"[I]f it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. By "without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance" I mean without causing anything else comparably bad to happen, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent."
Peter Singer, Famine Affluence and Morality, p. 231
"An application of this principle would be as follows: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing...For the principle takes, firstly, no account of proximity or distance. It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away."
Peter Singer, Famine Affluence and Morality, p. 231-232
Questions to Ponder
Do you agree with Peter Singer's conclusion that it makes no difference how far away a person is in determining if you should help them? Do you think that the people who are the easiest to help are likely in your community or very far away? Do you think it is better to help people who are far away or people who are near to you, who you know and interact with?
As we go through these sources let us try and see where there are places of agreement and where there are tensions.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַב הוּנָא אַהָא דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף (שֵׁמוֹת כב, כד) "אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ" עַמִּי וְנָכְרִי עַמִּי קוֹדֵם עָנִי וְעָשִׁיר עָנִי קוֹדֵם עֲנִיֶּיךָ וַעֲנִיֵּי עִירֶךָ עֲנִיֶּיךָ קוֹדְמִין עֲנִיֵּי עִירֶךָ וַעֲנִיֵּי עִיר אַחֶרֶת עֲנִיֵּי עִירֶךָ קוֹדְמִין
There are those who teach that which Rav Huna said in connection with that which Rav Yosef taught: The verse states: “If you lend money to any of My people, even to the poor person who is with you” (Exodus 22:24). The term “My people” teaches that if one of My people, i.e., a Jew, and a gentile both come to borrow money from you, My people take precedence. The term “the poor person” teaches that if a poor person and a rich person come to borrow money, the poor person takes precedence. And from the term: “Who is with you,” it is derived: If your poor person, meaning one of your relatives, and one of the poor of your city come to borrow money, your poor person takes precedence. If it is between one of the poor of your city and one of the poor of another city, the one of the poor of your city takes precedence.
(ג) הַנּוֹתֵן לְבָנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו הַגְּדוֹלִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם כְּדֵי לְלַמֵּד אֶת הַבָּנִים תּוֹרָה וּלְהַנְהִיג הַבָּנוֹת בְּדֶרֶךְ יְשָׁרָה וְכֵן הַנּוֹתֵן מַתָּנוֹת לְאָבִיו וְהֵם צְרִיכִים לָהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה בִּכְלַל צְדָקָה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַקְדִּימוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים וַאֲפִלּוּ אֵינוֹ בְּנוֹ וְלֹא אָבִיו אֶלָּא קְרוֹבוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַקְדִּימוֹ לְכָל אָדָם...וַעֲנִיֵּי בֵּיתוֹ קוֹדְמִין לַעֲנִיֵּי עִירוֹ וַעֲנִיֵּי עִירוֹ קוֹדְמִין לַעֲנִיֵּי עִיר אַחֶרֶת. וְיוֹשְׁבֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל קוֹדְמִין לְיוֹשְׁבֵי חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ: הגה פַּרְנָסַת עַצְמוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לְכָל אָדָם וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב לָתֵת צְדָקָה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ פַּרְנָסָתוֹ וְאַחַ"כּ יַקְדִּים פַּרְנָסַת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אִם הֵם עֲנִיִּים וְהֵם קוֹדְמִים לְפַרְנָסַת בָּנָיו וְאַחַ"כּ בָּנָיו וְהֵם קוֹדְמִים לְאָחִיו וְהֵם קוֹדְמִין לִשְׁאָר קְרוֹבִים וְהַקְּרוֹבִים קוֹדְמִים לִשְׁכֵנָיו וּשְׁכֵנָיו לְאַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ וְאַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ לְעִיר אַחֶרֶת וְהוּא הַדִּין אִם הָיוּ שְׁבוּיִם וְצָרִיךְ לִפְדּוֹתָן (הַכֹּל בַּטּוּר):
(3) Helping one's grown up sons or daughters in need when he is not obliged to support —in order to give his sons an opportunity of studying the Law, or to keep his daughters in the right path—and presenting gifts to one's father in need,—all this comes under the general head of Charity. In fact, such charity is to be preferred to other forms. Not only a father or child, but any relative should be given preference to a stranger; ... the poor of his own house to the poor of the city at large; the poor of his own city to the poor of other cities; and the poor that dwell in the Holy Land to those that dwell in other lands
Rema: Sustaining oneself comes before everyone else. You are not obligated to give charity until you have your own livelihood and afterwards you should prioritize your father and mother if they are poor then your siblings then the rest of your relatives then your neighbors then the people of your town then the people of another town. This is the law regarding someone who is captured and needs to be redeemed.
(ז) שְׁמוֹנֶה מַעֲלוֹת יֵשׁ בַּצְּדָקָה זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ. מַעֲלָה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁאֵין לְמַעְלָה מִמֶּנָּה זֶה הַמַּחֲזִיק בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמָּךְ וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ מַתָּנָה אוֹ הַלְוָאָה אוֹ עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ שֻׁתָּפוּת אוֹ מַמְצִיא לוֹ מְלָאכָה כְּדֵי לְחַזֵּק אֶת יָדוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת לִשְׁאל. וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא כה לה) "וְהֶחֱזַקְתָּ בּוֹ גֵּר וְתוֹשָׁב וָחַי עִמָּךְ" כְּלוֹמַר הַחֲזֵק בּוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִפּל וְיִצְטָרֵךְ:
(ח) פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה הַנּוֹתֵן צְדָקָה לָעֲנִיִּים וְלֹא יָדַע לְמִי נָתַן וְלֹא יָדַע הֶעָנִי מִמִּי לָקַח. שֶׁהֲרֵי זוֹ מִצְוָה לִשְׁמָהּ. ... וְקָרוֹב לָזֶה הַנּוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ קֻפָּה שֶׁל צְדָקָה. וְלֹא יִתֵּן אָדָם לְתוֹךְ קֻפָּה שֶׁל צְדָקָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהַמְמֻנֶּה נֶאֱמָן וְחָכָם וְיוֹדֵעַ לְהַנְהִיג כַּשּׁוּרָה כְּרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן תְּרַדְיוֹן:
(7) There are eight levels in charity, each level surpassing the other. The highest level beyond which there is none is a person who supports a Jew who has fallen into poverty [by] giving him a present or a loan, entering into partnership with him, or finding him work so that his hand will be fortified so that he will not have to ask others [for alms]. Concerning this [Leviticus 25:35] states: "You shall support him, the stranger, the resident, and he shall live among you." Implied is that you should support him before he falls and becomes needy.
(8) A lower [level] than this is one who gives charity to the poor without knowing to whom he gave and without the poor person knowing from whom he received. For this is an observance of the mitzvah for its sake alone. ...
A level close to this is giving to a charity fund. A person should not give to a charity fund unless he knows that the person managing it is faithful, wise, and capable of administering it in a proper manner as Rebbe Chananya ben Tradyon was.
Think back to Bava Metzia 71a, how do you think an effective altruist would respond to the contention that Jews should receive priority in charitable giving? How do you think an effective altruist would respond to having the poor of your city take precedence over the poor of another city? Do you think it is morally better to help a Jew rather than a non-Jew? Do you think it is morally better to help people in your community rather than people who are far away?
How do you think an effective altruist would respond to the directive that one should help the poor rather than the rich? How far do you think that this extends? If you have a very poor person and a moderately poor person who do you think takes priority according to Bava Metzia? If you have a very poor person in Bengal and a moderately poor person in your own town, who do you think should take priority?
Think back to the Shulchan Arukh, do you think it is better to sustain relatives as opposed to people who are far away? Do you think that it is better to sustain people who are in Israel as opposed to other places? Do you think that this is a meaningful moral distinction? How do you think an effective altruist would respond to this? The Rema seems to be saying that one should only give charity when one's own needs are met. What do you think an effective altruist would say?
Think back to the passage in Mishneh Torah, do you think effective altruists would approve of the notion that we should not know the person who we are giving to and the person who is receiving should not know who is giving them the help? (Remember Peter Singer said that it does not matter if the person I am saving is across the street or is in Bengal and I will never know their name.) Do you agree with that moral directive? Do you think there is tension between the Mishneh Torah source and the other sources presented? Why or why not?
(לג) מַעְיָן שֶׁל בְּנֵי הָעִיר, הֵן וַאֲחֵרִים, [הֵן] קוֹדְמִין לַאֲחֵרִים. אֲחֵרִים וּבְהֶמְתָן, חַיֵּי אֲחֵרִים הֵן קוֹדְמִין לִבְהֶמְתָן. ר' יוֹסֵי או' בְּהֶמְתָן קוֹדֶמֶת לְחַיֵּי אֲחֵרִים.
How should we use a spring of water in a particular city? Should the people of the city with the spring of water be able to use it or people in another city? The people in the city with the spring of water get to use the spring before the people in another city. Who should be prioritized the lives of the people in another city or the animals of the people in the city with the spring of water? The lives of the people in the city without a spring of water are prioritized over the animals of people with a spring of water. Rabbi Yose says the animals of the city with the spring is prioritized over the lives of people not in the town with the spring of water.
(לה) אֲחֵרִים וּכְבוּסָתָן, חַיֵּי אֲחֵרִים הֵן קוֹדְמִין לִכְבוּסָתָן, ור' יוֹסִי או' כְּבוּסָתָן קוֹדֶמֶת לְחַיֵּי אֲחֵרִים.
Who should use the spring [mentioned earlier] people in another town or people who just need to do laundry? The lives of people in another town are prioritized over people who just need to do laundry. Rabbi Yose says laundry is prioritized over the people in another town.
(לז) בֶּהֱמַת אֲחֵרִים וּכְבִיסָתָן, בֶּהֱמַת אֲחֵרִים קוֹדֶמֶת לִכְבִיסָתָן.
If one has to decide who gets water from the spring which should get priority, the animals in another town or the laundry of the town? The animals of another town should be watered before the laundry of the town is done.
Do you agree with the Tanna Kamma ( the person who states that the lives of people in another city take precedence over the laundry of the people with the spring) or Rabbi Yose? Why or why not? Do you think an effective altruist would agree or disagree with this source?
Just for context EA = Effective Altruism, that will be helpful as you read the transcript
Here is an excerpt of the transcript. If you want to find the whole thing, motzaei Chag you can Google William Macaskill and Tyler Cowen I feel fairly confident that it will come up:
I often think that this is maybe my biggest difference with EA — that EA has the wrong emphasis, pushing people into the optimization discussions when it should be more about improving the quality of institutions and management everywhere in a way that depends on culture, which is this harder thing to manage. This may even get back to subsidizing Mozart’s Magic Flute. There’s something about the sociology of EA that strongly encourages, especially online, what I would call the optimization mindset. What’s your response to that?
MACASKILL: I think I’m going to surprise you and agree with you, Tyler. I’m not sure it’s about optimization, but here’s a certain critique that one could make of EA, in general or traditionally. It’s like, hey, you have a bunch of nerds. You have a bunch of STEM [science technology, engineering, math] people. The way your brains work will be inclined to focus on technology or technological fixes and not on mushy things, like institutions and culture, but they’re super important. I, at least, think that that criticism has a lot going for that.
I don’t want to wholesale endorse it because often, you just can have technological fixes to what are even sociological problems, where the risk of an engineered pandemic killing hundreds of millions of people. That is, in part, a sociological or political problem because it’s going to be an individual that builds it and does it. We could just solve it with technology, though — early warning detection systems, far UVC lighting that sterilizes wounds. There doesn’t need to be a match between political or sociological problems and political or cultural responses.
But I do think that culture is just enormously important. That’s something I’ve changed my view on and appreciated a lot over the last few years, just as I started to learn more about history, about the cultural evolution literature, about Joseph Henrich’s [this person has done a lot of really interesting research on culture, I have listened to a few podcasts with him] work and our understanding of humanity as a species. Actually, one of my favorite and most underrated articles is by Nathan Nunn. It’s called “History as Evolution,” which I think is extremely good.
COWEN: Yes.
MACASKILL: Actually, my understanding of human beings — rather than homo economicus [this term won't make a ton of sense unless you have some familiarity with economics, if you take an economics course you will realize that economists have a stereotype that people will behave in wildly rational ways that don't model reality well. To see a cool example of this Google Ricardian Equivalence or I can just explain it] , which are mainly motivated by self-interest; you understand that in terms of income — at least when you’re looking at a much broader scale, I think we’re much more like homo culturalis, where people have a view of how the world should be, and they go out and try to make that vision happen.
I think that can have hard-to-measure and very long-run but important effects. I actually see effective altruism, as a whole, as cultural innovation. It’s creating this new subculture, a culture of people who are impartial and altruistically motivated, extremely concerned about the truth and having accurate beliefs.
That is a way in which I think effective altruism could have a big impact, in the same way as the scientific revolution was primarily a cultural revolution — I shouldn’t use that term — primarily a revolution in culture, where people suddenly started innovating, and they started to think in a certain way. It’s was like, “Oh, we can do experiments, and we can test things, and we can tinker.” I actually see effective altruism as a cultural innovation that could drive great moral progress in the future.
Then, should we be doing more in terms of cultural change? One thing I’ll say is, people are doing quite a lot of it — myself promoting concern for future generations in this book, What We Owe the Future, is doing that. An awful lot of people are going to promote cultural change around attitudes to non-human animals.
It is hard to measure, but I think there’s a very big difference between having an optimization mindset — do the best — and having a mindset that’s like, “Therefore, we always need to be able to measure what we’re doing and have some metric that we’re optimizing towards.” That latter thing, I think, is a bit of a straw man against EA.
גּוּפָא מִנַּיִן לְרוֹאֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁהוּא טוֹבֵעַ בַּנָּהָר אוֹ חַיָּה גּוֹרַרְתּוֹ אוֹ לִסְטִין בָּאִין עָלָיו שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְהַצִּילוֹ ת"ל לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ וְהָא מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא אֲבֵדַת גּוּפוֹ מִנַּיִן ת"ל וַהֲשֵׁבֹתוֹ לוֹ אִי מֵהָתָם הֲוָה אָמֵינָא ה"מ בְּנַפְשֵׁהּ אֲבָל מִטְרַח וּמֵיגַר אָגוֹרֵי אֵימָא לָא קמ"ל
Concerning the matter itself, it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one who sees another drowning in a river, or being dragged away by a wild animal, or being attacked by bandits, is obligated to save him? The verse states: “You shall not stand idly by the blood of another” (Leviticus 19:16). The Gemara asks about this derivation: But is this really derived from here? It is derived from there, i.e., from a different verse, as it is taught: The Torah teaches that one must return lost property to its rightful owner. But from where is it derived that one must help his neighbor who may suffer the loss of his body or his health? The verse states: “And you shall restore it [vahashevato] to him [lo]” (Deuteronomy 22:2), which can also be read as: And you shall restore him [vehashevato] to him, i.e., saving his body. Consequently, there should be no need for the additional verse: “You shall not stand idly by the blood of another.” The Gemara answers: If this halakha were derived only from there, I would say that this matter applies only to saving the person in danger by himself, i.e., that he himself must come to his neighbor’s rescue if he can, as is the halakha with regard to returning a lost item. But to trouble himself and hire workers for this purpose, one might say that he is not obligated, just as he is not obligated to hire workers to recover another’s lost item. Therefore, the verse “Do not stand by the blood of another” teaches us that he must even hire workers, and he transgresses a prohibition if he does not do so.
(טז) לֹא־תֵלֵ֤ךְ רָכִיל֙ בְּעַמֶּ֔יךָ לֹ֥א תַעֲמֹ֖ד עַל־דַּ֣ם רֵעֶ֑ךָ אֲנִ֖י ה'׃
(א) לֹֽא־תִרְאֶה֩ אֶת־שׁ֨וֹר אָחִ֜יךָ א֤וֹ אֶת־שֵׂיוֹ֙ נִדָּחִ֔ים וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ֖ מֵהֶ֑ם הָשֵׁ֥ב תְּשִׁיבֵ֖ם לְאָחִֽיךָ׃ (ב) וְאִם־לֹ֨א קָר֥וֹב אָחִ֛יךָ אֵלֶ֖יךָ וְלֹ֣א יְדַעְתּ֑וֹ וַאֲסַפְתּוֹ֙ אֶל־תּ֣וֹךְ בֵּיתֶ֔ךָ וְהָיָ֣ה עִמְּךָ֗ עַ֣ד דְּרֹ֤שׁ אָחִ֙יךָ֙ אֹת֔וֹ וַהֲשֵׁבֹת֖וֹ לֽוֹ׃
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא, בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ: הַמְבַזְבֵּז — אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַמְבַזְבֵּז — אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ, שֶׁמָּא יִצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ לְבַזְבֵּז [יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹמֶשׁ], וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ לוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ. וּמַנּוּ — רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב, וְלֹא הִנִּיחוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ, וּמַנּוּ — רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
Note that the text in Bava Kamma is ultimately neutralized by saying that it is not 1/3 of your estate but a third more than you planned on giving but does say that it is as a percent of your assets while the text in Ketubot does not
(א) הגה מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶתְרוֹג אוֹ שְׁאַר מִצְוָה עוֹבֶרֶת אֵין צָרִיךְ לְבַזְבֵּז עָלֶיהָ הוֹן רַב וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַמְבַזְבֵּז אַל יְבַזְבֵּז יוֹתֵר מֵחֹמֶשׁ אֵפִי' מִצְוָה עוֹבֶרֶת [הָרֹא"שׁ וְרַבֵּנוּ יְרֹחָם נ"י ח"ב] וְדַוְקָא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה אֲבָל לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה יִתֵּן כָּל מָמוֹנוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּעֲבֹר [הָרַשְׁבָּ"א וְרָאָבָ"ד] [וְעַ' לְקָמָן סוֹף סִי' תרנ"ח בְּהֶגֶה]:
(1) RAMA: Somebody who doesn't have an etrog or some other [objected associated with a] mitzvah whose time will elapse need not dispense much wealth on it, as they said, "One who dispenses [money to charity] should not dispense more than one-fifth [of their wealth]" [Ketubot 50a], even with respect to a mitzvah with a time that will elapse (Ros"h, Rabbeinu Yerucham 13:2). This specifically applies to a positive mitzvah. However, regarding a negative mitzvah, one should spend all of their wealth rather than sin (Rashb"a and Raavad). See the end of 658 in the Rama.
The Gemara in Bava Kamma is not ambiguous and is clear that a person needs to spend a third of their assets (there is some ambiguity if this is a third of net assets or gross assets, there is a significant difference here. If it is a third of gross assets if you had 100K home and an 80K mortgage on said home you would be required to expend 33K to save someone's life if we say this means gross assets provided that these are the only assets you have. If we are talking about net assets then you would only be required to expend 6.67K on saving someone's life).
Would you even be willing to spend 20% of your net assets on saving another person's life?
(יב) יִפְתַּ֣ח ה' ׀ לְ֠ךָ֠ אֶת־אוֹצָר֨וֹ הַטּ֜וֹב אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם לָתֵ֤ת מְטַֽר־אַרְצְךָ֙ בְּעִתּ֔וֹ וּלְבָרֵ֕ךְ אֵ֖ת כׇּל־מַעֲשֵׂ֣ה יָדֶ֑ךָ וְהִלְוִ֙יתָ֙ גּוֹיִ֣ם רַבִּ֔ים וְאַתָּ֖ה לֹ֥א תִלְוֶֽה׃
(12) ה' will open for you that bounteous store, the heavens, to provide rain for your land in season and to bless all your undertakings. You will be creditor to many nations, but debtor to none.
(20) You shall not deduct interest from loans to your fellow Israelites, whether in money or food or anything else that can be deducted as interest; (21) but you may deduct interest loans to foreigners. Do not deduct interest from loans to your fellow Israelites, so that your God ה' may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are about to enter and possess.
(א) לְהַלְווֹת לְנָכְרִי בְּרִבִּית - שֶׁנִּצְטַוִּינוּ לְבַקֵּשׁ רִבִּית מִן הָאֻמּוֹת כְּשֶׁנִּלְוֶה לָהֶם וְלֹא נִלְוֶה לָהֶם בְּלֹא רִבִּית, וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (דְּבָרִים כג כא) לְנָכְרִי תַּשִּׁיךְ. וּכְמוֹ כֵן מֻתָּר לִלְווֹת מֵהֶן בְּרִבִּית וְאָמְרוּ בְּסִפְרֵי, לְנָכְרִי תַּשִּׁיךְ, מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, וּלְאָחִיךְ לֹא תַּשִּׁיךְ, לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
(ב) מִשָּׁרְשֵׁי הַמִּצְוָה. שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לָנוּ לִגְמֹל חֶסֶד זוּלָתִי אֶל הָעָם יוֹדְעֵי הָאֵל וְעוֹבְדִים לְפָנָיו וּבְהַמָּנַע הַחֶסֶד מִשְּׁאָר בְּנֵי הָאָדָם וְנַעֲשָׂה אוֹתוֹ לְאֵלּוּ נִבְחַן כִּי עִקַּר הָאַהֲבָה וְהַחֶמְלָה עֲלֵיהֶם, מִצַּד הֶחֱזִיקָם בְּתוֹרַת אֱלֹקִים יִתְבָּרֵךְ, וְהִנֵּה עִם הַכַּוָּנָה הַזֹּאת יִהְיֶה לָנוּ שָׂכָר בִּמְנִיעַת הַחֶסֶד מֵהֶם, כְּמוֹ בַּעֲשׂוֹתֵנוּ אוֹתוֹ אֶל בְּנֵי עַמֵּנוּ.
(ג) מִדִּינֵי הַמִּצְוָה. מָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (ב''מ עא, א), שֶׁמִּצְוָה לְהַקְדִּים הַלְוָאַת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחִנָּם מֵהַלְוָאַת הַגּוֹי בְּרִבִּית. וּמָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ (שָׁם עב, א רַמְבָּ''ם מִלְוָה וְלֹוֶה פ''ה הָ''א)...
(ד) וְנוֹהֶגֶת בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן בִּזְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת. וְהָעוֹבֵר עַל זֶה וְהִלְוָהוּ בְּלֹא רִבִּית מִתּוֹרַת חֶסֶד לְבַד לֹא מִתִּקְוָה אֵלָיו לְהַרְוִיחַ עִמּוֹ מִצַּד אַחֵר אוֹ מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם בָּטַל עָשָׂה זֶה. וְהָרַמִבּ''ן זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה (בְּהַשָּׂגָתוֹ לַשֹּׁרֶשׁ הַשִּׁשִּׁי וּבְסוֹף הַשָּׂגוֹתָיו לסהמ''צ), לֹא יִמְנֶה בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן הַמִּצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה זֶה, וְאָמַר שֶׁהַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה לֹא בָּא אֶלָּא לִתֵּן עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה בְּמַלְוֶה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִבִּית, וְזוֹ הִיא כַּוָּנַת הַמִּדְרָשׁ בְּסִפְרֵי בְּאָמְרוֹ זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, וְכֵן נִרְאֶה כִּדְבָרָיו בַּגְּמָרָא בְּסוֹף פֶּרֶק אֵיזֶהוּ נֶשֶׁךְ, וְעִם כָּל זֶה דֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ נֵלֵךְ לֹא נִטֶּה יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל מֵחֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹ, וְגָדוֹל הוּא מִי שֶׁשִּׁגְגוֹתָיו סְפוּרוֹת.
(1) To lend to the gentile with interest: That we were commanded to request interest from the [other] peoples when we lend to them and that we not lend to them without interest. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:21), "Take interest from the foreigner." And likewise is it permitted to borrow from them with interest. And they said in Sifrei, "'Take interest from the foreigner' - that is a positive commandment; 'and from your brother, do not take interest' - that is a negative commandment."
(2) It is from the roots of the commandment that it is fitting for us to do acts of loving-kindness only to the nation that knows God and serves in front of Him. And by refraining from kindness with other people and doing it with these, it becomes clear that the main love and pity on them is [coming] from the angle of their following the Torah of God, may He be blessed. And behold, with this intention, there will be reward for us in our refraining from kindness to them, [just] like [there will be] in our doing it to the children of our nation.
(3) From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 71a) that it is a commandment to prioritize a free loan to an Israelite over lending to a gentile with interest; and that which they said (Bava Metzia 72a and see Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 5:1)...
(4) And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and lends without interest from the perspective of kindness alone - not from the hope about him that he will profit from him from another angle, or because of the ways of peace - has violated this positive commandment. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed (in his critiques of the sixth root and at the end of his critiques of the Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam) does not count this positive commandment in the calculation of the [613] commandments. And he says that this verse only came to give a positive [as well as] a negative commandment for one who lends to an Israelite with interest. And this is the intention of the midrash in Sifrei, in its saying that this is a positive commandment. And so does it appear from the words of the Gemara at the end of the chapter [entitled] Eizehhu Neshekh. But with all of this, 'we walk in the way of the king' - 'we will not veer to the right or left' from [Rambam's] calculation. And great is the one whose mistakes are numbered (few in number).