EXOD705 I know that the reader will think to himself: "Why should I set a sum aside like the Free Loan Societies in each city, and then hand out small loans? It is better for me to lend a large, single sum which I can afford, as a single loan, to a respectable person, for after all gemiluth chesed is a mitzvah whether the loan is made to the poor or the rich." This is a fallacy. Firstly, it is a greater mitzvah to lend to the poor. Chazal have explained [this verse]: "When you lend money to any of My people, to the poor with you…" to imply that if there are rich and poor, the poor take precedence (Bava Metzia 71a). Now where a person could not allocate more than a modest sum out of his capital, then if he were to loan it to the rich, there would remain nothing for him to loan to the poor. Scripture has taught that (Proverbs 2:5): "If you seek her as silver… then shall you understand the fear of God." In business, if one engages in a number of small transactions involving a certain amount, the total profit will be larger than if the whole amount would be used in a single transaction. So too in our context, when the person gives a number of loans, each for a small amount as is customary, he can perform hundreds of positive mitzvoth of the Torah in the course of one year. This would not be so if he lent a single large sum to one individual. In the same period, he might only perform a few mitzvoth. Similarly, the Tanna (Pirkei Avoth 3:15) has laid down that "the world is judged by grace, yet all is in accord with the majority of deeds" (i.e. the world is judged according to which number of deeds is the larger, if the good, then the judged shall emerge victorious from their trial).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD712 See [[EXOD296]] Exodus 18:20 way AHAVCH 26

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD714 Gemiluth chesed loans are to be extended to all: man or woman, rich or poor, adults or minors (through their guardian and the like, to prevent the money being lost. Gemiluth chesed with one's person is to be extended to the minor directly). Scripture has stated: "If you will lend money to my people." Whoever is included in the term "my people" is entitled by law to benefit from gemiluth chesed.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD718 Indeed, the amount of money owned by a person in excess of his needs is a trust fund deposited by the Master of the Universe, Who appointed him to administer it, to take pity on the unfortunate and to extend favors to the needy. On [this verse], R. Moshe Alshech has commented: "This is comparable to a person who has deeded all his money to one of his sons. [The law presumes that] he only intended to appoint this son a trustee, since it is reasonable to assume that he would not cut off the rest without anything. Hence the share of each of the other sons is held to be a trust fund kept with him. So in our case. God made one person rich. Is it possible to assume that he has left the rest in penury? Are they not his sons as well? God, then, appointed the rich person a trustee to support the poor, and their share with him exceeds his own portion." This is what the verse (Ibid), "the poor that is with you," conveys: Whatever the poor really needs belongs to him. It is deposited with you on his behalf, therefore you must not withhold it from him.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD719 One should be aware not to subject the borrower to any indignity, Heaven forbid, but lend to him cheerfully. (See above, chapter 9, where we have explained the matter thoroughly.) He should consider himself. Suppose he wanted to obtain a favor from his neighbor. How ardently would he wish his neighbor to receive him graciously. He should act the same way towards his neighbor. So Rashi has commented on [this verse]: "If you lend money to My people, to the poor that is with you, you shall not treat him disrespectfully when lending him money, since he is "My people." "The poor that is with you"--look at yourself as if you were the poor man.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD721 Collecting the money owed to him will allow the giver to lend it out again, as the Torah has intimated by [this verse]: "If you take a pledge…" following immediately after "If you lend money to my people…", the implication being, according to the Mechilta (Ibid.) that one should first give the loan and then take a pledge. (The pledge here referred to can only be exacted with the permission of the Beth Din. As pointed out in the Gemara [Bava Metzia 113b], to take a pledge without the authorization of the Beth Din is to transgress the prohibition [Deuteronomy 24:10]: "You shall not go into his house to fetch the pledge." Even to seize a pledge from the debtor in the street is forbidden, as is laid down in Choshen Mishpat, Chap. 97 [q.v.].) This refutes the illusory belief that it would be better for the lender to allow the money not to be repaid, since then he would not be obliged to bother lending it out again. The Torah teaches us proper conduct. It is better to keep claiming the money till it is recovered, and then to lend it out once more.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV159 See [[DEUT656]] Deuteronomy 13:18 mercy AHAVCH 117-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV359 As for one who refuses to pay (he has the means but is powerful enough to resist), he transgresses the explicit injunction of the Torah [this verse]: "You shall not oppress your neighbor." As is laid down in the Choshen Mishpat (Chap. 359, Par. 8): "What constitutes oppression? – – A person gains possession of his neighbor's money with the owner's consent. When payment is demanded, he retains his neighbor's money by force and refuses to return it. For instance, someone was owed a debt or his wages. He demands the money, but is unable to exact payment because the defendant retains the money by force." Chazal have also designated four types of persons as wicked, and one is the borrower who does not repay, as it is said (Psalm 37:21): "The wicked borrows, and does not repay." How ashamed should a person feel when he knows he can repay, but does not, and thereby attaches the name of rasha' [i.e., "wicked" -- AJL] to himself. Now if his neighbor were to call him rasha', even in private when he would suffer no embarrassment, he would nevertheless greatly resent the insult. How much shame will he eventually suffer in the future, when his notoriety will be exposed in the presence of myriads upon myriads of holy beings. So the holy books have stated, that all man's affairs are disclosed and made public in everyone's presence in Heaven. He may be able to assume an impressive appearance towards his contemporaries, acting as if he were innocent, but to God the greatness of his crime is revealed. This is what Chazal meant by saying (Avoth 2:13): "And do not be wicked in your own esteem." (Especially if one is a Talmid Chacham is his sin exceedingly grave, for he desecrates the Divine Name. Beside his other wrongs, he transgresses the prohibition (Leviticus 22:32): "And do not profane My holy Name." Chazal have given the matter even greater emphasis (Yoma 87): "How is His name desecrated?--If one buys and does not pay at once." How much more guilty is the one who does not pay at all.) Choshen Mishpat (Chap. 97, Par. 4) rules it forbidden for a borrower to take a loan and squander it on needless things, to the extent that the lender will no longer find anything left from which to exact payment. One acting in this manner is called a rasha'. This is surely so where he has the means but refuses to pay the debt. How great is his iniquity!

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV362 Now the verse we have quoted previously admonishes even in the case where the employer gives the worker his due hire, but merely defers payment and does not remit on time. How much greater is the warning where the employer withholds the hire altogether, and does not pay at all--or else, deducts even a single cent from the amount agreed-upon in the first place. The employer here is guilty of actual robbery. He transgresses the prohibition [this verse]. So the Gemara explains (Bava Metzia 61a/b; 111a).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV473 [Continued from [[LEV720]] Leviticus 19:18 vengeance AHAVCH 27-8.] If the person who asks for a loan is liable to be in danger if his request is refused, if he needs the money to prevent robbers attacking him, then whoever refuses to help in such a case would violate the additional prohibition of [this verse]: "Neither shall you stand idly by the blood of your neighbor." Here we have been warned against remaining indifferent to our friend when his life is in danger and we have the means to save him in one way or another. Furthermore according to the Mechilta (cited by the Rambam in his Sefer Hamitzvoth No. 297), this prohibition also applies to the case where one is aware of something which might cause loss to his neighbor and he is able to help prevent it. If he fails to help, he commits the transgression. This applies in our case too. If one knows that his friend, rich or poor, is liable to incur a substantial loss (as happens nowadays when a loan falls due, as is well known), and by a loan given now he can save his friend, then if he fails to help he violates this prohibition.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT