LEV1056 Where many applicants for loans approached him, one needing a larger sum, and each of the others requiring a small amount, and by lending to the first applicant he would have none left for the others, then the lending of small amounts to the many is preferable to the lending of a large sum to a single borrower. Each individual loan constitutes a fulfillment of a positive mitzvah and the Tanna has already declared (Avoth 3:15): "All depends on the number of acts." (See Rambam: Mishnah Commentary, ad loc.). If, however, the applicant for the larger sum would thereby be saved from complete financial ruin, he might take priority over the others, since here an additional mitzvah is involved, viz. [this verse]. In assisting the many, the mitzvah of giving loans, alone, is fulfilled.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1052 Some people are afraid that the debtor will not repay the loan. They are unwilling to accept any security. Yet one should earnestly reflect before he releases himself from this obligation. Firstly, if the amount is small he would, regardless, be bound to give the money to this man as charity, or in fulfillment of the mitzvah [this verse]. So he certainly is duty-bound to lend the money, even if there is some danger of financial loss. Even if the sum would not be returned to him, he would still have to give it to the person for the reasons we have mentioned above. And even if these reasons could not be applied in a specific case, as where the amount exceeds what he is obliged to give to charity, or where the mitzvah of "You shall uphold him" is not involved--once the borrower offers him a reliable security, he can no longer free himself from the obligation to accept the pledge (unless the borrower is a violent person who can force him to return the article before the loan is repaid). There is another argument motivated by fear. The person approached is concerned that he might need the money at short notice. This argument has some validity. If he needs the money for his household expenses, he certainly takes priority, for his own life comes before his neighbor's. He is also justified where an investment is immediately available, or where he has been approached to give the free loan for a long term, since in this case it is normal for some investment opportunity to present itself during a longer period of time. Still, for someone to refrain from granting a short term loan to the needy while his money lies idle, on the chance that some profitable transaction might suddenly arise, is not a reasonable excuse, unless the person really expects to engage in some enterprise in the near future, and he could not do so without this money. Take note, however, that these considerations apply to a person who is not especially wealthy. He expects the business investment to yield him a living for his household. A really rich person, however, who possesses idle cash, is certainly duty-bound to make the loan if the person requesting it is trustworthy or prepared to offer security, even if this loan would preclude him from investing this some in other business interests. The positive commandment of "When you lend money to the poor" devolves upon everyone in proportion to his means (Sefer Hachinuch, Mitzvah 66). In this instance, his means are certainly sufficient. The principle of his life taking precedence over his neighbor's certainly does not apply. This rich man would only use his money to increase his wealth still further, while the borrower would use it for his basic necessities. If the rich man's argument is sustained, there would never be a limit. He could always keep on acquiring new business interests. No amount of investment capital would ever be sufficient for him. He would forever be exempt from the mitzvah of lending to the poor. There is a third reason, also motivated by fear, for a person refraining from performing the mitzvah of gemiluth chesed. He is apprehensive that the public will become aware of his wealth. He would then be subjected to pressure to contribute to communal needs. This contention is certainly groundless. Shall one be absolved from his duty to observe a positive commandment of the Torah because of this fear? This contention has no more validity than the argument of the person who refrains from giving charity for he is afraid of losing his money. In the present case, many Biblical verses and Rabbinical literature indicate that the sin is grave, and the punishment is the loss of one's property in this world, as is evident from the Gemara (Kethuvoth 66b). Tanna debei Eliyahu Zuta (Chap. 4) declares: "If you have given charity, you will acquire possessions. If you have acquired possessions, give them as charity while they are still in your hands. Buy this world with them, and you shall inherit the world to come. For if you do not use them for charity, they will soon depart, as it is said (Proverbs 23:5): 'Shall your eye make it fly away and be gone?'" (Continued at [[DEUT156]] Deuteronomy 5:10 give AHAVCH 110-1).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1057 (As for the scriptural expression, "with you", this can be explained by reference to the verse [Proverbs 22:2]: "the rich and the poor meet together; God is the Maker of them all," as expounded by Chazal. "When the poor approaches the rich and says, 'Support me,' then if the latter does support him, well and good. If not, (God is the Maker of them all'--He who made this one rich can make him poor…" so when a poor person approaches you, you should imagine that you yourself have become financially unstable, since, if you do not help him, your security too, might, God forbid, collapse. If, however, you help him to stabilize his position, both of you will live and endure. This is the meaning of "and he shall live with you.") Now if God grants the beneficiary some profit through this loan and he earns a livelihood for his household and himself, then God will regard the lender as having preserved the life of the borrower and his family. So we have explained previously on the authority of the Midrash.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM18 This versus intimates that in the end nothing remains of all man's accomplishments, with the exception of the holy acts that he performed, personally, during his lifetime, such as: Tefillin, Tzitzith, and the other mitzvot. Every mitzvah he performs creates another defending angel and these will forever keep company with him. Not so the yetzer harah and all his physical powers which man cherishes most. They accompany him temporarily; when he is in distress, they depart from him. Furthermore they really detest man. They send and testify against him, seeking to forfeit his life. Even the members of his own family, who really love him, cannot stay with him forever. Each of them must return to his own home, after they have escorted him to the cemetery. He will not see them ever again, until the time of the revival of the dead. What does he retain? -- his holy acts. They accompany him; they are his true friends and counsel, defending him before the Lord of all things. This thought is conveyed by, "and every man's holy things shall be his" [this verse]. Hence man should acquire as many of these friends as he can, during his lifetime. He should be with them at all times, since they will stay with him forever. The verse ends: "Whatsoever any man gives to the Priest shall be his." This too teaches a moral lesson. Of all the money he exerts himself to accumulate in his lifetime, man will retain nothing in the end. The only sums he will continue to enjoy will be the amounts he distributed as charity and chesed. So has Chazal pointed out (Bava Bathra 11a): "My forbears laid up stores below; I have laid up stores above." This, then, is the meaning of the passage, "Whatsoever he gives to the Priest shall be his." The donation really belongs to the donor.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT49 On [this] verse: "But you who cleave to Hashem your God are alive every one of you this day," the Gemara (Kethuvoth 112a) comments: "Is it really possible to cleave to the Shechinah?--Is it not written (Ibid. v. 24): 'Hashem your God is a devouring fire?' The meaning is: Whoever gives his daughter in marriage to a Talmid Chacham and whoever engages in business with a Talmid Chacham (he invests the latter's money so that the scholar receives an income and is free to occupy himself with Torah study [Rashi], and whoever gives the benefit of his property to a Talmid Chacham is regarded by Scripture as if 'he cleaves to the Shechinah.'"

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT120 See [[DEUT49]] Deuteronomy 4:4 cleave AHAVCH 101-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT142 See [[DEUT1641]] Deuteronomy 30:20 life AHAVCH 156

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT156 (Continued from [[LEV1052]] Leviticus 25:35 uphold AHAVCH 108-110) One must trust that by obeying God's will with one's money, one will suffer no harm. Instead, one's possessions will be blessed with increase, as it is said [this verse]. What is true of charity is true of chesed, as we have shown in our previous chapters. So even if one did gain the reputation of being wealthy, and his communal assessments were therefore increased by a certain amount each year, you should not be swayed by such a consideration, for God will surely repay the damage he suffered in performing the mitzvah. Besides, consider this situation: a person became aware of an investment which would yield him thousands of dollars per year. As a result, however, he would gain the reputation of being rich, and his annual communal assessments and the like will be increased by several dollars. Would he forgo the investment so as to appear less affluent and thereby escape the increase in his contributions? If he did, everyone would consider him a fool. This is how such arguments appear in our case. Is it worthwhile to forfeit eternal life for the sake of a few grains of silver? Eternal life is earned thereby, because every time one makes such a loan to his neighbor he fulfills a positive Torah commandment, and the reward for mitzvoth is infinite. The lender will be worthy to shelter in the "wings" of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the world to come, as Chazal have declared.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT193 See [[1641]] Deuteronomy 30:20 life AHAVCH 156

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT313 Consider how far Chazal have gone in describing the wickedness of a person who refrains from performing acts of chesed, in saying (Koheleth Rabba 7:1): "If one repudiates his obligation to do chesed, it is as though he repudiates the cardinal doctrine (of God's existence)." By this remark they intend to convey that Hashem, may He be blessed, is the source of all goodness and kindness. His purpose in all that He created was to give His creatures the opportunity to earn merit, enabling Him to repay them, ultimately, with goodness and kindness. To this end the Torah was revealed and its commandments ordained. As Scripture states [this verse]. Hence if one refuses to accept this view of the virtue of chesed and asks, "What do I need it for?"--his rejection is tantamount to denying the fundamental principle (of God's existence), Heaven forbid. Hence one should completely avoid such thoughts. He should take care to cling to the ways of God, may He be blessed, which are permeated with goodness and kindness, in order to receive goodness in this world and in the next.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT