לֹא־תַשִּׁ֣יךְ לְאָחִ֔יךָ נֶ֥שֶׁךְ כֶּ֖סֶף נֶ֣שֶׁךְ אֹ֑כֶל נֶ֕שֶׁךְ כָּל־דָּבָ֖ר אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִשָּֽׁךְ׃
Não emprestarás a teu irmão com juros, seja dinheiro ou comida, ou qualquer coisa sobre a qual se possa cobrar juros.
Rabbeinu Bahya
וזה דבר השמטה, “and this is the matter of the remission;” our sages in Sheviit 10,8 explain that the lender tells the borrower who comes to him after the Shemittah year has elapsed (and he had failed to repay his loan on time), “I am releasing you from your debt.” If the borrower wants to voluntarily repay the sum he owes, the lender may accept it, seeing that the Torah did not forbid the borrower to repay his debt as opposed to loans with interest where the Torah specifically forbade both the payment of and the accepting of interest on loans between Jews (Deut. 23,8). In the case of the Shemittah, the Torah imposed restrictions only on the lender, i.e. he must not harass the borrower to pay him. The concept is that during that year we must not act as if we owned the earth but must demonstrate our awareness and agreement that the earth is the Lord’s by our behavior in practice. This is the meaning of כי קרא שמטה לה', “for he proclaimed it a Shemittah for the Lord.”
Our sages in Sheviit 10,9 have said that when someone (a borrower) repays the lender what he owes him even though the Shemiitah year has elapsed, the Rabbis will relate very positively to such a person. On the other hand, if the borrower does not repay his debts even though he is legally in the clear, he risks that the lender will shame him by spreading the word that this borrower took advantage of the good nature of the lender and simply ate up his money.
There is a halachic provision whereby the borrower makes a declaration (entirely voluntarily) prior to receiving a loan that he waives his right not to repay the loan if for some reason he is unable to repay it before the Shemittah year ends. We have a general rule that all mutually agreed conditions involving money matters can override what the Torah wrote. Moreover, the lender is allowed to demand repayment during any time of the Shemittah year provided the year has not come to a close. This is why the Torah writes מקץ, “at the end.”
If someone who is owed money which should have been repaid prior to the Shemittah year hands over the I.O.U he is holding to a court of law asking the court to act as his collector, he cannot subsequently release the debtor from his debt seeing that the debtor is already considered as having been harassed, נגוש, so that the Torah’s warning not to harass the borrower can no longer be fulfilled. In such a situation the lender foregoes the right to ask for repayment (personally) as soon as the Shemittah year ends. (unless he had made an agreement with the borrower concerning this eventuality). Orphans who are of age (by the end of the Shemittah) and who are in possession of I.O.U.’s left to them by their father do not need to prove that the borrower had waived his right of non repayment of the debt at the end of the Shemittah year (Choshen Mishpat 67,29). These orphans are considered as if they actually had the requisite documents in their possession (Shevuot 45).
The laws pertaining to the release of overdue debts in the Shemittah year apply world-wide, as opposed to the laws pertaining to the earth and orchards, etc., which apply only in the land of Israel. The Rabbis decreed this in order that the whole concept of the Shemittah legislation not be forgotten during the long years of exile of the Jewish people.
The reason that the sheviit, seventh year, is capable of overriding certain oaths, is because the Torah writes here וזה דבר השמטה, using the word דבר, word, i.e. something uttered by the mouth. If someone swore to his creditor that he would pay him back the loan even though the Shemittah year would occur prior to the date of his repayment, even if he confirmed it in writing, etc., he need not keep his oath (Choshen Mishpat 67,6).
There is a conceptual linkage between the shemittah of lands, etc., and shemitat kesafim (monetary debts) seeing the Torah writes the word תשמטנה; in Exodus 23,11 the Torah had already spoken of releasing land, i.e. agricultural harvests, from the claims of ownership. It is fairly clear that in our portion another kind of shemittah, i.e. monetary debts, are referred to. Seeing that the applicability of this rule in the Diaspora is only rabbinic the Rabbis permitted the פרוזבול, the writing over of the debt to the Bet Hadin, court of law, as otherwise there would not be any people ready to extend interest-free loans which would prove uncollectable also. If someone borrows a sum of money for ten years the lender does not need to forgive the loan in the first shemittah year seeing it had not become due yet; you cannot release something to which you did not have a claim yet. If the loan is unpaid when the second shemittah year comes around, its laws apply to that loan.
Our sages in Sheviit 10,9 have said that when someone (a borrower) repays the lender what he owes him even though the Shemiitah year has elapsed, the Rabbis will relate very positively to such a person. On the other hand, if the borrower does not repay his debts even though he is legally in the clear, he risks that the lender will shame him by spreading the word that this borrower took advantage of the good nature of the lender and simply ate up his money.
There is a halachic provision whereby the borrower makes a declaration (entirely voluntarily) prior to receiving a loan that he waives his right not to repay the loan if for some reason he is unable to repay it before the Shemittah year ends. We have a general rule that all mutually agreed conditions involving money matters can override what the Torah wrote. Moreover, the lender is allowed to demand repayment during any time of the Shemittah year provided the year has not come to a close. This is why the Torah writes מקץ, “at the end.”
If someone who is owed money which should have been repaid prior to the Shemittah year hands over the I.O.U he is holding to a court of law asking the court to act as his collector, he cannot subsequently release the debtor from his debt seeing that the debtor is already considered as having been harassed, נגוש, so that the Torah’s warning not to harass the borrower can no longer be fulfilled. In such a situation the lender foregoes the right to ask for repayment (personally) as soon as the Shemittah year ends. (unless he had made an agreement with the borrower concerning this eventuality). Orphans who are of age (by the end of the Shemittah) and who are in possession of I.O.U.’s left to them by their father do not need to prove that the borrower had waived his right of non repayment of the debt at the end of the Shemittah year (Choshen Mishpat 67,29). These orphans are considered as if they actually had the requisite documents in their possession (Shevuot 45).
The laws pertaining to the release of overdue debts in the Shemittah year apply world-wide, as opposed to the laws pertaining to the earth and orchards, etc., which apply only in the land of Israel. The Rabbis decreed this in order that the whole concept of the Shemittah legislation not be forgotten during the long years of exile of the Jewish people.
The reason that the sheviit, seventh year, is capable of overriding certain oaths, is because the Torah writes here וזה דבר השמטה, using the word דבר, word, i.e. something uttered by the mouth. If someone swore to his creditor that he would pay him back the loan even though the Shemittah year would occur prior to the date of his repayment, even if he confirmed it in writing, etc., he need not keep his oath (Choshen Mishpat 67,6).
There is a conceptual linkage between the shemittah of lands, etc., and shemitat kesafim (monetary debts) seeing the Torah writes the word תשמטנה; in Exodus 23,11 the Torah had already spoken of releasing land, i.e. agricultural harvests, from the claims of ownership. It is fairly clear that in our portion another kind of shemittah, i.e. monetary debts, are referred to. Seeing that the applicability of this rule in the Diaspora is only rabbinic the Rabbis permitted the פרוזבול, the writing over of the debt to the Bet Hadin, court of law, as otherwise there would not be any people ready to extend interest-free loans which would prove uncollectable also. If someone borrows a sum of money for ten years the lender does not need to forgive the loan in the first shemittah year seeing it had not become due yet; you cannot release something to which you did not have a claim yet. If the loan is unpaid when the second shemittah year comes around, its laws apply to that loan.
Rabbeinu Bahya
וישאלו איש מאת רעהו, “let them each ask from their fellow Egyptian male, etc.” This “request” was not similar to a man or a woman asking his or her respective neighbour for some tool on the understanding that after he or she has finished using it it would be returned it to its owner. Here G’d’s instructions were to ask for the respective items as outright gifts. It was understood that G’d would make the Egyptians feel well disposed toward the Israelites so that they would willingly comply with their requests for such gifts. The last thing G’d had in mind was that the Israelites, at the very moment when their redemption was at hand, would leave behind the impression that they had fooled their neighbours and pretended that they would give back the items in question. According to Jewish law whenever a servant is released from service after he has toiled for the agreed period of time, he is entitled to receive a stake from his erstwhile master to enable him to start his economic independence. This is spelled out in Deut. 15, 13-14: “but when you send him away free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. Furnish him out of your flocks, your threshing floor, and vat, with which the Lord has blessed you.” If this law applies to treatment of a fellow Jewish servant whose wages the master has paid six years in advance, how much more so were the Jewish slaves in Egypt entitled to receive some silver trinkets in compensation for over 200 years of slavery for which no wages had ever been paid.
We may find the expression רעהו both in the masculine and the feminine form as peculiar when applied to Egyptians who could hardly be described as equal to the Israelites so that this definition would apply. We have to answer that prior to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai all human beings were treated as equal before the law. Hence the expression רע “fellow human being” was appropriate. Ever since the giving of the Torah Gentiles are not again referred to by that description. Seeing that G’d had offered the Torah to the Gentile nations and they had refused it they no longer qualified as equals. Henceforth Jews were described as brothers and companions of G’d as we know from Psalms 122,8: “for the sake of My brothers and friends, I pray for your well-being.” Our sages in Baba Kama 113 explain the phrase לכל אבדת אחיך (Deut. 22,3) as “your brother, but not a Gentile.” In other words, a Jew does not have to go out of his way to restore lost property to a Gentile seeing he is not his brother anymore. The same law applies to the prohibition of charging or paying interest to others. While the Torah forbids this inasmuch as it writes: “you must not charge interest to your brother” (Deut. 23,20), this excludes those whom the Torah does not recognize as our brothers, i.e. the Gentile.
We may find the expression רעהו both in the masculine and the feminine form as peculiar when applied to Egyptians who could hardly be described as equal to the Israelites so that this definition would apply. We have to answer that prior to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai all human beings were treated as equal before the law. Hence the expression רע “fellow human being” was appropriate. Ever since the giving of the Torah Gentiles are not again referred to by that description. Seeing that G’d had offered the Torah to the Gentile nations and they had refused it they no longer qualified as equals. Henceforth Jews were described as brothers and companions of G’d as we know from Psalms 122,8: “for the sake of My brothers and friends, I pray for your well-being.” Our sages in Baba Kama 113 explain the phrase לכל אבדת אחיך (Deut. 22,3) as “your brother, but not a Gentile.” In other words, a Jew does not have to go out of his way to restore lost property to a Gentile seeing he is not his brother anymore. The same law applies to the prohibition of charging or paying interest to others. While the Torah forbids this inasmuch as it writes: “you must not charge interest to your brother” (Deut. 23,20), this excludes those whom the Torah does not recognize as our brothers, i.e. the Gentile.
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
But one may accept a flock from a gentile on “iron terms” and money may be borrowed from them and one may lend them money. The same is true with a resident alien. An Israelite may lend the money of a gentile with the knowledge [and consent] of the gentile but not with the knowledge of an Israelite. According to Deuteronomy 23:20-21 a Jew (Israelite) may lend and borrow with interest from a gentile but not from another Jew. In order to understand this difference between gentiles and Jews we must understand that lending and borrowing with interest is not an immoral act. It is actually fair and logical that the one who gives his money to others should receive a wage in return, just as one who gives his horse to others receives a wage in return. The reason that the Torah forbids lending with interest to other Jews is that this is a form of charity. A loan without interest is in actuality one of the highest forms of charity, and has been a practice of Jews throughout the ages. According to Jewish law charity begins within one’s own community. While it might be an ideal that one should be charitable to the whole world, it is impossible to obligate one community to support all communities. A Jewish community is legally obligated to support the Jews within the community. This obligation is not extended outside the community. Since lending is not immoral it is permitted to do so with non-Jews. At the end of the mishnah we learn that if Reuven had borrowed money from a non-Jew he may loan that money to Shimon if the non-Jew consents. He may not however lend the money to Shimon without the non-Jew’s consent since this would be a loan from one Jew to another.