All Halocha Shailos and Tiffeh Questions

[th0306]

I've seen someone mention on here that when letting someone use your cc you cant tell them to pay the interest.

My brother had such a story and his Rav paskened like that also.

I'm just wondering why isn't it considered that you're an areiv therefore it's like the cc company is lending direct to the other person?

Would it make a difference if the other person is an authorized user on your cc?

Not only is he not allowed to pay the interest, you must agree beforehand that should any interest incur, he will not be liable. (even if he is planning to pay up before any interest incurs).

I heard this from quite a few Rabonim.....

[Definitions]

I'm assuming that with a heter iska  the borrower can pay the interest?

Idk but I would assume so. (Or are you stressing can to mean - can but doesn't have to?)

[ckmk47]

Idk but I would assume so. (Or are you stressing can to mean - can but doesn't have to?)

I just mean halachikly permitted. 
Whatever deal the 2 actually make is up to them.

[Definitions]

Not only is he not allowed to pay the interest, you must agree beforehand that should any interest incur, he will not be liable. (even if he is planning to pay up before any interest incurs).

I heard this from quite a few Rabonim.....

What does the person gain by stating that straight out? If that's the halacha then that's the halacha.

[th0306]

What does the person gain by stating that straight out? If that's the halacha then that's the halacha.

Because if it's not stated from the beginning - it is considered ribis ketzutzah - because the general norm is accepted that the borrower will pay off the interest that he caused - it's considered as if you have actually agreed that he will pay the interest unless you specifically agree otherwise.....

Hope I was clear....

[Definitions]

Hope I was clear....

Yes very

[aygart]

That's why I added in the last question. If he's a legal AU does that make a difference.

But even without that I figured that the bank doesn't care whatsoever who the authorized user is (if you wanted you could've added the AU a second before he borrowed). So they're basically saying lend your card out to whoever you want as long as you will take achrayis.

I know that isn't such a good svara. You can say on paper it isn't true.

I am not really sure what you are trying to say, but what matters is who is the borrower. It is very clear that the borrower is the account holder and that is the only person against whom the bank has recourse unless there is fraud.

[Definitions]

I am not really sure what you are trying to say, but what matters is who is the borrower. It is very clear that the borrower is the account holder and that is the only person against whom the bank has recourse unless there is fraud.

What is a regular AU (he has his own card) considered? לוה, or something else undefined? If he is a לוה who is the מלוה?

You'll say the cardholder is the מלוה.

Why do you say the cardholder is the מלוה rather than an ערב and the bank is the מלוה?

Is it in the cardholder agreement?

[aygart]

Why do you say the cardholder is the מלוה rather than an ערב and the bank is the מלוה?

Because the bank has no recourse to collect from the AU. The AU has no cardholder agreement with the bank at all.

[good sam]

Can you use a Sharpie to paint your tefillin?

[th0306]

What is a regular AU (he has his own card) considered? לוה, or something else undefined? If he is a לוה who is the מלוה?

You'll say the cardholder is the מלוה.

Why do you say the cardholder is the מלוה rather than an ערב and the bank is the מלוה?

Is it in the cardholder agreement?

In a normal case, the AU is supposed to use the card as a shaliach of the cardholder for the cardholder's purchases - and the cardholder is the one who pays the bill.

You seem to be referring to a case where the AU is using it for himself and therefore is supposed to pay the bill himself.

In that case - he is no different than any random guy who is using the card without being assigned as an AU....

[Definitions]

Because the bank has no recourse to collect from the AU. The AU has no cardholder agreement with the bank at all.

I hear.

In a normal case, the AU is supposed to use the card as a shaliach of the cardholder for the cardholder's purchases - and the cardholder is the one who pays the bill.

You seem to be referring to a case where the AU is using it for himself and therefore is supposed to pay the bill himself.

In that case - he is no different than any random guy who is using the card without being assigned as an AU....

Why do you say that a AU is a shliach for the cardholder to make purchases? I don't think that's what it is

[aygart]

I hear.Why do you say that a AU is a shliach for the cardholder to make purchases? I don't think that's what it is

You hear but you don't understand. If you did then you would understand what @th0306 was saying as well.

I am not sure how to make this more clear. The AU does not owe any money to the bank at all. Zero. Nothing. The only one in debt is the cardholder. If the cardholder does not pay the AU can still just tell the bank that he doesn't owe them anything and it is done. This is why an AU account should not be on your CR. If he does not owe anything then how is he getting money from the bank? He is borrowing for the CH. AKA a shliach.

[th0306]

I hear.Why do you say that a AU is a shliach for the cardholder to make purchases? I don't think that's what it is

What do suppose is the intended use of an AU?

[Definitions]

You hear but you don't understand. If you did then you would understand what @th0306 was saying as well.

I am not sure how to make this more clear. The AU does not owe any money to the bank at all. Zero. Nothing. The only one in debt is the cardholder. If the cardholder does not pay the AU can still just tell the bank that he doesn't owe them anything and it is done. This is why an AU account should not be on your CR. If he does not owe anything then how is he getting money from the bank? He is borrowing for the CH. AKA a shliach.

The way I understood what you were saying was that it can't be the AU is a לוה of the bank because the definition of a מלוה is that they can collect from the לוה. Which over here they can't collect from the AU.

But I thought you were saying the AU borrows from the cardholder not for the cardholder.
The only time I can understand that he's borrowing for the CH is by let's say an employer gives an employee a card to buy stuff for him. But by let's say a parent makes a child a AU to use for whatever they want I would think it's different.

(The way you're saying it works avoids something else I was thinking about. If he's borrowing from, what exactly is he borrowing)

My head is starting to spin already 

What do suppose is the intended use of an AU?

The examples above. I don't think it says anywhere in the cardholder agreement that a AU is only to buy stuff for the CH.

[aygart]

But I thought you were saying the AU borrows from the cardholder not for the cardholder.

It is the same thing.

If the AU is not a borrower from the bank yet used the money and owes it then it means that he is borrowing from the CH and in one swoop borrowing from the bank for the CH then borrowing it from the CH. It is not really so complicated. At the end of the transaction, the AU owes the money to the CH who owes it to the bank.

[ah giten]

Can you use a Sharpie to paint your tefillin?

For your kid's play tefillin? Sure why not.

[good sam]

For your kid's play tefillin? Sure why not.

You could have just said you don't know the answer (or even [GASP] not commented).

[ah giten]

You could have just said you don't know the answer (or even [GASP] not commented).

You cannot, as everything in tefillin needs to be מן המותר הפיך.

[good sam]

You cannot, as everything in tefillin needs to be מן המותר הפיך.

That information was already known in the הו"א