Pensamento Judaico sobre Êxodo 22:25

The Torah next turns its attention to matters one is likely to encounter when already somewhat older, and less active. Retirement and ensuing boredom may lead to gossipping, the penalty for which is tzora-at. (Erchin 15) The Torah itself offers Miriam and her punishment as an example, hence no further comment is needed. The injunction about a creditor returning such pawns to the debtor as are needed by the latter for minimal dignified existence, is couched in such language that whilst under the care of the debtor, the creditor is deemed to own it. In this way the creditor is given high moral rating for having given up what was legally his to seize. (24, 10-13) Therefore, we have the statement "since the debtor will bless you, G'd will recognise it as an act of righteousness," i.e. something beyond the call of justice. (Kiddushin 8) A further instance of laws applying to the wealthy, is the injunction to pay wages on time. Delay may result in complaints to G'd against the employer in question. This is exactly the reverse of what happens when the wealthy lender shows consideration for his debtor. (as discussed a few verses previously) The following rules are also addressed to the wealthy, since they generally make up the class from which judges are drawn. The admonition not to transfer guilt from the father to the son or vice versa, or to accept testimony from one against the other, is addressed to such judges. Similarly, the injunctions not to disadvantage strangers, widows or orphans are addressed primarily to the judge, i.e. the economically affluent. Just as the commandment "do not muzzle the ox while it is threshing," is an example of a negative commandment involving an action unconnected to any positive commandment, so the next paragraph deals also with a mitzvah of that category. We learn about the application of thirty nine lashes "malkot," the standard penalty for this category of commandment. (7) Chapter 25,10, describes the men involved in the fight as "brothers." This indicates that the quarrel was not that serious that one party tried to kill the other. When the wife interferes in such a situation in a manner that endangers the life of her husband's opponent, she has heightened the tension between them. Because of that, the Torah condemns the manner of her interference. Had her husband's life already been endangered, different evaluations would apply. The injunction to have fair weights and measures is also addressed to the judges who supervise. If they do not supervise properly that the merchants adhere to fair weights, then they themselves are included amongst those whom the Torah describes as committing avel, social injustice. (Baba Batra 89) (8) The duty to do away with Amalek is addressed to the Supreme Court which has to initiate such action. The reason for recording this commandment at this point, has been discussed in chapter 42.

Now this Torah, which Moses set before the children of Israel, guides us in the path of compassion and graciousness: by its commanding us to leave leket (gleanings, viz. Vayikra 19:9), shikchah (the forgotten sheaf, viz. Devarim 24:19), and peah (the corner of the field, viz. Shemoth 22:27) to the poor and to the proselyte, to the orphan and to the widow, by forbidding us to take interest or increase from the indigent or to enter his house to take his pledge (for our loan to him), by forbidding us to take in pledge mill or upper millstone or the garment of a widow, and by commanding us (Shemoth 22:25) "If you take as a pledge your neighbor's garment, return it to him before the sun sets." Reflect upon what follows (Ibid. 26) "for it is his only clothing, his covering for his skin. In what shall he sleep?" Now if a creditor has lent his neighbor money and sees that the time (for repayment) has passed, and he has not been paid, it is his right to take a pledge. And if the debtor gives him nothing else as security, he may take his garment. And if every evening he must return it to him, there is no question that he will not be repaid. (The creditor thinks to himself:) "If he asked me for it as a gift, perhaps I might have given it to him. But he borrowed on condition to repay, and now that he does not repay, he is a deceiver, who seeks to rob and defraud his friend. And now that I have taken his garment as a pledge, why should I return it? How shall I otherwise get back from him what I have lent him? What concern is it of mine in what he shall sleep?" Thus will the creditor think. And all the philosophers and proponents of honor will agree with him. But the Torah teaches compassion and kindness and says to the creditor "In what shall he sleep?" Similarly, since the Torah has commanded the remission of debts in the seventh year (shemitah), there is no question that every man with common sense should take care not to lend his money at the end of the sixth year, knowing full well that one who borrows at that time has already resolved not to repay it. And who is the philosopher or proponent of honor who would condemn a man for not lending at that time? Yet what does the Torah say? (Devarim 15:9-10) "Take care lest there be in your heart a base thought, saying: 'The seventh year is approaching, the year of remission,' and your eye be evil against your needy brother and you not give him… Give shall you give him, and let your heart not be narrow in giving him."