The word damim in biblical Hebrew means both blood and money. Lo ta’amod al dam reacha (Vayikra19:16) means not only may we not stand idly by while our brothers’ blood is being spilled we may also not stand idly by while our brothers’ money is being ‘wasted’. It is why one may, nay is obligated to, speak what would otherwise be lashon hara to prevent financial harm to another.
The confluence of blood and money is no accident. When we take money that is not rightfully ours we are figuratively and sometimes literally killing that person. The connection between blood and money is famously highlighted in The Merchant of Venice where Shylock demands a pound of flesh as collateral on a loan.
Halachically, one is allowed to kill a person who breaks into one’s home with the intent to rob it. This rather harsh response is predicated on the principle that people will fight – even risk their lives - for their money. The thief knowing that people will put up a fight comes prepared to kill and thus “one who comes to kill you, arise and kill him first” (Sanhedrin 72a). When in doubt one can shoot now and ask questions later – only in those rare cases where it is “clear like the sun” that the perpetrator would never kill may the defendant not kill the thief. The Talmudic example of such certainty is a father stealing from a son!
That people value money as equal to, or perhaps even worth more than their lives is something we say every day in the shema: “and you shall love the Lord your G-d with all your heart, all your soul and all your money.” As to the need to specifically state "all your money" when such is included in "all your soul" our Sages (Brachot 61b) teach that this refers to those who love their money more than their soul. And in a most telling if tragic insight our Sages note, “the poor are considered like dead.” Having to rely on others can be more painful than death itself.
“Rav Elazar says: ribbit ketzuzah, fixed [biblically prohibited] interest is recoverable in court; avak ribbit, the dust of interest [which is only rabbinically prohibited] cannot be recovered in court. Rav Yochanan says even direct interest cannot be recovered in court” (Bava Metzia 61b). This is a very strange debate. Why does anyone argue that there are any forms of interest that need not be returned? Jewish law is insistent that ill gotten gains be returned, whether it is a thief paying double what he stole, or one repaying that which he overcharged; even assault and battery require monetary compensation. Why is interest any different?
One could explain that the charging of interest is not immoral (see here). It is just that the Torah demands that one demonstrate kindness to another and extend an interest-free loan. Unlike robbery, or price fraud or assault the payment of interest is done willingly between a debtor and creditor. Having willingly paid the interest, he cannot claim it back. It is not a monetary wrong that one has done but a ritual one[1] or to phrase it in more familiar terms, charging of interest is a sin between man and G-d, not between and man. And with no “monetary” wrong against one’s fellow one cannot collect any monies willingly paid
However Rav Yochanan takes a completely opposite approach, arguing the severity even cruelty of charging interest on a loan. To do so is almost akin to murder.
“He has given forth upon interest, and has taken increase; shall he then live? He shall not live--he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely be put to death, his blood shall be upon him” (Yechezkel 18:13).
The prophet compares the taking of interest to death. Commenting on the verse, “Rava said: those who lend money with interest are compared to shedders of blood[2].” While one can explain this figuratively, Rashi (s.v. megufei dekra) explains it literally. In the days before social welfare states and in a time when only the poor had the need to borrow money, the payment of interest could literally come at the expense of food, causing one to die of hunger. As Jewish law exempts those who commit a capital offence from any monetary restitution – death being penalty enough - there is no need, Rav Yochanan argues, for those who charge interest to make restitution[3]. They are (almost) deserving of the death penalty itself!
“Do not take from him nesech, interest or tarbit, increase; you shall fear G-d; and your brother shall live with you” (Vayikra 19:36). Rabbi Elazar, basing himself on the second half of the verse, “and your brother shall live with you” disagrees with Rav Yochanan, arguing that one must return any ill gotten interest so that your brother will be able to live with you.
The Gemara then asks how Rav Yochanan, who believes interest need not be returned, interprets the verse “and your brother shall live with you.” “He needs [the verse] for that which was taught: two who were travelling on a journey, and in the hand of one is a pitcher of water; if they both drink, they will both die, but if one only drinks, he can reach civilization. Ben Petura taught: It is better that both should drink and die, rather than that one should behold his companion's death. Until Rabbi Akiba came and taught: 'that your brother may live with you:' your life takes precedence over his life”(Bava Metzia 62a).
This is one of the most famous pieces in all of Talmudic literature though many may not realize it is the answer to a technical point of Biblical exegesis within a larger discussion pertaining to the laws of interest. The Gemara with nary a word of comment on the dispute between ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva moves on to discuss if children must, or even should, return interest monies they may have received from the estate of their fathers.
Once again we see he link between life and death itself and the taking of interest. “And your brother shall live with you” teaches that one must return money to its rightful owner and one must save one’s own life first. These two teachings are flip sides of the same coin.
[1] That the charging of interest is a violation of Jewish religious law, issur vheter, and not monetary law is best seen by the fact that the debtor can’t waive his right to receive an interest free loan. Jewish law allows one to waive his monetary rights but not his ritual obligations. Most appropriately the laws of Interest are codified in the Yoreh Deah section of the Shulchan Aruch dealing with ritual law – included therein are the laws of kashrut, mikvah, mezuzah - and not in Choshen Mishpat which deals with monetary law.
[2] Rav Yochanan and Rava would not necessarily disagree with what I wrote above. It all depends on the context. As we explained here the modern day economy requires interest and those who enter into business loans may use a heter iska to effectively charge interest. Here the payment is done both willingly and ethically. But to charge interest on a personal loan, especially to the impoverished, is an act of extreme cruelty, at least from the perspective of the Torah. It is this type of interest that Rav Yochanan is referring to.
[3] While this logic may apply to biblically prohibited interest, it would not to rabbinically prohibited interest, in which case the monies should be recoverable in a court of law. Yet in such case all agree no remedy is available. While based on internal Talmudic reasoning this is most logical the effect makes such impossible. If one cannot collect on interest taken from him against Torah law surely one cannot collect monies owing to him only rabbincally. To do otherwise would be to make rabbinic law more important than Biblical law, something that is generally prohibited.
