In the Shoah Jud C. X 67 it is explained that against his will the lender is not allowed to take from the borrower because of interest. And since he mentioned in the Shachak there the matter of a multiple gift, it is possible to say, that is, for the matter discussed above, that in his opinion, a gift is forbidden...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In the Shoa Jud C. X. 67 it is explained that against his will the lender is not allowed to take from the borrower because of interest.
And even if it was normal up until now, this is in the Shekh Skat.

And since he mentioned in the Shachak there the matter of a multiple gift, it is possible to say, that is, for the matter discussed above, that in his opinion a large gift is prohibited in the stama and not in terms of relinquishment, but if not in his opinion it is also prohibited in a small gift and in the matter of renunciation, and what the Shach mentioned there his house and his slaves a "F in Sogi' it is explained that it is a matter of renunciation, MM it should be said that they were mentioned because it is forbidden there because it is in the parhasiya in the Shoah, as here in a gift from his mind.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In RMA C. K. S. S. I. Dev interprets that it is for the loan or a large gift even just is prohibited, and in the case of a small gift that is not interpreted as being because of the loan it is allowed, but when he knows in his heart that he is giving the gift because of the loan there is a problem with this even with a small gift...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In Rama C. X. S. S. I. Dev interprets that it is for the loan or a large gift even just is prohibited, and in the case of a small gift that is not interpreted as being because of the loan it is permissible, but when he knows in his heart that he is giving the gift because of the loan there is a problem with this even with a small gift in the stama, and Ibid. In the Shach SKI Daduka is close to the loan, but not in excess of the loan, then a multiple gift in disguise would be permissible, and he added that if he was not used to giving a gift before then it would also be forbidden in disguise (perhaps Damiri is close to the loan and sla'a in the sources he brought there), And concluded that everything depends on the matter, if it is evident that what he does because of the loan is forbidden in any way, and in the 16th century, the person sentenced for the matter will be satisfied with a small gift when in his heart he does so because of the loan in the dispute of the arbitrators.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen