Daily Halacha Tuesday 6th Marcheshvan: Is It Permitted to Lend or borrow Money with Interest to or from a non-Frum Jew?

Is It Permitted to Lend or borrow Money with Interest to or from a non-Frum Jew?[1]

In today’s modern economic landscape, it is increasingly common for observant Jews to engage in business transactions with secular or non-observant Jewish individuals. These interactions often involve financial arrangements that include interest-bearing loans, whether in personal lending, real estate, or broader commercial ventures. While such practices may seem routine in the secular world, they raise significant halachic concerns rooted in the Torah prohibition against charging or paying interest (ribis) between Jews. This article aims to clarify the halachic parameters surrounding these situations, particularly in relation to lending to non-religious Jews.

A. Halachic Background:

The severity and prohibition against lending to a Jew with Ribis: The Torah[2] prohibits a Jew from lending money with interest to another Jew.[3] This prohibition is considered a serious transgression, rooted in multiple verses in the Torah, and violations six distinct commandments.[4] Charging interest is not only prohibited by Torah law—it is regarded by the Sages as a transgression of great severity, likened to a denial of God and the Exodus from Egypt.[5] The spiritual consequences include exclusion from the resurrection of the dead[6], and material consequences, including the eventual loss and destruction of one’s wealth.[7]

The allowance and Mitzvah to lend to a gentile:[8] In contrast to the severe prohibition against lending to a Jew with Ribis, it is permitted to lend with interest to a non-Jew.[9] In fact, according to some Poskim[10], it is even a positive commandment to do so, and it is hence forbidden to lend a Gentile money without interest[11] [i.e. an interest fee loan], unless the Gentile is an acquaintance of the Jew[12], and so is the ruling of Admur. Now, although the sages limited the allowance of lending with biblical interest to a Gentile to only those cases in which it is necessary for one’s livelihood or if one is a Torah scholar[13], nonetheless, today the custom is to permit it entirely, and so is the final ruling, that there’s no longer any restriction in this matter.[14]

The question regarding lending with interest to a non-religious Jew: The above halachic framework raises a nuanced and important question: What is the status of lending money with interest to a Jew who does not observe Torah and Mitzvos—commonly referred to as a secular or non-observant Jew, and referred to in Halachic terminology, as a “Mumar”? Does the prohibition of Ribbis apply equally to all Jews regardless of their level of observance? Or is there room within halacha to treat a secular Jew differently in this context, perhaps akin to the halachic category of a non-Jew?

The status of Mumarim regarding other Halachos: Indeed, we find in various areas of halacha that individuals who are classified as “mumarim” may, under certain circumstances, be treated similarly to non-Jews in specific legal contexts.[15] Examples of such treatment include Tefillin Production by which we rule that a Mumar cannot be a Sofer to write Tefillin.[16] Likewise, regarding Shechita we rule that a mumar is disqualified from performing ritual slaughter.[17] Likewise, some Poskim[18] rule that all foods that are forbidden to be eaten if baked by a gentile are forbidden to be eaten if baked by a Mumar.

The Limits of Halachic Exclusion – A Mumar Remains a Jew: While certain halachic categories may treat a mumar similarly to a non-Jew in specific contexts, as explained above in the examples, it is crucial to recognize that a mumar remains a Jew in many fundamental areas of halacha. For example, by Marriage and Divorce; If a Jew marries a mumar, the marriage is halachically valid.[19] Consequently, should the couple separate, a proper get (Jewish divorce document) is required. Likewise, a mumar is still bound by the commandments of the Torah. Their transgressions do not exempt them from halachic responsibility.[20] Now, the prohibition against borrowing with interest (lo tikach me’ito neshech) applies to the borrower as well, regardless of their level of observance.[21] This leads to a compelling consideration: Even if one were to argue that lending with interest to a mumar is permitted being that he is similar to a gentile regarding these laws, the mumar themselves would perhaps still be prohibited from borrowing or lending with interest. Consequently, this could undermine or even nullify any leniency that might otherwise permit a religious Jew to engage in such a transaction.

Defining the Mumar:[22] Another important point: Even if one were to accept the premise that lending with interest to a mumar may be halachically permissible, a critical question remains: Who qualifies as a mumar in this context? Halachic literature presents a range of definitions and categories for a mumar, each with distinct implications.[23] The term itself is not monolithic and can refer to various types of transgressors:

• Mumar le’kol haTorah kulah: One who rejects the entirety of Torah observance.
• Mumar le’davar echad: One who habitually transgresses a specific commandment.
• Mumar l’avodah zarah: One who has converted to another religion or engages in idolatry.
• Mumar le’chalel Shabbat b’farhesya: One who publicly desecrates Shabbat, often considered a benchmark for communal exclusion in halachic contexts.

• Mumar Le’hachis:[24] A Jew who intentionally transgresses Torah commandments not out of desire or convenience, but specifically to provoke or rebel against God.
• Mumar Le’teiavon:[25] A Jew who transgresses Torah commandments out of desire or convenience, and not specifically to provoke or rebel against God.
• Min or Apikores:[26] A Jew who denies fundamental principles of faith—such as belief in God, the divine origin of the Torah, or the authority of mitzvot—is classified in halacha as a min or apikores, and may be subject to distinct legal status in certain areas of Jewish law.

Each of these categories carries different halachic consequences. For example, a mumar l’avodah zarah may be treated in some respects as a non-Jew, while a mumar le’davar echad—such as one who keeps Shabbos but eats non-kosher food—may still retain certain halachic privileges and obligations. Furthermore, the question arises whether ideological positions, such as atheism or denial of Torah authority, affect one’s halachic status. Is a Jew who does not believe in the divine origin of the Torah or the binding nature of mitzvot considered a mumar? And if so, to what extent does this impact the laws of ribbis?

The Status of a Tinok Shenishba – A Further Complication: Adding further complexity to this halachic discussion is the concept of the tinok shenishba. This term, as used by the Sages, refers to a Jew who was raised without knowledge or exposure to Torah and mitzvot due to circumstances beyond their control. In modern times, many halachic authorities have applied this classification to secular Jews who were raised in environments devoid of traditional Jewish education or observance. This raises a critical question: Even if an individual Jew is guilty of transgressions that would otherwise classify them as a mumar, perhaps they are considered a tinok shenishba, and perhaps the prohibition of Ribis applies to a Mumar Jew who is a Tinok Shenishba?

The four questions that remain to be clarified:

Based on the above background, determining whether or not it is permitted to lend money with interest to a non-religious Jew—or to borrow money with interest from one—would be dependent on many factors, including:

• Does there exist a Halachic exemption to lend or borrow money to a Mumar with interest just as we rule by a gentile?
• If yes, then which transgressions or heretical beliefs halachically classify a person as a mumar regarding this exemption?
• Even if defined as a Mumar regarding this exemption, is an individual who is considered a tinok shenishba, included in the exemption?
• If not, then what is the definition of a tinok shenishba?

Indeed, the answers to many of these issues remain the subject of significant debate among the Poskim, often resulting in varying Halachic rulings and differing practices across communities. The following article will present an overview of the opinions and the final rulings.

B. The Law:

Borrowing money with interest from a non-Frum Jew:[27] According to all opinions, it is forbidden to borrow money with interest from any Jew—even one who is non-observant and classified under the most severe categories of Mumamr, such as a mumar le’hachis or a mumar or even Aduk l’avodah zarah [i.e. a priest for idolatry].[28]

Lending money with interest to a non-Frum Jew: Some Poskim[29] rule that it is permitted for one to lend money with interest to a person who is defined as a Mumar.[30] Other Poskim[31], however, rule that it is forbidden for one to lend money with interest even to a person who is defined as a Mumar[32] [and it is likewise forbidden to lend him money without Ribis, and hence one should avoid lending him money whenever possible[33]]. Practically, the Poskim[34] conclude that this matter is dependent on the severity of the Mumar status, by which we find two approaches, as will be explained next.

First approach – Defining a Mumar regarding Lending with Ribis exemption:[35] Some Poskim[36] rule that regarding the allowance of lending money with Ribis to a Mumar, a Mumar is defined only as someone who reaches the category of application of Moridin Velo Maalin [capital punishment][37], which practically includes only a Mumar for Avoda Zara[38], or a Mumar Lehachis[39], or a Min and Apikores who denies the sanctity of the Torah or prophecy.[40] Furthermore, the allowance only applies in cases where the individual has completely severed ties with the Jewish congregation and community, to the extent that there is no realistic hope for their children to return to a life of Jewish observance or affiliation.[41] Thus, according to this opinion, it is forbidden to lend money with interest to any Jew who does not worship idolatry and is not a Mumar Lehachis and is not a Min and Spikores, even if he transgresses Shabbos in public and is not religiously observant [i.e. is Mumar Lechol Hatorah Kulah] and is no longer affiliated with the Jewish community.[42] Furthermore, it is forbidden to lend money with interest even to a Jew who engages in idolatry, if he remains affiliated with the Jewish community.[43] Furthermore, within this category, some Poskim[44] rule that only an Aduk for Avoda Zara [i.e. a priest] has the application of Moridin Velo Maalin, and not a worshipper of Avoda Zara who is not a priest. However, other Poskim[45] rule that any Mumar for Avoda Zara has the application of Moridin Velo Maalin even if he is not Aduk [i.e. a priest]. Consequently, even regarding this definition of a Mumar for Ribis exemption there exists a debate with regards to who it applies for, as according to the first opinion brought above it only applies to a person who is a priest for idolatry who has left the Jewish community, in which case one may lend money to him for interest. However, one who is not a priest for idolatry, even if he personally serves idolatry and identifies as part of an idolatrous religion and has left the Jewish community, it remains biblically forbidden to lend him money with interest.[46] On the other hand, according to the second opinion brought above, it is permitted for one to lend money with interest to any Jew who worships idolatry or identifies with an idolatrous religion and has left the Jewish community,  even if he is not a priest or within the clergy. Practically, the main ruling follows this latter opinion and hence from the letter of the law it is permitted to lend money with interest to such a Jew, although it is proper to be stringent like the former opinion whenever it is possible for one to avoid lending him money altogether [even without Ribis[47]].[48] However, to lend money with interest to a Jew who does not worship idolatry remains forbidden according to either opinion within this approach even if he is not observant of Torah and Mitzvos. [To summarize: According to this approach, lending money with interest to a mumar is only permitted if: (a) the individual is classified as a mumar for idolatry or defiant sin (le’hachis) and falls under the category of moridin velo maalin, (b) he has completely severed ties with the Jewish community in which case there is no realistic hope for his children to return to Jewish observance, (c) and, according to some poskim, he must be a priest (aduk) of idolatry—though others permit it even if he is not a priest.]

Second approach – Defining a Mumar regarding Lending with Ribis exemption:[49] Some Poskim[50] completely argue on the above definition which defines a Mumar for the allowance of lending money with Ribis as a Mumar who reaches the application of Moridin Velo Maalin. Rather they rule that it applies to any Mumar Jew to whom we exempt from applying the Mitzvah of Lehachyoso, to support and assist him in living [i.e. Lo Moridin Velo Maalin].[51] Thus, by any Jew by whom we rule that there is no mitzvah Lehachyoso, and on the contrary that it is forbidden Lehachyoso, then it is also permitted to lend him money with interest even if he is not defined as Moridin Velo Maalin. [This would include all forms of Mumarim, even if they are not idol worshipers, and would seemingly include all nonobservant Jews who desecrate Shabbos in public.[52]]

The final ruling:[53] Practically, being that we’re dealing with a dispute regarding a biblical prohibition of lending with interest to a Jew, therefore one is to be stringent like the first approach not to lend money with interest to any Jew who is not defined as Moridin Velo Maalin even if he is nonobservant. [This however only applies by biblical interest prohibitions, however by rabbinical interest prohibitions, one may be lenient like the second approach. [54]]

The law by a Tinok Shenishba:[55] Whether or not it is permitted to lend money with interest to a Jew who is classified as a tinok shenishba depends on the two opinions brought above: if the determining factor for permitting ribbit is that the individual is a min who falls under the category of moridin velo maalin, then a tinok shenishba—who is not considered willfully rebellious—would not qualify, and it would remain biblically forbidden to lend him money with interest; however, if the exemption is based on the absence of the mitzvah to sustain (lehakayim) such an individual, then since this mitzvah does not apply to a tinok shenishba, it would be permitted to lend him money with interest. Thus, according to some Poskim[56] it is forbidden to lend money with interest to a Tinok Shenishba[57], while according to other Poskim[58] it is permitted to lend money with interest to a Tinok Shenishba. [59] Practically, one is to be stringent like the first approach not to lend money with Biblical interest to any Jew who is not defined as a Tinok Shenishba.[60] [However by rabbinical interest prohibitions, one may be lenient like the second approach.[61]] Now that we have established that it is forbidden to lend money with interest to a Tinok Shenishba, what remains to be clarified is the definition of a Tinok Shenishba.

Defining a Tinok Shenishba:[62] The most basic definition of a Tinok Shenishba, which is not under debate, is a child who has been brought up in a home of heresy.^[63] This can be whether due to him having been kidnapped from a very young age by heretics or Gentiles and being brought up in their home, or due to simply being switched at the hospital and going home with the wrong set of parents who are Gentiles, or due to the fault of their parents, such as if the parents gave the child up for adoption to gentile parents, or the mother intermarried and the child was brought up in a Gentile home. In all these cases the child is defined as a Tinok Shenishba and not an Apikores even after he becomes Bar and Bas Mitzvah, and applies whether he simply has heretical beliefs or is brought up in a different religion such as Islam, Christianity, etc. and practices them. However, while the above definition of Tinok Shenishba certainly applies so long as the child does not even know that he’s really Jewish, it is debated in the Rishonim and Poskim whether it still applies even after he discovers his Jewish identity. Some Poskim^[64] rule that once the Tinok Shenishba is made aware of his Jewish identity and of the Jewish people and their observance of Torah and Mitzvos, then if he still continues in his ways of nonobservance, then he loses the status of a Tinok Shenishba and is considered like a regular Apikores. Other Poskim^[65], however, rule that he continues to be considered a Tinok Shenishba even after he discovers his Jewish identity and the Jewish religion. Practically, the main opinion follows this latter approach.^[66] Furthermore, even according to the dissenting opinion which holds that they are considered like heretics, the level of exposure that is necessary for them to leave their status of Tinok Shenishba, is so high that today there virtually no longer exists any Apikorsom, even if a child was brought up observant and then went off the Derech.^[67] Furthermore, even if this level of exposure has been reached, the person retains the status of a Tinok Shenishba until he is properly given reproof for his mistaken ways^[68], and hence since today people no longer know how to give reproof even if they try, therefore almost all nonreligious Jews today retain the status of a Tinok Shenishba.^[69] [These two later reasons can be used to justify the status of Tinok Shenishba even those who were brought up religious and then went off the Derech, so long as they have not had full and true exposure to the truths of Judaism, it’s philosophies, and its miraculous nature and given proper rebuke.]

C. The final conclusion:

Borrowing with interest: According to all opinions, it is forbidden to borrow money with even Rabbinical interest from any Jew even if he is non-observant and classified under the most severe categories of Mumar, such as a mumar le’hachis or a mumar or even Aduk l’avodah zarah [i.e. a priest for idolatry]. 

Lending with Biblical interest: What comes out from all the above is that according to the opinion of the Admur, lending money with Biblical interest to a Mumar is only permitted under the fulfillment of three specific conditions:

• Mumar for Avodah Zarah, or Min, or Apikores, or Mumar Lehachis: The individual must be a mumar specifically for idolatry (Avodah Zarah) or be defined as a Min, or Apikores, or Mumar Lehachis. An individual who is a mumar for the entire Torah and publicly desecrates Shabbos (mechalel Shabbat b’farhesya) nevertheless, it is prohibited to lend to him with interest.

Aduk: Some authorities require that if he is a Min for Avoda Zara, he must be aduk (attached/devoted) to idolatry, such as a priest (komer), and one should initially be stringent like this opinion.

• Yotzei Min HaKelal: He must be considered as having left the Jewish community (yotzei min hakelal). If he remains within the Jewish community, lending with interest is prohibited.
• Not a Tinok Shenishba: He must not be classified as a tinok shenishba.

Thus, it follows that, according to Admur’s position and that of many contemporary Poskim[70], there are virtually no non-religious Jews today to whom it would be halachically permissible to lend money with Biblical interest. This is primarily due to the fact that most secular Jews today remain within the Jewish community in various social, cultural, or familial ways, and are widely considered by many authorities to be tinokos shenishbu. Therefore, the practical application of this leniency is extremely limited, if not entirely inapplicable, in contemporary times.

Lending with Rabbinical interest: While lending with biblical interest (ribis d’oraita) to a non-religious Jew is generally prohibited unless stringent conditions are met, by rabbinical interest (ribis d’rabbanan) one may choose to be lenient by all non-religious Jews even if defined as Tinokos Shenishbu.[71] However there is room to be stringent even regarding rabbinical Ribis.[72]

Lending without interest: Some Poskim[73] learn that it is forbidden to lend a Mumar money even without Ribis, and hence one should avoid lending him money whenever possible. [Practically however today almost all non-religious Jews are defined as a tinoko shenishbu, by which it is permitted to lend them money without interest.[74]]

Other approaches regarding lending with interest:

While the above conclusion is certainly the conclusion according to the final rulings of Admur, one cannot ignore the fact that some Rabbanim[75] adopt more lenient positions, permitting lending with Biblical interest for any non-observant Jew today either due to the fact that they rule that it is permitted to lend with biblical interest even to a Jew who is classified as a Tinok Shenishba [2^nd approach above], or based on the view that in contemporary times, this classification no longer applies being that in todays modern world all Jews are exposed to Judaism [dissenting opinion above regarding definition of Tinok Shenishba].

[1] See Admur Hilchos Ribis Halacha’s 76-80; Bris Pinchas 2:7-8; Bris Yehuda [Bloy] 30:8-18; Malveh Hashem [Levi] 5:18;

[2] Shemos 22:24; Vayikra 25:36-37; Devarim 23:20

[3] Admur Hilchos Ribis Halacha 1

[4] Rambam Malveh Veloveh 4:2; Chidushei Rav Akiva Eiger 160:1; See Admur ibid

The lender who charges interest transgresses six Torah prohibitions, as follows:

• “Do not give him your money with interest” – Vayikra (Leviticus) 25:37
• “Do not give him your food for increase” – Vayikra (Leviticus) 25:37
• “Do not place interest upon him” – Shemot (Exodus) 22:24
• “Do not take from him interest and increase” – Vayikra (Leviticus) 25:36
• “Do not be to him as a creditor” – Shemot (Exodus) 22:24
• “Do not place a stumbling block before the blind” – Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:14

[5] Admur Hilchos Ribis Halacha 2; Michaber Y.D. 160:2; Tur 160:2; Rambam Malveh Veloveh 4:7; Bava Metzia 71a

[6] Admur Hilchos Ribis Halacha 2; 1^st answer in Tosafus Bava Metzia 70b; Pirkei Derebbe Eliezer end of chapter 33; Kesef Mishneh and Lechem Mishnah Hilchos Melachim end of Chapter 9; See Beis Shmuel E.H. 5:16; Rav Chidka in Sanhedrin 56b

[7] Admur Hilchos Ribis Halacha 2; Michaber ibid; Tur ibid; Bava Metzia ibid

[8] See Admur Hilchos Ribis Halacha 75; Michaber Y.D. 159:1; Rambam Malveh Veloveh 5:1; Mishneh Bava Metzia 70b

[9] The reason: As the verse explicitly states “your brother” hence excluding a Gentile. [See Admur ibid 77; Bach 159:1; 2^nd reason in Ramban and Nimukeiy Yosef Bava Metzia 71a] Or alternatively, as there is no reason to include Gentiles within the prohibition. [Bach ibid] Or alternatively because the verse connects the prohibition on the mitzvah to support and give life to a fellow Jew, and one is not commanded to support and give life to a gentile. [Admur ibid Halacha 80 in parentheses; Taz 159:3; Tur 159:1; Tosafus Avoda Zara 26b; Rosh Bava Metzia 5:52; See Bach ibid] See Hilchos Nizkeiy Guf Vinefesh Kuntrus Achron 3 where all three reasons are mentioned; These alternative reasons lead to a practical ramification regarding the law of lending money with interest to a Mumar, as we will see.

[10] Admur Hilchos Ribis Halacha 75 based on Devarim 23:21; Rambam Malveh Veloveh 5:1; Sefer Hamitzvos Rambam Asei 198; Sifri Parshas Ki Seitzei; Ran Bava Metzia 70b; Bach 159; Shelah Hakdama Torah Shebichsav; See Likkutei Sichos 12:115

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that there is no Biblical command or Mitzvah to lend money with interest to a Gentile and hence one who does so does not fulfill any command. [Implication of Michaber 159:1; Raavad on Rambam ibid; Ramban Bava Metzia 70b; Rashba Bava Metzia 70b; Meiri Bava Metzia 70b; Ritva Bava Metzia 70b; Hashlama Bava Metzia 70b; Semag Lavin 191; Semak 260; Hagahos Maimanis ibid Beis; Haterumos 4:9]

[11] Admur ibid; Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos Asei 198; Tosafus ibid; Shelah ibid; Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 573; Bris Yehuda 30:1; Malveh Hashem 5:1

The reason: As by doing so one transgresses the above positive command to lend a Gentile with interest. In addition, this transgresses the prohibition of giving a free gift to a Gentile, known as Lo Sichaneim. [Admur ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that there is no prohibition against lending an interest free loan to a Gentile even if he is not one’s acquaintance. [All Poskim who rule there is no Mitzvaas Asei involved and Ran ibid even according to Rambam ibid; Malveh Hashem 5 footnote 7 that there is no Lo Sichaneim being that it’s not a gift but a loan]

[12] Implication of Admur ibid; Bris Yehuda 30:1; Malveh Hashem 5:1

[13] Michaber Y.D. 159:1; Tur 159:1; Rambam Malveh Veloveh 5:2; Rav Huna in Bava Metzia 70b; Omitted from Admur ibid

The reason: As doing so involves one having communication with gentiles which can lead to learning from the ways of the Gentiles. [Shach 159:1; Bava Metzia ibid]

[14] Michaber and Rama ibid; Tur ibid; Tosafus Bava Metzia ibid; Piskei Harosh 5:52; Shach 159:2; Taz 159:2

The reason: As in any event today all of our businesses are done when Gentiles and hence there is no added concern of fraternization when we lend them with interest. [Shach ibid; Taz ibid]

[15] Admur O.C. 39:1 “He is like a gentile for all matters”; Michaber Yoreh Deah 2:5 “He is like a gentile”; Admur Y.D. 2:10 “He is a like a gentile regarding Shechita and for the entire Torah, except for Kiddushin”; Rashba 7:53; Tiferes Lemoshe 113:9 [brought in Pischeiy teshuvah 113:1] regarding Bishul Akum [however not Pas Akum]; Erech Hashulchan 112:2; Kaf Hachaim 112:11; Ketzos Hashulchan 101:5 and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72: “Anyone who publicly desecrates Shabbos is considered like an idle worshiper and [thus] if he touches wine he forbids it, and the bread which he bakes is like Pas Akum, as well as the food which he cooks is like Bishul Akum.”

[16] Admur 39:1; See Michaber 39:1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 2:35; 39:2

[17] Michaber Yoreh Deah 2/5 “He is like a gentile”; Admur Y.D. 2/10 “He is a like a gentile regarding Shechita and for the entire Torah, except for Kiddushin”

[18] Tiferes Lemoshe 113:9 [brought in Pischeiy teshuvah 113:1] regarding Bishul Akum [however not Pas Akum]; Erech Hashulchan 112:2; Kaf Hachaim 112:11; Ketzos Hashulchan 101:5 and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72

[19] Admur Y.D. 2:10; Michaber E.H. 44:9

[20] See Admur 128:52; Hilchos Ribis Halacha 77; Michaber O.C. 128:39; Rambam Tefila 15:6; Igeres Hashemad of Rambam in great length; Rashal on Tur, brought in Derisha 159:2; Teshuvos Maharam 199; Derisha 159:2

[21] Admur Hilchos Ribis Halacha 1

[22] See Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 43 Erech Moridin Velo Maalin pp. 241-248

[23] See Admur O.C. 39:1 Hilchos Tefillin: A heretic is  defined as one who is a Mumar for the entire Torah, even if it is only due to self-gratification [“Leteiavon”] and not do due to lack of belief, or does not believe in all of the Mitzvos and hence transgresses one of the prohibitions without care even if he can easily avoid it. Certainly, one who serves idolatry, or desecrates Shabbos in public, or is a Mumar towards even one sin due to purely rebellious motives [“Lehachis”], is Biblically invalid to write Tefillin. If they did so, it is invalid, even if they wrote the Tefillin Lishma.

[24] See Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 43 Erech Moridin Velo Maalin pp. 246-251

[25] See Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 43 Erech Moridin Velo Maalin p. 255

[26] See Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 43 Erech Moridin Velo Maalin p. 252

[27] Admur Hilchos Ribis Halacha 76; Michaber Y.D. 159:2; Tur 159:2; Tosafus Avoda Zara 26b; Rosh Bava Metzia 70b; Nimukei Yosef 42a; Rabbeinu Tam; Ramban Bava Metzia 71b; Mordechai Bava Kama Remez 194; Ran

[28] The reason: Even though such individuals are not considered “brothers” in certain halachic contexts, it is nevertheless forbidden—according to all opinions—to borrow money with interest from them. This prohibition is based on the verse “Do not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Vayikra 19:14), as well as the verse “Do not charge your brother interest” (Devarim 23:20), which applies even if the lender is a mumar (transgressor). The reason for this is because even though the apostate is not considered a ‘brother’ in our eyes, we are considered brothers in his eyes, and he remains commanded to not take interest from his brothers, as even if he has sinned, he remains a Jew. Hence, the one who gives him interest transgresses the prohibition of ‘you shall not cause your brother to take interest,’ which is a warning to the borrower not to cause the lender to sin. [Admur ibid; Tur 159:2; Shach 159:3; Sanhedrin 44a]

[29] Admur ibid Halachas 76-80 [however depends on type of Mumar]; Michaber Y.D. 159:2; Tur 159:2; Tosafus Avoda Zara 26b; Rosh Bava Metzia 70b; Nimukei Yosef 42a in name of Rabbeinu Tam; Ramban Bava Metzia 71b; Mordechai Bava Metzia Remez 335 in name of Riy; Ran Bava Metzia ibid; Hagahos Maimanis on Rambam ibid Os Alef; sefer Haterumos Shaar 46 1:5

[30] The reason: As the verse connects the prohibition of Ribis on the mitzvah to support and give life to a fellow Jew [the verse “your brother shall live with you” (Vayikra 25:36)], and one is not commanded to support and give life to a Mumar. [Admur ibid 80 in parentheses; Opinion in Hilchos Nizkeiy Guf Vinefesh Kuntrus Achron 3; Tur 159:2; Taz 159:3; Tur 159:1; Tosafus Avoda Zara 26b; Rosh Bava Metzia 5:52] Or alternatively, because such individuals have the status of Moridin Velo Maalin, and if their bodies are Hefker all the more so their money. [See Admur ibid Halacha 76] Or alternatively, as the verse explicitly states “your brother” hence excluding a Mumar. [See Admur 77; Bach 159:1; 2^nd reason in Ramban and Nimukeiy Yosef Bava Metzia 71a] See Hilchos Nizkeiy Guf Vinefesh Kuntrus Achron 3 where all three reasons are mentioned; See below for the ramifications between the reasons!

[31] Rama Y.D. 159:2 in name of Yeish Machmirim and concludes that it is proper for one to be stringent not to lend him money if one is able to avoid doing so; Mordechai Bava Metzia Remez 335; Hagahos Maimanis on Rambam ibid 5:1 Os Alef in name of Rashi Teshuvos 175; Ravayah end of 151; Semag Asei 162; Maharil p. 623; Rashal on Tur, brought in Derisha 159:2 in name of Rashi; Teshuvos Maharam 199; Derisha 159:2

[32] The reason: As even apostate Jew remains a Jew and must abide by all the commands, which includes not to borrow with Ribis. [Derisha ibid; Ravayah ibid]

[33] Implication of wording of Rama ibid; Implication of Admur Halacha 76 regarding Mumar of Moridin Velo Maalin but not Aduk; Pischeiy Teshuvah 159:4 in name of Teshuvos Tiferes Tzevi Y.D. 63:5; Bris Pinchas 2:7; Bris Yehuda 30:9

[34] Admur ibid Halachas 76-80; Shach 159:4; Beis Yosef 159; Darkei Moshe 159:2; Bach 159

[35] See Admur ibid Halachas 76, 78

[36] Admur ibid Halacha 76 and 78; Bach ibid; Rosh 52, brought in Bach and Beis Yosef ibid; Tosafus Avoda Zara 26b; See Shach ibid; Chiochmas Adam 130:7; Ben Ish Chaiy Vaeschanon 2:5

[37] The reason: As since his body is considered ownerless and may be destroyed, certainly this applies to his money which may likewise be destroyed or taken through any scheme possible. Now, there is no concern that his descendants will return to Judaism, as he has assimilated among the nations.” [Admur ibid 76; One reason brought in Hilchos Nizkeiy Guf Vinefesh Kuntrus Achron 3; Ramban ibid; Nimukei Yosef ibid; Mordechai ibid in name of Riy; Bava Kama 119a; Derisha ibid; Ravayah ibid]

[38] Admur Halacha 76; Michaber Y.D. 158:2; C.M. 428:5; Rambam Rotzeiach 4:10; Avoda Zara 26b

[39] Admur Halacha 78; Hilchos Nizkeiy Guf Vinefesh 10; Bava Kama 119a; Beis Yosef 158; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 43 Erech Moridin Velo Maalin pp. 246-251

[40] Admur Halacha 78; Michaber Y.D. 158:2; Rambam Rotzeiach 4:10; Bava Kama 119a; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 43 Erech Moridin Velo Maalin pp. 246-251

[41] Admur ibid Halacha 76 and 78; Bach ibid; Rosh 52, brought in Bach and Beis Yosef ibid; Tosafus Avoda Zara 26b; Ramban Bava Metzia 71b

[42] Admur ibid Halacha 78; See Michaber Y.D. 251:1; Shach 251:3; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 43 Erech Moridin Velo Maalin p. 257 footnotes 235-236

The reason: As a Mumar Lechol Hatorah is not Min Hamoridin at all, and hence his money is not Hefker. [Admur ibid 78; Michaber Y.D. 251:1; Shach 251:3]

[43] Admur ibid Halacha 76 and 78 that this applies according to all; Shach 159:4; Bach 159; Ramban ibid; Nimukei Yosef ibid; Mordechai ibid; Ran ibid

The reason: As although his body is considered ownerless and may be destroyed, nevertheless his money may not be destroyed as perhaps his descendants will return to Judaism and inherit him, as he has not assimilated among the nations.” [Admur ibid 78; See Bava Kama 119a; Michaber C.M. 388:13]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that it is permitted to lend to a Mumar with interest even if he remains affiliated with the Jewish community. [Poskim brought in Bach and Shach ibid]

[44] 2^nd opinion in Admur ibid Halacha 76; Rama 159:2; Rashi Avoda Zara 26b; Ramban, Ran, and Nimukei Yosef ibid in name of Talmidei Rashi; Ravayah 1:151; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 43 Erech Moridin Velo Maalin p. 241 footnote 117

[45] 1^st opinion in Admur Halacha 76; Michaber Y.D. 158:2; C.M. 428:5; Rambam Rotzeiach 4:10; Avoda Zara 26b; ; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 43 Erech Moridin Velo Maalin p. 241 footnote 116

[46] 2^nd opinion in Admur ibid Halacha 76; Poskim ibid

The reason: As a Mumar for Avoda Zara who is not an Aduk is not Min Hamoridin at all, and hence his money is not Hefker. [Admur ibid; Poskim ibid]

[47] Admur Halacha 76 that it is likewise forbidden to lend him money without Ribis; Implication of wording of Rama 159:2; Pischeiy Teshuvah 159:4 in name of Teshuvos Tiferes Tzevi Y.D. 63:5; Bris Pinchas 2:7; Bris Yehuda 30:9

[48] Conclusion of Admur ibid Halacha 76; Rama ibid

[49] See Admur ibid Halacha 80 in parentheses

[50] Opinion in Admur ibid Halacha 80 in parentheses; Shach 159:6 and 8; Darkei Moshe 159:2; Derisha 159:2; Rashal on Tur; Shut Rabbeinu Betzalel Ashkenazi 3; Ramban and Nimukei Yosef on Bava Metzia ibid in name of Teshuvos Rabbeinu Tam

[51] The reason: As the allowance to lend money with interest to a Mumar has nothing to do with the concept of Moridin Velo Maalin and his money being Hefker. Rather, it has to do with the fact that the verse connects the prohibition of Ribis on the mitzvah to support and give life to a fellow Jew [the verse “your brother shall live with you” (Vayikra 25:36)], and one is not commanded to support and give life to a Mumar. [Admur ibid 80 in parentheses; Opinion in Hilchos Nizkeiy Guf Vinefesh Kuntrus Achron 3; Tur 159:2; Taz 159:3; Tur 159:1; Tosafus Avoda Zara 26b; Rosh Bava Metzia 5:52]

[52] See Admur ibid; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 43 Erech Moridin Velo Maalin p. 257 footnotes 235-236

[53] Conclusion of Admur ibid Halacha 80 in parentheses

[54] Implication of Admur ibid; Tziyunim Vihearos 557 on Admur ibid; See Pischeiy Teshuvah 159:4 in name of Teshuvos Tiferes Tzevi Y.D. 63:5 

Other opinions: Some Poskim question that perhaps one is to be stringent even by Rabbinical Ribis according to the ruling of the Rama, which is the first approach brought above. [Malveh Hashem 5:18; See Pischeiy Teshuvah 159:4 in name of Teshuvos Tiferes Tzevi Y.D. 63:5 regarding Avak Ribis who leaves this matter in question and leans to be Matir; Vetzaruch Iyun as the word Mumar perhaps is printing error and should say Moser.] 

[55] See Admur ibid Halacha 79, and 80 in parentheses; Michaber E.H. 4:19; Yevamos 23a

[56] Admur ibid Halacha 79 that this applies according to all; Michaber and Rama Y.D. 159:3; Beis Yosef 159 in opinion of Rambam Mamrim 3:3; Darkei Moshe ibid Mordechai ibid;

[57] The reason: As a Jewish child who was taken captive among the nations is not comparable to an apostate who knows his Creator and rebels against Him—who is a heretic according to the first opinion. However, a Tinok Shenishba did not know his Creator, and even though he later saw Jews and their religion, he is still considered an Annus, since he was raised among the nations and he is not defined as Min Hamoridin at all. [Admur ibid]

[58] Opinion in Admur ibid Halacha 80 in parentheses; Shach 159:6 and 8; Darkei Moshe 159:2; Derisha 159:2; Rashal on Tur; Shut Rabbeinu Betzalel Ashkenazi 3; Ramban and Nimukei Yosef on Bava Metzia ibid in name of Teshuvos Rabbeinu Tam

[59] Conclusion of Admur ibid Halacha 80 in parentheses

[60] Conclusion of Admur ibid Halacha 80 in parentheses

[61] Implication of Admur ibid; Tziyunim Vihearos 557 on Admur ibid; See Pischeiy Teshuvah 159:4 in name of Teshuvos Tiferes Tzevi Y.D. 63:5  

Other opinions: Some Poskim question that perhaps one is to be stringent even by Rabbinical Ribis according to the ruling of the Rama, which is the first approach brought above. [See Pischeiy Teshuvah 159:4 in name of Teshuvos Tiferes Tzevi Y.D. 63:5 regarding Avak Ribis who leaves this matter in question and leans to be Matir; Vetzaruch Iyun as the word Mumar perhaps is printing error and should say Moser.]  

[62] Admur ibid Halacha 79

[63] Admur ibid Halacha 79; Shabbos 68b; Avoda Zara 26a; Rambam Mamarim 3:3; Ramban and Nimukei Yosef on Bava Metzia 110a, brought in Darkei Moshe 159 and Beis Yosef Y.D. 159; Radbaz Mamarim 3:3; Shut Rabbeinu Betzalel Ashkenazi 3

[64] Rama Y.D. 159:3 “and don’t know Toras Yisrael”; Shach 159:6 and 8; Ramban and Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia 42a in name of Rabbeinu Tam, brought in Darkei Moshe 159:2 and Beis Yosef Y.D. 159; Radbaz Mamarim 3:3; Derisha 159:2; Shut Rabbeinu Betzalel Ashkenazi 3; 2^nd opinion in M”B 385:1 regarding Karaits; Igros Moshe E.H. 1:82-22 and 4:59 regarding reform Jews; O.C. 5:28-22 regarding eruvin; Teshuvos Vehanhagos 1:528; 2:564; 5:95; 6:90; Minchas Shlomo 2:4-10 and Halichos Shlomo Pesach 9 footnote 135; Bina Vedaas Miluim in name of Rav SZ”A; Betzeil Hachochma 2:76; Shevet Halevi 9:198; Yissa Yosef 3:97; See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 22

[65] Admur Ribis 79 “A heretic Jewess who has a son from a gentile which is brought up like a heretic just like him, it is forbidden to lend him money with interest according to all opinions, as he is like a child who has been captured by gentiles and is not similar to a real Apikores which is defined as a person who knows his creator and intentionally rebels against him… However, this boy does not know. Now even though afterwards he discovered that he is Jewish and he sees the Jewish people and their religion, he nonetheless maintains the status of an Anuss [i.e. Tinok Shenishba] and according to all is not considered a rebel. Thus, according to all opinions it is forbidden to lend money with interest to Karite Jews, as although they are deniers of the oral tradition, they do not have the status of a Apikores. Being that they are not deniers due to their own will but rather due to the fact that their parents brought them up with this mistake and they are therefore like a Jewish child that has been captured and brought up with their mistake and is defined as an Anuss [i.e. Tinok Shenishba].”; Rambam Mamarim 3:3 “Even though the person afterwards discovered that he is a Jew and he sees the Jewish people and their religion nonetheless he still defined as a Anuss [i.e. Tinok Shenishba] being that he was brought up with that mistake. Therefore, it is proper for one to influence them to do to Teshuvah, and to draw them with words of peace until they return to the strength of the Torah.”; Beis Yosef O.C. 385 and Y.D. 159 regarding Karaits; 2^nd and main opinion in Darkei Moshe 159:2 as rules Rambam and Beis Yosef ibid; 1^st opinion in M”B 385:1 regarding Karaits; Chazon Ish Yoreh Deah 2:6, 16 and 28 and 62:21; Zekan Ahron 12; Binyan Tziyon 23; Milameid Lehoil O.C. 29

[66] This is the main ruling of Admur ibid; Chazon Ish ibid; Rebbe in Likkutei Sichos 2:273; 6:273; 15:198; 26:131; Toras Menachem 51:226; Hisvadyus 5748 4:60; 5750 Shemos p. 144; Mishneh Halachos 14 p. 59

[67] Igros Kodesh Rayatz 2:526 “A person is only defined as an Apikores if he denies the Torah and Mitzvos and in godliness due to his own foreign ideologies which are the result of deep philosophical thought, as was common amongst the philosophers in previous generations. However in our generation, even those who are completely unobservant r”l majority, if not all, of them are very distant from any deep philosophical and ideological understandings and rather are simply drawn after such opinions, and the lack of fulfilling Mitzvos, on the majority is simply because it’s easier that way for their life and not because heaven forbid they are intentionally rebelling and betraying God. Even their transgressions of negative commands is not in order to get G-d angry but rather simply to fulfill their lusts.” “; Chazon Ish Yoreh Deah 2:16 “It appears that the concept of Moridin [i.e. a real Apikores] only applies in the time that the providence of God is revealed, as it was during the times that we witnessed miracles which acted as a sign from heaven, and at a time where there were Tzaddikim of the generation who lived with open miracles that were viewable by all, as in such a case one who still maintains heretical beliefs shows that his intent is simply to rebel …. However, at a time that there is complete concealment of our faith…. Our job is to return them with chains of love and show them the light of the Torah as much as we can.”; Malveh Hashem 5:18

[68] Hagahos Maimanis Deios 6

[69] Ahavas Chesed in name of Hagriy Mulin based on Maharam Melublin; Chazon Ish Yoreh Deah 2:6 and 28

[70] Bris Pinchas 2:8; Malveh Hashem 5:18; Divrei Sofrim 159:3 in Birur Halacha

[71] Implication of Admur Halacha 80; Tziyunim Vihearos 557 on Admur ibid; See Pischeiy Teshuvah 159:4 in name of Teshuvos Tiferes Tzevi Y.D. 63:5 

[72] Malveh Hashem 5:18 being that we are commanded Lehachyoso by a Tinok Shenishba

[73] Implication of wording of Rama 159:2; Implication of Admur Halacha 76 regarding Mumar of Moridin Velo Maalin but not Aduk; Pischeiy Teshuvah 159:4 in name of Teshuvos Tiferes Tzevi Y.D. 63:5; Bris Pinchas 2:7

[74] Bris Pinchas 2:8; Malveh Hashem 1:6 based on Rambam Mamrim 3:3

[75] Heard from Mori Verebbe Harav Yaakov Yosef z”l