(כד) אִם־כֶּ֣סֶף ׀ תַּלְוֶ֣ה אֶת־עַמִּ֗י אֶת־הֶֽעָנִי֙ עִמָּ֔ךְ לֹא־תִהְיֶ֥ה ל֖וֹ כְּנֹשֶׁ֑ה לֹֽא־תְשִׂימ֥וּן עָלָ֖יו נֶֽשֶׁךְ׃
(24) If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, do not act toward them as a creditor; exact no interest from them.
- Oh that's what Usury means, lending with interest
(לה) וְכִֽי־יָמ֣וּךְ אָחִ֔יךָ וּמָ֥טָה יָד֖וֹ עִמָּ֑ךְ וְהֶֽחֱזַ֣קְתָּ בּ֔וֹ גֵּ֧ר וְתוֹשָׁ֛ב וָחַ֖י עִמָּֽךְ׃ (לו) אַל־תִּקַּ֤ח מֵֽאִתּוֹ֙ נֶ֣שֶׁךְ וְתַרְבִּ֔ית וְיָרֵ֖אתָ מֵֽאֱלֹקֶ֑יךָ וְחֵ֥י אָחִ֖יךָ עִמָּֽךְ׃ (לז) אֶ֨ת־כַּסְפְּךָ֔ לֹֽא־תִתֵּ֥ן ל֖וֹ בְּנֶ֑שֶׁךְ וּבְמַרְבִּ֖ית לֹא־תִתֵּ֥ן אָכְלֶֽךָ׃
(35) If your kinsman, being in straits, comes under your authority, and you hold him as though a resident alien, let him live by your side: (36) do not exact from him advance or accrued interest, but fear your God. Let him live by your side as your kinsman. (37) Do not lend him your money at advance interest, or give him your food at accrued interest.
- What is the connection between not lending with interest and fearing God?
- Would lending with interest imply that one is not your kin?
(כ) לֹא־תַשִּׁ֣יךְ לְאָחִ֔יךָ נֶ֥שֶׁךְ כֶּ֖סֶף נֶ֣שֶׁךְ אֹ֑כֶל נֶ֕שֶׁךְ כָּל־דָּבָ֖ר אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִשָּֽׁךְ׃ (כא) לַנָּכְרִ֣י תַשִּׁ֔יךְ וּלְאָחִ֖יךָ לֹ֣א תַשִּׁ֑יךְ לְמַ֨עַן יְבָרֶכְךָ֜ ה' אֱלֹקֶ֗יךָ בְּכֹל֙ מִשְׁלַ֣ח יָדֶ֔ךָ עַל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה בָא־שָׁ֖מָּה לְרִשְׁתָּֽהּ׃ (ס)
(20) You shall not deduct interest from loans to your countrymen, whether in money or food or anything else that can be deducted as interest; (21) but you may deduct interest from loans to foreigners. Do not deduct interest from loans to your countrymen, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are about to enter and possess.
- What do interest free loans have to do with God blessing our undertakings?
- Why would we be able to take interest from non-Jewish borrowers?
אמר רב נחמן כללא דרביתא כל אגר נטר ליה אסור
§ Rav Naḥman said: The principle with regard to the halakhot of interest is: Any payment for waiting is forbidden.
How should the prohibition against ribbit be categorized? On the one hand, ribbit deals with interpersonal monetary transactions, and thus appears to be firmly within the realm of civil law. However, a cursory exposure to the regulations of ribbit indicates otherwise. First, a borrower is not permitted to waive his rights and volunteer to pay interest. If he does so, he is guilty of transgression. This is not what one would expect from a civil law, and the Talmud itself states that "all conditions are valid" in monetary matters. Both logic and law state that such a mutually accepted arrangement, arrived at without duress or deception, should be unobjectionable. For example, theft ceases to be defined as such when the "victim," with complete freedom of will, offers his property to the taker. Similarly, it is wholly conceivable that a borrower would eagerly and willingly agree to an interest-bearing loan that advances his own goals. Yet his consent does nothing to mitigate the Torah prohibition. Astonishingly, Jewish law views both a buyer who pays interest and his lender as equally culpable of transgression. This is clearly at variance with the totality of civil and criminal law, where holding perpetrator and victim equally culpable is inconceivable....
Furthermore, two of the primary canons of Jewish law, the Tur and the Shulhan Arukh, codified the laws of ribbit in the section dealing with ritual law (Yoreh De'ah), and not the section dealing with civil law (Hoshen Mishpat)....
If taking interest is truly a moral offense, it should be prohibited across the board, and the exception for gentiles is difficult to explain.
It appears, then, that the interpersonal violation is not one of usury, which is a broader moral infraction, but rather of an undermining of the familial relationship expected among members of the Jewish people.
- What do you think of the fact that both the lender and borrower are liable for violating the laws of רבית?
- Why is רבית under the rubric of ritual law?
- What are your reactions to Feldman's assertion that it is "an undermining of the familial relationship expected among members of the Jewish people."
(ג) שור של ישראל שנגח שור של הקדש ושל הקדש שנגח לשור של ישראל פטור. שנאמר (שמות כא, לה) שור רעהו ולא שור של הקדש. שור של ישראל שנגח לשור של עוכד כוכבים פטור. ושל עובד כוכבים שנגח לשור של ישראל בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם:
(3) An ox of an Israelite that gored an ox belonging to the Temple, or an ox belonging to the Temple that gored an ox of an Israelite, he is exempt, as it says, “The ox belonging to his neighbor” (Exodus 21:35), and not an ox belonging to the Temple. An ox of an Israelite that gores an ox of a non-Jew, he is exempt. And an ox of a non-Jew that gores the ox of an Israelite, whether the ox is harmless or an attested danger, its owner pays full damages.
- What does it mean to be exempt?
- Why is the law uneven?
- What happened to all that stuff about one law for everyone?
שלא ימשכנו ויצא יכול יגלום עליו ת"ל (ויקרא כה, נ) וחשב עם קונהו ידקדק עם קונהו אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא בכנעני הא בגר תושב אמר ליה אביי והא תרוייהו גבי הדדי כתיבי לא לך אלא לגר שנאמר (ויקרא כה, מז) לגר ולא לגר צדק אלא לגר תושב שנאמר לגר תושב משפחת גר זה העובד כוכבים כשהוא אומר או לעקר זה הנמכר לעבודת כוכבים אלא אמר רבא לא קשיא כאן בגזילו וכאן בהפקעת הלוואתו א"ל אביי עבד עברי הפקעת הלוואתו הוא רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא עבד עברי גופו קנוי אמר רב ביבי בר גידל אמר ר"ש חסידא גזל כנעני אסור אבידתו מותרת גזילו אסור דאמר רב הונא מנין לגזל הכנעני שהוא אסור שנאמר (דברים ז, טז) ואכלת את כל העמים אשר ה' אלקיך נותן לך בזמן שהן מסורים בידך ולא בזמן שאינם מסורין בידך אבידתו מותרת דאמר רב חמא בר גורי' אמר רב מנין לאבידת הכנעני שהיא מותרת שנאמר (דברים כב, ג) לכל אבדת אחיך לאחיך אתה מחזיר ואי אתה מחזיר לכנעני ואימא הני מילי היכא דלא אתי לידיה דלא מחייב לאהדורי בתרה אבל היכא דאתי לידיה אימא ליהדרה אמר רבינא (דברים כב, ג) ומצאתה דאתאי לידיה משמע: תניא ר' פנחס בן יאיר אומר במקום שיש חילול השם אפי' אבידתו אסור
Rav Beivai bar Giddel says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: It is prohibited to rob a gentile, but it is permitted to retain his lost item, i.e., one is not required to return it to him. The Gemara examines the basis for each of these rulings: It is prohibited to rob a gentile, as Rav Huna says: From where is it derived that it is prohibited to rob a gentile? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And you shall consume all the peoples that the Lord your God shall deliver unto you” (Deuteronomy 7:16), indicating that it is permitted to consume the other nations’ property only when they are delivered into your hand, i.e., in times of war, but not when they are not delivered into your hand. It is permitted to retain his lost item, as Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says that Rav says: From where is it derived that it is permitted to retain the lost item of a gentile? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to the mitzva of returning a lost item: “With every lost thing of your brother’s” (Deuteronomy 22:3), indicating that it is only to your brother that you return a lost item, but you do not return a lost item to a gentile. The Gemara questions this derivation: But say that this applies only where the item has not yet come into the Jew’s hand, as he is not obligated to pursue it in an effort to find the lost item and return it. But in a case where the item had already come into his hand, say that he must return it to the gentile. The Gemara answers that Ravina said: It is understood from the verse itself, as it states: “And so shall you do with every lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost, and you have found” (Deuteronomy 22:3), which indicates that the verse refers even to an item that has already come into one’s hand. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir says: In a case where there is a concern that retention of an article lost by a gentile will result in the desecration of God’s name, it is prohibited even to retain a gentile’s lost item.
- What is going on here?
- Do we believe it is appropriate to steal from non-Jews?
- Is there a difference between stealing and just not returning a lost item?
(א) אף חובב עמים - מלמד שחיבב המקום את ישראל, מה שלא חיבב כל אומה ומלכות:
(ב) כל קדושיו בידיך - אלו פרנסי ישראל, שעומדים על ישראל ונותנים עליהם נפשן. במשה מהו אומר? (שמות לב) ועתה אם תשא חטאתם ואם אין מחני נא. בדוד הוא אומר (שמואל ב כד) אני הוא חטאתי ואני העויתי ואלה הצאן מה עשו:
(ג) והם תוכו לרגליך - אעפ"י שאנוסים, אעפ"י שלוקים, אעפ"י ששבוים: ישא מדברותיך - מקבלים עול תורתך עליהם. וכן הוא אומר (שמות כד) כל אשר דבר ה' נעשה ונשמע.
(ד) ד"א אף חובב עמים - מלמד שלא חלק הקב"ה חיבה לאומות העולם כדרך שחלק לישראל, תדע לך שכן הוא, שהרי אמרו: גזילו של נכרי מותר ושל ישראל אסור. וכבר שלחה מלכות שני סרדיטאות ואמר להם: לכו ועשו עצמיכם גרים וראו תורתן של ישראל, מה טיבה? הלכו להם אצל רבן גמליאל לאושה, וקראו את המקרא ושנו את המשנה, מדרש הלכות ואגדות. בשעת פטירתם אמרו להם: כל תורתכם נאה ומשובחת חוץ מדבר אחד: גזלו של גוי מותר ושל ישראל אסור - ודבר זה אין אנו מודיעים אותו למלכות:
(1) (Devarim 33:3) "He also loved the peoples": We are hereby taught that the L-rd loved Israel more than He had ever loved any nation or kingdom.
(2) (Ibid.) "All of his holy ones are in Your hand": These are the leaders of Israel, who stand over Israel and (are ready to) give up their lives for them. Of Moses it is written (Shemoth 32:32) "And now if You will bear their sin, (good), but if not, erase me, I pray You, from Your book that You have written." Of David it is written (II Samuel 24:17) "I have sinned and I have transgressed, but these sheep, what have they done?"
(3) (Devarim Ibid.) "and they planted themselves at Your feet": Though under constraint, though under the lash, though in captivity — (Devarim, Ibid.) "they bore Your words": They bore the yoke of Torah upon themselves, viz. (Shemoth 24:7): "All that the L-rd had spoken, we shall do and we shall hear."
(4) Variantly: "He also loved the peoples": We are hereby taught that the Holy One Blessed be He did not apportion love to the nations of the world in the manner that He did to Israel. Know this to be so for they said that the theft of a gentile is permitted, and, of a Jew, forbidden.
And it, indeed, transpired that the monarchy once sent two officers, instructing them: Go and make yourselves converts and see what the Torah of Israel is like. (They did so) and they went to R. Gamliel to Usha, and studied Scripture, Mishnah, Medrash, halachoth, and aggadoth. Before heading back to the monarchy, they said: All of your Torah is beautiful and praiseworthy, except for one thing — the theft of a gentile is permitted, and that of a Jew, forbidden — but we will not reveal this to the monarchy.
This is a complicated and for some, a painful set of teachings.
- Why is theft allowed? Is it really because God loves Israel more?
- Do we really believe that?
- What is the meaning of the last story?
- Why does the midrash put this critique in the mouth of non-Jews?
- Why do the officers decide not to tell the monarchy?
...But according to what the gemara says, this [stealing from a non-Jew} pertains specifically to nations not restricted by the ways of religion and proper conduct. ...Accordingly, all those who adhere to the seven [Noahide] commandments are treated in our [courts] as we are treated in theirs, and we do not accord ourselves favorable treatment. It therefore goes without saying that the same thing applies to nations restricted by the ways of religion and proper conduct.
(Beit Ha-Behirah Bava Qama, K. Schlesinger ed., p.122)
Thus, all people who are of the nations that are restricted by the ways of religion and worship the divinity in any way, even if their faith is far from ours, are excluded from this principle [of inequality]. Rather, they are like full-fledged Jews with respect to these matters, even with respect to lost property and returning assets gained through error and all the other matters, with no distinction whatsoever”
(Beit Ha-Behirah Bava Qama, K. Schlesinger ed., p.330)
Following the example of Rabban Gamliel II and invoking the principles of Kiddush HaShem and Darkhei Shalom, we declare that any rulings concerning matters of financial or civil law in the Mishnah and Talmud that discriminate against Gentiles are not to be considered official operative Jewish Law in our day. In accord with the teachings of the Meiri we further rule that any such laws were time bound, referring specifically to pagans of any early time and therefore do not apply to non-Jews in our era. We consider such laws to be in violation of our highest moral values and impede us from attaining higher moral virtues, as Rabbi Sevi Ashkenazi indicated. Thus in regard to such matters as permission to violate the Sabbath for purposes of saving lives, the Jew and the Gentile are to be treated alike. Similarly killing, stealing and other moral and ethical offences prohibited by the Torah and Jewish Law apply to both Jews and non- Jews. It is forbidden to murder, rob, cheat, deceive or otherwise harm a non-Jew. Only those rulings regarding ritual differences between Jews and non-Jews Jews and laws that effectively contribute to continued Jewish existence such as the prohibition of intermarriage remain in effect while laws intended to keep Jews from contact with idolaters such as bishul akum and the prohibition of stam yenam are no longer valid.