This document discusses biblical principles for commercial and economic relationships. It covers topics like prohibiting overcharging in business, paying wages on time, lending within the community interest-free, and constraints on pledges for loans. The key ideas are that economic interactions must be conducted fairly and honestly, without taking advantage of others or treating them as objects. While practices have changed, the underlying values of mutual respect and fairness between parties still apply.

1. Relationship With Others, Part 4
Introduction - In this concluding sectionon mitzvot that guide us with
respect to our relationships with others, we will focus on matters that arise
out of our encounters in commercial settings, whether in the field or the
marketplace. While the principles of laissez-faire may seek to limit in
certain ways the hand of government in the economic sphere, the Bible
teaches us that, as to preserving certain principles inherent in the mitzvot,
God’s hand remains very much in our affairs.
While it, for some,does not expressly contain a mitzvah, let’s read
Leviticus 25:14.This verse anticipates the creation of commercial law
between buyer and seller. While we won’t go there, the sages go into great
detail in the Mishnah and later texts on specificrequirements of how the
commercial system must be structured. Instead, and I know this will give
you great relief, we’ll only stick today with the overarching principles in the
mitzvot.
LX. Read Leviticus 25:14.

2. A. What’s the aim of this mitzvah?
(It’s essentially to prevent wronging another in business. But, let’s be more
specific: what’s intended here, do you think?
We must be honest and refrain from overcharging. Making a profit honestly
is expected and appropriate, but gouging through exorbitant profits crosses
the line. We would not want to be taken advantage of as the customer, nor
should we, as the seller, be the one taking advantage of another. This is
another illustration of Divine disapproval of excessive behavior. We see
here more basically a principle of fair dealing that actually permeates many
of the fair trade and consumer protection laws that are in effect in our own
time.
Chinuch teaches that fairness leads to peace, but fraud and wronging
others cause decay in civilization.)

3. B. Wouldn’t some business folks want to argue with this? If so, what might
their argument be?
(If the parties are of equal power or the buyer understands the profit in the
price and agrees to it, the rule should be different. Chinuch actually seems
sympathetic with this view and suggests damages might not be due in such
a case.)
LXI-LXII.Read Leviticus 19:13 (last part of verse) and Deuteronomy 24:15.
We now begin to consider a series of mitzvot that guide us in the proper
conduct of employer-employee relations. What do we learn from these first
two?
(We must treat employeesfairly. The sages generally say we must not
oppress them by delaying payment of wages and must indeed pay on time.
As we have discussed, this has beeninterpreted as paying a day laborer
the day the work is done and the night laborer before the next day. Why?

4. Discussionof why the money should be transferred from the one who has
benefitted from the work (generally the better off)to the one who did it
(usually the one very much in need), with the conclusionthat respect, fair
dealing, and mercy would require this to be.
(This could also relate to any situation of wrongly held possessions.))
LXIII-LXV.Read Deuteronomy23:25-26.There are three mitzvot in these
verses that create a beautiful and balanced set of principles that also
govern properemployer-employee relations.

5. A. Describe how this balance works.
(The employeris required to respect the employee and to see the
employee as a fellow human being, not as a tool, object,or means. The
laborer is to be seen, too, as having a stake in the production beyond the
minimal pay he might receive. The employee mustbe fair and have/show
duty to the employer. So, irrespective of their differences, employerand
employee are bound to a commonpurpose, which is pleasing to God.
So, while the employee may be able to eat out of the produce he’s working,
he may not eat while he’s working or eat to excess. Further, he may not eat
of growing crops, but only out of harvested or already gathered crops. He
owes the employerfull and good work.
In these ways, both are to share and live true to the mutual goals of respect
and shared duty to the success of the enterprise. Thus, adherence to these

6. mitzvot will bring about respect by all to each other and the interests of the
enterprise, thus likely yielding increased production to the benefitof both
the employerand employee.)
B. How do employer/ employee relations too oftenvary from such
principles, and how could they be made to fit them better?
(Employers too often think of employeesas means of production - means
rather than fellows - to be exploited to get the last ounce of profit. Many
employees think mostly about their own interests and see their job as
essentially entailing a struggle with the powerful, oppressive boss to win as
many concessions as they can wrangle. Thus, bargaining oftencomes
down to getting or forcing as much out of the other side as possible.
The mitzvot teach instead a relationship of mutuality. The employer
respects the rights, needs, and interests of the employee. The employee
lives within limits and constraints and with duties owing to the employer, the
enterprise, and God.This mutuality both shows properrespect to the other
and furthers the success ofthe enterprise. Thus, acting in the way of the
mitzvot is beneficial to all who have a stake in the work of the enterprise
and the community of which it’s a part. This is pleasing to the God who
guides us on how to build it and blessesits well-being.)

7. LXVI--LXXII.Read Leviticus 25:37,Deuteronomy23:20,and Exodus 22:24.
A. What directions do we get from these mitzvot?
(We are not to lend within our faith community (here, it was fellow
Israelites) with interest. Nor are our fellows to borrow with interest. Nor is
someone to facilitate such a transaction. But rather one is expected to loan
without interest to those in need and refrain from pressing for payment
when the borrower is unable to pay (though the debtorhas obligations to
make every effort to pay and, if he can pay, be subject to court action to
force re-payment).)

8. B. Before we get to rules that affectthose outside the community, let’s 1)
focus first on the rationale for not permitting lending with interest, and 2)
considerwhether such a principle has any meaning for us in our heavily
credit-oriented society.
(1. The idea begins with the notion that we should not treat our brethren
from a superior position. Further, helping a personin need is not a
business proposition. We’re commanded to help such a person, not make a
profit off of him. The lending relationship has a touch of enslavement in that
the borrower is subservient to the lender until the debt is paid off.To be
sure, this is not to the same degree, but the feel of it is noxious enough to
undergird, I think, these mitzvot.
Lending money should be seen as a charitable act of a very high order.
Indeed, according to Maimonides, greater is one who lends than one who
gives, and greater than all is one who by lending helps a poor man help
himself. Further, these rules contemplate a societyof people who are close
as family, fellows and others who walk togetherin the Way of God.Helping
such people with whom we are this close, again, is a duty, not a business.
2. As time passed and the economymoved from mostly agrarian to
commercial, the basis for lending changed. Finance became a fundamental

9. part of the economyand integral to doing business. Parties in need of
funding were more and more on an equal plane with those who provided
funding, and even, in some ways, their superiors. So, sages found ways to
accommodate such realities while holding to these rules. They, in effect,
created financings that were more of a business deal or investment than a
loan.
One could argue this was a fictiondesigned to get around the rule. But
what principle or objective does it at least notionally serve better than a
loan?
By creating some greater reward/risk in the success of the business for the
lender, the lender and the borrower become more like partners who are
somewhat equal, at least equal to their share of the investment. This has
less of the hierarchical or master/servant feel of lender/borrower.)
C. Yet, in modern times, we clearly have all throughout the world, both
within and without the Jewish world, lending with interest. This is surely so
because of the changes in the way the economyand relationships within it
work. So, is there any residue of meaning for us?

10. (One, I think, is to retain the concernabout lording our power and wealth
over others in a way in which we use our money to dominate or unfairly
enrich ourselves at the expense of others and their weakness, however the
transaction for funds is structured.)
D. What do we make of the inherent permissionto make and receive loans
with interest to and from those outside our faith community?
(Some sages say that there is nothing inherently wrong in loans with
interest. Rather the purpose is to require a higher degree of kindness
among all people who walk in the way of God.
I think, as with other mitzvot we’ve consideredin this chapter on
relationship with others, we naturally start with deeperfeelings of
obligations to those with whom we’re closest. As we extend our reach and
God’s sovereignty, our love and duty extends with it. Our dream, effort, and
goal are to see all as brothers as we “approachthe mountain” “on that day.”
As we do, we hope to avoid having relationships characterized by the worst
features of creditor/debtor relationships.

11. Yet, in the meantime, we realize, both within and without our closest
community, that significant changes have occurred in economic
relationships in more recent times. To the extent that fairness and right
standards govern such relationships, we may be satisfied that our business
practices include finance of the sort that involves lending with interest.)
LXXIII-LXXVI.Read Exodus 22:25,Deuteronomy24:12,Deuteronomy 24:6
and Deuteronomy 24:10.We continue to consider guidance regarding the
making of loans. Essentially, we learn that we may get pledgesto secure
loans we make. But there are constraints on our use of pledges.
A. What are they, and why are they imposed?
(Since the loan is designed to help the borrower, the lender must be
respectful of the needs of the borrower, especiallyas those needs are
affected bythe use of the property that serves as collateral. Before we hear
of examples from the literature, why, beyond the apparent cause of
furthering loving-kindness, is this mitzvah important?

12. It furthers peace and accord among the affected parties, and it extends this
sense of harmony among the broader community. Doesn’t it also likely
improve the capacity of the borrower to pay back the loan and get to self-
sufficiency, the goal of the loan?
Examples of when and how this works?
If, for example, the pledge is in the form of tools that are essential for
farming in the day, they may be subject to being restored during the day
and returned at night.
As the mitzvah says, we can’t take a pledge at all of food utensils.)
B. Further, we can’t go into the borrower’s house to take the pledge or take
the pledge by force. Why, and what do we take away from this prohibition?
(We must be caring and merciful to the borrower, as we have discussed.
That respect means,at the least, that we can’t humiliate the borrower. If the

13. debtoris acting unreasonably and inappropriately, the court can enforce
the lender’s rights. But the lender, recall, can’t act as a lord and master.
Going into another’s home or acting by force shows an interest in the
property that is an interest of the bloated self. The Source of our wealth and
property is God, not really us. We are stewards. We do possessand have
advantage in our possessions. But we serve God through using what we
own, in part, to help others as God expects. Our acting as sovereign
doesn’tfit the picture in which God is the only sovereign.)
LXXVII.Read Deuteronomy 24:17.Essentially, the sages say, whether rich
or poor, the widow has suffered sucha loss and is so vulnerable that she
merits special protection in the form of not being required to give a pledge
at all. This certainly invites the thought - though we won’t explore it today -
that others in such a condition might merit similar leniency.
Conclusion - we wrap up our general discussiontoday of guidance
regarding our relationship with others with this specific matterof lending to
others. What do we take away from today’s study of lending as a codato
the broader discussionwe’ve had over the past several weeks?

14. (It illustrates God’s interest in how we treat those in need. We are required
to help one in need of a loan and do so with restraints on our control of
whatever collateral we might take as security for the loan. In the case of
such loans, we are constrained as to profiting from them, especially when
we fail to treat the other, the borrower, with respect and fairness, at a
minimum. As in all relations with others, there’s required mutuality of both
parties. So, assuming any reasonable capacity to repay, the borrower
bears a duty, too, a Divinely placed obligation to repay.
In sum, we vividly see the application of the principle of “love your neighbor
as yourself.” We are always to consider the precise condition of the other
personand act in a way that is loving and merciful and cognizant of that
person’s true interests. While our discussionhere has been about how we
are to treat the many borrowers with different needs and circumstances we
might encounter, it nicely demonstrates the broader framework we’ve been
considering for the past several weeks - how we are to relate in all ways to
the many others, all God’s creatures, with whom we live and with whom we
share God’s world that is home to all of us.