Comentários de Citação sobre Deuteronômio 23:21

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].

He hath not given his money upon usury: – Already he has said, Nor doeth evil to his friend, and in this it is understood that he does not oppress or rob him, or steal from him. Now he says that even with his consent he does not take his money, together with something against which there is a prohibition – that is, usury. Although he gives it of his free will, he is obliged to give it, because he (the borrower) must borrow from him; and if he restores his money and the interest besides, and he takes his neighbour's money, it is wrong, even if it be done with his consent. Now as regards this matter, just because men are accustomed to it and do not denounce it as spoliation as they do robbery or stealing, therefore the Law is severe upon it and often warns against it. The Prophets also class it among the flagrant offences. And he who is accustomed to have recourse to it loses his money in a short time. But David and Ezekiel only forbid what the Law forbids, and the Law only forbids it in the case of Israel, but allows it in the case of the foreigner, as it is said (Deut. 23:21): “Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon usury.” But it is not so said of robbery and stealing and loss and fraud, for even in the case of the stranger to oppress or rob him or steal his money is forbidden; but usury which is received from him with his knowledge and consent is permitted. An Israelite is bound to shew kindness to his fellow-Israelite, and the loan without interest is kindness and goodness; at times a greater kindness even than a gift, for men often will hesitate to accept a gift, but not a loan. Such, however, is not the case between the Israelite and the Gentile, for the former is under no obligation to shew him kindness or to lend him money gratuitously, for generally these hate Israel. But assuredly if the Gentile shews kindness and goodness to an Israelite, he, for his part, is bound to return his kindness and to do him good. Now I have enlarged on this matter so that you can answer the Christians who say that David did not distinguish between Jew and Gentile, and that all interest is forbidden. This, however, will not hold, for David does not forbid what Moses our teacher permitted at the command of God. Notice that the Torah says (Deut. 13:1): “Thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish there-from.”

עוברים משום לא תתן וכו' – the lender transgresses in all of them; the borrower transgresses (Deuteronomy 23:20): “You shall not deduct interest from loans to your countrymen,” which is the language of activating others, that you should not cause that your brother will lend at interest, and he violates(Deuteronomy 23:21): “Do not deduct interest from loans to your countrymen”, and (Leviticus 19:14): “or place a stumbling block before the blind.” The guarantor and the witnesses transgress only on (Exodus 22:24):“Exact no interest from them.”