Please enjoy this Lelamed Dvar, now available in your local App Store
(iTunes and Android). Please share this Dvar with someone, and enjoy this
Dvar...
Parshat Mishpatim begins the daunting work of laying the law for the Jews.
Hidden among the many laws is a law that states: "if" one lends money, it
is required to be interest free (22:24). After detailing broad laws of
slavery, injuries and damages, why would the Torah choose to mention a law
that would only apply to some people? Further, what's wrong with charging
interest? If someone can't use their money because they lent it, don't they
deserve to be reimbursed for that loss?
Our first clue is Rashi (a major commentator) pointing out that this is one
of only three times in the Torah that the word "Im" doesn't mean "if", but
means "when". This now clearly tells us that it's not just a possibility
that money will be lent, but it's a requirement to lend money, whenever
possible. That would explain why the Torah mentioned it, but still - why
the aversion to interest? Rabbi Chaim Shmulevitz explains that when someone
does an act of kindness, such as lending, it should be without anticipating
reward. Mixing a good deed with personal gain can confuse us into thinking
that we're doing something because it's right and proper to do, while in
fact we're really motivated by the profits derived by doing it. The Torah
is illustrating that a good deed should be pure and untainted, without even
a doubt of its motivation. In our everyday lives, there should be at least
ONE such deed, where there can be no doubt that it was done purely for
another's benefit. What's yours?
Shlomo Ressler
Quotation of the week:
"You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do." - Henry Ford
Please enjoy this Lelamed Dvar, now available in your local App Store
(iTunes and Android). Please share this Dvar with someone, and enjoy this
Dvar...
_______________________________________________
Parshat Mishpatim begins the daunting work of laying the law for the Jews.
Hidden among the many laws is a law that states: "if" one lends money, it
is required to be interest free (22:24). After detailing broad laws of
slavery, injuries and damages, why would the Torah choose to mention a law
that would only apply to some people? Further, what's wrong with charging
interest? If someone can't use their money because they lent it, don't they
deserve to be reimbursed for that loss?
Our first clue is Rashi (a major commentator) pointing out that this is one
of only three times in the Torah that the word "Im" doesn't mean "if", but
means "when". This now clearly tells us that it's not just a possibility
that money will be lent, but it's a requirement to lend money, whenever
possible. That would explain why the Torah mentioned it, but still - why
the aversion to interest? Rabbi Chaim Shmulevitz explains that when someone
does an act of kindness, such as lending, it should be without anticipating
reward. Mixing a good deed with personal gain can confuse us into thinking
that we're doing something because it's right and proper to do, while in
fact we're really motivated by the profits derived by doing it. The Torah
is illustrating that a good deed should be pure and untainted, without even
a doubt of its motivation. In our everyday lives, there should be at least
ONE such deed, where there can be no doubt that it was done purely for
another's benefit. What's yours?
Shlomo Ressler
_______________________________________________
Quotation of the week:
"You can't build a reputation on what you are *going* to do." - Henry Ford