English translation — בהר ב

1.

It is written in our parshah¹

: "And if your brother becomes impoverished etc. a stranger and a resident and lives with you,

do not take from him interest and increase etc."

And Chazal explained in the Gemara²,

that what is said "do not take from him interest and increase" applies only to "your brother" and not to "a stranger and a resident"

and not "do not take from them" in the plural].

And what is said "a stranger and a resident" is only regarding "and lives with you" — "that you are commanded to sustain him"³,

but not regarding "do not take from him interest and increase".

And the Rambam wrote⁴

: "The nations of the world and a ger toshav borrow from them and lend to them with interest ..

to your brother it is forbidden and to the rest of the world it is permitted.

And it is a positive commandment to lend with interest to a nations of the world⁵

as it is said⁶

to a gentile you shall lend with interest,

from the oral tradition they learned that this is a positive commandment".

That is, there are three laws regarding lending with interest: a Jew — <b>forbidden</b> to lend to him with interest,

a resident alien — <b>permitted</b> to lend to him with interest,

a gentile — <b>a commandment</b> to take interest from him.

And behold, that which the Torah <b>permitted</b> taking interest from a gentile

(and from a resident alien)

— even though “it is forbidden to rob or steal, whatever is Torah law, whether from a Jew or from a gentile”⁷

and also “it is forbidden

(by Torah law⁸)

to deceive people in buying and selling …

and one gentile and one Jew are equal in this matter”⁹

It is understood,

that interest is different¹⁰

from robbery and overcharging,

and as it is stated in the Gemara¹¹

(that also regarding a Jew we did not find to learn the prohibition of taking interest from the prohibitions of robbery and overcharging,

because)

"What [is true] of these

(robbery and overcharging)

that [they are] without [the victim's] knowledge

robbery — he took against his will”¹²],

will you say regarding interest, which is with his knowledge

And since interest is different from robbery and overcharging,

that the taking of the money is "with his knowledge" of the borrower,

therefore it works out well that the Torah prohibited taking interest

(the lenient one compared to robbery and overcharging)

only from "your brother" but not from a non-Jew

(and a resident alien).

However, that there is also "&lt;b&gt;a positive commandment &lt;/b&gt;to lend to a gentile",

requires explanation: even though the borrower gives the interest of his own knowledge and will — but behold, the Torah called it by the name "neshekh"&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

and after all there is "in all of them

(robbery, overcharging, and interest)

a monetary loss that one causes to his fellow"&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

— and if so, what is the reason &lt;b&gt;that we were commanded &lt;/b&gt;to cause a monetary loss to the gentile through neshekh?

2.

And this will be understood by prefacing an explanation of the dispute of the poskim whether forgiveness is effective regarding interest: the opinion of the Geonim&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;,

that even if the lender already collected the interest,

the forgiveness of the borrower is not effective to exempt the lender from returning it to the borrower.

And the reason for this: "All interest in the world is forgiveness,

but the Torah did not forgive and forbade this forgiveness,

therefore forgiveness is not effective regarding interest."

But the opinion of the Rosh&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

(and so the halacha is decided in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;),

that forgiveness is not effective to permit the taking of interest from the outset

(because all interest in the world is forgiveness and the Torah forbade this forgiveness),

but "if

(already)

he took interest from him and must return it to him,

forgiveness is effective to exempt him, as in every case of robbery"&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;.

And behold, the reasoning of the Geonim that forgiveness is not effective at all regarding interest even after the borrower has given it willingly to the lender

that "the Torah did not forgive and forbade this forgiveness" is,

at first glance,

only regarding the case of the borrower's forgiveness and his agreement &lt;b&gt;to give &lt;/b&gt;the interest,

but &lt;b&gt;after &lt;/b&gt;the giving of the interest &lt;b&gt;we do not &lt;/b&gt;find that the Torah forbade the forgiveness]

The Ritva explains¹⁹,

And his exact language: "The claim of interest is not like other claims of theft and fraud and the like, where one has a monetary lien against his fellow,

but it is an obligation that the verse obligates to return the prohibition that was swallowed..

For it is an obligation that the Merciful One placed upon him,

and like the debt according to the opinion that repayment of a loan is a commandment and the lien is not biblical,

except that there, there is a monetary claim of his fellow and forgiveness is effective,

but here, he is obligated <b>to Heaven</b>,

and since that is so, his fellow's forgiveness will not avail him."

And this is,

that the intention of the Geonim in the proof that "all interest in the world, forgiveness etc." is*¹⁹

Since "all interest in the world is forgivable" except that "the Torah did not forgive and forbade it",

thus from this it is proven that the prohibition of taking interest and the obligation to return it is not in the category of a law of <b>money that one owes to his fellow</b>

(since the other forgives the interest),

but rather it is a matter and prohibition that the Torah placed upon the lender in the category of a <b>commandment and obligation toward Heaven</b>

(and regarding the obligation to return it to the borrower, he is obligated to the Most High)

- and therefore "forgiveness is not effective for interest" even after the lender has received it,

because he does not fulfill his obligation toward Heaven until he returns the "forbidden thing that he swallowed".

3.

And now, based on this, it must be said that the reasoning of the Rosh

(and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch)

that forgiveness is effective for interest

(after it has come into the possession of the lender)

ע״ה that the obligation to return the interest is an obligation that the Torah placed upon him,

and it is not because of a lien on property

(as the Ritva proved there&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;),

nevertheless,

this obligation that the Torah obligated him is not a matter of "he is obligated &lt;b&gt;to Heaven&lt;/b&gt;",

but rather the Torah placed an obligation upon him to return the money that he &lt;b&gt;deprived&lt;/b&gt; his &lt;b&gt;fellow&lt;/b&gt; unlawfully,

and that is that he became obligated

(by virtue of this commandment)

in an obligation &lt;b&gt;to his fellow&lt;/b&gt;,

and regarding this, forgiveness is effective.

And as explained in the words of the aforementioned Ritva

(according to the opinion of the Geonim)

that the matter of returning the interest because of the obligation that the Torah placed upon him

(and not because of a lien on property)

it is "like the matter of repaying a debt, a commandment",

except that the Ritva distinguished

(according to the opinion of the Geonim)

between repaying a debt and returning interest,

that regarding repaying a debt "there is a monetary law towards his fellow and forgiveness is effective, but here he is obligated to Heaven",

and the opinion of the Rosh is that also the matter of the &lt;b&gt;commandment&lt;/b&gt; of returning interest is that the Torah obligated him to return the money that he deprived his &lt;b&gt;fellow&lt;/b&gt;,

and it is not in the category of "obligation to Heaven" &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;.

And it is found that according to the opinion of the Geonim and according to the opinion of the Rosh

(and the Tur and Shulchan Aruch)²²

the money of interest is considered the property of the lender²³

and there is no obligation upon him to return it from the perspective of the law of property in itself,

but rather from the perspective of a divine obligation.

D.

And based on this, it is to be explained,

in the inner dimension of the matters,

a detail in the law of retaining interest;

One who lends with interest, if he comes to do repentance and to return the interest, we do not accept from him²⁴,

And even though we do not accept from him, he is obligated to return to fulfill his obligation to Heaven, and nevertheless, it is a pious measure not to accept from him²⁵.

And the explanation of this:

Our Sages, of blessed memory, said²⁶

"The Torah has compassion on the money of Israel",

And the reason for this, one can say:

<b>P'sak Din</b> is "all your deeds for the sake of Heaven" and "in all your ways know Him"²⁷

- consequently, since this is his money, he must fulfill this P'sak Din also regarding his money²⁸,

and in the language of the Rambam²⁹

"his heart should not be directed only toward gathering money, but rather etc."

In the style of Chassidus - in the money of Israel there are "holy sparks that belong to the root of his soul"³⁰.

And behold, since the Holy One, blessed be He, embedded His world in this manner and order,

that a person can profit with his money by lending it with interest&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

and moreover that "he said, 'Wait for me'"&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

reason compels this&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

- it is understood,

that also the sparks that are in interest have some connection to the root of his soul.

However, since the Torah <b>forbade</b> interest,

it was not given to him to refine these sparks and the order of his service in them is in the way of <b>rejection</b>

(like the sparks in all forbidden things&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;).

However, after the lender took the interest money and it already became part of <b>his money</b> and there is no obligation upon him to return it from the perspective of monetary law in itself,

but rather from the perspective of an obligation that the Merciful One placed upon him as above — behold, even though he transgressed a prohibition in this and is obligated to return the interest,

nevertheless,

wherever there is another way that makes it possible that he will not need to return it — he must endeavor that the interest remain in his hand,

since the sparks in it belong to the root of his soul.

And this is the reason

(the inner [reason])

that the quality of piety is not to accept the return of interest from one who comes to fulfill his obligation,

because the sparks that are in the money of interest,

belong to the root of the soul of the lender.

5.

According to all the above, one can also explain the reason <b>that we were commanded</b> to take interest from a gentile — even though it is forbidden to diminish his property through theft or fraud — because these sparks that are in the money of interest of the gentile who borrows from a Jew,

belong to the lender,

and it is upon him to extract the sparks from the domain of impurity and elevate them to holiness³⁵.

And based on this will also be understood that which they say³⁶

that the commandment of “to a foreigner you may lend at interest” is

(not only to take interest from him,

but also)

a commandment <b>to lend </b>to the foreigner in order to take interest from him — because from this that the foreigner needs the Israelite that he lend him money,

it is proven,

that the sparks that are found in the money of this foreigner belong to Israel.

And therefore it is a commandment to lend to him in order to take interest from him in order to elevate these sparks to holiness.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Mishpatim,

5723)