Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 1-3

Sugya Map

• Issue: The nature and scope of the mitzvah to lend to the poor, and the prohibition against pressing a debtor for payment.
• Nafka Mina:
  • Distinguishing between a positive commandment and a matter of mere preference.
  • The application of these laws to gentiles versus fellow Jews.
  • The degree of leniency afforded to a debtor versus the creditor's rights.
  • The legal ramifications of a debtor claiming insolvency.
  • The permissibility of demanding payment versus lending.
• Primary Sources:
  • Exodus 22:24 ("Do not act as a creditor toward him")
  • Exodus 23:24 ("If you will lend money to My nation, to the poor among you")
  • Deuteronomy 15:3 ("Press a gentile for payment")
  • Deuteronomy 15:8 ("You shall certainly loan to him")
  • Deuteronomy 15:9 ("Beware lest there be a defiant thought in your heart...")
  • Deuteronomy 24:11 ("Stand outside")
  • Proverbs 3:28 ("Do not tell your colleague: 'Go and return'")
  • Psalms 37:21 ("A wicked man borrows and does not pay")
  • Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Malveh VeLoveh 1-3
  • Gemara Bava Metzia 71a, 113a
  • Sifrei on Deuteronomy
  • Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael on Exodus

Text Snapshot

"It is a positive commandment to lend money to the poor among Israel, as Exodus 23:24 states: 'If you will lend money to My nation, to the poor among you.' Lest one think that this is a matter left to the person's choice, it is also stated Deuteronomy 15:8: 'You shall certainly loan to him.'" (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Malveh VeLoveh 1:1)

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The juxtaposition of "If you will lend" (אם כסף תלוה) with "You shall certainly loan" (והעבטת תעביטנו) is the crux of the initial debate. The former, using the conditional "if," could imply permission or discretion, while the latter, an imperative, clearly mandates the action. Rambam here establishes the obligatory nature of lending.

Readings

Shorshei HaYam on 1:1:1

The Shorshei HaYam grapples with the source of the mitzvah to lend. He notes that Rambam bases the positive commandment on Exodus 23:24 ("If you will lend..."). However, he points out that the conditional "if" (אם) in the Torah usually implies a conditional statement, not a direct commandment. To establish the obligatory nature, Rambam also cites Deuteronomy 15:8 ("You shall certainly loan...").

The Shorshei HaYam further delves into a dispute regarding the interpretation of "והעבט תעביטנו." Some derive from this the idea of cunningly giving charity disguised as a loan to one who refuses outright charity. He questions whether Rambam's reliance on "אם כסף" is solely to establish that lending to a Jew takes precedence over lending to a gentile with interest, as taught elsewhere. He ultimately suggests that Rambam holds that even if the Mekhilta and the Gemara in Bava Metzia 71a differ on the exact nature of the derivation (whether it's a direct biblical commandment or rabbinic), there is still a mitzvah, even if it's rabbinic, to "open the door" for a poor person through a loan. He concludes by noting the complexity of deriving specific commandments from conditional verses and the role of tradition in establishing their binding nature. The author also notes that Rambam, in his enumeration of mitzvot, restricts this to the truly poor, not those seeking to enrich themselves through business.

Yitzchak Yeranen on 1:1:1

The Yitzchak Yeranen directly confronts Rambam's wording, stating it is "clear" that Rambam implies the mitzvah applies only to the poor and destitute (עני ומך). He contrasts this with the Gemara in Bava Metzia 71a, which explicitly states that "My people and a gentile, My people is first; a poor person and a rich person, a poor person is first." This suggests a mitzvah to lend even to a rich person, albeit with precedence given to the poor. The Yitzchak Yeranen notes that Rambam omits this Gemara here and in his enumeration of mitzvot, writing only "to the poor among Israel." He observes that the Lechem Mishneh (a commentary on Mishneh Torah) already felt this discrepancy and suggested Rambam alluded to it in the laws of Matanot Ani'im (charity to the poor), where the concept of a "poor person" is more central. However, the Yitzchak Yeranen finds this insufficient, as Rambam explicitly states "to the poor among Israel" in the context of loans.

Steinsaltz on 1:1:1

The Steinsaltz commentary clarifies the linguistic tension. He explains that the word "אם" (if) typically introduces a conditional clause. Based solely on "אם כסף תלוה," one might infer that the Torah is merely commanding how to act if one chooses to lend, specifically prohibiting acting as a harsh creditor. However, he highlights that the subsequent verse, "והעבט תעביטנו" (You shall certainly loan to him), provides the direct imperative, establishing the obligatory nature of the loan itself.

Steinsaltz on 1:1:2

The Steinsaltz commentary further elaborates on Rambam's comparison of lending to charity. He notes that this mitzvah is considered "greater than charity to a poor person who asks for alms," emphasizing that the borrower has not yet been compelled to beg, thus preserving their dignity.

Steinsaltz on 1:1:3

This brief note simply defines "לְמִדָּה זוֹ" (this measure) as referring to the act of begging for charity.

Steinsaltz on 1:1:4

The Steinsaltz commentary underscores the severity with which the Torah views someone who refrains from lending to the poor. It even extends to cases where the refusal might be motivated by a fear that the debt will be lost due to the Sabbatical year (Shmita).

Shorshei HaYam on 1:2:1

The Shorshei HaYam thoroughly analyzes the verse "לנכרי תגוש" (Deuteronomy 15:3), which Rambam interprets as a positive commandment to press a gentile for payment. He cites the Ramban and Rashba (as brought by the Ha'agahot Maimoniot and Ha'manchilot), who argue that this is not a positive commandment in its own right but rather a negative commandment derived from a positive one ("Do not act as a creditor toward him" to your brother, implying you may do so to a gentile). They contend that Rambam incorrectly classifies it as a positive commandment. The Ramban further argues that the verse "תשיך" (you shall lend) regarding gentiles, when interpreted as "you shall let yourself be lent to" (תשוך), implies permission to take interest from gentiles, not a positive commandment to do so. He believes Rambam erred in counting it as a positive commandment. The Rashba concurs, explaining the Sifrei's statement ("To a gentile you shall lend; it is a positive commandment") as meaning it's a positive commandment not to lend with interest to a fellow Jew, thus implying it's permissible with a gentile. The Raavad also disputes Rambam on "תשיך," suggesting it refers to the borrower's perspective and not a positive commandment for the lender. The Shorshei HaYam concludes by defending Rambam, suggesting that the Gemara's discussion about "לא סגי בלא ה" (it's not enough without this) when interpreting "תשיך" as "תשוך" (you shall let yourself be lent to) actually supports Rambam's view that the verse does convey a positive commandment, even if it's not the primary interpretation. He also examines the interpretation of "עמי" (My nation) and "גוי" (gentile) in the context of lending precedence, differentiating between a gentile idolater and a resident alien (ger toshav).

Text Snapshot

"Whenever a person presses a poor person for payment when he knows that he does not have the means to repay the debt, he transgresses a negative commandment, as Exodus 22:24 states: 'Do not act as a creditor toward him.' It is, by contrast, a positive mitzvah to press a gentile for payment and to cause him exasperation, as Deuteronomy 15:3 states: 'Press a gentile for payment.' According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that this is a positive commandment." (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Malveh VeLoveh 1:2)

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The contrast is stark. Pressing a poor Jew is a "לא תעשה" (negative commandment), specifically "אל תהי לו כנושה" (do not act as a creditor towards him). Pressing a gentile, however, is a "מצוה" (positive commandment), "תגוש את הנכרי" (press the gentile). This distinction is significant, as it implies a different relational dynamic permitted, or even encouraged, with non-Jews in financial matters compared to fellow Jews.

Readings

Shorshei HaYam on 1:2:1

The Shorshei HaYam dedicates substantial space to the interpretation of "לנכרי תגוש" (Deuteronomy 15:3). He meticulously presents the views of the Ramban and Rashba, who, following Rashi's interpretation in the Sifrei, argue that this is not a direct positive commandment but a negative commandment derived from a positive one (a "לאו הבא מכלל עשה"). They contend that Rambam errs in counting it as a standalone positive commandment. The Shorshei HaYam cites Ha'agahot Maimoniot and Ha'manchilot as bringing these views. He further elaborates on the debate surrounding "תשיך" (you shall lend) in the context of gentiles, with some interpreting it as "תשוך" (you shall let yourself be lent to), implying permission to take interest, not a commandment. The Shorshei HaYam then defends Rambam, suggesting that even if the Gemara in Bava Metzia 71a debates the precise derivation, the principle of a positive commandment to press a gentile for payment stands. He also explores the nuance of "עמי" (My nation) versus "גוי" (gentile), differentiating between idolaters and resident aliens.

Yitzchak Yeranen on 1:1:1 (related to 1:2:1 via precedence)

While the Yitzchak Yeranen's primary focus is on the scope of lending to the poor (1:1:1), his critique indirectly impacts the understanding of 1:2:1. By highlighting Rambam's strict limitation of the lending mitzvah to the truly poor, it implicitly raises questions about the extent to which one should apply the reciprocal principle of pressing for payment from a gentile, especially if the gentile is also impoverished. If the primary mitzvah is so narrowly defined, does the leniency towards gentiles extend to situations where the gentile is also struggling? The Yitzchak Yeranen's emphasis on Rambam's specific wording ("to the poor among Israel") suggests a focus on the internal communal obligation that might not directly translate to the gentile sphere, even where the Torah permits harsher collection methods.

Steinsaltz on 1:2:1

The Steinsaltz commentary offers a concise explanation of the term "הַנּוֹגֵשׂ אֶת הֶעָנִי" (pressing the poor person). He defines it as "dohok bo lifro'a et ha'chov" – literally, "pushing him to repay the debt." This highlights the active and forceful nature of the creditor's action, which is prohibited when directed towards a poor Jewish debtor. The contrast with pressing a gentile is stark, and as noted by Shorshei HaYam, the debate revolves around whether this is a positive commandment or a permitted action derived from a negative one.

Friction

The most significant friction arises from the apparent contradiction between the Torah's emphasis on compassion and dignity for the poor within the Jewish community and its seemingly more pragmatic, even harsh, approach towards gentiles in financial dealings. Rambam states unequivocally that pressing a poor Jew for repayment when he cannot pay is a transgression of a negative commandment ("Do not act as a creditor toward him"), yet pressing a gentile is a positive commandment ("Press a gentile for payment"). This dichotomy raises profound questions about the ethical framework of Jewish law concerning inter-group relations.

The Strongest Kushya: How can the Torah, which extols mercy and empathy, command or permit the aggressive pursuit of debt from a gentile, while simultaneously prohibiting the same from a fellow Jew? Doesn't this suggest a double standard that undermines universal ethical principles? Furthermore, the Shorshei HaYam highlights the debate among Rishonim (Ramban, Rashba) who argue that "Press a gentile for payment" is not a positive commandment but rather a permitted action derived from the prohibition against pressing a Jew. If this is the case, what is the precise nature of this permission? Is it purely pragmatic, or does it reflect a deeper theological distinction?

The Best Terutz (or Two):

1. The Dignity of the Community: One approach, hinted at by the Shorshei HaYam's discussion of "עמי" (My nation), is that the stringent laws regarding Jewish debtors are designed to preserve the internal cohesion, dignity, and mutual responsibility of the Jewish community ("עמי"). The Torah's command to care for the poor within Israel is paramount, and actions that shame or further impoverish a fellow Jew are seen as undermining the fabric of the community itself. In contrast, the relationship with gentiles, while governed by laws of justice, does not carry the same internal communal imperative. The permission to "press" a gentile might be seen as a concession to the practicalities of financial interaction in a non-Jewish world, or a reflection of a different covenantal relationship. It doesn't necessarily imply moral approval of harshness, but rather a legal permissibility within the framework of Jewish law's focus on its own people.

2. The Nature of the Covenant and Halachic Framework: Another perspective, more deeply embedded in the halachic discourse, focuses on the specific covenantal relationship between God and Israel. The Torah's commands and prohibitions are often understood as applying primarily within this covenant. While ethical principles may extend universally, the specific halachic framework, including commandments and prohibitions, is often delineated by group affiliation. The positive commandment to press a gentile might be interpreted not as an endorsement of cruelty, but as a directive within the context of a specific legal system governing interactions between Jews and non-Jews. The Oral Tradition, which establishes this as a positive commandment, may reflect a historical understanding of how these interactions were meant to function within Jewish jurisprudence, perhaps even as a means to prevent more egregious forms of exploitation or to ensure the proper functioning of economic relations in a world where Jews were often a minority. The Shorshei HaYam's detailed analysis of the linguistic nuances of "תשיך" and "תגוש" points to the intricate textual work involved in defining these boundaries, suggesting that the distinction is not arbitrary but textually grounded.

Intertext

Exodus 22:24 & Deuteronomy 15:8 (Law of Lending)

The core of this sugya lies in the tension between Exodus 23:24 ("If you will lend...") and Deuteronomy 15:8 ("You shall certainly loan..."). Rambam, in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Malveh VeLoveh 1:1, uses both to establish the positive commandment. The conditional "if" suggests discretion, while the imperative "certainly" mandates it. This interplay is a classic example of how the Oral Tradition harmonizes seemingly contradictory verses to establish a definitive halachic principle. The debate, as seen in Shorshei HaYam, centers on the precise mechanism of this derivation and its implications for the scope of the mitzvah.

Deuteronomy 15:3 & Bava Metzia 71a (Pressing a Gentile)

Deuteronomy 15:3 states, "Press a gentile for payment." The Gemara in Bava Metzia 71a, and the extensive discussions in Shorshei HaYam, debate whether this is a positive commandment or a permitted action. This contrasts sharply with the prohibition against pressing a poor Jewish debtor (Exodus 22:24). The Shorshei HaYam's detailed analysis of the Rishonim reveals a significant debate on whether this is a positive commandment ("to press a gentile") or a negative commandment derived from a positive one ("not to press a Jew, therefore you may press a gentile"). This highlights how the interpretation of seemingly straightforward verses can lead to complex halachic discussions regarding inter-group relations.

Psak/Practice

The laws surrounding lending and debt collection are intricate and have evolved. Rambam's codification here sets a foundational framework.

• Lending to the Poor: There is a positive commandment to lend to the poor among Israel. This obligation is considered greater than giving charity to someone who asks, as it preserves the borrower's dignity. However, as noted by Yitzchak Yeranen, there's debate on whether this mitzvah extends beyond the truly impoverished to those seeking to enrich themselves through business. The consensus leans towards the former.
• Pressing for Payment: A creditor is prohibited from pressuring a poor Jewish debtor who cannot pay, lest they transgress "Do not act as a creditor toward him." This prohibition is taken seriously, extending even to avoiding causing embarrassment. Conversely, pressing a gentile for payment is considered a positive commandment.
• Insolvency: When a debtor claims poverty, a complex legal process is outlined, involving the debtor bringing all assets, from which a minimal amount for sustenance and basic necessities is set aside. The remaining assets are given to the creditor. The Geonim instituted a stringent oath for those claiming bankruptcy, especially if there's suspicion of deceit. However, this oath cannot be used to harass a known virtuous poor person.
• Collateral: Strict rules govern the taking of collateral, particularly concerning essential items and the property of vulnerable individuals like widows. The concept of "taking a life as collateral" for essential food-producing utensils is severely prohibited.

The underlying principle is a balance between the creditor's right to repayment and the debtor's need for dignity and basic survival, with a strong emphasis on protecting the vulnerable within the Jewish community. The leniency towards gentile debtors reflects a distinct halachic approach to inter-group economic interactions.

Takeaway

The Torah mandates compassion within the community, elevating dignified lending over forced begging, while permitting a more forceful approach to debt collection from non-Jews. This distinction underscores the unique covenantal obligations that shape Jewish law, prioritizing the internal well-being and ethical standards of the People of Israel.