Behar 5731.
Alef.
1.
The reversal of the order of the verses is perhaps intended to more
accurately reflect the sequence of events. If there were no one offering
to lend with interest, then there would be no one who would accept such
a loan. Consequently were the prohibition not to offer money under such
terms observed by the individual with means, the entire process would
be nipped in the bud.
2.
When a person is in need of money, he makes all sorts of
rationalizations why however he can, it is OK in order that he can meet
his obligations. Since such a person is particularly vulnerable to an
unscrupulous lender who wishes to take advantage of him, it is as if the
borrower is figuratively “blind” to the prohibitions involved.
Similarly the person of means who has the opportunity to make a
significant profit at the expense of the borrower might rationalize how
what he is about to do is really acceptable and he in effect is
similarly in a state of moral and Halachic “blindness.”
Beit.
1.
Since the verse describes how the individual experiencing financial
difficulties “extends his hand to you” the normal expectation would be
to put something into his hand,
i.e., to give him financial support. The verse, however, mentions
“strengthening/stabilizing” him, suggesting a level of help that goes
far beyond simply giving him a loan or a donation.
2.
It seems to me that the usage of two separate verbs, “going down” and
“falling”, gives the impression that this is a slow and gradual process
which therefore is susceptible to positive, premeditated intervention,
in contrast to a downfall that is unexpected and sudden.
3.
As in the case of the donkey and its load, a different amount of effort
will be required from interventions at different points in time. When
one has to overcome gravity entirely, i.e., when the load has completely
fallen off the donkey, it is so much more onerous to restore the load
to its original position on the animal’s back than had it been righted
prior to its falling off. So too with the individual who is struggling
financially, while his needs are great while he is descending into
poverty, they becomes so much more difficult to deal with once he has
hit bottom and cannot fend for himself at all. The analogy is supplied
to illustrate that increasing poverty is a process rather than an
all-or-nothing situation.
4.
לה וְכִֽי־יָמ֣וּךְ אָחִ֔יךָ וּמָ֥טָה יָד֖וֹ עִמָּ֑ךְ וְהֶֽחֱזַ֣קְתָּ בּ֔וֹ גֵּ֧ר וְתוֹשָׁ֛ב וָחַ֖י עִמָּֽךְ׃
If
the Etnachta would have been associated with “Bo”, it sounds like an
automatic process, i.e., the person in difficulty extends his hand and
of course he
receives a positive response. In fact, due to free choice, it is not
inevitable for the plea to be met with positive intervention. There is
even a time-lag between the request, or perception of need, and the
action to address the need. And then of course, since it is completely
up to the responder, there are times when he might turn his back on the
supplicant. Consequently the Etnachta creates the real-life scenario
that could play itself out in this situation.
Gimel.
1.
At the end of the day, if the borrower really needs the money, the
interest becomes minor in contrast to what the recipient is able to
achieve with that money. Furthermore, it might turn out that he will
invest in some enterprise and literally come out ahead, i.e., his return
will allow him to return the loan, interest and all, and still come
away with a profit. Nevertheless loaning in this manner is defined as
prohibited.
2.
This is another instance of “Dibra Tora BeHove” (the Tora speaks in
terms of common cases.) While there are exceptions to every rule and
what takes place commonly, when the Tora wishes to present a situation
from real life, it will focus upon the common and typical rather than
the instance that occurs more rarely.
3.
Since Keli Yakar explains the prohibition as a function of one’s
Bitachot in HaShem regarding the return that one gets from his
investment, consequently, if the lender becomes a partner of the
borrower, he does not know how much he will get as a return. He is still
taking a risk that perhaps the enterprise will fail completely and he
will then
receive nothing and thereby lose his investment. In such a scenario he
is taking a risk and depending upon HaShem. However, if he does not
enter into a partnership but simply can count on being repaid plus
interest, he is taking no risk and can rely on himself and his actions
as opposed to trusting in HaShem.
Daled.
The
prepositional pronoun “Lo” is associated with “Neshech” because it is
the borrower that will experience the snake bite that will quickly
balloon into an amount far greater than what he originally borrowed. The
term “Neshech” has a pejorative connotation and it is the borrower who
primarily suffers as a result of such a loan. From the perspective of
the lender, unless the borrower fails to repay at all (although in such a
situation it is possible that the borrower will have to sell himself as
an Eved Ivri, and then his master will pay off his debts and
compensating the lender—although he probably would have
to pay only the principle and not the interest, since the latter is
considered a transgression), he will be getting a return on his money
and this he views positively, without the figurative image of an
infected snake bite.
2
Posts
