvain is technically an orev (cosigner) on the loan, Shimon still remains the borrower of the money and if Ruvain pays the ribbis it is considered like he paid Siimon’s debt for him because Shimon lend him money, which is ribbis and not permitted.
- Regarding making an Iska out of it, you cannot make an iska after the money is already owed, and call it a business deal retroactively. Besides, what exactly is the “iska” that you are making at this point? However what can be done, if Ruvain owns real estate, stocks, or has other invested money, they can make an iska in the form that Shimon is investing in the real estate etc. of Ruvain, to the sum of $500, with a return of $700 for his part of the property etc. Then a year later, Ruvain is paying Shimon his part of the iska. It should not be done for a mere short time, because it isn’t realistic, and people don’t make investments into real estate and make such a high return so quickly. Therefore the amount of “return” has to realistic for the amount of time of the iska.
Taz Y:D 170-3,Shut Tshuras Shai 1-23, Bris Pinchos 20-7, 8.