e of the three biblical instances where the usage of the Hebrew ‘im’ is not to be understood as being volitional – if – but is rather to be taken as an imperative – “When you lend money to my nation,” as you should do – nevertheless, one might legitimately query why the Bible chooses to use such an ambiguous term for an act of lending, when it is clearly God’s desire that we perform this act!
Second, the Bible seems repetitious: “…to my nation, to the poor person with you.” One or the other of these two phrases would have been sufficient to teach the point!
Third, “You may not be to him as a creditor,” says the Torah. This is interpreted by our sages to mean that not only is it forbidden for the creditor to remind the debtor of the loan, but the creditor must go out of his way not to cause the debtor embarrassment; if the creditor sees the debtor walking towards him it is incumbent upon the creditor to change direction. Why? After all, the debtor took money from the creditor, didn’t he? Why not remind the debtor that the loan must be repaid?
Fourth and finally, the specific prohibition against interest itself seems problematic. The Hebrew word used in the Bible for interest – “neshekh” – also means the bite of a snake, which our sages compare to interest since the serpent initially injects his venom painlessly but it ultimately consumes the entire individual and takes his very life! Maimonides goes so far as to codify:
“Anyone who writes a contract with an interest charge is writing and causing witnesses to testify that he denies the Lord God of Israel… and is denying the exodus from Egypt.” (Laws of Lenders and Borrowers, 4:7)
What is the logical reason for the prohibition against interest – and why the hyperbolic comparisons? After all, there is no prohibition against charging rent for the use of my house! W hy should there be a prohibition against charging rent for the use of my excess funds?
Rabbi Haim ibn Attar, in a most brilliant illumination, beautifully explains this passage in his commentary Ohr Hachayim. In an ideal world, he maintains, there ought to be no rich and no poor, no lenders and no borrowers; everyone should receive from the Almighty exactly what they require to live. But, in His infinite wisdom, this is not the manner in which the Lord created the world. He provides certain individuals with excess funds, expecting them to help those who have insufficient funds, appointing them His “cashiers” or “ATMs.” Hence you must read the verse as “If you have [excess] money to lend to my nation, [understand] that what ought to have gone to the poor individual is with you.” You were merely given the poor person’s money in trust; your extra funds actually belong to him!
If you understand this fundamental axiom – that the rich person is actually holding the poor person’s money in trust as an agent of the divine – then everything becomes clear. Of course, the lender may not act as a creditor, because she is only giving the poor man what is in actuality his. And of course one dare not charge interest, because the money you lent out was never yours in the first place.
This is the message of the exodus from Egypt, the seminal historic event which formed and hopefully still informs us as a nation: no individual ought ever be owned by or even indebted to another individual. We are all owned by and must be indebted only to God. This fundamental truth is the foundation of our traditional legal system which is uniquely just and equitable: it is especially considerate of the needs of the downtrodden and enslaved, the poor and the infirm, the orphan and the widow, the stranger and the convert, the “chained wife” and the indigent forced to sell their land. From this perspective, not only must we submit to Jewish law, but it is crucial that our judges be certain that Jewish law remains true to its ethical foundations