What are the implications of "Hishamer l'cha Pen Yih'ye Davar ... "?
Gitin, 36a: It implies that, someone who refrains from lending one's friend money transgresses a La?av. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 29. Refer also to 15:9:151:1.
What are the connotations of the word "Beliya'al"?
Rashbam, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: ?D?var Beliya?al? means 'something wicked'. 1
Kesuvos, 68a: Based on the Gezeirah Shavah"Beliya'al" "Beliya'al" from the Pasuk earlier in 13:14 in connection with the Ir ha'Nidachas "Yatz'u Anashim B'nei Beliya'al", it refers to Avodah Zarah - and it teaches us that if someone hides his eyes from Tzedakah, it is as if he worships idols. 2
Having written "Sh'nas ha'Sheva", why does the Torah need to add "Sh'nas ha'Sh'mitah"?
Makos, 3b: To teach us there is another similar case 1 of Sh'mitah, where the creditor is prohibited from claiming his debt - namely, within the first thirty days of lending a debtor; and this teaches us that thirty days in a year are considered llie a year.
Oznayim la'Torah: "Sh'nas ha'Sheva" refers to the seventh year when one will stop giving Tzedakah due to the financial loss that one thinks it will cause, and "Sh'nas ha'Sh'mitah", when one will refrain from lnding money on account of the Hashmatas Kesafim that is about to occur.
See Torah Temimah, note 31, who discusses the differences between the two cases.
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) phrase "Vera'ah Eincha be'Achicha ha'Evyon"?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because such is the way of the miserly, to look at the poor with an Ayin ha'Ra and claim that they they do not really need assistance - either because they are really very wealthy and their claim of poverty is false, or because they are yung and healthy and are perfectly capable of going out and earning a Parnasah.
How will we reconcile the current Pasuk "Ve'kara Alecha el Hashem" with the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei, Devarim 24:15 - "ve'Lo Yikra" Eilecha el Hashem?
Rashi: The Pasuk in Ki Seitzei 1 teaches us that it is not a Mitzvah to cry out to Hashem 2 - even when one is justified in doing so, and the current Pasuk is speaking where one did. 3
With reference to an employer who fails to pay his worker on time.
Elsewhere, one who cries out to Hashem is Chayav Misah - Refer to Sh'mos 22:22:2:2 and note. But that speaks when he could have gone to Beis-Din, whereas here, Beis-Din cannot force him to lend money (PF).
See Torah Temimah, note 32.
Seeing as it is not a Mitzvah to cry out to Hashem, why does the Torah write here "Ve'kara Alecha el Hashem"?
Rashi: To teach us that Hashem will punish the rich man sooner if the poor man cries out to Him.
What are the implications of "Vehayah b'cha Chet"?
Rashi: It implies that the rich man sins, irrespective of whether the poor man cries out to Hashem or not. 1
Rashi: And the reason that the Torah mentions the crying out of the poor man is to hint that the punishment will be heavier if he cries out than if he doesn't (or because Hashem will answer sooner if the poor man cries out - Sifri).
Is one permitted to refuse to lend money for fear that he will not be repaid?
Chasam Sofer (Gitin 36a): A person is not obligated to forfeit one's money, and the Isur is confined to where one is afraid that Sh'mitah will cancel the debt, in connection with which the Torah writes "Biglal ha'Davar ha'Zeh Yevarech'cha." When that does not apply ? such as nowadays that Sh'mitas Kesafim is only mi'de'Rabanan, and the B'rachah is not applicable 1 ? one is permitted to refrain from lending money - even due to the fear of the Sh'mitah. 2
Chasam Sofer: Tosfos (36b DH ve'Tikun) says that the Chachamim did not enact Yovel nowadays, because most of the Tzibur cannot endure two consecutive years without working the land. If the B'rachah [that the land will produce for three years in Erev Sh'mitah ? Vayikra 25:21] applied, there would be no reason not to decree!
If so, why does Pruzbul apply nowadays, that there is no Isur to refuse lending due to fear of Sh'mitah? Rava can say that it was enacted when Sh'mitah was mid'Oraisa, and was not canceled when the reason became Batel. However, Abaye in Gitin 36a holds that the enactment was only for when Sh'mitah is mi'de'Rabanan! This requires investigation. (PF).
