Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 4-6

Sugya Map

• Issue: The Mishneh Torah opens its discussion of ribbit (interest) by stating that "נשך ומרבית אחד הוא" (neshech and marbit are one and the same) but immediately adds that the Torah uses two terms "לַעֲבֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין" (so that one would transgress a twofold prohibition)¹. This raises the fundamental question: If they are one issur, why are there two lavin? What is the nature of this "doubling"?
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Severity of Transgression: The dual terminology emphasizes the severity and multifaceted nature of the prohibition.
  • Punishment of Malkot: Does the phrase "בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין" imply the possibility of receiving two sets of lashes for a single act of lending with interest? This is complicated by the principle of lav she'nitak l'tashlumin (a negative commandment whose violation incurs monetary payment), which generally exempts one from lashes.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Malveh v'Loveh 4:1²
  • Vayikra 25:37 ("בְּנֶשֶׁךְ כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אָכְלֶךָ")³
  • Devarim 23:20 ("נֶשֶׁךְ כֶּסֶף נֶשֶׁךְ אֹכֶל נֶשֶׁךְ כָּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁךְ")⁴
  • Talmud Bavli, Bava Metzia 61a⁵
  • Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot, Lo Taaseh 235⁶
  • Tosafot, Bava Metzia 61a s.v. l'avor alav⁷

Text Snapshot

The Mishneh Torah opens Hilchot Malveh v'Loveh with:

נֶשֶׁךְ וּמַרְבִּית אֶחָד הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה, לז): "בְּנֶשֶׁךְ כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אָכְלֶךָ". וְאוֹמֵר (דברים כג, כ): "נֶשֶׁךְ כֶּסֶף נֶשֶׁךְ אֹכֶל נֶשֶׁךְ כָּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁךְ". וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שֵׁם רִבִּית נֶשֶׁךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נוֹשֵׁךְ. כּוֹאֵב לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְאוֹכֵל בְּשָׂרוֹ. וְלָמָּה חִלְּקָן הַכָּתוּב לַעֲבֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין.

Neshech and marbit are one in the same, as Leviticus 25:37 states: "Do not give him your money with neshech and do not put forth your food at marbit." And further on, Deuteronomy 23:20 speaks of: "Neshech from money, neshech from food, neshech from any substance that will accrue." Why is interest called neshech? Because it bites. It causes pain to one's colleague and consumes his flesh. Why did the Torah refer to it with two terms? So that one would commit a twofold transgression when violating this prohibition.⁸

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

The Rambam's formulation is precise: "נֶשֶׁךְ וּמַרְבִּית אֶחָד הוּא" – they are fundamentally the same issur. Yet, the Torah's linguistic distinction serves a purpose: "לַעֲבֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין". This suggests that while the essence of the prohibition is singular, the act itself triggers a dual violation. The question then becomes: what kind of "doubling" is this? Is it two counts for malkot, or a qualitative intensification of the issur? The Rambam's subsequent explanation of neshech as "נוֹשֵׁךְ" (biting) and "אוֹכֵל בְּשָׂרוֹ" (consuming one's flesh) underscores the predatory nature of interest, perhaps hinting at the severe social ramifications that necessitate a doubled warning.

Readings

Rambam's Dual Stance: Mishneh Torah vs. Sefer HaMitzvot

The Rambam's statement in Hilchot Malveh v'Loveh 4:1 that one transgresses "בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין" when lending with ribbit seems to suggest that there are two distinct prohibitions. However, a glance at his Sefer HaMitzvot reveals a nuanced, if not seemingly contradictory, position. In Sefer HaMitzvot, Lo Taaseh 235, the Rambam counts the prohibition of ribbit as a single lav. He writes: "והמצוה הרל"ה היא שהזהירנו מהלוות בריבית... והוא אמרו יתעלה: 'בנשך כספך לא תתן לו ובמרבית לא תתן אכלך'" (The 235th commandment is that He warned us against lending with interest... and that is His saying, may He be exalted: "Do not give him your money with neshech and do not put forth your food at marbit")⁹.

Steinsaltz, in his commentary to Hilchot Malveh v'Loveh 4:1:2, directly addresses this, noting that "אין מדובר בשתי מצוות לא תעשה נפרדות — ראה ספר המצוות הכלל התשיעי ולא תעשה רלה" (it is not a matter of two separate negative commandments — see Sefer HaMitzvot, Rule Nine, and Lo Taaseh 235)¹⁰. This suggests that the "doubled transgression" in the Mishneh Torah is not about two separate mitzvot for the purpose of Sefer HaMitzvot's enumeration, but rather a qualitative intensification of the issur, perhaps reflecting a doubled lav for malkot if lashes were applicable. The tension here is palpable: how can one transgress "two prohibitions" if there is only one negative commandment?

Shorshei HaYam: The Lav She'nitak L'Aseh and Lav She'nitak L'Tashlumin Conundrum

The commentary Shorshei HaYam by Rabbi Chaim Alfandari, in his discussion on Hilchot Malveh v'Loveh 4:1:1, delves into the nafka mina of "שני לאוין" from the perspective of malkot. He cites the Tosafot in Bava Metzia 61a d.h. l'avor alav, which poses a question: "וא"ת ולוקמה בגזל גופיה ולעבור עליו בשני לאוין" (And you might ask, why not establish it regarding theft itself, and one would transgress two prohibitions?)¹¹. The Tosafot explains that one is not lashed for theft because "ניתק לעשה" (it is a negative commandment linked to a positive commandment), namely, the commandment to return the stolen object¹². However, Tosafot then distinguishes this from the case of withholding a laborer's wages ("כובש שכר שכיר"), where one does receive lashes if the aseh (positive commandment) of paying wages is not relevant (e.g., if the employer has no money)¹³.

Shorshei HaYam takes issue with Tosafot's reasoning, noting that Rabbi Chaim Alfandari (presumably his ancestor, the Maharich Alfandari) in Sefer Motzal Me'Esh¹⁴ already questioned this, arguing that even with "כובש שכר שכיר," one does not receive malkot because it is "לאו הניתק לעשה," as the Rambam himself states in Hilchot Sechirut 3:3¹⁵. Shorshei HaYam further deepens the kushya: even if it's not "לאו הניתק לעשה," ribbit is certainly "לאו הניתן לתשלומין" (a negative commandment that involves monetary payment), which also exempts one from malkot¹⁶. He finds it problematic that Tosafot (and the Rabbanim he cites trying to defend Tosafot) seem to imply that "לאו הניתן לתשלומין" only exempts from malkot if it is also "ניתק לעשה." He concludes that according to Bava Kama 16a, the reason for exemption from malkot for "לאו הניתן לתשלומין" is simply the obligation to pay, independent of any aseh¹⁷.

Later, Shorshei HaYam notes that Tosafot in Bava Metzia 115a d.h. chayav mishum b'nei kelim seems to support the idea that "לאו שניתן לתשלומין מאי דלא לקי אינו אלא בשניתק לעשה" (a negative commandment involving payment only exempts from lashes if it is also linked to a positive commandment)¹⁸. This shows a deep divergence in understanding the relationship between these categories of lavin and their implications for malkot. For ribbit, which is explicitly stated by the Rambam to be returned¹⁹, it falls under lav she'nitak l'tashlumin, rendering the malkot discussion moot for practical application, though not for theoretical understanding of the lavin.

Friction

The Double-Edged Lav: Reconciling Rambam's Mishneh Torah with Sefer HaMitzvot

The most profound friction in this sugya stems from the Rambam himself. In Hilchot Malveh v'Loveh 4:1, he declares that the Torah used both neshech and marbit "לַעֲבֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין" (so that one would transgress a twofold prohibition)²⁰. Yet, in his Sefer HaMitzvot, Lo Taaseh 235, he counts the prohibition of ribbit as a singular lav²¹. This presents a conceptual challenge: how can a single mitzvah lo taaseh simultaneously entail "two prohibitions" for the transgressor?

The Strongest Kushya:

If the Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvot counts ribbit as one lav, then stating in the Mishneh Torah that one transgresses "two prohibitions" appears to be a direct contradiction regarding the halachic classification of the issur. The Gemara (Bava Metzia 61a) is the source for "שני לאוין," and its context often relates to malkot. If one is liable for two sets of malkot for one act, that would imply two distinct lavin. However, if it's counted as one mitzvah, it's difficult to justify two sets of malkot. Furthermore, as Shorshei HaYam notes, ribbit is a "לאו הניתן לתשלומין" (a negative commandment that involves monetary payment), because the interest must be returned²². The universal rule is that "כל לאו שיש בו קום ועשה וניתן לתשלומין אין לוקין עליו" (any negative commandment that involves a positive act [to rectify] and monetary payment is not punishable by lashes)²³. Even without the "קום ועשה" (which is the more commonly cited reason for theft), the "ניתן לתשלומין" aspect generally exempts from malkot as the payment itself is considered the "punishment." Thus, even if there were "two prohibitions," the practical nafka mina of malkot would be negated. This renders the Rambam's emphasis on "שני לאוין" mysterious if it doesn't lead to malkot.

The Best Terutz:

The resolution lies in understanding the nature of "שני לאוין" not as two distinct mitzvot for the purpose of enumeration in Sefer HaMitzvot, nor necessarily as leading to two sets of malkot, but rather as a profound intensification of the issur and a doubled chiyuv (obligation/liability) on a spiritual plane. Steinsaltz, as noted, suggests that the "doubled transgression" is a "חיזוק האזהרה" (strengthening of the warning)²⁴.

The Gemara's discussion of "שני לאוין" often seeks to find a nafka mina for malkot. However, in the case of ribbit, the Rambam himself rules later (4:6) that one is not punished with lashes "לפי שהריבית חוזרת" (because the interest must be returned)²⁵. This explicitly places ribbit in the category of "לאו הניתן לתשלומין," which exempts from malkot. Therefore, the "שני לאוין" cannot be a nafka mina for two sets of lashes.

Instead, the doubling could signify:

1. Increased Severity of Issur: While formally one mitzvah, the dual language conveys a heightened degree of spiritual transgression. This is not about two malkot, but about the chumra of the act itself. The act of taking ribbit is so reprehensible that it triggers a dual "לאו" in the heavenly court, even if earthly malkot are mitigated.
2. Two Distinct Facets of the Issur: The terms neshech (biting, consuming) and marbit (increasing, growing) might refer to different aspects or modalities of interest, even if they are fundamentally "אחד הוא" (one). For example, neshech could refer to fixed interest, while marbit to interest that accrues over time or contingent interest. While the Rambam states they are "one," this could mean they are covered by the same general prohibition, but the Torah highlights two ways in which this prohibition manifests, each deserving its own lav. This would then lead to the understanding that one is liable for both the "biting" and "increasing" aspects of the same forbidden transaction.
3. Emphasis on Lender and Borrower: While the pasuk "בְּנֶשֶׁךְ כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אָכְלֶךָ" (Vayikra 25:37) is directed at the lender, the pasuk "לֹא תַשִּׁיךְ לְאָחִיךָ" (Devarim 23:20) is understood by Chazal as a warning to the borrower²⁶. While these are distinct lavin for different actors, the Rambam's initial statement about neshech and marbit being "one" and incurring "two prohibitions" appears to refer to the lender's single act. Thus, this terutz is less likely for the lender's "שני לאוין."

Therefore, the most satisfying terutz is that the "שני לאוין" in MT 4:1 emphasizes the extreme moral and spiritual repugnance of ribbit, signaling a qualitative doubling of the sin's severity, rather than a quantitative doubling of malkot which are inapplicable due to lav she'nitak l'tashlumin. The Rambam's inclusion of this detail, even while knowing malkot are not given, underscores the gravity of the issur in the eyes of the Torah.

Intertext

Tanakh's Dual Terminology and Explanations

The foundation of this sugya lies in the Torah's own choice of language. Vayikra 25:37 states: "בְּנֶשֶׁךְ כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אָכְלֶךָ" (Do not give him your money with neshech and do not put forth your food at marbit)²⁷. Devarim 23:20 further elaborates: "נֶשֶׁךְ כֶּסֶף נֶשֶׁךְ אֹכֶל נֶשֶׁךְ כָּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁךְ" (Neshech from money, neshech from food, neshech from any substance that will accrue)²⁸.

The Rambam, following the Gemara (Bava Metzia 60b), explains the etymology of neshech: "וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שֵׁם רִבִּית נֶשֶׁךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נוֹשֵׁךְ. כּוֹאֵב לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְאוֹכֵל בְּשָׂרוֹ" (Why is interest called neshech? Because it bites. It causes pain to one's colleague and consumes his flesh)²⁹. This vivid imagery highlights the destructive and exploitative nature of interest. While marbit simply means "increase," neshech carries a connotation of pain and consumption, which resonates with the dire consequences of usury on the borrower. The doubling of terms, therefore, is not merely linguistic redundancy but a deliberate choice to emphasize different facets of the same core evil, leading to the "שני לאוין" concept.

Talmud Bavli, Bava Metzia 61a: The Gemara's Source

The Rambam's statement that neshech and marbit are one but lead to "שני לאוין" is directly derived from Bava Metzia 61a. The Gemara there states: "נשך ומרבית אחד הן, אלא למה חלקן הכתוב? לעבור עליו בשני לאוין" (Neshech and marbit are one, but why did the Torah divide them? So that one would transgress two prohibitions)³⁰. This is the foundational textual source for the Rambam's halacha. The Gemara then proceeds to discuss the nafka mina for malkot, exploring the categories of lav she'nitak l'aseh and lav she'nitak l'tashlumin, which, as seen in the Shorshei HaYam, are central to understanding the practical implications (or lack thereof) of these "two prohibitions." The Gemara's focus on malkot here is what drives the Tosafot's discussion and subsequent Acharonim's analysis of whether ribbit could, in theory, incur two sets of lashes.

Rambam, Hilchot Sechirut 3:3: A Parallel in Lav She'nitak L'Aseh

The discussion by Shorshei HaYam regarding lav she'nitak l'aseh and lav she'nitak l'tashlumin in the context of ribbit brings to mind other lavin. The case of withholding a laborer's wages ("כובש שכר שכיר") is a classic example of a lav she'nitak l'aseh. The Torah states: "לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק שָׂכִיר עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן" (Do not oppress a hired worker, poor and destitute)³¹, which is a negative commandment. It is immediately followed by a positive commandment: "בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ" (On his day you shall give his wage)³². The Rambam himself rules in Hilchot Sechirut 3:3: "אבל אם לא נתן לו עד שעבר זמנו, הרי הוא עובר על לא תעשה, ואינו לוקה לפי שהוא לאו הניתק לעשה" (But if he did not give it to him until his time passed, he transgresses a negative commandment, but is not lashed, because it is a negative commandment that is linked to a positive commandment)³³. This parallels the Tosafot's initial reasoning cited by Shorshei HaYam and underscores the broader principle that even a doubled lav might not lead to malkot if it falls into one of these exempt categories.

Psak/Practice

The theoretical discussion of "שני לאוין" for ribbit has limited direct psak halacha ramifications regarding malkot, as the Rambam himself rules that malkot are not administered because ribbit is a lav she'nitak l'tashlumin (the interest must be returned)³⁴. This is a fundamental principle in Jewish law: monetary transgressions are remedied by restitution, not corporal punishment.

However, the Rambam's emphasis on "שני לאוין" is crucial for meta-psak heuristics and understanding the chumra (severity) of the issur. It serves as an emphatic warning, highlighting that the transgression of ribbit is not a minor infraction but a grave sin with multiple dimensions of violation in the eyes of Heaven. This doubled spiritual liability reinforces the need for extreme caution and vigilance in all financial dealings to avoid even "אבק ריבית" (the shade of interest), which is forbidden rabbinically³⁵. The halachic system, while perhaps not imposing dual malkot, intends to imbue the practitioner with a profound sense of the prohibition's weight and the devastating impact of ribbit on the social fabric.

Takeaway

The Torah's dual terminology for ribbit, codified by the Rambam as incurring "שני לאוין," elevates the transgression beyond a singular prohibition, signaling its extreme spiritual severity and multifaceted harm, even as practical malkot are mitigated by the obligation to return the illicit gains.