If you lend money to My people, to the poor who are in your power,

Do not act toward him as a creditor,

Exact no interest from him. (Shemot 22,24)

If you lend money to My people – R. Yishmael says:

Every 'if' in the Torah is voluntary except for three instances, the above

being one of them. Do not act

toward him as a creditor- Do not

demand payment from him forcibly if you are aware that he is wanting: don't

appear to him as if you are his creditor, but rather as if you have not lent

him anything, in other words do not embarrass him.

Interest –In Rabbinical

Hebrew – ריבית (ribeet) – 'biting' like the biting of a snake: it bites

inflicting a small wound in one's foot which he does not feel at first, but all

at once, it distends the entire body up to the head. So it is with interest; at

first one does not feel the drain and remains unnoticed until the interest

mounts up and suddenly the person has lost a large fortune.

(Rashi ad locum)

Do not act towards him as a creditor

– Money

that a person lends out is not entirely his and only his, and the decision to

lend is not a purely arbitrary act. One's money is also the property of God, and the act of lending is a mitzvah, and the borrower

is not solely a private individual – he is one of My people, one of God's community; the

community, God willing that shall be built upon the magical powers of 'mitzvah'.

(R. Samson Raphael

Hirsch)

Loans, Tzedakah, and Circles of Responsibility Towards

the Poor

Aryeh Bernstein

If you lend money to My

exact no interest from him. (Shemot 22,24)

In our parsha, the

Torah forbids us to lend money with interest, because it is a way of exploiting

the poor, disguised as assistance to him. (See for example Nechemiah

5) We are discussing a business

arrangement between two individuals from the middle class and above, that

transforms the relationship between them into one of abuse, in that the stronger

one widens the gap between them and changes his position of power from a

temporary one to something more permanent. The technical act- of transferring

money from one to another with the expectation that he will return it – is

significantly different when one expects that the money will be returned, than

when the borrower, because of his desperate and unstable situation, cannot return

the money.

In the first situation, the loan becomes a

charitable act; if he is able to recover his money, congratulations are due to

the lender, while the borrower retains his dignity.

If the difference between a loan given to assist the other person, as distinct from a

loan that apparently depresses him, only by means of the relationship between

them and not through the formal transaction, the question arises: to whom should one lend money in the first

place? In light of this, the Tannaim while dealing with the details of the prohibition

of lending money with interest, reveal an approach to this basic question that

is embedded in this very verse: 'If you lend money to My people to the poor

who are in your power…'

My people: If a Jew and gentile are seeking a loan- My people precede the gentile. If one is poor and the other is rich, the poor man precedes the

rich one. If one is a poor relative and the other is only a fellow resident of

your city, your poor relative has priority over others. If the poor of your

city and the poor of another city are seeking a loan, the poor of your city

precede the others, as it is written: 'thy poor'. (Mechilta

of R. Yishmael, Mishpatim,

Tractate 'Kaspa', Parsha

19: See also Bavli B. Metzia

71a)

At first glance at this midrash, Chazal have solved

the problem of the priorities in the granting of loans, and in fact, all the

economic assistance to the poor. The decisors have

applied this midrash to the laws of loans (חו"מ צ"ז:א)

And to the laws of tzedakah ((יו"ד רנא:ד, why does the verse mention 'My people'? To instruct us that if we have a

limited amount of funds and there are two people requesting a loan, I am to

give priority to the Jew over the gentile. Why mention 'the poor'? To instruct us to give to the poorer of the two. Why mention

'who are in your power'? To instruct us to give preference to

relatives over other indigents in my city, and to residents of my city over

those of other cities. My circles of responsibility encompass all

mankind, however there are priorities to those who are in need of assistance

and those who are culturally closer or are biologically closer to me – circles

whose importance for the benefit of society, become better

understood in their historical and social context, that it is still impossible

to imagine a welfare state.

The midrash only partially reveals its implications and

poses more questions than It offers answers. How do

all the axis combine with each other? How do we decide between a distant

relative in need as opposed to a next door neighbor, between a Jew who is in

slight economic distress as opposed to a gentile who is in dire economic

straits?

And another problem- how

does one define 'my city'? Do I use the current political map?

Must I take into

consideration, the time involved in arriving there? Must I also factor in the

people with whom I socialize? Is 'my city' limited to Talpiot,

or may it refer to Talpiot and Bakah,

or perhaps does it include all of south Jerusalem?

Or perhaps, it might encompass Greater Jerusalem? Does it include Bet Tzafafah? What if I reside Scarsdale,

New York, which according to all indices of

poverty does not contain poor people, but within a short ride is an area

defined as one of extreme poverty, the Bronx,

NYC?

We have not come to

answer complex halachic questions in a publication

devoted to 'parshat hashavuah',

rather our intent is to refine the questions in terms of a global economy, in

which the concept of 'neighborhood' changes, while the gaps between the rich

and poor expand exponentially, where today it is possible to reach the distant

poor, and the issue of the intervention of the world's inhabitants becomes more

and more problematic and complex.(Think about it: poor laborers in Asia

assembled the computer that I write with, using minerals imported from Africa, and

the Africans did not receive any compensation for the natural resources

extracted from their lands.

The literature of halachic arbiters mentions two trends that shed light on

this subject.

In Shulchan

Aruch Yoreh Deah 251, dealing with the priorities in the distribution

of charity, R. Yosef Karo

adds the following halacha (8): 'If a man and a woman

come to ask for food, preference shall be given to the woman'. How does gender

factor in to the priorities discussed previously in which only the level of

need and familial relationship are being discussed?

The Shach

(ad locum) offers an interesting explanation: "Since poor males are

accustomed to seek assistance by going from house to house and this not the

custom of a female, and even if she were to do so, since the general custom is for

a woman not to engage in this practice, we preferably grant charity to a woman over

a man in order to discourage women from doing so." That is to say, that social norms prevent a woman in financial need from

solicitation, while such a barrier does not exist for men. Under such

circumstances, one can assume that when a man and a woman appear in one's

doorway to solicit, one can assume that the situation of the woman is more

severe; the 'price' that she is paying for soliciting is higher than that of

the male. Moreover, even if she overcomes the social norms and is standing in

my doorway, there still exists the concern that if I do not assist her, she may

not overcome her anxiety and never attempt to solicit in the next house. In the

words of the Shach: 'Alternatively, she may become

too embarrassed to request from others'. Therefore, gender is not here the

issue, rather, the willingness to seek assistance. In a certain society, there

is a relationship between 'willingness' and 'gender'; in another society,

possibly the male will find it more difficult to seek assistance because of his

'male image'.

However, all is

dependent upon local cultural factors. Additionally, there exist factors that

relate to conditions of poverty that must be taken into account. For example. if I receive a request for assistance from a

place that suffers from extreme poverty and also receive a request from a site

that also suffers from extreme poverty plus it is in a war zone, preventing the

media from transmitting any information, so that the cries of the poor cannot

be heard, perhaps the halacha we cited regarding the

priority of the woman over the man, would instruct us to grant priority to

those who have no access to the television cameras? If the erection of the

separation wall and the paving of new roads between Jerusalem and Efrat, prevent one from observing and remembering that

there are people living in acute poverty in the refugee camp of Dheisheh, perhaps there is an increased obligation to

assist the poor whom we do not see and support the organization succeeds in

reminding us of their existence? If in our country there are brokers, who in

violation of the law import foreign workers and confiscate their passports and

literally enslave them- and those 'slaves' fear the seeking of assistance,

because their 'Pharoah' will further exacerbate their

working conditions, do we not have an obligation to give them priority in

assistance, in the rare event that the civil rights organizations bring their

plight to our attention?

How do we integrate all of the axis? Our midrash

contains an additional consideration: 'The inhabitants of the Holy

Land precede the inhabitants of the diaspora'

(Sifre Devorim piska 116, cited in Yoreh Deah 251,8), and the Chatam Sofer offers a solution

that integrates the different variables. The summation of his suggestion is to

be found in the "Pitchei Teshuvah"

commentary on the Shulchan Aruch

(Rabbi Avraham Zvi Eisenstadt 19th century) ibid section 4: see Responsa

Chatam Sofer #233 and #234

that states that one should prefer the residents of Jerusalem over the residents

of other cities in the Holy Land; "all precedence is a matter of priority

but not as a basis of rejecting anyone, consequently, if both supplicants are 'equal'

and it is necessary to sustain them with minimal portions of food, we must say 'this

case precedes', but if the residents of Jerusalem can subsist with marginal

portions, they cannot demand more, until all the other cities receive the same

allotment of marginal allotments…"

According to the Chatam Sofer, if we are to deal

with the assistance to the indigent, then the axis of the level of poverty-"between

the poor man and the rich man, the poor one precede the rich one"- becomes

the most cardinal rule, and the others, while important are but secondary, if

we are concerned with poverty threatening life's existence. In a world where

20% of the population lives in abject poverty and millions annually perish as a

result of poverty, and the reduction of distances in the world are accomplished

through modern communication allowing access to the poor throughout the world, it

is dizzying to contemplate how we can change our lives were we to implement the

words of the Chatam Sofer.

Aryeh

Bernstein resides in Jerusalem,

has been an instructor in Yeshivat Maaleh Ha Gilboa, serves as the

Coordinator of Recruitment of Students and Alumni in Yeshivat Hadar in N.Y.

The Word of God is to be Found in

the Details That lead to Tikkun Ha Olam

Why was the parsha

of 'laws' placed adjacent to the parsha of the

altar? To teach us to locate the Sanhedrin in the sanctuary.

(Rashi

21,1)

The following requires explanation: "Moshe

came and related to the people all the words of the Lord and all his statutes".

That is to say he revealed to the people all the Divine content in each

mitzvah, …that are the continuation of His infinite will, blessed be His

name, for by the actual performance of his statutes in particular, will the

eternal soul endure. Consequently, he related to them the everlasting words of

God; he related to them the statutes.

'You will be unto Me

a holy nation'

Holy humans you will be unto Me. Sanctify your

human actions for this is the holiness that is required from man. G-d does not

suffer from a lack of heavenly angels.

(Told over in the name

of R. Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

–ממעינה של תורה )

Peace is Achieved through Normal

Legal Procedures and the Overcoming of Feelings of Hostility

"You have established straight paths"

Said R Alexandri: You have established honesty in your

world. When a man has a legal dispute with his friend and they accept the decision

of the court and make peace, "You have established straight paths".

If a man is walking and sees the donkey of his friend lying under its burden,

and he gives him a hand and helps him load and unload, and they enter an inn

and he says to himself: 'this man likes me and I always thought he was my enemy'.

Instantly they talk to each other and peace prevailed between them. What

brought this about that they should conciliate and become friends?

By abiding by that which

is written in the Torah: "If you see that the donkey of someone who hates

you has collapsed under its load, do not walk by. Instead, stop and help."

(Shemot 23,5) Likewise, "Her

ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace." (Mishlei 3,17). "You have

executed justice and righteousness in Jacob." (Psalm

99,4) "These are the ordinances which you shall put

before them".

(Shemot

21,1 Midrash Tehilim 99)

There are Incidental Mitzvot and There are Others

that One Must Quest For

Hillel said: – "Be among the disciples of

Aaron: Love peace and pursue peace; love your fellow creatures and bring them

near to Torah." 'Love peace' is self – understood. But 'pursue peace'-how

is it possible? It is as we have learned: 'Seek Peace and Pursue It'. What is

the difference from all the mitzvot that one is not

obligated to perform until they present themselves before you, as it is

written: 'Should you come upon your enemy's ox' or 'If you see that the donkey

of someone who hates you…'or 'If you build a new house…', but the pursuit

of peace should be a constant activity, 'Seek Peace and Pursue It'.

(Massechet

Kalah, Chapter 3, Mishna 5)

"An eye for an eye…" – Between Pshat

and Halacha

A man could say, if these are the interpretations

of the laws of the Torah as we have received them from Moshe, as we have said:

The entire Torah, its principles, details and fine points are of Sinaitic origin, then what of the specific rulings labeled 'Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai'? The 'secret' of this principle lays in the fact

that these laws received from Moshe absolutely entail no dispute, for then and

now we have never found a disagreement among the scholars about these laws,

beginning with the days of Moshe until R. Ashi , that

someone would advance the interpretation that if one takes out the eye of

another, his own eye shall be removed, as it is written: 'An eye for an eye… the

second 'eye' is only a ransom he is requires to pay.

(Sefer

Shlah Massechet Shevuot 190)

"The punishment of him who sins against his

neighbor consists in the general rule that there shall be done unto him exactly

as he has done: if he injured any one personally, he must suffer personally; if

he damaged the property of his neighbor, he shall be punished by loss of

property. But the person whose property has been damaged should be ready to

resign his claim totally or partly. Only to the murderer we must not be lenient

because of the greatness of his crime; and no ransom must be accepted of him. 'And

the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein but by the blood

of him that shed it' (Num. xxxi. 33). Hence even if the murdered person continued to

live after the attack for an hour or for days, was able to speak and possessed

complete consciousness, and if he himself said, "Pardon my murderer, I

have pardoned and forgiven him," he must not be obeyed. We must take life

for life, and estimate equally the life of a child and that of a grown-up

person, of a slave and of a freeman, of a wise man and of a fool. For there is no greater sin than this.

And he who mutilated a

limb of his neighbour, must himself lose a limb.

"As he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him

again" (Lev. xxiv. 20).

You must not raise an objection from our practice

of imposing a fine in such cases. For we have proposed to

ourselves to give here the reason for the precepts mentioned in the Law, and

not for that which is stated in the Talmud. I have, however, an

explanation for the interpretation given in the Talmud, but it will be

communicated vivâ voce.

(Moreh

Nevuchim Rambam III,41)

Half Shekel– the symbolic expression by which one

expresses his obligation to donate and fulfill the mitzva

is the half-shekel. The individual's contribution – even if were the epitome of

perfection-objectively speaking could never be absolutely complete. The act of

an individual is incomplete, and in order that his action be

complete, it requires a similar dedication from his fellow man.

(S.R.Hirsch

Shemot 30,13)

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is

committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice,

concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel

and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews

have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of

peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and

just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but

an imperative.

4,500 copies of a 4-page peace oriented

commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over

350 synagogues in Israel

and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

Shabbat Shalom is available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il

For responses and arranging to write for Shabbat

Shalom: pleiser@netvision.net.il