To not lend with interest to an Israelite: To not lend with interest to an Israelite, as it is written (Leviticus 25:37), “You shall not give your money with interest, nor should you give your sustenance with increase.” And these are not two prohibitions — as increase is interest, and interest is increase; and as they, may their memory be blessed, said in [Bava] Metzia, “You will not find interest without increase or increase without interest. So why did the verse divide them?” [That is] meaning to say, why did it divide them and not write, “Give neither your money nor your food with interest.” “To cause the transgression of two prohibitions” — meaning to say, to give multiple warnings about it (Bava Metzia 61a). And this matter is what I have said above (Sefer HaChinukh 336), that the Torah will occasionally repeat warnings about that which it wanted to distance us from greatly. And it is possible for us to say about this, similar to what they, may their memory be blessed, said about other matters, “The Torah speaks like the language of man” (Berakhot 31b). And likewise, the Torah is constantly warning about that which requires our vigilance in the way that people will repeat their conditions and speak much when they warn one another about a weighty matter — so that the [listener] be aware and vigilant about it in all circumstances. And even though it is fitting that a person should be most careful about the word of God — even if he heard the word through the slightest hint — this is all from His great kindnesses upon His creatures, that in a few places He repeated warnings for them many times — like a parent disciplines his child. And we should therefore thank Him for all the goodness that He, blessed be He, bestowed upon us.
What I have written about it in the warning (negative commandment) for the guarantor, witnesses and scribe that they should not be involved in loans with interest (Sefer HaChinukh 68) is from the root of the commandment.
The laws of the commandment: For example, the distinctions that they, may their memory be blessed, taught us about this warning — that they said that there is interest that is prohibited from the Torah, which they call (Bava Metzia 61b) “fixed interest”; and there is interest which is below this and it is rabbinically prohibited, which they, may their memory be blessed, called “the dust of interest”; and there is another interest, which is lower than these first two and it (should have been) is strictly speaking permitted, as it is far removed from Torah-level interest, to the point that it is not suited to decree about at all, but the Sages were strict in this matter, in their seeing, that the Torah was very strict about it, and the many warnings about the matter of interest, and they forbade it so that people would not cheat, [and] not for some other reason. And these are the three types of interest: Torah level interest is when anyone says to his fellow, “Lend me a maneh and I will give you a perutah every day for it,” or thirty perutah a month, or more or less, until I pay it [back]; or if he says, “Lend me a hundred dinar, for a hundred and twenty [after] a year”; or if he lends money and takes a house or courtyard as collateral that he will hold and reap the produce until he returns his money, without subtracting something from the loan — that is fixed interest that is prohibited from the Torah. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 63b) more generally, “And payment for ‘Wait for me’ is forbidden by the Torah,” and that is so long as it came from the hand of the borrower to the lender — that is forbidden by Torah writ. And they, may their memory be blessed, said about it, “Fixed interest can be extracted by judges” (Bava Metzia 61b). That is, the court may seize assets from the borrower and deduct from them, as is the law for theft and torts. But other commentators explain “extracted by judges” regarding coercion, meaning to say that the court coerces the borrower with whips to return it — as they do with anyone who says that he will not fulfill a positive commandment.
Every other form of interest aside from those mentioned is called rabbinic interest and is [also] called “the dust of usury,” and it cannot be extracted by judges. And the Sages prohibited these as a decree so that a person not come to [lending with] interest from Torah writ. And among them are like that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 70b) that one cannot accept “iron sheep” from an Israelite — the understanding of “iron sheep” is one who takes money on condition that the principal will stay intact for the money’s owner from the one who receives it, and [that] he [also] takes his share of the profit. And so [too,] may one not set [the price] for produce until the market rate is disseminated; though if the market rate is disseminated, we can set [a price] — for [even if] the [seller] may not have it, [someone else] has it. And to what do these words apply, that we never set [the price] until the market price has been disseminated? When he does not have it — meaning, from that type that he set [the price]; but if he does have some of it — and even if he only had a seah — he may set [the price] for several seah, [as with a loan]. For the law follows Shmuel who said like this in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 75a). And that which we said that he must have the same type, there are some of the commentators that said he must have exactly the same type (Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 175), such that he may not set the price in new wheat if he only has old wheat — he must have exactly like the type for which he is setting [the price]. But there are others of them that said that there is no distinction between old and new, as so long as he has from the same type, it is permitted. And regardless, if he has from the same type, he may set [the price] with it even if it is lacking one or two [preparatory types of] work. But if it is lacking three [preparatory types] of work, behold, he is like one that does not have from that type. And in the Gemara, the chapter [entitled] Eizehu Neshekh (Bava Metzia 74a), the elucidation appears at length on the distinction of these [types of] work [involved] with wheat, as well as with the tools of a potter and with other things.
And so [too,] from the matter of the commandment is that which they prohibited to lend money with land [as collateral] and to make a condition with the borrower, “If you do not return the money from now until day x, the land will be mine” (Bava Metzia 66a); because the acquisition is not effective, as it is a dependence (asmakhta). [This is] meaning to say that the person’s mind was depending on this at the time of the [loan] — that is, that he would return the money — but his hand did not reach to fulfill the matter. And this is a type of duress. And [with] all that is of this type, we must be concerned about the eating of the produce on account of interest. And many types of dependence about the matter of interest and about other matters are spoken of in the Gemara. And my teacher, may God protect him, taught us more generally about the matter of dependences, that any time a person makes a condition with his fellow that is by way of a penalty — that is, if it not be so, he will be punished with such-and-such money — is called a dependence. And concerning this, they, may their memory be blessed, said always (Bava Metzia 66b), “Dependence[s] (asmakhta) do not acquire.” And with a different expression did they, may their memory be blessed, also say, “Any ‘that if’ does not acquire.” But any condition that a person makes with his fellow and says, “If you do such, I will do such and such” — as [is] the manner of people to make conditions in this way of speaking — is not included in dependencies at all, God forbid. For if so, how would we ever “find our hands and feet” with any conditions people make with one another — as they are all with the expression, “if”; since it is impossible without this. Moreover, what could we say about the many conditions that pertain to bills of divorce and marriages — as they are all with the expression, “if”? Rather, that which we have written is certainly a correct explanation: That we only say, “dependences do not acquire,” about that which people make conditions one with another by way of a penalty — such as “If I don’t pay you by day x, the field will be yours,” or whatever the collateral is, and all that is similar to it; but not for the great many other conditions that people make with each other — such as, “If you go to place x, I will give you such and such,” or “If you do thing x for me, I will give you two hundred zuz,” and anything like that. Understand this, my son, and give your heart to it, as through this you will remove a great cloud from between your eyes about the words of the Gemara in many places.
They also said (Bava Metzia 75b) that early or late interest is the “dust of interest” and prohibited rabbinically. How is this? If one placed his eyes that he wanted to borrow money from someone and sent him gifts to cause him to lend to him — that is early interest. If he borrowed from him and returned the money to him, and then sent gifts [in recognition of the fact] that [the lender’s] money was idle with him — that is late interest. And likewise, some of the commentators said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Creditor and Debtor 6:7) that if one lends money to his fellow for [collateral of] a place that constantly produces value — such as a courtyard, bathhouse or store — [if it is] without a deduction [for that value], behold it is fixed interest; and with a deduction, behold it is “dust of interest.” But one who lends money for a place that does not constantly produce value — such as a field or a vineyard, as its value is not always found, since sometimes the expense involved exceeds the revenues — without a deduction, it is “dust of interest”; and with a deduction, it is permitted. But there are some of them that say that the Sages, may their memory be blessed, prohibited even a field and a vineyard with a deduction; and the only permissible form of collateral that they found is the “collateral of Sura,” [in which] they would write, “At the end of these years, this land will revert without money.” And the truth according to what seemed from the Gemara to our teachers, may God protect them, with the good commentaries is that any collateral that is made with a deduction — whether it is a house or bathhouse that produces profits, and all the more so with a field or vineyard — it is all permitted with a deduction. And so have they practiced in our land based on their words. But one who is concerned for the view of the great savants who were strict in this matter will be blessed from the Heavens.
And what was the other interest that we said above that they, may their memory be blessed, prohibited to prevent cheating on interest? Such as if a person says to his fellow, “Lend me a maneh (one hundred zuz),” and [the other responds], “I have no maneh, [but] I have a maneh’s worth of wheat”: [If] he gives him the wheat for a maneh and buys them back for ninety, this would certainly be logically permitted, except that the Sages forbade it because of cheating with interest. As behold, this thing appears like interest — as this one gave ninety dinar, but he is taking a hundred. Yet if he transgressed and did this, [the lender can] extract the full hundred, as there is not even the “dust of interest” here. It is only as a fence that the Sages were strict about the matter. Also, if one had a field as collateral, he may not rent it to its owner, because of cheating with interest; and similar to these matters, as is found in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 68a). And even though they forbade these things only because of cheating with interest, there are some things they permitted, even though they are similar to true interest. And the Sages permitted them because they did not see a concern about them [in order] to make a decree at all: And that is that they permitted a person to sell a debt at a discount; and the Sages also permitted a person to give his fellow a dinar so that he will say to another Israelite that he lend [the first] a maneh. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 69b) more generally that the Torah only forbade interest that goes from the hand of the borrower to the lender — as this is the way of the world. As the Torah always chooses the [more common case] and leaves out the details (unusual cases). And since the way of the world is like this, it [only] warned the borrower and the lender. And even though they said so and it is true, it is fitting for any scrupulous person to distance himself with all of his might from every matter that has cheating with interest in it. And anyone who pursues ways to take interest payments from an Israelite will eventually become poor — and as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 71a), that the property of anyone who deals in interest will shrink. [They] also said (Bava Metzia 75b) that a perutah of interest causes a loss of storehouses of money. And the rest of the many details of the commandment are in Bava Metzia, the chapter [entitled] Eizehu Neshekh. (See Tur, Yoreh Deah 167.)
And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses this and gave a loan with interest from Torah writ has violated a negative commandment, and [so] we extract money from him with judges; as the court may seize his assets in the way that the court seizes his assets for his theft or for his damages, according to the view of some of the commentators — or we extract it from him by way of coercion in the way that we coerce an Israelite who does not want to fulfill a positive commandment, according to the view of some of our rabbis, may God protect them. And if he lent with interest that is forbidden [rabbinically] that is called “the dust of interest,” he has violated a rabbinic proscription, but the money cannot be extracted by judges. However if the borrower seized enough for the [value] of that interest from the lender, we do not extract it from his hand. And if he transgressed and lent with interest, which they, may their memory be blessed, forbade only because of cheating with interest; there is no need to say that we do not extract it from the lender if he took it, as we even extract it from the borrower and give it to the lender — as they [already] transgressed and stipulated this between them. As since they, may their memory be blessed, were only stringent about the thing because of cheating with interest, they did not concern themselves with the thing ex post facto. And this is called ex post facto, since the words between the lender and the borrower have [already] been fulfilled.
שֶׁלֹּא לְהַלְווֹת בְּרִבִּית לְיִשְׂרָאֵל – שֶׁלֹּא לְהַלְווֹת בְּרִבִּית לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה לז) אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ וּבְמַרְבִּית לֹא תִתֵּן אָכְלֶךָ, וְאֵין אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי לָאוִין, שֶׁהָרִבִּית הוּא הַנֶּשֶׁךְ, וְהַנֶּשֶׁךְ הוּא הָרִבִּית. וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה בִּמְצִיעָא (סא, א) אִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא נֶשֶׁךְ בְּלֹא רִבִּית, וְלֹא רִבִּית בְּלֹא נֶשֶׁךְ וְלָמָּה חִלְּקָם הַכָּתוּב? כְּלוֹמַר, לָמָּה חִלְּקָם וְלֹא כָּתַב אֶת כַּסְפְּךָ וְאָכְלֶךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ בְּנֶשֶׁךְ? לַעֲבֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין, כְּלוֹמַר, לְהַרְבּוֹת הָאַזְהָרוֹת עָלָיו. וְזֶה הָעִנְיָן הוּא מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתִּי לְמַעְלָה (מצוה שלו) כִּי הַתּוֹרָה תִּכְפֹּל הָאַזְהָרוֹת לִפְעָמִים עַל מָה שֶׁחָפֵץ הָאֵל לְהַרְחִיקֵנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ הַרְבֵּה, וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁנֹּאמַר בָּזֶה כְּעֵין מָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (ברכות לא ב) בְּעִנְיָנִים אֲחֵרִים דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, וּכְמוֹ כֵן תַּתְמִיד הַתּוֹרָה הַתְרָאוֹת בַּמֶּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֵינוּ לְהִזָּהֵר בּוֹ, כְּדֶרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם בְּהַזְהִירָם זֶה אֶת זֶה בְּדָבָר חָמוּר, יִכְפְּלוּ תְּנָאָם וְיַרְבּוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶם עַל הַדָּבָר, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמְּזֹרָז נִזְכָּר וְזָרִיז עַל הָעִנְיָן עַל כָּל פָּנִים. וְאִם אָמְנָם כִּי רָאוּי הָאָדָם לְהִזָּהֵר בִּדְבַר הַשֵּׁם עַד מְאֹד וְאַף כִּי יִשְׁמַע דְּבָרוֹ בְּרֶמֶז קָטָן, כָּל זֶה מֵחֲסָדָיו הָרַבִּים עַל בְּרִיּוֹתָיו כָּפַל לָהֶם הָאַזְהָרוֹת פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת בִּקְצָת מְקוֹמוֹת כַּאֲשֶׁר יְיַסֵּר אִישׁ אֶת בְּנוֹ, עַל כֵּן נוֹדֶה לִשְׁמוֹ הַגָּדוֹל סֶלָה בְּרֹב הַטּוֹבוֹת אֲשֶׁר גְּמָלָנוּ בָּרוּךְ הוּא.
To not lend with interest to an Israelite: To not lend with interest to an Israelite, as it is written (Leviticus 25:37), “You shall not give your money with interest, nor should you give your sustenance with increase.” And these are not two prohibitions — as increase is interest, and interest is increase; and as they, may their memory be blessed, said in [Bava] Metzia, “You will not find interest without increase or increase without interest. So why did the verse divide them?” [That is] meaning to say, why did it divide them and not write, “Give neither your money nor your food with interest.” “To cause the transgression of two prohibitions” — meaning to say, to give multiple warnings about it (Bava Metzia 61a). And this matter is what I have said above (Sefer HaChinukh 336), that the Torah will occasionally repeat warnings about that which it wanted to distance us from greatly. And it is possible for us to say about this, similar to what they, may their memory be blessed, said about other matters, “The Torah speaks like the language of man” (Berakhot 31b). And likewise, the Torah is constantly warning about that which requires our vigilance in the way that people will repeat their conditions and speak much when they warn one another about a weighty matter — so that the [listener] be aware and vigilant about it in all circumstances. And even though it is fitting that a person should be most careful about the word of God — even if he heard the word through the slightest hint — this is all from His great kindnesses upon His creatures, that in a few places He repeated warnings for them many times — like a parent disciplines his child. And we should therefore thank Him for all the goodness that He, blessed be He, bestowed upon us.
מִשָּׁרְשֵׁי הַמִּצְוָה. כָּתַבְתִּי (מצוה סח) בְּאַזְהָרַת עָרֵב וְעֵדִים וְסוֹפֵר שֶׁלֹּא יִתְעַסְּקוּ בְּהַלְוָאַת רִבִּית בְּפָרָשַׁת מִשְׁפָּטִים וְקָחֶנּוּ מִשָּׁם.
What I have written about it in the warning (negative commandment) for the guarantor, witnesses and scribe that they should not be involved in loans with interest (Sefer HaChinukh 68) is from the root of the commandment.
דִּינֵי הַמִּצְוָה. כְּגוֹן הַחִלּוּקִים שֶׁלִּמְּדוּנוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה בְּאַזְהָרָה זוֹ, שֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ רִבִּית שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְזֶהוּ הַנִּקְרָא לְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (ב"מ סא ב) רִבִּית קְצוּצָה. וְיֵשׁ רִבִּית שֶׁהוּא לְמַטָּה מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא אָסוּר מִדְּרַבָּנָן, וּקְרָאוּהוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (שם) אֲבַק רִבִּית, וְיֵשׁ רִבִּית אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁהוּא לְמַטָּה מִשְּׁנֵי אֵלּוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, וְהוּא (וְהָיָה) מִן הַדִּין מֻתָּר לְפִי שֶׁהוּא רָחוֹק הַרְבֵּה מִן רִבִּית הָאָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה עַד שֶׁאֵין לִגְזֹר עָלָיו כְּלָל, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים הֶחֱמִירוּ בָּעִנְיָן בִּרְאוֹתָם הַחֹמֶר שֶׁהֶחְמִירָה הַתּוֹרָה וְרֹב הָאַזְהָרוֹת בִּדְבַר הָרִבִּית, וַאֲסָרוּהוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲרִימוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִטֹּל רִבִּית, לֹא מִפְּנֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי הָרִבִּית שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ, רִבִּית הָאֲסוּרָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה הוּא, כָּל מִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַלְוֵנִי מָנֶה וְאֶתֵּן לְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ פְּרוּטָה בְּכָל יוֹם, אוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים פְּרוּטוֹת בְּחֹדֶשׁ, אוֹ פָּחוֹת אוֹ יוֹתֵר, עַד שֶׁאֶפְרָעֶנּוּ. וְכֵן כְּשֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַלְוֵנִי מֵאָה דִּינָרִים בְּמֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים לְשָׁנָה, וְכֵן הַמַּלְוֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ מָעוֹת וּמִשְׁכֵּן לוֹ בָּהֶן בַּיִת אוֹ חָצֵר, שֶׁיַּחְזִיק בָּהֶם וְיִקַּח הַפֵּרוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיר לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו, מִבְּלִי שֶׁיְּנַכֶּה לוֹ כְּלוּם מִן הַהַלְוָאָה זוֹ הִיא רִבִּית קְצוּצָה הָאֲסוּרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְדֶרֶךְ כְּלָל אָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (שם סג ב) כָּל אֲגַר נְטַר לֵהּ אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְהוּא שֶׁבָּא מִיַּד לֹוֶה לַמַּלְוֶה זוֹ הִיא רִבִּית הָאֲסוּרָה מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה, וְעָלֶיהָ יֹאמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (שם סא, ב) רִבִּית קְצוּצָה יוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין, כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁבֵּית דִּין יוֹרְדִין לְנִכְסֵי הַמַּלְוֶה וּמוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ, כְּמוֹ בִּגְזֵלוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת. וְיֵשׁ מִן הַמְּפָרְשִׁים שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּ יוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין לְעִנְיַן כְּפִיָּה. כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁכּוֹפִין בֵּית דִּין אֶת הַמַּלְוֶה לְהַחֲזִירָהּ בְּשׁוֹטִים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁעוֹשִׂין לְכָל מִי שֶׁיֹּאמַר שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה.
The laws of the commandment: For example, the distinctions that they, may their memory be blessed, taught us about this warning — that they said that there is interest that is prohibited from the Torah, which they call (Bava Metzia 61b) “fixed interest”; and there is interest which is below this and it is rabbinically prohibited, which they, may their memory be blessed, called “the dust of interest”; and there is another interest, which is lower than these first two and it (should have been) is strictly speaking permitted, as it is far removed from Torah-level interest, to the point that it is not suited to decree about at all, but the Sages were strict in this matter, in their seeing, that the Torah was very strict about it, and the many warnings about the matter of interest, and they forbade it so that people would not cheat, [and] not for some other reason. And these are the three types of interest: Torah level interest is when anyone says to his fellow, “Lend me a maneh and I will give you a perutah every day for it,” or thirty perutah a month, or more or less, until I pay it [back]; or if he says, “Lend me a hundred dinar, for a hundred and twenty [after] a year”; or if he lends money and takes a house or courtyard as collateral that he will hold and reap the produce until he returns his money, without subtracting something from the loan — that is fixed interest that is prohibited from the Torah. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 63b) more generally, “And payment for ‘Wait for me’ is forbidden by the Torah,” and that is so long as it came from the hand of the borrower to the lender — that is forbidden by Torah writ. And they, may their memory be blessed, said about it, “Fixed interest can be extracted by judges” (Bava Metzia 61b). That is, the court may seize assets from the borrower and deduct from them, as is the law for theft and torts. But other commentators explain “extracted by judges” regarding coercion, meaning to say that the court coerces the borrower with whips to return it — as they do with anyone who says that he will not fulfill a positive commandment.
כָּל שְׁאָר הָרִבִּית שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְקַבֵּל חוּץ מֵאֵלּוּ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ, הֵן נִקְרָאִים רִבִּית דְּרַבָּנָן וְנִקְרָאִים אֲבַק רִבִּית, וְאֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְּדַיָּנִין, וַאֲסָרוּם חֲכָמִים מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרָה שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא הָאָדָם לִידֵי רִבִּית דְּאוֹרָיְתָא. וּמֵהֶם כְּגוֹן מַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (שם ע ב) שֶׁאֵין מְקַבְּלִין צֹאן בַּרְזֶל מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, פֵּרוּשׁ צֹאן בַּרְזֶל הַמְקַבֵּל מָמוֹן עַל תְּנַאי שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּמֶת לְבַעַל הַמָּמוֹן עַל הַמְקַבֵּל וְיִטֹּל חֶלְקוֹ בָּרֶוַח. וְכֵן אֵין פּוֹסְקִין עַל הַפֵּרוֹת, עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַשַּׁעַר, אֲבָל יָצָא הַשַּׁעַר פּוֹסְקִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָזֶה יֵשׁ לָזֶה, וּבַמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, שֶׁאֵין פּוֹסְקִין לְעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַשַּׁעַר בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ, כְּלוֹמַר מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין שֶׁפָּסַק עָלָיו, אֲבָל הָיָה לוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם פּוֹסֵק עָלָיו, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא הַשַּׁעַר עֲדַיִן, וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא הָיָה לוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא סְאָה אַחַת פּוֹסֵק עָלָיו כַּמָּה סְאִין [כְּמוֹ בְּהַלְוָאָה דְּאָמְרִינַן] (שֶׁהֲלָכָה כִּשְׁמוּאֵל דַּאֲמַר) הָכִי בַּגְּמָרָא (שם עה א). וְזֶה שֶׁאָנוּ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁצָּרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין, יֵשׁ מִן הַמְּפָרְשִׁים שֶׁאָמְרוּ (ב"י יו"ד סי' קעה), דַּוְקָא מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין מַמָּשׁ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ, שֶׁאִם הוּא פּוֹסֵק עַל חִטִּין חֲדָשׁוֹת לֹא יִפְסֹק אֵלָיו אִם הָיוּ לוֹ חִטִּים יְשָׁנוֹת, כְּעֵין אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין מַמָּשׁ מָה שֶׁפּוֹסֵק עָלָיו צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ, וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶם שֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁאֵין חִלּוּק בֵּין חָדָשׁ לְיָשָׁן, דְּכֹל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין מֻתָּר. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אִם הָיָה לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְחֻסָּר מְלָאכָה אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם פּוֹסֵק עִמּוֹ עָלָיו, אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מְחֻסָּר שָׁלֹשׁ מְלָאכוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין כְּלוּם. וּבַגְּמָרָא פֶּרֶק אֵיזֶהוּ נֶשֶׁךְ (ב"מ עד, א), בָּא הַבֵּאוּר בַּאֲרֻכָּה בְּחִלּוּק מְלָאכוֹת אֵלּוּ בְּחִטִּים, וְכֵן בִּכְלֵי יוֹצֵר וּבִדְבָרִים אֲחֵרִים.
Every other form of interest aside from those mentioned is called rabbinic interest and is [also] called “the dust of usury,” and it cannot be extracted by judges. And the Sages prohibited these as a decree so that a person not come to [lending with] interest from Torah writ. And among them are like that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 70b) that one cannot accept “iron sheep” from an Israelite — the understanding of “iron sheep” is one who takes money on condition that the principal will stay intact for the money’s owner from the one who receives it, and [that] he [also] takes his share of the profit. And so [too,] may one not set [the price] for produce until the market rate is disseminated; though if the market rate is disseminated, we can set [a price] — for [even if] the [seller] may not have it, [someone else] has it. And to what do these words apply, that we never set [the price] until the market price has been disseminated? When he does not have it — meaning, from that type that he set [the price]; but if he does have some of it — and even if he only had a seah — he may set [the price] for several seah, [as with a loan]. For the law follows Shmuel who said like this in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 75a). And that which we said that he must have the same type, there are some of the commentators that said he must have exactly the same type (Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 175), such that he may not set the price in new wheat if he only has old wheat — he must have exactly like the type for which he is setting [the price]. But there are others of them that said that there is no distinction between old and new, as so long as he has from the same type, it is permitted. And regardless, if he has from the same type, he may set [the price] with it even if it is lacking one or two [preparatory types of] work. But if it is lacking three [preparatory types] of work, behold, he is like one that does not have from that type. And in the Gemara, the chapter [entitled] Eizehu Neshekh (Bava Metzia 74a), the elucidation appears at length on the distinction of these [types of] work [involved] with wheat, as well as with the tools of a potter and with other things.
וְכֵן מֵעִנְיַן הַמִּצְוָה מָה שֶׁאָסְרוּ (שם סו, א) לְהַלְווֹת עַל הַקַּרְקַע מָעוֹת וּלְהַתְנוֹת עִם הַלֹּוֶה אִם לֹא תַּחְזִיר לִי הַמָּעוֹת מִכָּאן וְעַד יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי תְּהֵא הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁלִּי, לְפִי שֶׁהַקִּנְיָן הַזֶּה אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אַסְמַכְתָּא. כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָיְתָה סוֹמֶכֶת בְּכָךְ, כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁיַּחְזִיר הַמָּעוֹת בִּשְׁעַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה וְלֹא הִשִּׂיגָה יָדוֹ לְהַשְׁלִים הַדָּבָר, וּכְעֵין אֹנֶס הוּא, וְכָל כִּי הַאי גַוְנָא, יֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ בַּאֲכִילַת הַפֵּרוֹת מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית. וְהַרְבֵּה דְּרָכִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בַּגְּמָרָא בְּאַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעִנְיַן רִבִּית וּבְעִנְיָנִים אֲחֵרִים, וְדֶרֶךְ כְּלָל לִמְּדָנוּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמְרוֹ אֵל בְּעִנְיַן דִּינֵי הָאַסְמַכְתָּא, שֶׁכָּל שֶׁיַּתְנֶה הָאָדָם עִם חֲבֵרוֹ דֶּרֶךְ קְנָס, כְּלוֹמַר, אִם לֹא יִהְיֶה כֵּן יֵעָנֵשׁ בַּמָּמוֹן כָּךְ וְכָךְ יִקָּרֵא אַסְמַכְתָּא, וְעַל זֶה אָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (שם, ב) לְעוֹלָם דְּאַסְמַכְתָּא לָא קָנְיָא. וּבְלָשׁוֹן אַחֶרֶת אָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (שם) גַּם כֵּן, כֹּל דְּאִי לָא קָנֵי. אֲבָל כָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁיַּתְנֶה הָאָדָם עִם חֲבֵרוֹ וְיֹאמַר אִם אַתָּה תַּעֲשֶׂה כָּךְ אַף אֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה כָּךְ וְכָךְ כְּדֶרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁמַּתְנִין בְּלָשׁוֹן זֶה, אֵין זֶה בִּכְלַל אַסְמַכְתָּא כְּלָל חָלִילָה, שֶׁאִם כֵּן, אֵיךְ נִמְצָא יָדֵינוּ וְרַגְלֵינוּ עַל כָּל תְּנָאֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם זֶה עִם זֶה, שֶׁכֻּלָּם בִּלְשׁוֹן "אִם" הֵם, דְּאִי אֶפְשָׁר בְּלָאו הָכִי, וְעוֹד בְּכָל הַתְּנָאִים הַנִּזְכָּרִים בְּעִנְיַן גִּטִּין וְקִדּוּשִׁין, שֶׁכֻּלָּן בִּלְשׁוֹן "אִם" מָה נֹאמַר בָּהֶן? אֶלָּא וַדַּאי טַעַם נָכוֹן מָה שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ, שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר אַסְמַכְתָּא לָא קָנְיָא אֶלָּא בַּמֶּה שֶׁיַּתְנוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם זֶה עִם זֶה דֶּרֶךְ קְנָס, כְּגוֹן אִם לֹא פְּרַעְתִּיךָ עַד יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי תְּהֵא הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלְּךָ, אוֹ הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן אֵיזֶה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה, וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה, אֲבָל לֹא בְּכָל שְׁאָר הַתְּנָאִים רַבִּים שֶׁמַּתְנִים בְּנֵי אָדָם, כְּגוֹן אִם תֵּלֵךְ לְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ כָּךְ וְכָךְ, אוֹ אִם תַּעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁבִילִי עִנְיָן פְּלוֹנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ מָאתַיִם זוּז, וְכָל כַּיֹּצֵא בָּזֶה. וְהָבֵן זֶה, בְּנִי, וְתֵן לִבְּךָ עָלָיו, כִּי בָּזֶה תָּסִיר מִבֵּין עֵינֶיךָ עָנָן גָּדוֹל בְּדִבְרֵי הַגְּמָרָא בִּמְקוֹמוֹת הַרְבֵּה.
And so [too,] from the matter of the commandment is that which they prohibited to lend money with land [as collateral] and to make a condition with the borrower, “If you do not return the money from now until day x, the land will be mine” (Bava Metzia 66a); because the acquisition is not effective, as it is a dependence (asmakhta). [This is] meaning to say that the person’s mind was depending on this at the time of the [loan] — that is, that he would return the money — but his hand did not reach to fulfill the matter. And this is a type of duress. And [with] all that is of this type, we must be concerned about the eating of the produce on account of interest. And many types of dependence about the matter of interest and about other matters are spoken of in the Gemara. And my teacher, may God protect him, taught us more generally about the matter of dependences, that any time a person makes a condition with his fellow that is by way of a penalty — that is, if it not be so, he will be punished with such-and-such money — is called a dependence. And concerning this, they, may their memory be blessed, said always (Bava Metzia 66b), “Dependence[s] (asmakhta) do not acquire.” And with a different expression did they, may their memory be blessed, also say, “Any ‘that if’ does not acquire.” But any condition that a person makes with his fellow and says, “If you do such, I will do such and such” — as [is] the manner of people to make conditions in this way of speaking — is not included in dependencies at all, God forbid. For if so, how would we ever “find our hands and feet” with any conditions people make with one another — as they are all with the expression, “if”; since it is impossible without this. Moreover, what could we say about the many conditions that pertain to bills of divorce and marriages — as they are all with the expression, “if”? Rather, that which we have written is certainly a correct explanation: That we only say, “dependences do not acquire,” about that which people make conditions one with another by way of a penalty — such as “If I don’t pay you by day x, the field will be yours,” or whatever the collateral is, and all that is similar to it; but not for the great many other conditions that people make with each other — such as, “If you go to place x, I will give you such and such,” or “If you do thing x for me, I will give you two hundred zuz,” and anything like that. Understand this, my son, and give your heart to it, as through this you will remove a great cloud from between your eyes about the words of the Gemara in many places.
וּכְמוֹ כֵן אָמְרוּ (שם עה ב) שֶׁהוּא אֲבַק רִבִּית וְאָסוּר מִדְּרַבָּנָן רִבִּית מֻקְדֶּמֶת וְרִבִּית מְאֻחֶרֶת, כֵּיצַד? נָתַן עֵינָיו לִלְווֹת מִמֶּנּוּ וְהָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ לוֹ סִבְלוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיַּלְוֵהוּ זֶהוּ רִבִּית מֻקְדֶּמֶת. לָוָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְהֶחְזִיר לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁלַח לוֹ סִבְלוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁבִיל מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁהָיוּ בְּטֵלוֹת אֶצְלוֹ זֶהוּ רִבִּית מְאֻחֶרֶת. וְכֵן אָמְרוּ קְצָת מִן הַמְּפָרְשִׁים (עי' רמב"ם מלו"ל ו ז), שֶׁהַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ עַל מָקוֹם שֶׁפֵּרוֹתָיו מְצוּיִין לוֹ תָּדִיר, כְּגוֹן חָצֵר וּמֶרְחָץ וַחֲנוּת, בְּלֹא נִכּוּי הֲרֵי זֶה רִבִּית קְצוּצָה, וּבְנִכּוּי הֲרֵי זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית. אֲבָל הַמַּלְוֶה מָעוֹת בְּלֹא נִכּוּי עַל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין פֵּרוֹתָיו מְצוּיִין תָּדִיר, כְּגוֹן שָׂדֶה וְכֶרֶם, שֶׁאֵין פֵּרוֹתָיו מְצוּיִין, כִּי פְּעָמִים הַהוֹצָאָה בָּהֶם מְרֻבָּה עַל הַשֶּׁבַח הֲרֵי זֶה אֲבַק רִבִּית. וּבְנִכּוּי הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וּמֵהֶם שֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בְּשָׂדֶה וְכֶרֶם בְּנִכּוּי אֲסָרוּהָ חֲכָמִים זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה וְלֹא מָצְאוּ מַשְׁכּוֹנָה מֻתֶּרֶת אֶלָּא מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא דְּסוּרָא, שֶׁהָיוּ כּוֹתְבִין בְּמִשְׁלַם שְׁנַיָּא אִלֵּין תִּפּוֹק אַרְעָא דָּא בְּלָא כְּסַף. וְהָאֱמֶת לְפִי הַנִּרְאֶה מִדִּבְרֵי הַגְּמָרָא לְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ יִשְׁמְרֵם אֵל עִם הַפֵּרוּשִׁים הַטּוֹבִים, שֶׁכָּל מַשְׁכּוֹנָא בְּנִכּוּי בֵּין בֵּית דִּירָה וּמֶרְחָץ שֶׁפֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן מְצוּיִין, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן שָׂדֶה וְכֶרֶם, הַכֹּל בְּנִכּוּי מֻתָּר, וְכֵן נָהֲגוּ בְּאַרְצֵנוּ עַל פִּיהֶם, וְהַחוֹשֵׁשׁ לְדִבְרֵי גְּאוֹנֵי עוֹלָם שֶׁהֶחְמִירוּ בַּדָּבָר יִתְבָּרֵךְ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם.
They also said (Bava Metzia 75b) that early or late interest is the “dust of interest” and prohibited rabbinically. How is this? If one placed his eyes that he wanted to borrow money from someone and sent him gifts to cause him to lend to him — that is early interest. If he borrowed from him and returned the money to him, and then sent gifts [in recognition of the fact] that [the lender’s] money was idle with him — that is late interest. And likewise, some of the commentators said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Creditor and Debtor 6:7) that if one lends money to his fellow for [collateral of] a place that constantly produces value — such as a courtyard, bathhouse or store — [if it is] without a deduction [for that value], behold it is fixed interest; and with a deduction, behold it is “dust of interest.” But one who lends money for a place that does not constantly produce value — such as a field or a vineyard, as its value is not always found, since sometimes the expense involved exceeds the revenues — without a deduction, it is “dust of interest”; and with a deduction, it is permitted. But there are some of them that say that the Sages, may their memory be blessed, prohibited even a field and a vineyard with a deduction; and the only permissible form of collateral that they found is the “collateral of Sura,” [in which] they would write, “At the end of these years, this land will revert without money.” And the truth according to what seemed from the Gemara to our teachers, may God protect them, with the good commentaries is that any collateral that is made with a deduction — whether it is a house or bathhouse that produces profits, and all the more so with a field or vineyard — it is all permitted with a deduction. And so have they practiced in our land based on their words. But one who is concerned for the view of the great savants who were strict in this matter will be blessed from the Heavens.
וְאֵיזֶהוּ רִבִּית הָאַחֶרֶת שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ לְמַעְלָה שֶׁאָסְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה מִפְּנֵי הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית, כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ הַלְוֵנִי מָנֶה, וְאָמַר לוֹ מָנֶה אֵין לִי, חִטִּים בְּמָנֶה יֵשׁ לִי, וְנָתַן לוֹ חִטִּים בְּמָנֶה וְחָזַר וּלְקָחָן מִמֶּנּוּ בְּתִשְׁעִים זֶה בְּוַדַּאי הָיָה מִן הַדִּין מֻתָּר, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֲסָרוּהוּ חֲכָמִים מִפְּנֵי הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית, שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּבָר זֶה נִרְאֶה הוּא כְּרִבִּית, שֶׁזֶּה נָתַן תִּשְׁעִים דִּינָרִין וְלוֹקֵחַ מֵאָה, אֲבָל אִם עָבַר וְעָשָׂה כֵּן מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל הַמֵּאָה, שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ אֲבַק רִבִּית אֵין כָּאן, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם גָּדֵר הוּא שֶׁהֶחְמִירוּ חֲכָמִים בַּדָּבָר. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׂדֶה מְמֻשְׁכֶּנֶת בְּיָדוֹ לֹא יַחְזֹר וְיַשְׂכִּיר אוֹתָהּ לְבַעַל הַשָּׂדֶה מִפְּנֵי הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית. וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּעִנְיָנִים אֵלּוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבָּא בַּגְּמָרָא (שם סח א). וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ אָסְרוּ מִשּׁוּם הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים שֶׁהֵן כְּעֵין רִבִּית מַמָּשׁ, וְהִתִּירוּ אוֹתָן חֲכָמִים שֶׁלֹּא רָאוּ לָחוּשׁ בָּהֶן וְלִגְזֹר כְּלָל, וְזֶה שֶׁהִתִּירוּ שֶׁיִּמְכֹּר אָדָם חוֹבוֹ בְּפָחוֹת, וְהִתִּירוּ גַּם כֵּן שֶׁיִּתֵּן אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ דִּינָר שֶׁיֹּאמַר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר שֶׁיַּלְוֵהוּ מָנֶה. וְדֶרֶךְ כְּלָל אָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (שם סט ב), שֶׁלֹּא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא רִבִּית הַבָּאָה מִיָּד לֹוֶה לַמַּלְוֶה, וְהָעִנְיָן הוּא, לְפִי שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה תִּבְחַר בָּרֹב לְעוֹלָם וְתַנִּיחַ הַפְּרָטִים, עַל כֵּן תַּזְהִיר לְלֹוֶה וּמַלְוֶה, כִּי כֵן דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ כֵּן וְהוּא הָאֱמֶת, רָאוּי לְכָל בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ לְהִתְרַחֵק מִכָּל עִנְיָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית בְּכָל כֹּחוֹ. וְכָל הַמְחַזֵּר וּמְבַקֵּשׁ צְדָדִים לִטֹּל רִבִּית מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל סוֹפוֹ מִתְרוֹשֵׁשׁ, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (שם עא, א), שֶׁכָּל הָעוֹסֵק בְּרִבִּית נְכָסָיו מִתְמַעֲטִים. גַּם אָמְרוּ (שם עה, ב) שֶׁפְּרוּטָה שֶׁל רִבִּית, גּוֹרֶמֶת לוֹ לָאָדָם לְאַבֵּד כַּמָּה אוֹצָרוֹת שֶׁל מָמוֹן. וְיֶתֶר רֻבֵּי פְּרָטֵי הַמִּצְוָה, בְּבָבָא מְצִיעָא פֶּרֶק אֵיזֶהוּ נֶשֶׁךְ [י"ד סי' קסז].
And what was the other interest that we said above that they, may their memory be blessed, prohibited to prevent cheating on interest? Such as if a person says to his fellow, “Lend me a maneh (one hundred zuz),” and [the other responds], “I have no maneh, [but] I have a maneh’s worth of wheat”: [If] he gives him the wheat for a maneh and buys them back for ninety, this would certainly be logically permitted, except that the Sages forbade it because of cheating with interest. As behold, this thing appears like interest — as this one gave ninety dinar, but he is taking a hundred. Yet if he transgressed and did this, [the lender can] extract the full hundred, as there is not even the “dust of interest” here. It is only as a fence that the Sages were strict about the matter. Also, if one had a field as collateral, he may not rent it to its owner, because of cheating with interest; and similar to these matters, as is found in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 68a). And even though they forbade these things only because of cheating with interest, there are some things they permitted, even though they are similar to true interest. And the Sages permitted them because they did not see a concern about them [in order] to make a decree at all: And that is that they permitted a person to sell a debt at a discount; and the Sages also permitted a person to give his fellow a dinar so that he will say to another Israelite that he lend [the first] a maneh. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 69b) more generally that the Torah only forbade interest that goes from the hand of the borrower to the lender — as this is the way of the world. As the Torah always chooses the [more common case] and leaves out the details (unusual cases). And since the way of the world is like this, it [only] warned the borrower and the lender. And even though they said so and it is true, it is fitting for any scrupulous person to distance himself with all of his might from every matter that has cheating with interest in it. And anyone who pursues ways to take interest payments from an Israelite will eventually become poor — and as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 71a), that the property of anyone who deals in interest will shrink. [They] also said (Bava Metzia 75b) that a perutah of interest causes a loss of storehouses of money. And the rest of the many details of the commandment are in Bava Metzia, the chapter [entitled] Eizehu Neshekh. (See Tur, Yoreh Deah 167.)
וְנוֹהֶגֶת בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן בִּזְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת. וְהָעוֹבֵר עַל זֶה וְהִלְוָה בְּרִבִּית הָאֲסוּרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה עָבַר עַל לָאו, וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ בְּדַיָּנִין, שֶׁיּוֹרְדִין בֵּית דִּין לִנְכָסָיו, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁיּוֹרְדִין בֵּית דִּין לַנְּכָסִים בִּגְזֵלוֹ אוֹ בִּנְזָקָיו, כְּדַעַת קְצָת מִן הַמְּפָרְשִׁים אוֹ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ כְּפִיָּה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁכּוֹפִין לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה לְקַיֵּם מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, כְּדַעַת קְצָת מֵרַבּוֹתֵינוּ יִשְׁמְרֵם אֵל. וְאִם הִלְוָה בְּרִבִּית הָאֲסוּרָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם שֶׁהוּא הַנִּקְרָא אֲבַק רִבִּית עָבַר עַל לָאו דְּרַבָּנָן, וְאֵין רִבִּית זוֹ יוֹצְאָהּ בְּדַיָּנִין, אֲבָל אִם תָּפַשׂ הַלֹּוֶה מִן הַמַּלְוֶה בִּכְדֵי אוֹתָהּ רִבִּית אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. וְאִם עָבַר וְהִלְוָה בְּרִבִּית שֶׁאָסְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה מִפְּנֵי הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית לְבַד, אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִן הַמַּלְוֶה אִם לְקָחוֹ שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ מִן הַלֹּוֶה מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ וְנוֹתְנִין אוֹתוֹ לַמַּלְוֶה, מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבְרוּ וְהִתְנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶם בְּכָךְ, דְּמִכֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְמִירוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה בַּדָּבָר אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם הַעֲרָמַת רִבִּית לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ בַּדָּבָר בְּדִיעֲבַד, וּבְדִיעֲבַד נִקְרָא, מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְקַיְּמוּ הַדְּבָרִים בֵּין מַלְוֶה לַלֹּוֶה.
And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses this and gave a loan with interest from Torah writ has violated a negative commandment, and [so] we extract money from him with judges; as the court may seize his assets in the way that the court seizes his assets for his theft or for his damages, according to the view of some of the commentators — or we extract it from him by way of coercion in the way that we coerce an Israelite who does not want to fulfill a positive commandment, according to the view of some of our rabbis, may God protect them. And if he lent with interest that is forbidden [rabbinically] that is called “the dust of interest,” he has violated a rabbinic proscription, but the money cannot be extracted by judges. However if the borrower seized enough for the [value] of that interest from the lender, we do not extract it from his hand. And if he transgressed and lent with interest, which they, may their memory be blessed, forbade only because of cheating with interest; there is no need to say that we do not extract it from the lender if he took it, as we even extract it from the borrower and give it to the lender — as they [already] transgressed and stipulated this between them. As since they, may their memory be blessed, were only stringent about the thing because of cheating with interest, they did not concern themselves with the thing ex post facto. And this is called ex post facto, since the words between the lender and the borrower have [already] been fulfilled.