Parashas Ki Seytsey
9 Elul 5769

August 29, 2009
Daf Yomi: Bava Basra 8

Guest Author:
Rabbi Aharon Zeigler

Associate Member, Young Israel Council of Rabbis

 

 

“Understanding the Prohibition of Ribbit” (charging interest on a loam)

 

“You shall not cause your brother to take interest, interest of money or interest of food, interest of anything that he may take as interest.  You may cause a gentile to take interest, but you may not cause your brother to take interest, so that HaShem your G-d, will bless you in your every undertaking” (23:20-21)

 

The Torah absolutely forbids any type or amount of interest payments on loans. This prohibition is so severe that the Torah devotes five separate injunctions to it. Once in Sefer Shemot (22:24), twice in Sefer Vayikra (25:36-twice in same verse), and again in Sefer Devarim (23:21, 23:22). Note, that the Torah even addresses a separate prohibition of interest to the borrower; he too is culpable for paying interest.

 

Rav Soloveitchik noted, that rationally speaking, there seems to be nothing ethically or morally wrong with interest; it's a natural way of doing business. Just as a lender of a house, a car, or any other object is entitled to remuneration for lending the item, so too should a lender of money be entitled to a return on his capital. The borrower, for his part, would gladly pay for the use of someone else's capital. Yet, the Torah emphatically prohibits it, even if the amount of interest is lower than the going rate of banks or other lending agencies. Furthermore, the Torah permits taking (or paying) interest to a gentile, although robbing or cheating a gentile is categorically forbidden. For the gentile has in no way been injured or exploited by being charged interest.

 

The rationale for the prohibition of charging interest is based on the selective choice of the word "Achicha",your brother. True, there is nothing ethically wrong with charging interest. But if your own father or brother were to come to you for a loan would you charge interest to you blood relatives? certainly not! Well, that is the way the Torah wants us to conceive the needs of every Jew. "Ki Yamuch Achicha", when your brother, your fellow Jew, becomes impoverished, then every Jew is to be viewed as Achicha, your brother, your blood relative. Advancing an interest-free loan is a form of charity, as act of chesed (kindness). Thus, taking interest does not constitute a civil wrong, but rather, a lack of high moral conduct.

 

The Rav added, that is why the laws of ribbit are to be found in the Yoreh Deah section of Shulchan Aruch, which deals with ritualistic precepts, rather than in Choshen Mishpat section, which deals with civil law. By inserting laws of ribbit in Yoreh Deah demonstrates that the purpose of these laws is not to prevent exploitation of one's fellow man, "Bein Adam Lechaveiro". Rather, the laws belong to the category of Mitzvot "Bein Adam Lamakom", between man and his Creator.

 

Shabbat Shalom.

 

 * * * * *

THE WEEKLY SIDRA- KI SAYTZAY

Rabbi Moshe Greebel

          The Mida (characteristic) of being Makir Tov (showing gratitude) to someone who was considerate, is one of the most essential Midos of the entire Torah.  A very good example of being Makir Tov, can be seen in the Torah when Ya’akov was permitted by the people of Sh’chem to purchase real estate outside their city:

          “And Ya’akov came to Shalem, a city of Sh’chem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padan Aram; and pitched his tent before the city.”  (B’raishis 33:18)

          “And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Chamor, Sh’chem’s father, for a hundred pieces of money.”  (ibid. 33:19)

          Now the expression ‘and pitched his tent before the city’ in LaShon HaKodesh is ‘Vayichan Es P’nai Ha’ir.’  As has been stated so many times in these weekly mailings, words in LaShon HaKodesh have multiple meanings.  While ‘Vayichan’ can refer to camp (pitching tents), it can also mean ‘and he graced the city.’  How exactly would Ya’akov have graced the city?  The Gemarah in Shabbos 33b provides us with an answer:

          “Rav said, ‘He instituted coinage for them.’  Shmuel said, ‘He instituted markets for them.’  Rabbi Yochanan said, ‘He instituted baths for them.’”

          And, so we see the importance of the Mida of HaKaras HaTov (gratitude). 

          In this week’s Sidra, we are presented with the prohibition of the people of Amon and Moav, who may have converted to Judaism, never to marry a Jewish woman- forever:

          “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of HaShem; to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of HaShem forever.”  (D’varim 23:4)

          Why can an Ammonite or a Moabite who converted to Judaism, never marry a Jewish woman?  The next Passuk (verse) in the Torah provides us with an answer:

          “Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when you came out of Egypt; and because they hired against you Bila’am the son of B’or of P’sor Naharayim, to curse you.”  (ibid. 23:5)

          Now, the reasoning for punishing the Ammonite or Moabite is a dual one:

          1. They met you not with bread and with water.

          2. They hired against you Bila’am….. to curse you.

          In truth, many of the M’forshim (commentaries) have had trouble comprehending these two faults.  After all, hiring Bila’am to curse the B’nai Yisroel, is certainly a lot more severe than not offering anyone bread and water.  This can be seen from the Gemarah in B’rachos 7a:

          “Rabbi Elazar says, The Holy One, Blessed is He, said to Yisroel, ‘See now, how many righteous acts I performed for you in not being angry in the days of the wicked Bila’am.  For had I been angry, not one remnant would have been left of the enemies of Yisroel.’”

          The expression ‘enemies of Yisroel’ is a euphemism for the B’nai Yisroel themselves.  Had Bila’am succeeded in his curse, not one of the B’nai Yisroel would have been spared.  This being so, two questions develop. 

          Initially, what kind of comparison is being made by the Torah between ‘They met you not with bread and with water’ and ‘They hired against you Bila’am….. to curse you’?  Providing bread and water is a simple kindness, a consideration for others- not a matter of life and death.

          Secondly, if ‘They hired against you Bila’am….. to curse you’ is much more of a severe indiscretion for Amon and Moav, why does the Torah write it after ‘They met you not with bread and with water’?

          A very good answer to these questions is made available for us in the text ‘B’er Yosef’ of Rav Yosef Zundel Salant (1786-1866), of blessed memory.

          In addition to Amon and Moav not marrying Jewish women, a similar prohibition exists for Egyptians:

          “…..You shall not loathe an Egyptian; because you were a stranger in his land.  The children who are fathered by them shall enter into the congregation of HaShem in their third generation.”  (D’varim 23:8-9)

          Basically, an Egyptian who converted, may marry a Jewish women, if he is separated by three generations of those Egyptians who enslaved the B’nai Yisroel.  Now, this seems very odd indeed.  Amon and Moav, who never really succeeded in directly harming the B’nai Yisroel, were barred marriage with a Jewish woman forever.  Egypt on the other hand, who enslaved Yisroel, and drowned their sons in the Nile river, were only barred from marrying a Jewish woman for three generations.  Why should this be so?

          Rav Yosef Zundel answered this question by stressing the fact that in the time when Ya’akov went down to Egypt, the Pharaoh offered the B’nai Yisroel a safe haven from the famine in the Egyptian land of Goshen.  That is, Egypt was Makir Tov to the son of Ya’akov (Yosef), who through the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams, saved Egypt.  And because the Egyptians were Makir Tov, they were not as severely restricted from marrying Jewish women.

          However, Amon and Moav, who did not even ‘meet you with bread and water,’ never did anything good for Yisroel- only bad.  Even though the two daughters of Lot and their father (from whom would come Amon and Moav) survived the destruction of S’dom in the merit of Avraham, they were never Makir Tov to the B’nai Yisroel for this.

          Continuing, Rav Yosef Zundel made another very interesting point.  Had Amon and Moav met the B’nai Yisroel with bread and water, even though they later sinned by hiring Bila’am to curse Yisroel, they would not have been so severely restricted from marriage with a Jewess.

          Basically speaking, one who hasn’t the slightest idea of being Makir Tov, simply does not yet deserve Jewish children, to whom he would bestow the Mida of being ingrates.

          Therefore, concluded Rav Yosef Zundel, the reason that ‘They met you not with bread and with water’ comes before ‘They hired against you Bila’am….. to curse you’ is that Amon and Moav were primarily punished by not being permitted ever to marry Jewish women, for not having been Makir Tov.  Simply put, since they were not Makir Tov with bread and water, they wound up being punished for hiring Bila’am.

          Let us at all times remember the obligations of being Makir Tov to anyone who shows us kindness. 

          May we soon see the G’ulah Sh’laimah in its complete resplendency- and in our times.  Good Shabbos.

 

 

To receive a free e-mail subscription to NCYI�s weekly Torah Bulletin, send an email to: YI_Torah@lb.bcentral.com