"When you make your friend a loan of any amount, you shall not enter his home to take a security pledge for it. You shall stand outside, and the individual to whom you made the loan should bring the security pledge to you outside. If that individual is poor, you shall not sleep with his security pledge. You shall rather return the security pledge to him when the sun sets, so that he will be able to sleep with his garment and will bless you. This will be for you an act of righteousness before the Lord your G-d." (Deuteronomy 24:10-13)
The Hebrew word tzedek or tzedakah is usually translated as justice or righteousness, describing an act that is right or just to do. I understand that it is compassionate to return a security pledge to an indigent borrower, but is it necessarily just to do so?
I would like to deepen my question by drawing the reader's attention to the foundation of the passage we have just cited, the basic commandment concerning the relationship between the creditor and the borrower: "If you would lend money to my nation, the poor individual who is with you, you shall not act toward him as a creditor, nor should you charge him interest." (Exodus 22:24). This commandment was given immediately after the exodus from Egypt, and is apparently directly connected to the manner in which the freed Israelite is to treat his more indigent fellow.
There are, however, a number of problems with the text. First of all, the passage opens, "If you would lend money...." Our sages insist that this is one of the few instances in the Bible where the subjunctive im - which is usually translated as "if", which is conditional and voluntary - is to be translated as "when", which is imperative and obligatory. However, the question still remains as to why the text used the subjunctive im.
Secondly, we know that the Bible never uses extra words. Why does the text not read, "if you will lend money to the poor who is with you," rather than as it presently appears mentioning "my nation", which seems entirely superfluous.
Thirdly, when the Talmudic sages explain the continuation of the verse, that you not treat the borrower as a creditor, they describe a situation in which you see the borrower walking towards you and they insist that you walk the other way. They do not wish the borrower to be embarrassed by meeting you. But this sounds rather absurd. Perhaps he ought be embarrassed, especially if the time limit for the loan has already expired; after all, he owes you the money.
And finally, why are you forbidden to charge interest? If you are allowed to charge rent for the use of your apartment, why can you not charge "rent" for the use of your funds? You certainly might have earned money had you yourself invested the funds that you lent out.
The famed nineteenth century commentary known as the Ohr HaHaim HaKadosh explains as follows. If this world were truly perfect, then no one would be a borrower and no one would be a lender. Each individual would have enough material possessions at his disposal to take care of his needs. Therefore, he reads the passage from the book of Exodus in a very literal fashion, "If you will lend money to my nation...." - which means, if you are blessed with an excess of funds as a result of the unfair nature of this world, you must be aware of the fact that "those" funds actually belong to the poor individual who is with you. In effect, G-d has given the funds meant for the indigent in trust to you.
Obviously, therefore, it is incumbent on you to lend him the money. You must, at the same time, realize that you dare not treat him as a creditor or charge him interest - because you are merely returning to him what is actually his.
In a similar vein, when I give a loan to a poor person, I dare not take away the only blanket or robe he owns as a security pledge. I must be aware of the fact that by lending him the money, I am only helping G-d right the inequity in a world still waiting to be perfected and redeemed.
The Hebrew word tzedek or tzedakah is usually translated as justice or righteousness, describing an act that is right or just to do. I understand that it is compassionate to return a security pledge to an indigent borrower, but is it necessarily just to do so?
I would like to deepen my question by drawing the reader's attention to the foundation of the passage we have just cited, the basic commandment concerning the relationship between the creditor and the borrower: "If you would lend money to my nation, the poor individual who is with you, you shall not act toward him as a creditor, nor should you charge him interest." (Exodus 22:24). This commandment was given immediately after the exodus from Egypt, and is apparently directly connected to the manner in which the freed Israelite is to treat his more indigent fellow.
There are, however, a number of problems with the text. First of all, the passage opens, "If you would lend money...." Our sages insist that this is one of the few instances in the Bible where the subjunctive im - which is usually translated as "if", which is conditional and voluntary - is to be translated as "when", which is imperative and obligatory. However, the question still remains as to why the text used the subjunctive im.
Secondly, we know that the Bible never uses extra words. Why does the text not read, "if you will lend money to the poor who is with you," rather than as it presently appears mentioning "my nation", which seems entirely superfluous.
Thirdly, when the Talmudic sages explain the continuation of the verse, that you not treat the borrower as a creditor, they describe a situation in which you see the borrower walking towards you and they insist that you walk the other way. They do not wish the borrower to be embarrassed by meeting you. But this sounds rather absurd. Perhaps he ought be embarrassed, especially if the time limit for the loan has already expired; after all, he owes you the money.
And finally, why are you forbidden to charge interest? If you are allowed to charge rent for the use of your apartment, why can you not charge "rent" for the use of your funds? You certainly might have earned money had you yourself invested the funds that you lent out.
The famed nineteenth century commentary known as the Ohr HaHaim HaKadosh explains as follows. If this world were truly perfect, then no one would be a borrower and no one would be a lender. Each individual would have enough material possessions at his disposal to take care of his needs. Therefore, he reads the passage from the book of Exodus in a very literal fashion, "If you will lend money to my nation...." - which means, if you are blessed with an excess of funds as a result of the unfair nature of this world, you must be aware of the fact that "those" funds actually belong to the poor individual who is with you. In effect, G-d has given the funds meant for the indigent in trust to you.
Obviously, therefore, it is incumbent on you to lend him the money. You must, at the same time, realize that you dare not treat him as a creditor or charge him interest - because you are merely returning to him what is actually his.
In a similar vein, when I give a loan to a poor person, I dare not take away the only blanket or robe he owns as a security pledge. I must be aware of the fact that by lending him the money, I am only helping G-d right the inequity in a world still waiting to be perfected and redeemed.