Question
My daughter recently became engaged. We found a wedding hall that was available on the night that was chosen as the wedding date, which is in about four months' time. The proprietor of the hall quoted us a price and offered a ten percent discount if we pay the entire amount within two weeks. I know that sometimes there is an issue of interest when one is offered two prices since obviously the reason for the discount is because the recipient of the money will use the money in the meantime and he is paying for the use by giving us a discount. May I accept his offer or is it indeed a problem of ribis?
Answer
The first point to make is that the transaction that you wish to make with the proprietor of the hall is a rental for the hours that the hall will be in use by you for your daughter's wedding. Therefore, we must study the laws of interest concerning prepayment for a rental of an immovable object.
The Mishna (BM 65A) differentiates between a sale and a rental. It rules that when one sells a field the seller may not offer one price if the buyer pays at the time of the sale and a higher price if the buyer pays later on, such as after the crop has been harvested. Nevertheless, one is allowed to offer a renter one price if he pays the entire year's rent immediately and a higher price if he pays monthly.
The Gemara explains that the rationale for the difference is that one who buys a field must pay upon receipt of the field but one who rents is only obligated to pay rent at the end of the rental period. Therefore, one who pays for a field after he received the field is paying late and, thus what is actually transpiring when the seller agrees to let him pay at a later date is that he is receiving a loan from the seller for the time between when he should have paid and when he did pay. The extra amount that he pays for paying after the time of purchase is rabbinic interest. (It is rabbinic since the transaction was a sale and not a loan.)
In contrast, the renter who pays monthly is paying on time and is not borrowing any money. Therefore, even though the amount he is paying is greater that what he would have paid if he had prepaid, he is paying the right price and not a higher price. Furthermore, the renter is allowed to pay the discounted price for paying earlier. Even though he is benefiting thereby it is not considered interest. (The reason will be clarified below.)
Elsewhere (BB 86B) the Gemara discusses the issue of two prices in the context of salaried workers. The Gemara discusses farm workers who were generally paid one dinar (a coin) per day in Nissan but four dinarim per day at the time of the harvest when there was much greater demand for their services. The Gemara rules that one is not allowed to pay a worker in Nissan thirty dinars to work for thirty days in the harvest season, since at that time wages are much higher. However, if one hires the workers to begin working in Nissan and to continue working through the harvest period, he may pay a dinar a day even for a day in the harvest season since that was the rate at the time that the worker began working. The Rashbam and Tosafos comment that even if one does not work continuously and yet was paid only one dinar for a day's work in the harvest period nevertheless, it not real interest because no loan was extended, but the Rabbonon forbade this practice because it looks like an interest-bearing loan.
Since when one hires a worker he is basically renting the worker, it seems that this ruling should limit the leniency of the earlier section of Gemara concerning property rentals, to property rentals that start immediately at the time of the payment of the discounted price, because only then the rental period begins immediately. However, if one pays a discounted price before the rental period begins, he will violate the laws of interest because it appears that the renter is lending his payment to the owner of the property from the time when he paid until the time that the rental period begins and the interest is the discount that he isa receiving. This is in fact the ruling of Tosafos.
However, Rabbenu Yonah disagrees. He explains that if we follow the usual rules of interest there is nothing wrong with paying a discounted salary to a worker who will begin working later or with renting a property for a discounted price to someone who will begin using the property at a later date. There also is nothing wrong with selling an object that one already owns for a discounted price to someone who will receive the object at a later date because the sale is effective immediately and it is just delivery that is postponed to a later date. The only time it should be prohibited to prepay at a discounted price is when one sells an object he does not yet own since one cannot legally sell something he does not yet own. (It is a devor shelo bo le'olom.)
Similarly, according to the rules of interest there should be nothing wrong with paying a worker a lower salary now to perform work at a later date since the worker exists and he is charging money right now to hire himself now to work and it is just that he will perform the work at a later date. By the same token, one may rent a property for a discounted price to someone who will only move into the property at a later date since the rental is effective immediately and just that the renter will begin using the rental at a later date.
Since according to the usual rules of interest it is permitted to pay a worker a discounted price prior to the employee's beginning to work, the only reason the Gemara prohibited this practice is because in the common man's view it may seem that the money that was given to the future employee is a loan and not payment of a salary. Therefore, they will erroneously conclude that one is allowed to charge interest for a loan as well. The reason people will come to this conclusion is because when one pays a worker who will begin working in the future there are two aspects of the transaction that indicate that the effective date of hiring is when the worker begins working and in the interim the money is a loan. One aspect is that the worker does not begin working immediately upon payment of his salary. The second is that the halacha allows the worker to cancel his commitment and never even begin working. (Of course, he will need to return everything he was paid.)
Rabbenu Yonah concludes that since when one rents out his property for use at a future date neither party may one-sidedly cancel the rental, we do not fear that people will conclude that the money that was paid by the renter constitutes a loan since it is clear that the transaction was effective immediately. Therefore, he disagrees with Tosafos, and maintains that the ruling of the Gemara that one may not pay a discounted salary to employees who will only begin working in the future is limited to employee contracts and does not apply to rental contracts. He cites as proof the first Gemara that was cited above that permitted renting at a discounted price.
The position of Rabbenu Yonah was adopted by the Rashbo, Ritva and Nimukei Yosef. The poskim discuss these two opinions. The Beis Yosef (YD 176) cites the opinion of Tosafos but the Darkei Moshe in his notes on the Beis Yosef writes that the Rashbo, who follows R. Yonah's approach, disagrees. The Shach (Nekudas Hakesef on Taz note 7) comments that the remark of the Darkei Moshe indicates that he maintains that Rabbenu Yonah's position is authoritative and the Shach agrees.
Returning to your question, it thus seems that the hall is allowed to offer you two prices and you may choose either option since you are a renter.
The only reason for concern is a comment of R. Akiva Eiger in the course of his explanation of the Gemara (Drush Vechiddush BM 72B). Because of a difficulty R. A. Eiger had with a ruling of the Gemara concerning one who wishes to sell his cow's future milk production, he suggested that one may only sell or rent out for a discounted price only something that he is capable of giving his customer immediately. Therefore, if someone else rents the property in the interim the owner is not allowed to offer a discount to a renter who will begin using the rental at a future date. This would be a problem for you since the hall that you wish to use for your daughter's chasuna will be rented by others in the interim.
However, while some modern seforim cite R. Akiva Eiger's comment as authoritative, this is an error for two reasons, both of which are pointed out by the Nesivos Sholom (176, 8 note 12). Firstly, R. Akiva Eiger himself only proposed this ruling in the course of his discussion. If one follows his discussion until its conclusion, he sees that even R. Akiva Eiger maintains that there is no basis for forbidding an offer of a discounted price for later use of a property that will be rented to others in the interim. (This is also noted by the commentator on the Rashbo (BB 87A note 21).) Secondly, many Rishonim already addressed R. Akiva Eiger's difficulty and offered alternative solutions.
In conclusion: You may accept either offer of the proprietor.
