Commento su Deuteronomio 15:3

את הנכרי תגוש OF ANY ALIEN THOU MAYEST EXACT IT AGAIN — This implies a positive command (Sifrei Devarim 113:1).

OF AN ALIEN ‘TIGOS’ (THOU MAYEST EXACT IT). “This constitutes a positive commandment.” Thus is Rashi’s language quoting the Sifre.²⁸⁷Sifre, R’eih 113. The meaning thereof is that there is a positive commandment with respect to your brother [that you are not to exact the debt from him after it was cancelled by the Sabbatical year, the reasoning being as follows]: of an ‘alien’ thou mayest exact it, but not from your brother, and a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment carries the force of a positive commandment.²⁸⁸Ramban thus differs with Rashi in his interpretation of the Sifre. Rashi understood it to be a positive commandment to exact the debt from the heathen. Ramban argues that whether one exacts payment of his claim from a heathen is wholly a matter of choice. He explains the dictum of the Sifre as follows: Scripture explicitly ordained a prohibition against exacting a debt from an Israelite [he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother]. Now, by Scripture stating of an alien thou shalt exact it, we infer that one may not exact it from an Israelite, and since a negative commandment that is derived by implication from a positive commandment has the force of the positive injunction from which it is derived — it follows that he, who exacts it from an Israelite, violates both an explicit negative commandment and an implied positive commandment. This is the intent of the Sifre, but not as stated by Rashi that there is a positive commandment to exact it from the heathen. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 150-151, where Rashi’s position coincides with that of Rambam, and Ramban differs with him. And because we have been taught there [in the Sifre]: “He shall not exact it [of his neighbor and his brother]²⁸⁹Verse 2. — it is a negative commandment upon him,” therefore the Rabbis again taught: “Of an alien thou shalt exact it — this is a positive commandment,” [not to exact the debt from a brother] meaning to say that he who exacts the debt from his brother violates both a positive commandment and a negative commandment.
In the same way the Rabbis have said there:²⁹⁰Sifre, Ki Theitzei 263. “Unto an alien ‘thashich’ (mayest thou lend upon interest)²⁹¹Further, 23:21. — it is a positive commandment. But unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest²⁹¹Further, 23:21. — this is a negative commandment.” This, too, is as we have explained [that the meaning of the Sifre is] that there is a positive commandment with respect to your brother not to lend him on interest, and so did Rashi explain there,²⁹¹Further, 23:21. but not that there is any commandment to lend an alien on interest. It is so indicated from the Gemara of the Chapter “What is usury?”²⁹²Baba Metzia 70b.
Now Harav Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon made both of them actual commandments — to exact debts from an alien²⁹³See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, Positive Commandment 142. and to lend him upon interest.²⁹⁴Ibid., Positive Commandment 198. He erred regarding these texts taught in the Sifre. Such expressions are common there [in the Sifre] in many places, as for example;²⁹⁵Sifre, R’eih 103. “Of all clean fowls ye may eat²⁹⁶Above, 14:20. — it is a positive commandment. And all winged swarming things are unclean; they shall not be eaten²⁹⁷Ibid., Verse 19. — this is a negative commandment.”²⁹⁸Here too, the teaching conveyed by the Sifre is that he who eats an unclean fowl violates both an explicit negative commandment, and an implied negative commandment derived from an affirmative statement. Such an implied negative commandment has the force of the positive injunction from which it is derived. Thus, of all clean fowl ye may eat, implies that you may not eat unclean fowl. Similarly the Rabbis mentioned in the Sifra²⁹⁹Torah Kohanim, Shemini 3:2. and in the Sifre:³⁰⁰Sifre, R’eih 101. “These are the beasts which ye may eat³⁰¹Above, 14:4. — it is a positive commandment.” But the matter is clear [as I have explained it].

את הנכרי תגוש, “You may “dun” the gentile (who owes you money) for repayment.” According to Rashi, based on Sifri 113 this is a positive commandment, i. e this positive commandment applies only in your dealing with the gentiles, not in your dealings with fellow Jews who are considered as your brothers. This is an example [i.e. not to dun fellow Jews, Ed.] of a negative commandment not spelled out but arrived at by deductive reasoning from a positive commandment that has been spelled out. It means that if you “dun” a fellow Jew you have violated both a positive and a negative commandment simultaneously. According to Maimonides (positive commandment #142) both commandments are viewed as positive commandments, i.e. remitting loans that are past due to fellow Jews, and insisting on repayment on loans made to gentiles, just as it is a positive commandment to charge a gentile interest on loans extended to him.

ואשר יהיה לך את אחיך תשמט ידך, “whatever you have a claim on, if it is in the possession of your brother, remit it.” Sifri Re'ey 113 infers from the wording “if it is in the possession of your brother” that when your brother has a claim on something which is in your possession, i.e. you have a pawn belonging to the borrower in your control, this law does not apply, i.e. you do not have to release it to him as part of the shemittah legislation.

V. 3. ולא של אחיך בידך :ואשר יהיה לך את אחיך, der שמיטה-Erlass bezieht sich nur auf Schuldforderungen, deren Leistung in Händen des Schuldners beruht, nicht aber, wenn der Gläubiger dafür bereits Sicherheit in Händen hat, מכאן אתה אומר המלוה על המשכון אין שמיטה משמטת. (Sifri, B. M. 48 b).

את הנכרי, “the gentile debtor, who is allowed to grow crops during that year and sell them, and is therefore able to repay his debts, him you may exact repayment from during that year.

שמיטת כספים ist nur ein ergänzendes Glied der großen Jobelinstitution, deren große Bedeutsamkeit wir bereits zu Wajikra 25, 8 f. entwickelt (siehe S. 564 f. das.). Wie, so lange das Jobel in Kraft war, sich dessen freimachende Kraft auch auf die außer Landes wohnenden Glieder der Nation erstreckte, so war auch das vom Jobel bedingte שמיטת כספים-Gesetz zur Zeit seiner gesetzlichen Geltung im Lande auch für die Glieder der Nation im Auslande מן התורה wirksam (Kiduschin 38 b), und wird daher diese Ausdehnung der שמיטה-Wirkung auch auf die im Ausland vorhandenen Glieder der Nation in dem wiederholten ׳כי קרא שמטה לד angedeutet gefunden. Nachdem durch ׳וזה דבר השמטה שמוט וגו zuerst שמטת כספים an שמטת קרקע als dadurch bedingt und dessen Konsequenz gebunden worden, wird durch ׳כי קרא שמטה לד die שמטה-Institution als eine persönliche selbständige Verpflichtung wiederholt und damit die Bedingtheit der שמטת כספים von שמטת קרקע nur zeitlich, nicht aber auch räumlich aufzufassen bestimmt. וזה דבר השמטה שמוט בשתי שמיטות הכתוב מדבר אחת שמיטת קרקע ואחת שמיטת כספים בזמן שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט כספים בזמן שאין אתה משמט קרקע אי אתה משמט כספים ואימא במקום שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט ׳כספים ובמקום שאין אתה משמט קרקע אין אתה משמט כספים ת׳׳ל כי קרא שמטה לד מכל מקום (siehe zu V. 2).

את אחיך תשמוט ידך, “what is your brother’s you must not exact from him.”There is an exception to this rule when the creditor in question has deposited the loan agreement with a Jewish court, and he charges the court with collecting the debt from the debtor, as if the debt were owed to the court. In this way a debtor who is able to repay but hides behind this legislation to procrastinate repayment until the end of this year will not benefit by his insincerity. He will prefer to repay the creditor and not ruin his reputation as a potential borrower. This system known as prusbol, was introduced by Hillel, as otherwise lenders would simply not extend loans to indigent borrowers who did not either put up a security or pay interest, which it is forbidden for a Jew to charge a fellow Jew.