I understand that a heter iska is basically a method of restructuring a loan as an investment, done in such a way that the lender/investor is more-or-less guaranteed to get his capital back, plus a share of the profits.

So it's relatively easy to see how this works if the borrower is going to be using the money to start (or expand) a business or the like. How, though, does it work for other types of transactions - whether secured loans such as home mortgages or car loans, or unsecured ones such as credit cards? There too, the lender wants some return on his investment. (Or maybe indeed it can't be made to work in a halachically acceptable manner, and then indeed a Jew would be forbidden to take out one of these kinds of loans from a Jewish-owned bank.)

(The question is really more about how things are done in Israel. I assume it's a non-issue in chutz la'aretz, where most of the financial institutions are owned and managed by non-Jews and there's therefore no problem with outright ribbis.)


3 Answers 3


According to many poskim, a heter iska does not work in such situations. See The Laws of Ribbis, p.395.

There are also many banks in America with some Jewish owners or investors, but that raises a separate issue of partially Jewish-owned corporations.


According to Rabbis Yonah Reiss and Ezra Schwartz (and the latter was reviewing a class given by Rabbi Ben-Haim), heter iska can be used for non-business loans. The reason is that the borrower has other assets, which he has decided not to sell off in order to fund whatever he is using this money for. As such, the retained assets are the investment that is a joint venture, and it can be on that investment that the iska applies.

I'd point out that in the case of a mortgage, while most don't see it as a business venture, there is a reasonable possibility that the asset will increase in value, and as such it is itself an investment.


In some versions of the heter iska contracts, [specifically in the "Heter Iska Bris Pinchas" - see link below] there is a stipulation which states that if the monies received were not directly invested in potentially profit-making venue, the "giver" (the person who gives the money) will receive a share in any potentially profit-making assets which are owned by the receiver of the money. Thus as long as the party receiving the money owns any type of potentially profit-making assets, the heter iska would still be valid even if the funds were not used for a business investment.


  • Welcome to MiYodeya RibbisRabbi and thanks for your first four contributions. Since MY is different from other sites you might be used to, see here for a guide which might help understand the site. Hope to see you around (and you are welcome to contribute beyond ribbit)!
    – mbloch
    Apr 25, 2018 at 2:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .