Behar Answers

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